'Constitutional Court' rules against accepting citizens' appeal regarding the cancellation of an article in the Housing Care Law
The Constitutional Court ruled against accepting an appeal by citizens regarding the cancellation of Article 29 bis of the Housing Care Law, due to the lack of direct personal interest.
Translated by Qiyas from السياسة — Original source
The Constitutional Court, in its advisory chamber presided over by Advisor Adel Al-Bahouh, ruled not to accept the petition filed by a number of citizens challenging the constitutionality of Article 1 of Law-Decree No. 83 of 2025, which repealed the provision of Article 29 bis of the Housing Care Law, and ordered the confiscation of the security deposit.
The Court clarified in the reasoning of its judgment that accepting a constitutional petition via direct complaint requires the petitioner to have a direct personal interest, and that the challenged legislative provision must have caused harm to the petitioner as a result of its application, rather than merely alleging its incompatibility with the Constitution.
It emphasized that the challenged Law-Decree was limited to repealing Article 29 bis of Law No. 47 of 1993 concerning Housing Care, and did not include provisions regulating the status of beneficiaries to whom the article had previously been applied, or the fate of submitted applications and housing units already handed over to their owners.
It added that the issues raised by the petitioners regarding the retention by administrative authorities of previously accepted applications and the notification of some beneficiaries to vacate the housing units they had received, did not stem from the law’s text itself, but rather concerned the manner in which the administrative authority applied it.
The Court stressed that its oversight is confined to assessing whether legislation conforms to the provisions of the Constitution, and does not extend to how the provisions are applied or to allegations of error in their interpretation and construction, as an error in application does not, in itself, constitute a constitutional defect.
The Court concluded that the conditions for accepting the petition were not met, and decided not to accept it, ordering the confiscation of the security deposit.
