4 Official Gazette, Issue 24 App (a) on 14 June 2012 The case was openly considered in the session minutes, and the Court decided to issue a ruling in the same session. The Court After consideration of the documents, and following deliberations, Whereas the facts, as ascertained from the lawsuit statement and the other documents, may be summarized as follows: Anwar Subh Darwish Mustafa filed Case No. 2656/13 before the Administrative Judiciary Court in the Qalyubia Third Circuit requesting a ruling to freeze the execution and then cancel the Higher Elections Committee decision to announce People's Assembly election results for the single seat in Qalyubia's third electoral district – the content of which was a run-off between the Freedom and Justice Party candidate and El Nour Party candidate over the professional seat in the said district. The petition also requested that both candidates be excluded from the elections, along with several other Freedom and Justice Party candidates for the worker seat in this district in the individual system, and the resulting effects thereof. Explaining his lawsuit, Mustafa said he was one of the candidates under the individual system (professional – independent) in the Third District in Qalyubia. Elections took place and the Higher Elections Committee announced the result that he did not win, and that a run-off would take place between the candidates of the Freedom and Justice Party and El Nour Party. The plaintiff criticized the Committee’s decision as being a violation of the legal statutes for grounds to the effect that the electoral process and the vote count were invalid, and that the text of Article 3, Paragraph 1 of Law No. 38/1972, replaced by Decree-law No. 120/2011, and the text of Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 123/2011, amending some provisions of Decree-law No. 120/2011, upon which the appealed decision was grounded, were unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that both texts had violated the principle of equality guaranteed by Article 7 of the Constitutional Declaration issued on the 30th of March 2011, as they discriminated between those belonging to political parties, who are three million, and independents, who are fifty millions, in that they allocated two-thirds of the People's Assembly seats to political parties, and limited the rights of independents to the remaining one-third, which was also competed upon by political parties. Furthermore, the said texts violated the Supreme Constitutional Court rulings on a number of statutes. In the hearing of 9/1/2012, this Court ruled on the summary portion of the claim, dismissing the motion to freeze the appealed decision. Unsatisfied by this ruling, the plaintiff appealed before the Supreme Administrative Court in the Administrative Appeal No. 6414/58. In the hearing of 20/2/2012, the Supreme Administrative Court Appeals Division ruled to freeze the appeal, and referred the documents to the Supreme Constitutional Court for ruling about the constitutionality of the texts mentioned in the referral decision, as they both seemed to the court to violate the aforementioned Constitutional Declaration provisions. Whereas, the State Lawsuit Authority filed a plea to the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the case, on the basis that the appealed provisions are considered a political action, and that the motion to rule on their constitutionality would in its essence be