Official Journal – Issue No. 22 (bis) on 03 June 2013 19 People's Assembly and Shura Council non-designate members on selecting the CCA members shall be entrusted to the entity vested with controlling the constitutionality of laws, SCC, the substantive lawsuit has been considered before the Administrative Court until a plea has been raised before it that it has no jurisdiction on the state level to consider the lawsuit in observation of this text, the code of procedures stipulates in article (1) thereof that the laws amending the jurisdiction shall be enforced on the suits of which the pleading has not been yet closed, which is fulfilled in the lawsuit before the Administrative Litigation body, that court should, after suspecting the infringement of article (1) of law No. 79/2012 of the constitution's provisions, refer the subject of its constitutionality to the entity which the constitution vested with the judicial control over the constitutionality of laws, since the jurisdiction of any court is not a pure right to it or to any other court, it may adhere to or waiver if it wishes, however it is a mandate which the constitution vested therein. Moreover, no court or body which the legislator vested with the judicial resolution of a particular dispute may apply a legislative text necessary to settle the dispute presented thereto if it finds out that it initially contradicts the constitution; since such suspicion shall oblige it to check the validity thereof through presenting it to the SCC to give its firm decision thereon. Thus, the plea expressed by the State Lawsuit Authority is inappropriate and must be declined. Whereas the first plaintiff has decided to abandon the litigation in the lawsuit under review, and the attorney representing the defendants has accepted that, and the abandonment of litigation in the lawsuit is regulated by the code of procedures in articles 141 and et seq., which applies to the constitutional lawsuits in accordance with article 28 of the SCC law promulgated by law 48/1979 and based on the case law thereof, this court shall rule that the plaintiff Khaled Fouad Mohamed Hafez's abandonment of the litigation in the lawsuit under review shall be proved. Whereas the intervention request presented by Mr/ Alaa Samir Mahmoud and the two joint intervention requests submitted at the preparatory session held on 10/2/2013 before the Board of Commissioners of this court presented by Mr/ Mahmoud Abo AlEnein, as the attorney of Mr/ Mokhtar Mohamed Al-Ashry attorney and Mr/ Mohamed Ahmed Shehata, the condition for approving the joint intervention – and based on the case law of this court – is that the applicant should be a party in the substantive lawsuit which the ruling in the constitutional matter shall affect the ruling thereon. Whereas the intervention requesters are not parties in the substantive lawsuit, even after submitting their requests to the Administrative Court, the papers did not show that this court has decided whether to accept or reject these requests; thus, they are not considered parties in the litigation presented to the trial court yet which accordingly indicates deciding to reject their intervention. Whereas the scope of the constitutional lawsuit is determined as it’s necessary to decide on objective requests, and to meet the interest of the plaintiff. Then, the scope of the presented lawsuit is determined according to the provision of article (1) of law #79/2012; stipulating that decisions by un-appointed members in People’s Assembly and Shura Council on election of members of the Constituent Assembly vested with the creation of a new constitution, are under supervision on constitutionality of parliamentary laws and decisions.