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


    The Federal Court ruled that 9 articles of the Public Prosecution Act were unconstitutional

    rocky
    rocky
    NNP TEAM
    NNP TEAM


    Posts : 236258
    Join date : 2012-12-21

    The Federal Court ruled that 9 articles of the Public Prosecution Act were unconstitutional Empty The Federal Court ruled that 9 articles of the Public Prosecution Act were unconstitutional

    Post by rocky Wed 10 Nov 2021, 6:34 am

    The Federal Court ruled that 9 articles of the Public Prosecution Act were unconstitutional

    •  Time: 10/11/2021 11:28:48
       
    •  Reading: 936 times

    [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
      
    {Local: Al Furat News} The Federal Supreme Court issued its decision in the case No. 112 / Federal / 2021 on 9/11/2021 unconstitutional of a number of articles contained in the Public Prosecution Law No. 49 of 2017.
    The Federal Court ruled unconstitutional the phrase (enjoys financial and administrative independence) in Clause (First) of Article (1).
    And the unconstitutionality of Clause (Second) of Article (1).
    The court also ruled unconstitutional the phrase (and the assistants of the public prosecution) mentioned in item (first) of Article (3).

    Also, the unconstitutionality of the phrase (and for a period of four years) and the phrase (and may be renewed for one time based on a proposal from the Supreme Judicial Council and the approval of the House of Representatives) contained in item (first) of Article (4).
    And it issued its decision that the phrase (for a period of four years, renewable once) contained in item (Second) of Article (4) was unconstitutional.
    It also issued its ruling unconstitutional of the phrase (or of lawyers or jurists who are not over fifty years old and have experience in their field of work for a period of no less than (10) ten years) mentioned in Clause (Third) of Article (4).

    The Federal Supreme Court also ruled unconstitutional Item (Seventh/1, 2 and 3) of Article (4).

    And the court declared the items (twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth) of Article (5) unconstitutional.
    It also issued its decision that the phrase (and to the House of Representatives) contained in item (Second) of Article (13) was unconstitutional.
    The court decided to reject the lawsuit of the plaintiff, the head of the Supreme Judicial Council, in addition to his job regarding the challenge to the unconstitutionality of the remaining articles of the aforementioned Public Prosecution Law.
    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

      Current date/time is Wed 08 Feb 2023, 7:29 am