Constitutional Court rejects appeal on 'Housing Care'
The Constitutional Court, presided over by Adel Al-Bahouh, ruled on the inadmissibility of the appeal against the cancellation of an article in the Housing Care Law, stating that the harm stems from administrative implementation rather than the text itself.
Translated by Qiyas from النهار — Original source
The Constitutional Court’s Advisory Chamber, presided over by Advisor Adel Al-Bahouh, ruled to reject the petition filed by a number of citizens challenging the constitutionality of Article 1 of Decree-Law No. 83 of 2025, specifically its provision repealing the text of Article 29 bis of the Housing Care Law concerning the category of “those who sold their homes.”
In the reasoning behind its judgment, the Court stated that, pursuant to Article 4 bis, added by Law No. (???) of ???4 to the Law Establishing the Constitutional Court No. (14) of ???? , the legislator authorized any natural or legal person to file a petition by way of direct accusation before this Court against any law, decree-law, or regulation. The legislator explicitly required in this article that the petitioner must have a direct personal interest, without which the petition is not admissible. This means that merely alleging that the challenged legislative provision is unconstitutional is insufficient for the petition to be accepted; rather, it must be shown that the provision has caused harm to the petitioner as a result of its application to them, and that such harm stems directly from the legislative provision itself.
Furthermore, it is established that the Court’s review of the constitutionality of legislation is based solely on whether the challenged legislative provision contradicts a provision in the Constitution. The Court has no jurisdiction over how the provision is applied, as this falls outside the scope of its supervisory authority. Moreover, erroneous application of the provision does not constitute a constitutional defect.
The Court noted that, given this, the challenged law was limited to repealing the text of Article (??) bis of Law No. (47) of ???? , as added by Law No. (?) of ???5, without arranging the status of those to whom this article applied during its period of implementation, nor the outcome of requests submitted by those who met its conditions and the housing units they had obtained. Therefore, the petitioners’ claim that the administrative authority preserved the requests of those whose requests had previously been approved, and notified those who had received housing units to vacate them, does not stem from the challenged law itself, but rather from the manner in which the administrative authority applied it. This falls outside the scope of the Court’s review, as its supervision is confined to detecting contradictions between legislative provisions and the Constitution, and it has no jurisdiction over how the law is applied, or allegations of error in its understanding or interpretation. Furthermore, erroneous application of the provision does not constitute a constitutional defect. Consequently, the grounds for accepting the petition are absent, and it is appropriate to rule on its rejection and confiscate the guarantee.
