ruled the Federal Supreme Court , on Tuesday, the constitutionality of the inclusion of persons in the list of freeze "terrorists" problem under Regulation funds mechanism (5) for the year 2016, noting that the procedure is yet provides a reasonable and serious reasons. 

"The Supreme Federal Court held its session under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud, the presence of all the members of the judges, and considered the appeal of the unconstitutionality of the system No. (5) for the year 2016 (the system of freezing terrorist funds), in violation of the Constitution And the laws in force, the plaintiff has filed in his case the Prime Minister / in addition to his job.


Al-Samok pointed out that "the plaintiff limited his case to cancel the text of Article (13 / I and V) of the system of appeal for violating Articles (2 / I / C, 13 / I and II), (15) and (19 / II) Fifth, ninth and tenth) and (47) of the Constitution. " 

He added that "the plaintiff requested the cancellation of the contested text, and any text that violates the Constitution of the system in question. Article 13 of the Law stipulates that" The Committee for the freezing of terrorist funds shall freeze the terrorist funds or economic resources of persons identified on the basis of the decision of the Security Council(1373) of 2001 and other relevant resolutions: (13 / i) Prepare a local list listing the names of persons with reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed, attempted, attempted, participated in or facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or who are acting on behalf of Or under their direct or indirect ownership or control at the request of the Office of Money Laundering, the Financing of Terrorism or any other interested party). " 

He pointed out that" Article 13, paragraph (5) (A) The inclusion of a person in the list, without the need for prior warning and may be included in the absence of a criminal investigation Trial or judicial judgment) ".

"The Supreme Federal Court, through examining the contested text of Article 13, found that the Committee for the freezing of terrorist funds includes the names of persons in the matter of freezing their funds, ie, the funds of terrorists or their economic resources, and identifying them after reasonable and serious reasons for believing And rely on the official reports of the security services, intelligence and justice and the statements of the accused in the roles of judicial investigation based on evidence and convincing of the reasons for the issuance of decisions and the freezing of funds and financial assets.

"The Federal Supreme Court went on to state that the text of Article 13 / V of the system, the inclusion of the person on the list without the need for prior warning, and that this procedure is so decided in order to speed implementation of the decisions necessary to reduce the financing of terrorism, A precaution that includes freezing funds and financial assets, and not allowing them to be transferred to terrorists for terrorist acts. " 

He pointed out that the Federal Supreme Court, in its decision, states Article 7 (II) of the Constitution, which states: "The State is committed to fighting terrorism in all its forms and works to protect its territory from being a headquarters, a corridor or an arena for its activities. Aimed at implementing the laws in accordance with Article (80 / III) of the Constitution. "

"The court affirmed that the issuance of this regulation was based on article 22 of the AML / CFT Law No. (39) for the year 2015, and since article 7 / II of the Constitution obligates the state to fight terrorism in all its forms, The Federal Supreme Court that the issuance of the defendant to the system of appeal does not conflict with the provisions of the Constitution. 
"The Supreme Federal Court said that this system has fortified the right of citizens in the system to challenge the decision of the Committee for the freezing of terrorist funds and the objection before the Administrative Court." 

He explained that "the court, in view of the advanced reasons, ruled that Article (13 / First and Fifth) of the system of appeal does not intersect with the provisions of the Constitution; it came in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 / II. Response ".

The Supreme Court found that this request is out of the question, because it is bound by the request contained in its petition after limiting it is the request to rule unconstitutionality of Article (13 / I and V) of the The system subject to appeal, and therefore all of the above ruled the response of the case. "