24 Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 The lawsuit was considered as illustrated in the minutes of the session and the SCC decided to rule thereon in today’s session. Court Having reviewed relevant documents and conducted appropriate deliberations; As the facts - on what turned out of the prosecute and other papers – that the plaintiff filed the prosecute No. 26992 for the Judicial Year 69 before the Administrative Court against the third defendant, requesting the court to stop the implementation and then cancel the High Elections Commission Decree No. 1/2015 for the invitation of voters to elect members of the House of Representatives 2015, as he claimed that this decision vitiated by a defect of legitimacy, and contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, and during the course of the proceedings the plaintiff claimed the unconstitutionality of the provisions of Articles (4), (6), and (10) of the House of Representatives law and the aforementioned Decree Law No. 202/ 2014, Recognizing the seriousness of this claim the court permitted the plaintiff to raise constitutional case, That is the case in hand. Since the plaintiff requested in session dated 25/02/2015 a rule of unconstitutionality of the two laws by decrees challenging them not to contain a text of isolating members of the dissolved National Democratic Party and the Muslim Brotherhood, and the text of the Article (8) of the House of Representatives law does not include the condition of good character and reputation, and his claim of the nonconstitutionality before the court of the subject has been limited to the provisions of Articles (4), (6), and (10) of the House of Representatives Law and the aforementioned Decree Law No. 202/ 2014, these are the provisions that the court deemed its challenge serious, and gave permission to the plaintiff to file a constitutional case, this case in this part is considered original constitutional case held in violation of the provisions of Article (29 / b) of the Act of this Court issued by Law No. 48/1979, which should rule not to accept the case for the preceded provision. As decided in the judiciary of this court, that the legislator aimed with the provisions of Article (30) of the Court Act No. 48/1979 is that the referral decision or the prosecute to include the core data that reveal by itself the essence of the constitutional issue before the Supreme Constitutional Court to judge as well as its scope to make everyone informed of its different aspects, and made available to all of them - in the light of introducing them to the aspects of the constitutional question before them – to give their comments, responses and remarks on the dates set by the Articles (37) and (44 bis 1) of the Act of this Court amended by the President of the Republic Act No. 26 of 2014, so that the body of Commissioners to take up the issue before them and prepare a report of its opinion on the matter in accordance with the provisions of Article (40) of that Act. Since the plaintiff does not claim in his prosecute the constitutional provision claimed to be in violation and aspects of violation in accordance with the provisions of Article (30) of the Code of this court, for the provisions of the election by the individual system contained the text of Article (4) of the House of Representatives law, and the provision of Presidential Decree Law No. 202/2014 referred to, and the accompanying