Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter




Member Info for Siko


Send a private message to Siko

Member Since: Sun, 11th Dec 2011

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 1,352
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 44

Last Posted: Today 07:11


Post Distribution over the last 30 days




Today 07:11

Exactly Marmot, if yo look at the links you will find that the SLA is a judicial authority and its main mission is to defend the public funds and interests of the Egyptian people, they also represent Egypt before national and international courts and arbitral tribunals "hint hint", and they believe it is in Egypt's interest to stand by CEY so they have filed an appeal to support it.
Thu 22:13

I posted this a long time ago (Jan 2013), but reading it always gives me confidence and reassurance, so I thought to repost it for those who were not here at that time..

One of the appeals is filed by the State Lawsuit Authority . Please read the following link to understand how important and competent the SLA is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_State_Lawsuits_Authority

This link gives brief details of the SLA appeal:

http://www.masress.com/elfagr/1256614

-The court exceeded its authority and exceeded the scope of the lawsuit.
-The ruling violated the law as the request was to cancel the agreement which required a legislation interference to cancel the law by which it was done.
-The court made an error in applying the law by accepting to change the requests after closing the arguments and in the absence of the defendants as the court should have declined the request. (ie: initially Alfakharany requested to cancel the agreement, and after the commissioners advised this was beyond the authority of the court, Alfakharany added a request to cancel the exploitation contract, this was done only a few days before the ruling).
-Alfakharany does not fulfill the capacity and interest criteria required by law to file such case, so the case should not have been accepted, so the ruling violated the law.
-The approval of the petroleum minister on the agreed area is proven in the invalidated contract.
Thu 21:32

I had a look at the cases being considered by the Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court.

In 2014 and 2015, The administraive court suspended all cases where law 32 could be applied, here are the links

http://www.dostor.org/863940

http://www.alborsanews.com/2014/05/11/%D9%88%D9%82%D9%81-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%88%D9%89-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AE%D8%B5%D8%AE%D8%B5%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%89-%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88/

and since then , the court refused any new cases filed by a third party related to state contracts.

As to the SAC, other than CEY & Madinaty, the only case I could find at the SAC related to law 32 was AICT case which the SAC has suspended. As I mentioned earlier, AICT case was booked for ruling on 6th Feb 2016, and then on the day the SAC suspended the case pending law 32 finalization. This has not happened with Madinaty and CEY where the court exact decision was to (extend the time to deliver the ruling till 7th June). So let's hope the court ignores law 32 and rules on the 7th based on the case merits (If the court rules, then it has to be in CEY favour as it can't rule against CEY as we know while law 32 is with the SCC).
Thu 15:59

@101.. hoping for a nice surprise on 7th June
Thu 08:17

Dansul, there were 2 more shipments to add to your list:

487kg 18/5

http://www.masress.com/moheet/2427094

477kg 7/4

http://www.masress.com/elbalad/2124539
Tue 21:59

Hi Somnamna, I don't know if you know or not, but I do have the full commissioners report (86 pages), what exactly would you like to know and I will try and help you.
Tue 15:09

Rebess, I would have to be honest and say that I think that expectation is too much.
The commissioners report regarding law 32 is not out yet and when it is out the SCC would have to give a minimum of 15 days notice for all parties so that would take us byond the 7th June..
All this is from the available information and my understanding. I could be wrong, but this is my honest thought.
Tue 14:55

Chas, I was also very surprised by the 7th June.. Ramadan is not an official holiday at the courts, but judges tend to avoid setting dates during Ramadan..

Have a look at this report:

http://shabab.ahram.org.eg/News/48116.aspx

The SCC general assembly is meeting on the 4th June to elect Adly Mansour's succsessor (they know who he is any way) to avoid meeting in Ramadan as the report says it would be difficult for the judges to travel during Ramadan.

Any way, we will find out in 2 weeks..
Tue 14:22

In the links I posted, you will find some comments at the bottom about the negative commissioners report which will give you an idea of what the report says. It says:

The SAC commissioners submitted a report recommending invalidating the contract due to the sanctity of public money, the report was based on the text of Article 2012 of the Egyptian Constitution that the natural wealth of the state belongs to the people, and that Article 2 of the Mining Law considered that the existing materials, metallic mines on Egyptian territory belongs to the state.
The report considered the company's activity a clear violation of the terms of the agreement issued by Law 222 of 1994, signed for the exploitation of the mine in the Eastern Desert; because for the council of ministers to allocate more than 3km for the company in 2003 came as an unjustified decision)
Tue 13:46

http://www.vetogate.com/2201950

Even Madinaty did not get a ruling and delayed until the same date 7th June..


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Wassatt2,203
Babbler21,466
Troajan1,344
DavidGreece1,110
bonker99847
MrOrangeskin841
Aberdeenman766
ChrisD1975709





Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!




Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.