Official Gazette – Issue No. 9 (bis) March 1, 2015 27 The right of citizenship calls for equality of public rights and duties and may not be subject to derogation or limitation except under circumstances of objective impediment not representing per se any constitutional fraud. Based on the above, and in light of Article (87) which states that “the State shall enter the name of each citizen in the voters’ database without request therefrom provided that he/she satisfies the conditions for voting”, the plaintiff is an eligible voter since he is a citizen and the papers constituting the present lawsuit do not, in any way, 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. The plaintiff has also filed in this current constitutional lawsuit for a ruling that Articles (4) and (10) of the HoR Law and Law 202/ 2014 are unconstitutional and breach Constitutional bylaws. This is based on the breach of the principles of equal opportunity and equality, since these Articles do not fulfill equality among listed candidates and jeopardize his legal status as voter. The plaintiff has filed the case for personal interest damage since Article (4) of the HoR Law allocates 15 seats to 2 constituencies and 45 seats for 2 other constituencies out of 4 constituencies for list electorates. In addition, Article (10) grants freedom to candidates to run for the governorate of their choice and determines the insurance value to be deposited at the Treasury of the candidate’s First Instance Court for 15-seat list electorates. Finally, Article (2) of Law 202 for 2014 and Article (3) of its bylaws fall short of its application to list electorates and its published list. Thus, the plaintiff deplores the shortcomings of Article (4) of the HoR Law, Article (2) of Law 202/2014 and Article (3) of its bylaws and the breach of list electorates and associated published lists of principles of equality, justice and equal opportunity, given the unequal number of candidates among list electorates across the country. With respect to provisions of Article (4) to guarantee principles of equality, justice and equal opportunity and rules regulating legislator authority on rights, freedom and public duties, the Rule of Law has supported such values in numerous articles (Articles 8, 27, 81, 93 and 99). However, it has failed in defining its structural and dimensional concepts – as has been the case with this Court – and is not a sustainable model that applies to the various streams of life. Thus, it fails to balance the obligations imposed by the legislator on citizens, seen by some as injurious and meant to be favorable, rendering the enforcement of such Law non-viable for tolerance, conflicting with principles of Justice and amounting to obsolete. According to Articles (4), (9) and (27) of the Constitution, the legislator is to enforce the principle of equal opportunity among all citizens without discrimination. In accordance with the rulings of this Court, it encompasses all opportunities offered by the State, equally irrespective of enforcement obstacles of crowdedness and subject to constitutional immunity to deliver according to priority and objective principles of public interest. The principle of equality provided by Articles (4) and (53) of the Constitution aims at – as stipulated by the rulings of this Court – the non-validity of the legislative or