The Federal Supreme Court rejects a challenge against a text in the Military Industry Law No. (25) of 2019 regard the disengagement of two general companies, indicating to that the transfer of official real estate between the titles of two official bodies is a legislative option for the Council of Representatives.
Court spokesman Ayas al-Samouk stated, "The Federal Supreme Court held a session headed by Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud and the presence of all the member judges, and considered a lawsuit filed by the General Manager of the General Company for Copper and Mechanical Industries / in addition to his position, against the Speaker of the Council of Representatives / in addition to his position."
Al-Samouk added, "The plaintiff requested in his case petition from the Federal Supreme Court the ruling to annul the exception stated in the last part of article (13/1st) of the Military Industrialization Law No. (25) of 2019."
He pointed out that "the part that is under challenged to be unconstitutional stipulates that (the disengagement of the General Military Industries Company and the General Copper Industries Company from the Ministry of Industry and Minerals, and to be linked to the establish committee according to the provisions of this law, and their rights, obligations, assets and employees to be transfer to the committee, excluded from that the residential compounds which to be linked to the municipalities that it is within its borders) ".
He noted, "The plaintiff claimed that the residential compound considered as free-hold property as plot, building, and assets for the company, and that this text was not present in the draft law when it was discussed before the State Council, he also listed other reasons to challenge it in his case petition."
Al-Samouk explained that "the Federal Supreme Court found that transferring official real estate from the name of an official body to the name of another official body is a legislative option, and it falls within the jurisdiction of the Council of Representatives stipulated in article (61 /1st) of the Constitution and does not contain a constitutional violation."
And, "The court confirmed that the challenged text for the unconstitutionality does not constitute a new burden on the annual budget, and mathematical settlements can be made for that."
Al- Samouk went on to say that "the Federal Supreme Court, based on the foregoing, ruled that the lawsuit was not based on substantiation of the constitution and the law, and decided to reject it."