Pulic Title for the case: Appealing against the constitutionality of the article 21 of the decision concerning organizing demonstrations law

Type: Constitutional

Case no.: 232  constitutional judiciary year 36

Case Year: 2014

Representation: Appellant


Verdict Date: 6 – 5- 2017

Judges: President – Abdul Wahhab Abdul Raziq

Members – Hanafi Ali Gebali – Said Marei Amr – Ragab Abdul Hakim Salim – Bolus Fahmi Eskandar – Mahmoud Mohamed Ghoneim – Hatem Hamad Begato

Court: Supreme Constitutional Court
Subject Lawsuit and no.: The public prosecution accused the appellant and others in a law suit no. 1952  year 2014 Qena department misdemeanors, that in 20-12-2013 in the department of Qena police station they organized and participated in a demonstration without a license, hindering traffic and citizens’ interests and prevented them from practicing their jobs, in the session of 24-6-2014 in front of Qena Misdemeanor Court, the court ruled of considering the defense of the prosecutor claiming the non constitutionality of the decision with law 107 year 2013 of organizing the right of public meetings, parades and demonstrations so the court postponed considering the case to session 6-1-2015 and permitted the prosecutor to file a lawsuit in front of the constitutional court so he filed the current suit.

The legal text appealed against: Article 21 of the decision no. 107 year 2013 stating the following: “Whoever organizes a public meeting, a parade or a demonstration without the notification stated in the eighth article of this law will be punished with a fine not less than 10 thousands L.E. and not more than 30 thousands L.E.”

The constitutional text claimed to be violated: Article no. 54/1 of the constitution which states: “the personal freedom is a natural right, it is preserved and should not be violated, except for the criminal being caught doing the crime, it is not allowed to detain or search or imprison or restrict anyone’s freedom of any sort except through a judiciary order which is justified and investigated”

Article no. 94 of the constitution stating: “Law prevalence is the foundation of the governance of the state. The state submits to the law,  and the judiciary independence, immunity and neutrality are the fundamental guarantees to  protect rights and freedom.”

Article no. 95 of the constitution stating: “the punishment is personal, no punishment except according to law, no punishment except through a court verdict, no punishment except for deeds come after the execution of the law”

Article no. 96/1 of the constitution stating:

“the defendant is innocent until the condemnation is proved in a legal and fair trial which guarantee him/her to defend him/herself. The law organizes appealing against the issued verdicts in felonies”

Article no. 184 of the constitution stating:

‘The judiciary authority is independent, authorized by courts of different genres and levels, its verdicts issued according to law, the law shows its authorities and interfering in justice and cases is a crime that does not become obsolete.

Article no. 186 of the constitution stating:

Judges are independent, cannot be isolated and no authority over them in their jobs except for the law, they are equal in rights and duties, the law determine conditions and procedures of hiring them, transferring them and their retirement, and it organize investigating them in discipline. It is not allowed to deputy them partially or totally except to bodies and in jobs determined by the law, all this with the  preservation of independence and  neutrality of judiciary and judges, without conflicting interests. The law shows rights, duties and guarantees decided for them.

Appealed Against: the President of the Republic, Prime Minister, Minister of Justice and Public Prosecutor.


The court ruled of rejecting the lawsuit and confiscating the bail and obliged the prosecutor to pay expenses and an amount of 200 L.E. as attorney fees.