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.

Join the forum, it's quick and easy

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 © 2006-2020


    A legal expert clarifies Supreme Court decisions to lift immunity and abandon the majority interpret

    Rocky
    Rocky
    Rocky
    Admin Assist
    Admin Assist


    Posts : 281148
    Join date : 2012-12-21
    • Post n°1

    A legal expert clarifies Supreme Court decisions to lift immunity and abandon the majority interpret Empty A legal expert clarifies Supreme Court decisions to lift immunity and abandon the majority interpret

    Post by Rocky Tue 25 May 2021, 7:12 am

    A legal expert clarifies Supreme Court decisions to lift immunity and abandon the majority interpretation

    •  Time: 05/25/2021 13:23:21
       
    •  Read: 2,418 times

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
      
    {Politics: Al-Furat News} A legal expert explained the decisions of the Federal Supreme Court regarding lifting the legal immunity of members of Parliament.
    Tariq Harb told Al-Furat News Agency, "The Federal Supreme Court's decision corresponds to the provisions of the constitution, because the constitution differs between two cases. The first is the case of the witnessed crime, as the constitution did not assign the matter to the House of Representatives, meaning that if there was a crime witnessed by one of the representatives, the court has the right to ... It gives an order to arrest him directly without the need to waive his immunity from the House of Representatives. "
    And as for the other cases, they need to lift his immunity from Parliament, after which the court has the right to issue an arrest warrant.
    Harb pointed out, "The new thing in the statement of the Federal Supreme Court is a mention to the House of Representatives indirectly, that {you, the House of Representatives, take the necessary measures regarding requests by the judiciary to lift immunity}, indicating that" it follows from that the inspiration to the House of Representatives that Although the lifting of immunity requires a vote by members of Parliament, but you must take into account the requests of the Judicial Council to lift the immunity of some deputies}, because there are transactions of up to twenty or more that are still in place demanding the lifting of immunity for some representatives, but it has not yet been lifted. .
    He explained, "We consider these an introduction to cases that will happen in relation to issues of integrity, and that the Supreme Court in its statement today gave a good, accurate and profound signal in this area, and the House of Representatives must take the necessary steps to interpret the statement issued by the Federal Court."
    The Federal Supreme Court decided today to revoke previous court decisions regarding obtaining the approval of the House of Representatives in all crimes for which members of the House of Representatives are accused, whether they are felonies, misdemeanors, or offenses. A crime of the type of felony that is not witnessed, except for the impunity of the members of Parliament, and legal measures can be taken against them directly in the event that any of them is charged with a felony, misdemeanor or contravention.
    The court also decided to revoke the court’s previous decision regarding the interpretation of the concept of an absolute majority. The court decided that the concept of an absolute majority wherever it is contained in the constitution is intended to be more than half the actual number of members of the House of Representatives. As for the simple majority, what is meant is more than half of the number of members of the House of Representatives present after the quorum has been achieved.
    He pointed out that "with this decision, courts can settle corruption cases faster than before, because most corruption crimes apply to the description of misdemeanor crimes, and resolving them depends on lifting the immunity of the accused person, if he is a member of Parliament."
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
    • Back to top
      Current date/time is Sat 23 Nov 2024, 4:50 pm