en-USar-JO

Decisions of the Court

All
2022
2020
2019
2017
2015
2014
2013
01.Interpretative Decision No. (01) of 2020

Summary:

Subject-matter: Interpretation of the text of Article (33) of the Constitution.

Official Gazette No.: 5640

Publication Date: 11/05/2020

To view this decision press here

03.Interpretative Decision No. (03) of 2019

Request No.: 03/2019

Request Subject-matter: requesting explanation whether the constitutional court judgment No. 5 of 2017 was to be enforced on the date on which the Special Tax Regulations No. 97 of 2016 or on the date on which the constitutional court judgment was issued (21.8.2017).

Decision summary: Hence, the date of enforceability of the constitutional court judgment No. 5 of 2017 is on the date of its issuance 21.8.2017.

Official Gazette No.: 5605

Publication Date: 31/10/2019

To view this decision press here

02.Interpretative Decision No. (02) of 2019

Request No.: 02/2019

Request Subject-matter: Interpretation of the text of Paragraph (2) of Article 33 of the Constitution.

Decision summary: Thus, the agreements entered into between companies wholly owned by the government and other companies do not fall within the concept of the agreements set forth in article 33/2 of the constitution and their effectiveness is not subject to approval of the parliament.

Official Gazette No.: 5595

Publication Date: 16/09/2019

To view this decision press here

01.Interpretative Decision No. (01) of 2019

Request No.: 01/2019

Request Subject-matter: 1. Interpretation of a statement as to whether the phrase (take part in any commercial or financial business) mentioned in article (44) of the Constitution prohibits the minister, during his ministerial office, from being a partner or a shareholder in any commercial or financial company or business. 2. Whether the phrase (contracting with) contained in paragraph (2) of article 75 of the constitution extends to indirect contracting through an agency contract, i.e. to be an agent for an entity that contracts with the government or any entity set out in the said paragraph.

Decision summary: 1.  The minister is not permitted, during his ministerial office, to exercise any commercial business whatsoever or take part in any commercial enterprise, whether through purchase or subscription of shares.  2. The member of the parliament is prohibited from being an agent for any entity contracted with the government or any public official institution.

Official Gazette No.: 5591

Publication Date: 01/08/2019

To view this decision press here

01.Decision No. (01) of 2017

Request No.: 01/2017

Request Subject-matter: 1. Whether rejection of the draft set out in article 92 of the constitution extends to the whole draft of law or to the articles in dispute.  2.Whether acceptance of the draft by less than a two-thirds majority of the members present is considered rejection of the draft. 3. If the draft is not accepted by two-thirds majority of the members present, is the draft deemed to be rejected in law and the council of ministers is informed of such rejection, or it must be withdrawn by the Council of Ministers

Decision summary: Based on the above, it is noticed that article 92 of the constitution provides that the articles in dispute are discussed at the joint meeting of the Senate and House of Representatives, and if both Houses do not agree    by a two-thirds majority of the members present, then the draft in its entirety is rejected. This is since the constitutional provision is absolute. The said explanation is an answer to points 1 and 2 contained in the Prime Minister’s letter. As for point 3, if the draft is not approved by two-thirds of the members present at the joint session, such draft is deemed to be rejected under the constitution.

Official Gazette No.: 5459

Publication Date: 10/05/2017

To view this decision press here

01.Interpretative Decision No. (01) of 2015 – Articles (120,121) of the Constitution.

Request No.: 01/2015

Request Subject-matter: Request for interpretation of the text of Articles (120,121) of the Constitution.

Decision summary: Based on the above, the court finds that the phrase “local councils” contained in article 121 of the constitution is general and absolute to include the municipal and village councils and any other council. Hence, the said phrases should not be interpreted narrowly to be restricted only to the municipal and village councils. Rather, it may be extended to include any other local units or councils, if the legislator intends to grant such units or councils the legal personality and the financial and administrative independence, where boards of directors of such councils are formed by election as long as such local units and councils are subject to the control of the centralized administration within the scope of the administrative custody within the limits set out in this decision.

Official Gazette No.: 5343

Publication Date: 01/06/2015

To view this decision press here

02.Interpretative Decision No. (02) of 2014 - subject term of membership in the Parliament to the retirement.

Request No.: 02/2014

Request Subject-matter: Request to interpret Articles (52, 65/1, 68/1, 66, 78/3, 75/2, 76, 93) of the Constitution and to indicate whether the term of membership in the Parliament may be subject to civil retirement and whether a law with a financial effect may provide for its retroactivity to modification of legal positions that have been established under a former law, which results in increased public expenditures.

Decision summary: non-entitlement of members of the Parliament to pension without prejudice to the acquired rights. it is not permitted that a law with financial effect provides for its retroactivity to modification of legal positions that have been established under a former law, which results in increased public expenditures.

Official Gazette No.: 5314

Publication Date: 01/12/2014

To view this decision press here

01.Interpretative Decision No. (01) of 2014 – Articles (89, 92)

Request No.: 01/2014

Request Subject-matter: Articles (89, 92) of the Constitution.

Decision summary: 1. The power of the Parliament (both Houses) in the joint meeting to discuss the articles in dispute in accordance with the provisions of article 92 of the constitution is not limited to voting on decisions of either House with respect to such articles. Rather, it has the right to discuss the articles in dispute and adopt new proposals within limits, objectives and purpose of such articles in consistence with the agreed upon articles.

