The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the constitutionality of the Hearing and Appeal Committee work which belong to the Media and Communications committee

 

The Federal Supreme Court clarifies the constitutionality of the Hearing and Appeal Committee work which belong to the Media and Communications committee

The Federal Supreme Court issued a decision about the constitutionality of the Hearing and Appeal Committee work.

The court's spokesman, Ayas AL-Samok, said " the court had been convened. It headed by the judge Madhat Al-Mahmood and the presence of all the member judges. The Federal Supreme Court tried a case challenged the unconstitutionality of Hearing and Appeal Committees decisions which stipulated by the item (3, 4) from the first chapter of Media and Communications committee law No.(65) 2004."

He added," the plaintiff mentioned that the decisions of the Hearing and Appeal Committee are unchallengeable which violates the Constitution".

Ayass explained that " the court decided that the Hearing Committee is an administrative body. it tried complaints that submitted to it and its members are competent in this field. It is not a judicial court and its decision can be challenged before the appeal committee."

The spokesman clarified that " the FSC found that the committee has three members and It headed by a judge which makes it a legal challenge body because it provides judicial fairness and administrative law management. It is competent to try the challenges against the decisions issued by the director-general and the hearing council of the Media and Communications committee."

Alsamok said, " the court found that the challenge body represented by the appeal council corresponds to the article (100) from the Constitution and doesn’t violate because the article didn't stipulate the right to challenge the works and decision throw the judiciary so the texts and bodies under challenge are a legislative option and it doesn't violate the Constitution."

He said, " this is what the court settled on for decisions such as (50, 53/Federal/2017) on 20/6/2017 and 27/7/2017. It decided that the case is lacking for a Constitutional substantiation. It must be rejected so the court rejected the case."

Alsamok said, "the decision issued unanimously, decisive and final based on the provisions of the article (94) from the Constitution and the article (5/2^nd) from the law of the FSC No.(30) 2005. It had been understood publicly on 27/1/2020."