Legal Expert: Discrimination does not have the authority to implement the decisions of its federal c

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]Legal Expert: Discrimination does not have the authority to implement the decisions of its federal counterpart[/size]

[size=45]The legal expert, Hatif Al-Moussawi, believed that the Court of Cassation does not have the “authority” to implement the decisions of the Federal Court, indicating that the Federal Court has not exceeded its powers and can consider the unconstitutionality of the legal provisions.[/size]
[size=45]Al-Moussawi said in an interview with (Al-Mada), “The Federal Supreme Court did not exceed its powers, but rather considered a paragraph unconstitutional, and the matter is up to the House of Representatives, the competent authority to amend paragraphs of laws in accordance with the decisions of the Federal Court.”[/size]
[size=45]He added, “The Federal Court considered the clause unconstitutional and did not abolish the law, and this is within its jurisdiction.”[/size]
[size=45]He continued, “The Court of Cassation does not have the authority to nullify the decisions of the Federal Court, and it went outside its jurisdiction and violated the jurisdiction of its federal counterpart, and I believe that the issue has a political aspect,” (according to him).[/size]
[size=45]The Court of Cassation surprised Iraqi circles with a lengthy, 5-page decision that sought to regulate the powers of the Federal Court, and dealt with controversial rulings issued during the last period, which is unprecedented. Because the federal government often says that its decisions are “final and binding on everyone.”[/size]
[size=45]Last Thursday, the Court of Cassation issued a legal decision invalidating one of the decisions of the Federal Court, while it considered the decision not final.[/size]
[size=45]This came, according to documents seen by Al-Mada, where the General Authority was formed in the Federal Court of Cassation, to consider the lawsuit of Ali Binyan Kahit, judge of the Sharqat Investigation Court, against the President of the Supreme Judicial Council, Faiq Zaidan, regarding the request for referral to retirement.[/size]
[size=45]In the details of the matter, the Federal Court ruled that the applicant has the right to submit a request for retirement if he has service of no less than thirty years, whether in the work of law or any other civil job, and obligated to refer him to retirement at the rate of 80% of the last salary and allowances he received in service.[/size]
[size=45]But the Court of Cassation found otherwise. After careful consideration and contemplation of the decision of the Federal Supreme Court, it became clear that it was non-existent and the non-existent ruling “is as if it did not exist and does not have any legal effect and is not enforceable at all. It is not permissible to withhold the res judicata because it was born dead and because the ruling issued by it is inconsistent.” The rules of jurisdiction, which are part of the public order, violate the legislative authority and violate judicial affairs.”[/size]
[size=45]Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff, “Ali Banyan Kahit,” requesting that he be referred to retirement and that a retirement salary be calculated and paid to him “has no basis in law because the provision of the text of this article requires judicial service for the judge and member of the public prosecution for a period of no less than thirty effective years,” according to what was stated in the article. Court of Cassation documents.[/size]
[size=45]Politicians and legal experts believed that the discrimination decision opened a door that would be difficult to close in light of the instability of the political system in the country, even in light of the so-called separation of powers.[/size]
[size=45]The Federal Court obtained full powers in accordance with Article 94 of the Iraqi Constitution to make decisions that are “conclusive, irrevocable and binding on all authorities,” but the problem now lies in the failure to legislate a law specific to the court, which always opens controversy regarding its authority over other authorities, including the Court of Cassation.[/size]
[size=45]The constitution that was voted on in 2005 granted exclusive authority to the President of the Republic as the protector of the constitution, which means his intervention in the event of what could be considered constitutional violations, but this authority remained floating. Because the Constitution did not specify a specific mechanism that the President of the Republic could use[/size]
[size=45]The parties that contributed to writing the constitution did not work to formulate the powers of the President of the Republic, especially his protection of the constitution by law. So that the president does not overshadow the authority of the prime minister, who has actual power in his hands; Because he belongs to the Shiite majority in the country.[/size]
[size=45][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]