Previous 21 / 22 Next

Official Gazette – Issue No. 8 bis (a) May 26, 2013 21 Whereas such text in its last part included "in accordance with paragraph 5" and the context of such text does not lead to its intended right meaning; due to its connection with article (3) of the draft law, such statement should be therefore amended to be "in accordance with paragraph 7". Eighth: Article (44) of the draft law stipulated that "The present law shall be published in the Official Gazette and shall come into force from date of publication thereof.” The present law shall receive the Seal of the State and shall be enforced as a state law". Whereas article (223) of the constitution stipulates that "laws shall be published in the Official Gazette within fifteen days from the date of their issuance and shall come into force thrity days from the day following the date of publication, unless a different date is specified. Provisions of the laws shall apply only from date of enforcement thereof and shall have no retroactive effect. However, with the approval of a two-thirds majority of the members of the House of Representatives, provisions to the contrary may be made in articles pertaining to non-criminal and non-tax-related matters". Whereas the constitutional text indicates that the laws should be published in the Official Gazette fifteen days from the date of issuance thereof, to be enforced – as a general principle – after thirty days from the day following the date of publication thereof, unless the laws specified another date for enforcement thereof, which is the day following the date of publication of the law is its minimum date; based upon the foregoing general principle; which signifies that any other date – as a minimum limit – specified by the laws for enforcement thereof should be the day following such date, this in case the legislator's will tends to enforce the law in the shortest time from the date of publication. Based on the above and whereas article (44) of the draft law stipulates that the law shall be enforced from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette, thus the text of this article infringes article (223) of the constitution. For Such Reasons The Court has decided First: Non-acceptance of the request with regard to articles from (23) to (41) of the draft law as stated with reasons. Second: Paragraph 6 of article (3) of the draft law, the attached tables, clause (2) of paragraph 1, paragraph 2 and 3 of article (13), article (16) and article (44) thereof infringes provisions of the constitution as stated with reasons. Third: the last part of article (1) of the draft law, articles (2), (3), (17), (18), (20) and (21) thereof with regard to the registration of workers and farmers representation,

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Shura Council Speaker request for constitutional review of the draft law regulating the exercise of political rights.

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether the draft law adheres to the current constitutional political protections.

Alleged Acts: The Shura Council Member filed suit in the Supreme Constitutional Court seeking review of the draft law that limited political rights and they exercise thereof. The drafted law; (1) distinguished between judicial bodies and branches and required the National Elections Commission to assign supervision of voting to judicial bodies; (2) permitted those unable to cast their ballot based on visual impairment or other disability to verbally state the vote to an election official who would record it on a ballot; (3) permitting the President to set the general election date by decree; (4) no modifications may be made to the voter database after the call for elections; (5) reforming the voting abroad system to begin counting before the actual date of elections.

Summary: The court determined that the differentiation between judicial bodies and branches was unconstitutional and required that they words be synonymous. Second, the court determined that all ballots must be direct secret votes, but that this supposes the voter is sighted. Thus, the court determined that the committee head signing the ballot paper violated the right to secrecy. Third, the court determined that Presidential decree violated the constitution because it diminish the integrity of election and removed powers from the Election Commission. Fourth, the court determined that restrictions on the right to voter were limited such those they unreasonably hindered political participation. Fifth, the court determine that the constitution provides protections for Egyptians living abroad and the restriction of voting before election day failed to adhere to these protections.

Conclusion: The court struck down portion of the drafted law and unconstitutional because they conflicted with the political protections set forth in the constitution.

Legal Issue(s)

Accessibility
Vote Verification and Transmission

Region: Middle East and North Africa

Country: Egypt

Language of Decision

English

Court: Constitutional Court

Election Type: Review of law

Date of decision: May 26, 2013

Geolocation

Latitude: 30.38327401

Longitude: 31.34626495

: Geolocation

Primary Documents

SCC ruling- some elec procedures and PWDs-May 2013 (English).pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Shura Council Speaker request for constitutional review of the draft law regulating the exercise of political rights.

Primary Documents

Notifications