Public Authority
Application No. 34 of 2018
public body. Specialization "special competence". The Criminal Court has its jurisdiction. Law of "interpretation". Journalism. slander and slander
The jurisdiction of the Criminal Court, as an exception, is to consider misdemeanors that occur through newspapers or other methods of publication. basis and reason for that?
The phrase other than individuals mentioned in the article 215 of the Procedure Code. What is meant by it: the public employee, the person charged with a public service, and the people of representative capacity.
A person in charge of a public service. Whoever is entrusted by a competent authority to perform temporary work for the state or a public legal person.
Sports clubs. Private bodies of public interest. Its effect: the denial of the capacity of a public servant or a person charged with a public service for the heads and members of the boards of these bodies . Violation of some criminal departments this view. It requires the General Authority for Criminal Matters to rescind the provisions that contradict it. basis for that?
Article 4 of the Judicial Authority Law. that it?
Separation of the Commission by its formation in the subject of the appeal after its decision on the issue of revocation. Not necessary. effect of that?
__________________
As Article 215 of the aforementioned law - criminal procedures - stipulates that: “ The District Court shall rule on every act that is considered under the law as a violation or misdemeanour, except for misdemeanors that occur through newspapers or other methods of publication against non- individuals.” Article 216 of the Law was The same states that: “The Criminal Court rules in every act that is considered a felony by law, and in misdemeanors that occur through newspapers or other means of publication, except for misdemeanors that are harmful to individuals.”Since that was the case, and the legislator had specialized in the criminal court to consider misdemeanors that occur through newspapers or other methods of publication, as an exception to the general rules of the guarantees available in its trial that are not available before the misdemeanour court .Non-individuals “contained in the inability of Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedures is the public employee charged with a public service and the holders of a representative capacity. As it was, and it was legally established that the street wanted the person charged with a public service to be “whoever is entrusted by a competent authority to perform temporary work for the state or a legal person” And since sports clubs are considered to be private bodies of public interest, in implementation of the text of Article 15 of the Law of National Organizations for Youth and Sports Welfare No. 77 of 1975 - corresponding to Article 27 of Law No. 218 of 2017 promulgating the law regulating youth bodies - which negates the heads of And the members of the board of those bodies have the capacity of a public servant or a person charged with a public service, since that was the case, and the rulings issued by some criminal departments were interpreting the phrase “other than individuals” contained in Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its broadest sense.Considering that the victim is anyone who has a capacity other than one person, regardless of whether this capacity is a public servant or not, has violated this consideration, so abandoning it has become a duty, and therefore the commission, by unanimity of opinions - pursuant to the text of the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Judicial Authority Law - decides to withdraw about her . for what it was,The fourth article of the aforementioned law stipulated that: “The General Assembly of the Court of Cassation shall form two bodies in the court, each of eleven judges headed by the president of the court or one of his deputies, one of them for criminal matters and the second for civil and commercial matters, personal status articles and others. A legal principle established by previous rulings that referred the case to the competent body of the court for adjudication, and the body issues its rulings to rescind by a majority of at least seven members....” It was decided by previous rulings that issued its judgment to rescind by a majority of seven members in relation to the panel and did not obligate that panel, after deciding on the issue of reversal, to decide on the subject of the appeal obligatory, since the reversal is the one for whom the majority referred to in it is required without the ruling in the appeal itself, which suffices after that the ordinary majority decided to issue Judgments.Since that is the case, the authority, after deciding on the issue presented, returns the appeal - which is being filed for the first time - to the circuit that referred it to it to decide on it in accordance with the provisions of the law.
__________________
THE FACTS
The civil rights plaintiff... - in his capacity as the head of a sports club - filed his suit by direct prosecution before a misdemeanour court... against the respondents, describing that they had published a newspaper... in Issue No.... including on the first, fourteen and fifteen articles And a press interview with the instigation, agreement and assistance of the first, second and third defendants with the rest of the defendants, which included committing crimes of defamation, insult and slander against him, in addition to committing crimes of disturbing public peace and security, stirring up strife among the sects of the people, and spreading false news, if true, would necessitate his contempt for the people of his country.