2. The majority required for ratification of the articles in dispute at the joint meeting of both Houses pursuant to the provisions of article 92 of the Constitution is a two-thirds majority of the members present, since the joint meeting of the Parliament is held in presence of the absolute majority of members of both Houses.

Official Gazette No.: 5263

Publication Date: 02/01/2014

To view this decision press here

11.Interpretative Decision No. (11) of 2013

Request No.: 11/2013

Request Subject-matter: May one or more provisions of a provisional law be repealed by virtue of a permanent law?

Decision summary: Based on the above, the parliament is permitted, under a permanent law, to repeal one or more articles of any provisional law even if it has been placed before the parliament and is still effective.

Official Gazette No.: 5263

Publication Date: 02/01/2014

To view this decision press here

10.Interpretative Decision No. (10) of 2013

Request No.: 10/2013

Request Subject-matter: The Judicial Authority Law, and whether the provisions of the Constitution obligate the drafting of a unified law for the judicial authority, and are Administrative Courts considered part of the civil judiciary or not?

Decision summary: In view of the foregoing, and in the light of the aforementioned constitutional articles and the historical data that should constitute a significant element of the interpretation and its tools, the administrative courts cannot be considered special courts, but rather they are integral part of the civil jurisdiction. Hence, the administrative courts are civil courts that have jurisdiction over the administrative disputes and compensation claims.

Official Gazette No.: 5268

Publication Date: 02/02/2014

To view this decision press here

09.Interpretative Decision No. (09) of 2013

Request No.: 09/2013

Subject-matter: The request for interpretation was retrieved based on the decision of the sender (the Council of Ministers)

 

08.Interpretative Decision No. (08) of 2013

Request No.: 08/2013

Request Subject-matter: Amending the Oil Shale Agreement Article (117) of the Constitution.

Decision summary: The said decision was issued by the High Council for Constitution Interpretation when it had the interpretation and constitutional oversight powers, where such powers have been vested in the constitutional court since the constitutional amendments of 2012. Accordingly, this court cannot reconsider the request for interpretation in question, since this compromises the principle of res judicata which is essential for the constitutional oversight.

Official Gazette No.: 5264

Publication Date: 16/01/2014

To view this decision press here

07.Interpretative Decision No. (07) of 2013

Request No.: 07/2013

Request Subject-matter: Article (86) Paragraph (1) of the Constitution.

Decision summary: Based on the above, with the exception of the two cases mentioned above, a member of either House may not be detained or tried during the period the Parliament is in sitting for offenses committed before or after he is a member unless the immunity is waived by the absolute majority of the House to which such member belongs.

Official Gazette No.: 5222

Publication Date: 16/05/2013

To view this decision press here

 

06.Interpretative Decision No. (06) of 2013

Request No.: 06/2013

Request Subject-matter: Draft of the Association of Awqaf Imams and Employees, Article (23, 120) of the Constitution.

Decision summary: The court decides that “the employees of any ministry, or any government department, entity or institution are permitted to establish their own union even if they are governed by the Civil Service Regulations and there are no similar professions in the private sector, provided that this matter is regulated under law or laws to be issued for this purpose as the legislative power deems appropriate”.

Official Gazette No.: 5238

Publication Date: 01/09/2013

To view this decision press here

05.Interpretative Decision No. (05) of 2013

Request No.: 05/2013

Request Subject-matter: May the provisional law to be treated if it is rejected by the parliament pursuant to Article (94) of the Constitution as the draft law is to be treated with respect to Article (93) of the Constitution?

Decision summary: The government is allowed to submit a new draft of law and the executive power is permitted to exercise its constitutional right to propose laws as explained earlier.

Official Gazette No.: 5233

Publication Date: 01/08/2013

To view this decision press here

03.Interpretative Decision No. (03) of 2013

Request No.: 03/2013

Request Subject-matter: Is it permissible for His Majesty the King to postpone the extraordinary meeting of the Parliament (Article 73 of the Constitution).

Decision summary: “The King is permitted, by a Royal Decree, to postpone the meeting of the Parliament to another date, provided that the period of postponement shall not exceed two months set out in the constitution”. 

Official Gazette No.: 5200

Publication Date: 28/01/2013

To view this decision press here

02.Interpretative Decision No. (02) of 2013

Request No.: 02/2013

Request Subject-matter: Issuance of the Budget draft law by a provisional law (Article 94/1 of the Constitution)

Decision summary: cannot be postponed, and the Council of Minister is permitted, under the current conditions, to enact a provisional law under which the general budget draft of 2013 is issued in accordance with article 1/94/c of the Constitution.

Official Gazette No.: 5195

Publication Date: 17/01/2013

To view this decision press here

01.Interpretative Decision No. (01) of 2013

Request No.: 01/2013

Request Subject-matter: Amending the Oil Shale Agreement Article (117) of the Constitution.

Decision summary: the Council of Ministers does not have the power, under the said constitutional provision, to grant any right related to exploitation of mines, minerals or public utilities unless such right is ratified by a law to be issued for this purpose, whether such concession is exclusive or non-exclusive even if both parties agree on amendment or change. Further, the court decides to serve this decision on the Prime Minister and to order its publication in the Official Gazette.

Official Gazette No.: 5194

Publication Date: 16/01/2013

To view this decision press here