Home
Bayraktar: the court of appeal is contained in the replacement of members of the House of Representatives
4/14/2015
The Federal Court dismissed, on Tuesday, challenging the replacement of members of the House of Representatives, while confirming that the response of appeal does not mean the separation of the three powers. The spokesman said the Supreme Judicial Council spokesman Abdul Sattar Bayraktar "There was a call in front of the Federal Court, on an appeal in the Law No. {6} for the year 2006, the replacement of members of the House bill," adding that "the Federal Court dismissed the appeal, and he was in his decision that This law is one of the laws that did not entail physical effects does not constitute a violation of the public policy of the state does not affect the judiciary functions and characteristics. " He added: "Therefore, Talharia who came by the house directly, is the practice of the competence of the vote stipulated in Article {61} First, in the Constitution, based on Article {46 Fifth him}, the Court of the Federal not return from the previous its principle, but that the fact that the law has not impinge not the effects of material he has legislative power in their mission came under the constitution and it Mansous materials {61} {46 and Article V of it}. " He noted that "some satellite channels and media published news includes that the Federal Court returned for its principle," stressing that "the Federal Court would not retreat from its principle, but this law has not raised the material and therefore there is no prejudice to the issue of the separation of powers.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
4/14/2015
The Federal Court dismissed, on Tuesday, challenging the replacement of members of the House of Representatives, while confirming that the response of appeal does not mean the separation of the three powers. The spokesman said the Supreme Judicial Council spokesman Abdul Sattar Bayraktar "There was a call in front of the Federal Court, on an appeal in the Law No. {6} for the year 2006, the replacement of members of the House bill," adding that "the Federal Court dismissed the appeal, and he was in his decision that This law is one of the laws that did not entail physical effects does not constitute a violation of the public policy of the state does not affect the judiciary functions and characteristics. " He added: "Therefore, Talharia who came by the house directly, is the practice of the competence of the vote stipulated in Article {61} First, in the Constitution, based on Article {46 Fifth him}, the Court of the Federal not return from the previous its principle, but that the fact that the law has not impinge not the effects of material he has legislative power in their mission came under the constitution and it Mansous materials {61} {46 and Article V of it}. " He noted that "some satellite channels and media published news includes that the Federal Court returned for its principle," stressing that "the Federal Court would not retreat from its principle, but this law has not raised the material and therefore there is no prejudice to the issue of the separation of powers.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