He requested their punishment in Articles 39, 40, 41, 102 bis/1, 171, 176, 177, 178 bis/second, 188, 197, 200 bis/a, 302, 303, 306, 307 of the Penal Code and obligating them to pay him the sum of ten Thousands of pounds and one in temporary civil compensation.
The first accused - the civil rights plaintiff accepted - claimed during the civil case to oblige him to pay him an amount of one hundred thousand pounds and one as a temporary civil compensation.
And the aforementioned court ruled, in presence, by power of attorney for the first, second, and third, and in absentia for the rest of the accused, that it lacked specific jurisdiction to hear the case and referred it to the Public Prosecution to take its affairs towards referring it to the competent criminal court .
And the Public Prosecution decided to refer the case to a criminal court... to punish them according to the entry and description contained in the referral order.
The aforementioned court ruled that the court had no qualitative jurisdiction to hear the original and corresponding lawsuits and referred them to the Public Prosecution to take up its affairs.
The Public Prosecution submitted a request to the Court of Cassation to designate the competent court to adjudicate.
In a session .... the Criminal Chamber decided to refer the appeal to the General Authority for Criminal Matters at the Court of Cassation.
And in a session .... The General Commission for Criminal Matters considered the appeal, and the pleading was heard as indicated in the minutes of the session, and the Commission decided to withhold the appeal to an issue a ruling in today's session.
__________________
Commission
In the sense that in a session….. the Criminal Department decided to refer the present appeal to the General Authority for Criminal Matters because it saw the necessity of unifying the principles established by the court regarding the interpretation of the phrase “ other than individuals” mentioned in Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; That is because the provisions of the criminal departments have differed in the interpretation of that phrase, so some departments held that this phrase means the public servant, while other departments saw that it means everyone who has a quality other than one person, regardless of this capacity, whether he is a public servant or otherwise, and requested the approval of Judgments issued by criminal departments explaining the term “non-individuals” for anyone who has a capacity other than individual people, regardless of whether this capacity is a public official or not, and to rescind what contradicts that in terms of provisions..
And since the subject of disagreement between the provisions required to be reversed and those required to be supported is the interpretation of the phrase “other than individuals” contained in the text of Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Does it mean the public employee or not, and are the heads and members of the boards of private bodies of public interest, including sports clubs, public employees of not.
And since Article 215 of the aforementioned law stipulates that: “The District Court shall rule in every act considered by law to be a violation or misdemeanour, except for misdemeanors that through newspapers or other methods of publication against non-individuals.” Article 216 of the same law stipulates Provided that: “The Criminal Court rules in every act that is considered a felony by law, and in misdemeanors that occur through newspapers or other means of publication, except for misdemeanors that are harmful to individuals.” Since that was the case, and the legislator had specialized in the criminal court to consider misdemeanors that occur through newspapers or other means of publication, as an exception to the general rules of the guarantees available in its trial that are not available beforethe misdemeanour court. Set forth in Article 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in its broadest sense, as the victim is anyone who has a capacity other than one person, regardless of whether this capacity is a public official or not, has violated this consideration, so abandoning it has become a duty, and therefore the authority - unanimously - pursuant to the text of the second paragraph From Article 4 of the Judicial Authority Law - it was decided to rescind it.Since that was the case, and the fourth article of the aforementioned law stipulated that: “The general assembly of the Court of Cassation shall form two bodies in the court, each of eleven judges headed by the president of the court or one of his deputies , one for criminal matters and the other for civil and commercial matters, personal status articles and others. The circuits of the court reverse a legal principle decided by previous rulings that referred the case to the competent body of the court for adjudication, and the body issues its rulings for reversal by a majority of at least seven members…”What is learned from this article, especially what is related to the formation of a single body, paragraph 2 is that whenever it considers reversing a principle established by previous rulings, it issues its ruling to rescind by a majority of seven members in relation to the commission, and that body is not obligated after deciding on the issue of reversal to decide on the subject of the appeal. The reversal is the one who is required to have the majority referred to in it without ruling in the appeal itself, which after that is sufficient for the ordinary majority decided to pass judgments.Since that is the case, the authority, after deciding on the issue presented, returns the appeal - which is being filed for the first time - to the circuit that referred it to it to decide on it in accordance with the provisions of the law.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق