Latest news with #CourtsofAppeal
Al-Ahram Weekly
04-07-2025
- Politics
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Justice without extra fees - Egypt - Al-Ahram Weekly
A statement issued by the Bar Association has demanded the immediate repeal of what it described as 'the unconstitutional decision' issued by the heads of the Courts of Appeal, imposing unprecedented fees on citizens for a number of litigation procedures. Issued in April, the association's statement also noted that the value imposed on fees was excessive, 'becoming a burden on litigants and an obstacle to their right to litigation. This represents a violation of the constitutional obligation that litigation be a protected and guaranteed right for all,' the statement said. The crisis of the higher court fees began on 1 March when successive fees were imposed on a number of litigation procedures. The decisions were followed by successive increases in fees from entities deemed other than those authorised by law and the constitution. 'This represented a violation of constitutional, legal frameworks, and the limits of the constitution and the law,' Ali Suleiman, a former unionist and a lawyer since 1990, told Al-Ahram Weekly. Suleiman said that over the past two years, lawyers have been taken aback by a gradual increase in court fees. However, in 2025, the Council of Presidents of the Courts of Appeal decided to impose exaggerated fees. Court fees are subject to a law related to the establishment of courts and must be paid before filing any lawsuit. What further fuelled the lawyers' protests, represented by the syndicate, was the approval of a LE33 fee for each page submitted in the case document portfolios. The same amount was also imposed for obtaining any computerised document from the court. A LE5 review stamp was added for every paper in a case file. 'According to the Egyptian constitution, no fees may be imposed except pursuant to a law issued by the House of Representatives. Accordingly, the decision of the Council of Appeal Courts is unconstitutional,' Suleiman added. What further caused discontent from lawyers by the decisions was the State Council's rulings in 2003 to abolish the Council of Presidents of the Courts of Appeal, arguing that the council has no legal basis. Accordingly, all decisions issued by it are null and void, according to Ahmed Fouad, secretary-general of the Helwan Branch of the Bar Association. The fact that fees in some cases reach up to LE5,000 and do not go to the Ministry of Justice but to the Judges' Fund for the Courts of Appeal, is unconstitutional and unacceptable, according to Suleiman. He added that these fees stand in the way of achieving justice within society. Fouad adds that even workers and personal status cases are subject to payment of litigation fees, even though they had been exempted since 1929. Fouad points out that in 2009, the Ministry of Justice submitted a draft law to the House of Representatives to increase litigation fees. This led to a 20-day sit-in by lawyers at the syndicate, after which the draft law was withdrawn. This time around, according to Fouad, there has been no response to the demands of lawyers. He said members of the General Assembly of Lawyers continued their strike on 18 and 19 May in implementation of the decision to boycott sessions before all criminal courts nationwide. This was in compliance with the decision of the General Bar Council and branch syndicates to oppose the decision. The Bar Association affirms that violators of the strike will be referred to disciplinary action, suspended from practising the profession, and all union services will be suspended. The strike was not the first action announced by the Bar Association. It was preceded by several escalating measures, including staging protests in front of courthouses to express their opposition, boycotting the treasuries of the Courts of Appeal and their offices nationwide, boycotting all court treasuries, and preventing the payment of fees. A press conference was also held to inform the public of the consequences of the increase in litigation fees. The measures were taken by the Bar Association after it had attempted to communicate with decision-makers but with no response. The strike was part of an escalation of measures against the increase in fees. The general assemblies of the sub-syndicates held a one-hour protest in front of all primary courts nationwide on 29 May and 18 June. It also called on the General Assembly of Lawyers to convene to take whatever action it deems appropriate in this regard on 21 June at the syndicate headquarters on Ramses Street in Cairo. However, the Administrative Judiciary cancelled the meeting. But that has not derailed the Bar Association. It carried out a survey, which revealed that 21,000 of its members agreed to hold a general strike on 7-8 July, whereby they will boycott court proceedings across the country and refrain from making any payments at court treasuries. The Bar Association stressed that these procedures will take place without infraction on citizens' rights. * A version of this article appears in print in the 3 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
Yahoo
31-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Justices Sotomayor and Jackson criticize court's refusal to clarify criminal appeal rights
