SFC dismisses formal challenges to budget law provisions

SFC dismisses formal challenges to budget law provisions
SFC dismisses formal challenges to budget law provisions

On Monday, the Supreme Federal Court made a decision to dismiss several formal challenges regarding the unconstitutional provisions in the Budget Law.

The court has dismissed the formal claims in six cases numbered (175/ Federal/ 2023), (170/ Federal/ 2023), (169/ Federal/ 2023), (165/ Federal/ 2023), (154/ Federal/ 2023), and (166/ Federal/ 2023). These cases were related to constitutional challenges against certain articles of Law No. 13 for the year 2023, which is the Federal General Budget Law for the fiscal years 2023-2024-2025.

The court explained that the rejection was due to the rules outlined in Article 22 of Internal Regulation No. 1 for the year 2022, which refers to Article 19.

The claimants were not included in the group of people mentioned in the article who have the right to contest the constitutionality of the Budget Law and pay for expenses, fees, and legal costs. The decisions were made unanimously and are binding for all parties, and were publicly announced on August 7, 2023.

Today, the SFC released a set of decisions on Monday that dealt with the challenges raised by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) regarding the federal budget law.

The much-anticipated ruling has finally shed light on the contentious aspects of Law 13 of 2023, which governs Iraq’s federal budget for the fiscal years 2023 to 2025.

According to an official press release, the court examined case number 168/federal/2023. The plaintiff, who is the KRG President in their official role, filed the lawsuit against the defendant, who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives in their official capacity.

The lawsuit was filed to challenge specific items in the budget law.

Recently, the court declared that some portions of the law were unconstitutional. This includes the phrase “with the approval of the federal Prime Minister” in Article 11/first and “in case the House of Representatives fails to take the necessary decision” in Article 13/seventh. On the other hand, the SFC has dismissed objections to the constitutionality of other sections, specifically Articles 2/first/5/b, 11/second, 12/second/a, b, c, d, e, and 13/eighth/b.

The SFC made another ruling related to a separate issue. They concluded the challenge brought forth by the Federal Government regarding the budget law. According to a press release, the court examined a legal case numbered 153/federal/2023. The plaintiff (who is the Prime Minister in their official capacity) filed the case against the defendant (who is the Speaker of the House of Representatives in their official capacity).

The SFC, whose decision is binding on all authorities, has declared several phrases in the law to be unconstitutional. These include the word “exclusively” in Article 2/first/8/c/6, the phrase “upon his request” in the last section of Article 16/second, as well as Articles 20/sixth, 28/fourth/a, 57/first/c, 70/second, and 72.

However, the court rejected the plaintiff’s legal claim challenging the constitutionality of Articles 28/fourth/b, 62/fourth, 63/third, 65/second, 71, and 75 of the aforementioned law.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here