Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter

Member Info for Siko


Member Since: Sun, 11th Dec 2011

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 995
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 6

Last Posted: Thu 08:25


Post Distribution over the last 30 days




Thu 08:25


dazza, this has nothing to do with Centamin losing the case, also Centamin case has nothing to do with Cement Portland case. This is all to do with the new law, if the law is confirmed to be constitutional by the SCC then this would be a great positive for Centamin case, but if the SCC decides the law is unconstitutional then Centamin would just keep going through the normal case procedure which as we know is already very strong and did not need this law at the first place.
Thu 07:36


Just to clarify a point about the commissioners so people do not get confused. There are different commissioners in Egypt.

My post on 2/9/2014 was from the State Commissioners. In that report they thought the new law was suspected to be unconstitutional, mainly for the retrospective part.

My post on 17/9/2014 was from the Administrative Court Commissioners who discussed the new law while considering an administrative case and now they think the law is unconstitutional and listed their reasons. Their report would be considered by the administrative court who is considering that specific case " Cement Portland", and I personally think the court would just suspend the case as all the other cases because the law is already being considered by the SCC. Remember the commissioners only issue advisory reports. They do not make any decisions.

The SCC commissioners have not submitted their report yet. They are the commissioners that the SCC would consider their report.
Wed 21:44


17/9/2014

http://www.albawabhnews.com/794495

http://www.dotmsr.com/ar/101/6/81044/

The State Commissioners at the Administrative Court at the State Council prepared the report regarding the case of the sale of Cement Portland Company. At the end of the report the commissioners advised to refer law 32 year 2014 "Third Party Appeal Law" to the Supreme Constitutional Court "SCC".

The report stated that there are 3 reasons which confirm the unconstitutionality of the law:

1) Violating articles 32,33 and 34 of the constitution in relation to"protecting public properties" as the right to litigate in these cases is to activate the role of the public control against aspects of the state aggression if it misbehaves.

2) Violating article 53 of the constitution in relation to "the principle of equality in equal legal positions" , basically all the parties that were competing for a contract should have the right to appeal because all the competing parties should have the same rights and duties from the beginning of the contractual procedures, while the new law limits the right to appeal to the winning party only.

3) Violating article 97 of the constitution as it denies the people's right in public properties and its connection to watching and protecting public properties and denies the right to litigate in the form of "organizing" the litigation by blocking the way to appeal in front of the main rights' owner.

The report confirmed that even when the law opens the right to appeal after obtaining a criminal ruling, this will not save the law from its constitutional slip because it mixed voiding administrative contracts for violating legal rules and procedures, and voiding it based on signing the contract as a result of crimes of public money. Also linking appeals against state contracts to criminal rulings denies the State Council's right as the owner of general jurisdiction in disputes relating to this matter.
2 Sep '14


I tried to find more details about this report, but unfortunately I could not find any.

This law, together with the demonstration law, were expected to have a lot of oppositions, and they certainly did.

As we know, any commissioners reports are only advisory and not legally binding, so the final decision lies with the SCC.

Also the commissioners used the words "suspected-suspicious" to describe their view of the law, and did not make it clear that it was "unconstitutional".

I know this report may not be welcomed by some people and I was debating whether or not to post it, but I thought you should be aware of everything and then it is up to you what to make out of it, if it is true!!!


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Share Price SpacerQPP1000715 
Share Price SpacerBigGib528 
Share Price Spacerokenia513 
Share Price Spacerdaveycaferacer483 
Share Price SpacerK3VMC421 
Share Price SpacerBrotherhumble397 
Share Price SpacerSpikeyj389 
Share Price Spacerrobbajob366 




Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


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


Home  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Careers  |  Advertise with Us  |  Sitemap  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Cookies  |  Privacy


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.