Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Welcome to the Neno's Place!

Neno's Place Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality


Neno

I can be reached by phone or text 8am-7pm cst 972-768-9772 or, once joining the board I can be reached by a (PM) Private Message.

Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Established in 2006 as a Community of Reality

Many Topics Including The Oldest Dinar Community. Copyright © 2006-2019


Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts w

rocky
rocky
NNP TEAM
NNP TEAM

Posts : 188837
Thanked : 12017
Join date : 2012-12-21

Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts w Empty Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts w

Post by rocky on Tue 21 Jan 2020, 2:05 am

Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts with "private property"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
  
{Baghdad: Al Furat News} The Federal Supreme Court ruled that article 97 / First of the Municipal Administration Law No. (165) for the year 1964 was unconstitutional, indicating that it contradicts the provisions for fortifying private property contained in the constitution.
"The Federal Supreme Court held a session headed by Judge Medhat Al-Mahmoud and the presence of all the member judges, and examined two appeals against the two plaintiffs, the Speaker of the House of Representatives / in addition to his job," court spokesman Iyas al-Samuk said in a statement.
The Samuk added that "the plaintiffs contested the unconstitutionality of Article (97/1) of the Municipal Administration Law No. (165) for the year 1964, for the reasons stated in the lawsuit."
He stated, “The Supreme Federal Court read the text of the contested article, which was unconstitutional, which came as follows (registered in the name of the municipality without compensation for all the streets within its boundaries that are left to be used for the public benefit that exists when this law comes into force or that occur after that according to the applicable laws or that falls within its borders when Changing it, and the Land Registry Services, should correct the registration of these streets in the name of the municipality directly if they are registered in the name of others without a fee)).
He continued, "The court found this text that included, in part, a procedural act, which is obligating the real estate registration departments (the previous taboo) to register all streets that are used for public benefit located within the municipalities boundaries or that fall within its borders when changes occur when the Municipal Administration Law or these The streets that occur after its entry into force in accordance with the applicable laws and registered in the name of the municipalities without compensation. "
He stressed that "the Federal Supreme Court went to the text also included an effect on the procedural side of it, which is the registration of those properties without compensation in the name of the municipalities."
The Samuk explained, "The court noted from reading the aforementioned text, that it did not specify a class, gender or ownership of real estate that has become, or part of it, streets left for public benefit within the municipalities boundaries, and whether these real estate are purely owned property and private property belonging to the ministries or official authorities Not associated with the Ministry. "
He stated, "The Federal Supreme Court stated that the courts hesitated about the significance of the text, which is subject to an unconstitutional appeal, between its inclusion of privately owned real estate, and between limiting its ruling to state-owned real estate."
He stressed, "The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the courts recently directed, the inclusion of the text for real estate privately owned, which went, or part of it, to the streets within the municipal boundaries and to deny their owners compensation for registering them in the name of the municipality without compensation, as well as denying them to claim salaries such as either These streets were up to date before the municipal administration entered or after its entry into force. "
The Samuk added, "The Supreme Federal Court has enumerated the text of Article (97 / First) of the Municipal Administration Law that it is characterized by generalization, by not identifying it with the class, gender and ownership of those real estate that goes or part of it to the streets of the accident before the law or after its enforcement and is registered without compensation in the name of the municipalities what As long as it falls within its borders. "
The Samuk continues, "The court held that this generalization made the contested article contrary to the provisions of Article (23) of the constitution that fortified private property, and it was only permissible to expropriate it for the public benefit, and in return for a fair compensation for these properties."
The Samuk went on to the effect that "the Federal Supreme Court, based on the foregoing, ruled that the article (97 / First) of the Municipal Administration Law No. (165) for the year 1964 was unconstitutional as far as the matter related to the private ownership of real estate is covered, and that the decision is effective from the date of its issuance On 20/1/2020 ". is over


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
rocky
rocky
NNP TEAM
NNP TEAM

Posts : 188837
Thanked : 12017
Join date : 2012-12-21

Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts w Empty Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts w

Post by rocky on Tue 21 Jan 2020, 4:08 am

Ruling on the unconstitutionality of an article in the Municipal Administration Law that conflicts with "private property"[/size]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Policy

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
2020-01-21 | 03:31
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]



[/size]


371 views



The Federal Supreme Court ruled that article (97 / First) of the Municipal Administration Law No. (165) for the year 1964 was unconstitutional, indicating that it contradicts the provisions on immunization of private property contained in the constitution.

[size]

"The Supreme Federal Court held a session headed by Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud and the presence of all the member judges, and examined two contestations by the two plaintiffs, the Speaker of the House of Representatives / in addition to his job," said court spokesman Ias al-Samuk in a statement received by Alsumaria News. The constitutionality of Article (97/1) of the Municipal Administration Law No. (165) of 1964, for the reasons stated in the petition.






He stated, “The Supreme Federal Court read the text of the contested article, which was unconstitutional, which came as follows (registered in the name of the municipality without compensation for all the streets within its boundaries that are left to be used for the public benefit that exists when this law comes into force or that occur after that according to the applicable laws or that falls within its borders when Changing it, and the Land Registry departments, should correct the registration of these streets in the name of the municipality directly if they are registered in the name of others without a fee)).


He continued, "The court found this text that included, in part, a procedural act, which is obligating the real estate registration departments (the previous taboo) to register all streets that are used for public benefit located within the municipalities boundaries or that fall within its borders when changes occur when the Municipal Administration Law or these The streets that occur after its entry into force in accordance with the applicable laws and registered in the name of the municipalities without compensation. "

He stressed that "the Federal Supreme Court went to the text also included an effect on the procedural side of it, which is the registration of those properties without compensation in the name of the municipalities," explaining that "the court noticed from reading the above-mentioned text, that it did not specify the class, gender or ownership of real estate that It has become, or part of it, streets that are left for the public benefit within the municipalities' borders, and whether these properties are purely owned property and private property belonging to ministries or official authorities not associated with a ministry.

The Samuk pointed out that "the Federal Supreme Court mentioned that the courts hesitated in the significance of the text subject of the challenge of unconstitutionality, between its coverage of real estate owned privately, and between limiting its ruling to real estate belonging to the state."

He stressed, "The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the courts recently directed, the inclusion of the text was for real estate owned by private property, which went, or part of it, to the streets within the municipal boundaries and depriving their owners of compensation for registering them in the name of the municipality without compensation, as well as depriving them of claiming a wage like either These streets were up to date before the municipal administration entered or after its entry.

The Samok added, "

He pointed out that "the court held that this publicity made the contested article in violation of the provisions of Article (23) of the constitution that fortified private property, and it was only permitted to expropriate it for the public benefit, and in return for a fair compensation for these properties."

The Samuk went on to say that "the Federal Supreme Court, and based on the foregoing, ruled that the article (97 / First) of the Municipal Administration Law No. (165) for the year 1964 was unconstitutional as far as the matter of private ownership of real estate is covered, and that the decision is effective from the date It was issued on 20/1/2020.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[/size]

    Current date/time is Sat 11 Jul 2020, 6:35 am