Official Journal – Issue No. 22 (bis) on 03 June 2013 17 election of the second CCA members. Furthermore, the State Lawsuit Authority and the jointly interfering litigants raised a plea that the Administrative Court does not have jurisdiction on the state level to hear the lawsuit based on law No. 79/2012 issued on 12/7/2012, of which article 1 stipulates that the resolutions of the nondesignated members of the People's Assembly and the Shura Council on the election of CCA should be subject to the control on the constitutionality of the laws and parliamentary decrees. If this court sees that the resolution issued by the nondesignated members of the People's Assembly and Shura Council on the election of the members of the CCA which is the subject matter of the substantive lawsuit is not a parliamentary act, nor a legislation in the objective sense according to which the SCC imposes its judicial jurisdiction thereupon; however it is in fact an administrative resolution whose legality shall be decided by the State Council at an Administrative Litigation Authority, hence article 1 of law No. 79/2012 infringes the provision of article (48) of the constitutional declaration issued on 30 March 2011 which vested settling the administrative disputes in the State Council. It also infringes article (21) of the aforesaid constitutional declaration which bans laws from stipulating the immunization of any administrative act or resolution against judicial control. Accordingly, this court has decided in 23/10/2012 session to stop the lawsuit proceedings and refer its papers to the SCC to decide on the constitutionality of this text regarding what it indicates that the resolutions of the People's Assembly and Shura Council non-designated members on the election of the CCA members shall be subject to the control on the constitutionality of the laws and parliamentary decrees. Whereas article 1 of law No. 79/2012 on the standards of the election of the CCA members stipulates that "without prejudice to the provision of article (60) of the constitutional declaration, non-designated members in the People's Assembly and Shura Council shall elect a constituent assembly composed of 100 members to prepare the country's new draft constitution, as well as 50 alternative members. There resolutions in this regard shall be subject to the control on the constitutionality of the laws and parliamentary decrees". Whereas the State Lawsuit Authority has raised a plea that the SCC does not have jurisdiction to hear this lawsuit based upon the fact that the legislative text referred thereto includes a provision that is considered from the proceedings of issuing constitutions that are inherently from the political acts which the SCC case law has decided to exclude from the scope of its control. Whereas this judgment is refuted that what should be taken into consideration in determining the legal framing of the "political acts", and based upon the law case of this court, is the nature of the act itself, not the descriptions that the legislator may apply thereto whenever its nature is in contrast to such descriptions; since the exclusion of the "political acts" from the constitutional litigation mandate comes only to achieve the political considerations which require - due to the nature of these acts and their close connection to the state's political system or internal or external sovereignty, to take them away from judicial control in response to preserving the state, defending its sovereignty and guarding its supreme interests. This requires granting the entity executing these acts, either it is the legislative or executive authority, broader discretion to achieve the country's good and safety, without entrusting the litigation with the power to comment on the decisions it takes in this regard; since considering and commenting on them requires information, regulations