The Federal Court postponed consideration of extending the work of the Kurdistan Parliament to May

POSTED ON[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] BY [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[size=52]The Federal Court postponed consideration of extending the work of the Kurdistan Parliament to May[/size]

[size=45]Yesterday, Wednesday, the Federal Supreme Court postponed consideration of the case for extending the work of the Kurdistan Regional Parliament until the beginning of next May, while it revealed the number of cases and requests settled last month.[/size]
[size=45]Yesterday, Wednesday, the Federal Court held a session to consider the lawsuit filed regarding the extension of the life of parliament in the Kurdistan region.[/size]
[size=45]"The court decided to postpone the session to next May 3, in order to deliberate the case," said Riya Saadi, an advisor to the Kurdistan Parliament, who attended the session yesterday to defend the Kurdistan region.[/size]
[size=45]Saadi stated, “Legal evidence we submitted to the court of the need to amend the election law, activate the Independent High Electoral Commission, and hold a referendum in the Kurdistan region in order to extend the life of Parliament.” court.”[/size]
[size=45]A lawsuit was filed in the Federal Court against the Kurdistan Region, about the illegality of extending the life of the Parliament of the Kurdistan Region, by each of Shaswar Abdul Wahid, head of the New Generation Movement, Youssef Muhammad, former President of the Parliament of the Kurdistan Region, Sarwa Abdul Wahid, head of the New Generation Bloc in Parliament, Kawa Abdul Qadir, head of the new generation bloc in the parliament of the Kurdistan region.[/size]
[size=45]For his part, the deputy in the Parliament of the Kurdistan Region, Rebwar Babkiyi, said, "The extension of the life of the Parliament of the Kurdistan Region took place due to political and institutional necessities and to avoid falling into a state of legal vacuum."[/size]
[size=45]Babakiy added, "The Iraqi constitution, according to Article 121, gave the Kurdistan Parliament the right to exercise its legal powers and issue laws, according to political and institutional needs."[/size]
[size=45]In addition, a judicial statement received by (Al-Mada) stated that “during the past month, the Federal Supreme Court resolved 19 constitutional lawsuits and requests.”[/size]
[size=45]The statement added, “The court issued a judgment dismissing the lawsuit No. (220 / Federal / 2023) that included the ruling on the unconstitutionality of Clause (Fourth) of Article (6) of the Supreme National Commission for Accountability and Justice Law No. (10) of 2008, which stipulated: (It is forbidden The Saddam Fedayeen are deprived of any pension rights for their work in the aforementioned apparatus).[/size]
[size=45]He pointed out, “Those who deserve pensions are those who were forcibly transferred, whether they were civilians or military personnel, to the aforementioned apparatus and return them to their departments, where their service outside the Saddam Fedayeen is counted, and their service within the aforementioned apparatus is not counted as a retirement service. The court concluded, through fact-finding, that Some of them were martyred during the liberation of Iraq from the terrorist gangs of Daesh, and based on the provisions of Article (14) of the constitution, which stipulates that (Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of gender, race, nationality, origin, color, religion, or economic or social status) and taking into account The rights of the martyrs, and the implementation of the rights of the Iraqi citizen stated in the Iraqi constitution.[/size]
[size=45]The statement stated, “The court rejected Case No. (276 / Federal / 2022) with its content, a request for a ruling to oblige the defendants to implement the texts of the laws that he mentioned in his petition, which are each of Article (44 / Second / 8) of the Law of Governorates that are not organized in Region No. (12). ) for the year 2008 as amended and Articles (3), (27/fifth) and (29/2) of Law No. (4) for the year 2020 (the first amendment to the Federal Financial Management Law No. (6) for the year 2019) regarding the payment of the remaining petrodollar dues for the fiscal years (2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013).[/size]
[size=45]And the statement added, “After scrutiny and deliberation, the court found that one of the conditions for accepting the case is the requirement that the interest be available and that it be known and a possible case, according to what is stipulated in Article (6) of the Civil Procedure Law No. (83) for the year 1969 as amended and according to what was stated in Paragraph (First) From Article (20) of the rules of procedure of the Federal Supreme Court.[/size]
[size=45]And the statement stressed, “The court issued a judgment dismissing the case No. (6 / federal / 2023), in which the request for the judgment to cancel Paragraph (1) of Article (69) of the Central Bank of Iraq Law No. (56) of 2004 came in force, and a request for consideration and provisions.” Notifications in the Civil Procedure Law No. (83) for the year 1969 as amended are the rules that should be relied upon by the competent court when considering cases arising from the application of the provisions and rules of the Central Bank of Iraq law.[/size]
[size=45]And the statement continues, “The court found that the ruling issued in the constitutional case, whether by the constitutionality of the contested text or its unconstitutionality, precludes the court from considering the challenge to the constitutionality of the text again, as its matter has already been decided because the ruling issued by the court is of absolute authority and applies to all, whether individuals or individuals.” One of the authorities of the state based on the provisions of Article (94) of the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005.[/size]
[size=45]And she pointed out, “The court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit requesting the ruling to cancel Cabinet Resolution No. (234) on 8/30/2016, which included withdrawing the recommendation submitted by the Council of Ministers to the Iraqi Council of Representatives to appoint the plaintiff to the position of advisor in the Presidency of the Republic, and removing the resulting legal effect.” On the aforementioned decision, the court found that the appealed decision had been issued on 30/8/2016, and a period had passed since its issuance, and legal job positions had settled, and that the laxity in filing the case represented the plaintiff’s conviction of the decision throughout the previous period.[/size]
[size=45]And the statement goes on, “The withdrawal of the recommendation submitted by the Council of Ministers to the House of Representatives regarding the appointment of the plaintiff and his group as advisors to the Presidency of the Republic, was at the request of the Presidency of the Republic and after scrutiny and deliberation by the Federal Supreme Court, it issued its decision to respond, because there was no prejudice to the validity of the Council’s decision.” Ministers No. (234) on 8/30/2016.[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]