BREAKING NEWS

shadow

The Federal Supreme Court issues a constitutional ruling about the wage of trespassing on the Mortmain’s estates

The Federal Supreme Court issued a constitutional ruling about the trespassing on the Mortmain’s estates, and the amount of the comparable wage resulting from that, noting that the legislator has particulate it with a provisions that differ from other estates because it is relate to the rights of Sharia, belief and the rights of the beneficiaries of it.

The court's spokesperson, Iyas Al-Samouk, stated, "The Federal Supreme Court held its session headed by Judge Medhat Al-Mahmoud and the presence of all the member judges, to consider a lawsuit in which the plaintiff litigated the Speaker of Parliament/ being in this post."

Al-Samouk added, “The plaintiff challenged the unconstitutionality of paragraph (2) of Article (12) of the Mortmain Management Law No. (64) for 1966, which fine who exceeds on Mortmain’s estates twice as much as who exceeds on other estates, other than Mortmain’s estates.”

He pointed out, "The plaintiff requested that the provision of the challenged Article to be equated with the provision of Article (197) of the Civil Law, which fine the exceeder on other than the Mortmain’s estates with comparable wage, he based his claim on the provisions of Articles (14) and (16) of the Constitution." .

Al-Samouk pointed out that "the court found that the text of Article (14) of the constitution establishes the principle of equality between Iraqis before the law without regard to gender, race, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion, economic or social status, which is not related to the subject of this lawsuit. "

He noted, "The court affirmed that the inequality between the trespassing on the Mortmain’s plot which is governed by paragraph (2) of Article (12) of the Mortmain Management Law, with the trespassing on non- Mortmain plot which is governed by Article (197) of the Civil Law, does not require equality between the financial implications of each, regardless of the person who trespassed”.

Al-Samouk cleared, "The Federal Supreme Court decided that there should not be equality between those who trespassed in this case, because the overtaken estate is the one that should be considered when estimating the comparable wages, and not the personality of who was overtaken."

He explained, "The court affirmed that the overtaken estate differs in the nature of the objectives it was specified for, as the Mortmain’s estates in its multiple forms has its specificity resulting from the relation to the right of Sharia and belief in it, or the existence of such a right and another right that is the right of the beneficiaries in it, therefore the legislator specify it with a provisions that differ from the provisions of other estates, this in regard to Article (14) which the defendant based his case on, as it is not productive in the implementation on the subject of this lawsuit”.

The spokesperson confirmed, "The court stressed that the plaintiff's reliance on the provisions of Article (16) of the constitution which stipulate the principle of equal opportunities for Iraqis, it also does not serve as substantiation for the plaintiff's claim."

He added, "The Federal Supreme Court stated that the case of the plaintiff's request the judge that paragraph (2) of Article (12) of the Mortmain Management Law to be unconstitutional, has lost its constitution substantiation."

He continued, “The court found that the plaintiff’s request to make the provision of Article (12/2) of the Mortmain Management Law the same as the provision of Article (197) of the Civil Law, this is out of the jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court stipulated in Article (93) of the Constitution and Article (4) of the Federal Supreme Court Law No. (30) for 2005 ”.

"the Federal Supreme Court, according to the aforementioned, rejected the lawsuit for not basing on a substantiation of the constitution."

RELATED NEWS