The Federal Supreme Courtrejected a case of an objection on the validity of the membership one of the Iraqi Council of the Representatives' members.
Pointing out '' it has no competence trying the cases about Iraqi Council of the Representatives' administrative conduct.''
Ayass AL-Samok the spokesman of the court said'' the Federal Supreme Court convened its session which headed by the judge Madhat AL-Mahmod and the presence of all the judges. It tried a case initiated by the candidate of the elections Najim Abood Ghathban who disputed the speaker of Iraqi Council of the Representative/being in this capacity.''
AL-Samok added that "the plaintiff limited his claim to request a decision obliging the defendant speaker of the Iraqi Council of the Representatives/being in this capacity, to submit his challenge against the objection of the validity of the membership of the representative Aliyah AL-emarah, because he is the most one who deserves the parliamentary seat, which shall be in the first coming session of the Iraqi Council of the Representatives, and that must be by two-thirds of quorum, and to put the subject of the objection on the schedule of each session of the council's sessions as implementation of the text (52/1st) from the constitution.
He pointed out, "The Federal Supreme Court found that the request of the plaintiff after limiting his claim relates to administrative conduct relating to a specific challenge, its
period ruled by a constitutional article, which is Article (52 / 1st) of the Constitution."
He pointed out, "The court found that such behavior is adapted as administrative conduct and the challenge against it shall be heard by the competent court to hear administrative actions."
He pointed out that "the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that its competence in the application of the provisions of Article (52) of the Constitution is limited to the hearing of the challenge submitted to the decision issued by the Iraqi Council of the Representatives in accordance with its competence stipulated by Article (52 / 1st) of the Constitution."
The Spokesman stressed that "the court confirmed that its judiciary has settled in several judgments on this direction, including the decision issued No. (72 / Federal / 2019) on (23/9/2019(.
He continued, "The Federal Supreme Court, based on the foregoing found that the plaintiff's case must be rejected from the competence point, and it rejected it.