The Supreme Court exercises power not only in how it decides cases but in which cases it chooses to decide. We were reminded of this reality by a new dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. That dissent came Monday on the court's order list, a routine document publicizing action in pending high court appeals. That action is mostly unexplained refusals to hear petitions for review. But sometimes the justices make their thoughts known. That's what happened in the case of Missouri death row prisoner Lance Shockley, whose petition the majority rejected over Sotomayor's dissent. It takes four justices to grant review. The two-justice dissent therefore reinforces the power the court has in shaping its own docket, as well as the importance of the court's membership to how that docket is shaped. Sotomayor and Jackson have previously called attention to criminal cases their colleagues have refused to hear. They're two of the three Democratic appointees on the nine-justice court with six Republican appointees. The legal issue presented by Shockley's appeal might sound dry, but it is quite important. It involves something called a 'certificate of appealability,' which state prisoners must secure in order to press appeals in federal court. The ability to obtain such certificates differs around the country, and by turning down Shockley's appeal, the justices turned down the opportunity to clarify the rules and make the law uniform. The federal circuit in which his case proceeded has a stricter process than other circuits. So even though a judge voted to grant him the ability to appeal, that judge was overridden by other circuit judges, thus depriving Shockley of an appeal. Sotomayor wrote that she would have granted review to resolve the differences among the circuits 'and decide whether the Courts of Appeal can dismiss an appeal after a judge votes to grant a certificate.' The Obama appointee wrote that Shockley's case 'exemplifies the problems' with the approach taken by the St. Louis-based circuit in his case. He was convicted of killing a police officer after the prosecution argued he committed the crime because the officer was investigating his role in a drunk-driving incident that resulted in the death of Shockley's sister-in law's fiancé. During jury selection, a potential juror said he had written and self-published a book, but Shockley's lawyer didn't follow up on what it was about. He became the jury foreperson. That unexplored aspect of the juror's background turned out to be important because, Sotomayor recounted, quoting a previous ruling in the litigation, the book was a 'fictionalized autobiography' describing the 'brutal and graphic revenge murder of a defendant who killed the protagonist's wife in a drunken-driving accident.' The book's protagonist was a fictionalized version of the juror who 'viewed the defendant as escaping justice in the court system because the defendant received only probation following his conviction,' Sotomayor recounted. The foreperson brought the book to deliberations and handed it out to other jurors. Yet 'inexplicably,' as Sotomayor put it, Shockley's counsel declined to take testimony from the foreperson or other jurors in support of a mistrial. 'As a result, the trial court did not hear evidence regarding the foreperson's alleged bias and misconduct or its effect on other jurors, ... some of whom later indicated that they had looked through the book,' the justice wrote. She called it 'difficult to see' how the defense's approach 'could fail to constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.' Nonetheless, Shockley couldn't press his claim on appeal due to the 8th Circuit's rejection of his certificate of appealability, even though a judge on the circuit wanted to grant him one. 'Had the Court instead followed the approach taken in the Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, that error would have been avoided,' Sotomayor wrote, joined by Jackson, a Biden appointee. Again, the legal question here isn't whether Shockley would ultimately succeed in his appeal but whether he could press it at all. The court's refusal to settle the matter one way or the other means that the rules will continue to operate differently in different courts around the country. Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration's legal cases. This article was originally published on
Saudi Gazette
10-03-2025
- Politics
- Saudi Gazette
Saudi justice minister calls for clear and consistent legal reasoning in rulings
Saudi Gazette report RIYADH — Saudi Minister of Justice Walid Al-Samaani met with the heads of the Courts of Appeal in Riyadh to discuss recent advancements in the judiciary. During the meeting, the minister emphasized the critical role of court heads in ensuring the accurate application of regulatory rules. He also stressed the importance of collaboration between the technical offices in courts and the Case Preparation Center to enhance the quality of judicial rulings. The minister urged sustained efforts to improve appellate rulings, underscoring the necessity of comprehensive factual and legal reasoning to ensure clarity and consistency in judicial decisions. Al-Samaani expressed appreciation for the unwavering support of the Saudi leadership, which has driven progress in procedural, substantive, and legislative areas, including the recent approval of implementing regulations for the Personal Status highlighted the continuous backing of Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman as a key driver of judicial development, motivating all stakeholders in the justice sector.
Shafaq News
22-02-2025
- Politics
- Shafaq News
Erbil talks: Joint committee to oversee displacement camps closure
Shafaq News/ Iraqi National Security Advisor Qasim Al-Araji met with Kurdish Minister of Interior Rebar Ahmed Khalid in Kurdistan Region's capital Erbil on Saturday. The high-level meeting was attended by the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, security officials from the Kurdistan Region, and the presidents of the Courts of Appeal in Erbil, Nineveh, and Kirkuk. According to a statement from Al-Araji's office, the talks focused on conditions in the Hassan Sham and Debaga camps and coordination mechanisms for resolving their issues, with a recommendation to form a joint committee to oversee the matter and present findings to the Supreme Judicial Council in Baghdad. In 2024, the Iraqi government had set July 30 as a deadline to close displacement camps, offering a financial incentive of 4 million dinars (around $3,000) per family to encourage returns. Despite Baghdad's directive, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) has resisted forced closures, citing residents' right to choose whether to stay or return. Duhok, in particular, remains a focal point of this policy, hosting 15 camps that shelter over 3,300 displaced individuals, primarily from Sinjar, who fled during the ISIS invasion in 2014. Meanwhile, Human Rights Watch has warned that closing displacement camps in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) could jeopardize the rights of many camp residents, particularly those from the northern Sinjar district.
