14 Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 Article (2) of the Presidential Decree Law #202/2014 on the Division of the House of Representatives Elections Constituencies states that “the Arab Republic of Egypt shall be divided into 237 election constituencies for election according to the individual election system, as well as being divided into four election constituencies for the list election system”. Article (3) states that “the scope and components of each election constituency, and the number of seats allocated to each constituency, as well as to each governorate, shall be determined according to the attached tables in a way that observes the fair representation of the population, of governorates, as well as the equitable representation of voters.” Whereas a party shall only be deemed to have a direct personal interest in the constitutional lawsuit if their interests are linked to the interest inherent in the subject matter of the lawsuit, such that the ruling on the constitutional matter shall be of an impact on the demands raised in connection thereto before the Court. Such concept may only apply if two requirements are met as follows: 1) the plaintiff shall, within the limits of their objection against the contested provision, present evidence proving that a serious harm was inflicted upon them, rather than an imaginary, theoretical, or unknown harm; 2) Such harm shall be attributable to the contested legislative provision, i.e. there must be a cause-effect relationship between the harm and the said provision. Hence, if such provision does not even apply to the party claiming that such provision violates the Constitution, or if such party is not covered by such provision or is not affected by the alleged denial of certain rights, that shall mean that such party has no direct personal interest since the annulment of the legislative provision, in any and all forms, will not result in any real benefit to the plaintiff and will not change their legal status regardless of the content of the ruling issued on the lawsuit. Whereas Article (25) of the Law Regulating the Exercise of Political Rights addresses candidates, and the plaintiff had not acquired this capacity yet, thus the plaintiff has no direct and personal interest in challenging it, which dictates the decision to refuse this aspect of the lawsuit. Whereas the present 2014 Constitution lays great importance on the notion of “citizenship”, emphasizing in its first article that the democratic republican system is based on citizenship and rule of law and affirming in its fourth article that “Sovereignty belongs only to the people who shall exercise and protect it. The people are the source of powers, and safeguard their national unity that is based on the principles of equality, justice and equal opportunities among all citizens”. Whereas Constitutional Article (87) states that the “participation of citizens in the public life is a national duty and says that every citizen has the right to vote, run for elections, and express his/her opinion in referendums. To do so, the State shall enter the name of each citizen in the voters’ database without request therefrom provided that he/she satisfies the conditions for voting.” Based on the above, and in light of Article (87) which states that “the State shall enter the name of each citizen in the voters’ database without request therefrom provided that he/she satisfies the conditions for voting”, the plaintiff is an eligible voter since he is a citizen and the papers constituting the present lawsuit do not, in any way,