The Federal Supreme Court decided the unconstitutionality of the article (79/1st) from the law of municipal's administration law No.(165) for 1964, indicating it contradicted the provisions of immunization of private property contained by the constitution. The court spokesman Ayas AL-Samok said '' The Federal Supreme Court held a session headed by the judge Madhat AL-Mahmood and the presence of all judges who are members and it tried two challenges against ICR speaker- being in this capacity-''.
AL-Samok added '' the two plaintiffs challenged the article (97/1st) from the municipal's administration law No.(165) in 1964 by its unconstitutionality due to the reasons in the case petition'.
He clarified ''the Federal Supreme Court read the text of the article, challenged by its unconstitutionality ((it shall be registered, with no compensation, by the name of the municipality all the streets located inside its boundaries which are left for the public use that exists when this law comes into force or that occur after that according to the laws in force or that located inside its boundaries when it got changed. The registration departments shall directly correct the registration of these streets to the name of the municipality if it was registered to another with no fees. )) ".
He continued, "The court found this text that included in part of it a procedural act, which is obligating the real estate registration departments to register all streets that are used for public benefit located within the municipalities borders or that located inside its borders when changes occurred when the municipality administration law got in force or those streets that got established after the implementation according to the concerned laws. It shall be registered to the municipalities with no compensation."
He emphasized that the Federal Supreme Court went to that the text also included an effect on the procedural side of it, which is the registration of those properties without compensation in the name of the municipalities."
Al-Samok clarified that '' the Court recognized from reading the aforementioned text that it did not specify a class, gender or ownership of real estate that has become, or part of it, streets left for public benefit within the municipalities boundaries and whether these real estate are purely owned property and private property belonging or to the ministries and official authorities Not associated with the Ministry. "
He mentioned '' the Federal Supreme Court mentioned that the courts hesitated about the content of the text – the subject of the challenge by the unconstitutionality- if it covers the real estate that owned as private property or it is limited on the real estates which belong to the state''.
He emphasized that '' the Federal Supreme Court explained that the courts directed lately to cover the real estates which owned as private property which it became, or part of it, streets inside the municipalities boundaries and to deprive their owners the compensation for being registered to the municipality with no compensation. Also, it deprives them to request comparable wage whether the streets where established before the implementation of the municipality administration law or after that''.
AL-Samok added '' the Federal Supreme Court considered the text of the article (97/1st) from the municipality administration law as general based on it didn’t specify a class, gender or ownership of real estate that has become, or part of it, streets which established before the implementation of the law or after and it shall be registered with no compensation to the municipality as well as it is inside its boundaries.''
AL-Samok added'' the court saw that this generality made the article – under challenge- violate the provisions of the article (23) from the Constitution which immunize the private property and didn’t allow to take it only for the public interest with fair compensation to these real estates.''
AL-Samok continued'' the Federal Supreme Court based on the above decided the unconstitutionality of the article (97/1st) from the municipality administration law No.(165) for 1964 as much as it relates to the private property for the covered real estates and the decision is in force from the date of the issuance on 20/1/2020.''