Pulic Title for the case: Appeal against the negative decision of abstention of suspending the broadcastng of Al Hafez Satellite Channel

Type: Administrative cancellation and other administrative claims

Case no.: 56920, 59825, 61162 judiciary year 66

Date: 2013

Court: Administrative judiciary

Department: Economic and Investment disputes (seventh)

Decision appealed against: The negative administrative decision of abstention of taking the legal decided procedures concerning violations committed by al Hafez Satellite channel owned by Al Barahin International company

 

First verdict date: 12-1-2013

 

Appellant: Reda Mahmoud Shaaban Barakawi Lawyer – Elham Al Sayed Ahmed Shahin (Known as Elham Shahin) – Tarek Mahmoud Mohamed Lawyer – Assem Qandil Lawyer

 

The Appealed against:  Minister of Masscommunication – Minister of investment  – Head of the General Authority for Investment and Free Zones  – Head of board of trustees of the Free Zone media Administration in his representation – Head of board of trustees of the Egyptian company of Satellites – Head of board of trustees of Radio and Television Union – Nasser Ali Moussa Kadsa as the Head of board ot trustees of al Barahin International Company owning al Hafez satellite channel – executive director of al Hafez channel – Atef Abdul Rashid an anchor and the director of al Hafez channel – Sheikh Abdullah Badr Abbas

Judges: President – Hassouna Tawfiq Mahgoub

Members: Asham Abdullah Khalil and Shaaban Abdul Aziz Abdul Wahab

Verdict text: The court ruled of the acceptance of the lawsuit in form and the suspension of the negative decision appealed against of the abstention of taking the legally  decided procedures concerning the violations committed by al Hafez satellite channel with its program “Fi Mizan Al Quran” with what results from this specially suspending the broadcasting of al Hafez channel and disconnect it for 30 days and the abolishment of the violations reasons and suspension of broadcasting any other programs under different names showing the appealed against the ninth and the tenth during the period of suspension whether directly or indirectly as it is figured in the reasons  and obliged the appealed against to pay expenses this request ordering to execute the verdict with its draft and without announcement and the referral of the lawsuit to the State Commissioners Authority to prepare a report concerning the legal point of view.

 

The report of the State Commissioners Authority: in the appeal no. 8061 year 56 supreme judiciary session dated 13-3-2013, the authority decided after informing the appealed against with the appeal draft  to accept the appeal in for and rejected it in subject obliging the appellant  channel to pay expenses