ruled the Federal Supreme Court, Monday, cold case of appeal against the constitutionality of the decisions of the Federal Cassation Court, as indicated that the President of the Supreme Judicial Council does not antagonize only within the terms of reference of the Supreme Judicial Council stipulated in Articles 90 and 91 of the Constitution, pointed out that the President The Federal Supreme Court of Cassation does not dispute decisions made by the Federal Court of Cassation. 

"The Federal Supreme Court held its session under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud and the attendance of all the judges, and the case was considered by the prosecutor, the president of the Supreme Judicial Council and the President of the Supreme Federal Court of Cassation, in addition to their job," the court's spokesman Ayas al-Samuk said in a statement.

Al-Samok added that "the plaintiff stated in his petition that the judicial body supervising the elections of the Union of Iraqi Jurists has invalidated his candidacy and his election as president of the Union and notified the concerned party to take the decision to elect a new president of the Union within the period stipulated in the Law of the Union of Iraqi Jurists No. 137 of 1981, the average)". 

He added that "the plaintiff said that it followed the decision of the Court of Cassation issued by the Federal Court of Cassation No. (3 / General Assembly / 2017) on 15/3/2017, the above decision was ratified by the Federal Court of Cassation in accordance with its decisions number (11, 12, 14, 15 and 16) / Public Authority / 2017) dated 24/5/2017, for a discriminatory appeal by the plaintiff and other members of the Executive Office and members of the General Assembly of the Union of Iraqi Jurists.

He explained that "the plaintiff and his lack of conviction of discriminatory decisions in violation of the provisions of Articles 16 and 20 of the Constitution, he appealed to the Federal Supreme Court requesting the ruling unconstitutional, in violation of the provisions of the law of the Union of Iraqi Jurists No. (137) for the year 1981 (amended) The Council of Representatives and the Presidency of the Republic in this regard and the above referred to and the Law No. (48) for the year 2017 is contrary to the Constitution, and adopted by the judicial authorities when the issuance of its contested judgments. 

The Samok, that "the plaintiff also requested the introduction of the President of the Republic and the President of the House of Representatives third persons in the case / in addition to their function, for the purpose of clarification."

"The Federal Court found that the president of the Supreme Judicial Council, in addition to his job, does not dispute litigation except within the limits of the powers exercised by the Supreme Judicial Council specified in Articles 90 and 91 of the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq in 2005, The judiciary, the administration of justice, the supervision of the federal judiciary, the nomination of members of the Federal Court of Cassation, the head of public prosecution and the head of the judicial oversight body. " 

He pointed out that "the Federal Supreme Court went in respect of the decisions and decisions issued by the Federal Courts of Appeal and the bodies and courts and the associated committees, there is no authority to the Supreme Judicial Council in view of the independence enjoyed by the Constitution in Article (19 / I) and Article (88) Consideration of its legality lies outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Judicial Council, and may not be directed to the rival to the President of the Council in this area.

He pointed out that the Federal Supreme Court said that the dissenting of the defendant in his capacity as president of the Federal Court of Cassation at the same time does not also dispute the decisions and judgments issued by the court in accordance with its powers provided by law. 

He added that "the Federal Supreme Court stated that the Federal Court of Cassation under Article (12) of the Judicial Organization Law No. (160) of 1979 does not enjoy the moral personality provided for in articles 47 and 48 of the Civil Code No. (40) In accordance with the provisions of Article (4) of the Civil Procedure Law No. (83) of 1969, which stipulates that the defendant shall be a litigant whose approval shall be subject to a judgment with the approval of the approval of him. Be sentenced or bound by something to assess the case. "

He continued, "The Federal Supreme Court found that directing the dispute in the plaintiff's case to the President of the Supreme Judicial Council and the President of the Federal Court of Cassation is not supported by the law, and if the dispute in the lawsuit is not directed, the court and on its own control the return of the case without entering the basis on the basis of the provisions Article (80/1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, and accordingly decided to rule back the plaintiff's claim on the part of the rivalry. 

He noted that "the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff's response to the request to introduce the President of the Republic and the Speaker of the Council of Representatives / in addition to their function third persons in the case; because that is not productive," noting that "the ruling was issued by agreement based on the provisions of Article (5 / II) Federal Law No. 30 of 2005 and Article 94 of the Constitution. "