Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 15 imply that the plaintiff no longer enjoys the voter status for any reason whatsoever. Such papers do not state any impediment preventing the plaintiff from exercising his political rights. The plaintiff brought a lawsuit before the said Court, challenging HEC Decree #1/2015 and requesting that an immediate ruling be issued to suspend and annul the same in order to prevent the conduct of HoR elections, then he filed the current constitutional lawsuit requesting a court ruling to the unconstitutionality of Article (10) of the HoR Law, and Decree Law 202/ 2014 on the grounds that it violates Articles (9), (53), (102) and (190) of the Constitution based on the fact that this text has wasted the principles of equal opportunity and equality among citizens, in addition to failing to observe formal conditions for issuing the mentioned laws as they were not submitted to the Legislation Department of the State Council in accordance with the provisions of Article 190 of the Constitution, and the provisions of the State Council Law; And as the mentioned contested text has to do with and impacts the legal position of the plaintiff in his capacity as a voter, therefore fulfilling the condition of the direct personal interest in the current lawsuit, the scope of which is determined in challenging the Article (10) of the HoR Law, namely the two paragraphs the first of which is related to: obliging the applicant for candidacy to submit a statement including the candidate's curriculum vitae, particularly his education and work experience, and the second of which is related to obliging candidates to submit a receipt of EGP3,000 as insurance, as well as Article (3) of the Presidential Decree Law #202/2014 on the Division of the House of Representatives Elections Constituencies and tables attached thereto. Whereas verifying whether a legislative provision fulfills its formal requirements is a pre-condition to addressing their material defects; in addition to the fact that formal requirements, whether those related to suggesting, approving, issuing or enforcing the legal provision, are determined in the light of related enforced provisions of the Constitution at the time they were issued; and as the plaintiff had complained that the HoR and the Parliament Election Constituency Division laws as null on the grounds that they violate formal and procedural conditions as prescribed by provisions of Article (190) which dictates that laws be reviewed on part of the State Council Legislation Department, a formal aspect, thus the current Constitution text, in the light of the provisions of which the contested text was issued, shall be enforceable in this concern. Whereas Article (190) of the Constitution states that "the State Council is an independent judicial entity, solely in charge of settling administrative disputes, and enforcement disputes related to all its provisions, as well as being in charge of settling disciplinary claims and appeals, solely in charge of issuing legal opinion on legal issues for entities determined by the law, as well as the revision and drafting of laws and decrees of a legislative capacity, revision of draft contracts that the State or one of its authorities are party to, and the law defines its other mandates." And since official documents prove that the two draft laws that regulate the HoR and the division of the HoR election constituencies had previously been submitted to the State Council Legislation Department and reviewed, thus, claiming that the said laws violate Article (190) of the Constitution is contrary to the truth and to reality and should be discarded.