Federal Court: Decisions of the Central Bank are not immune from appeal
The Federal Supreme Court confirmed on Tuesday that the decisions of the Central Bank are not immune to appeal, pointing out that this is before the Financial Services Court.
“The Federal Supreme Court held its session under the chairmanship of Judge Medhat al-Mahmoud and the attendance of the judges of the members and considered the case of the director of the sale and purchase of foreign currency has been withdrawn license by the Central Bank,” the spokesman of the court Ayas al-Samuk said in a statement received by Mawazine News.
“The plaintiff challenged Article (69) of the Central Bank Law No. (56) of 2004 regarding the appeal against the decisions of the Central Bank before the Financial Services Court.”
He explained that “the plaintiff pointed out that this article set the period of appeal starting from the decision of the Central Bank to respond to his objection to the decision to withdraw his vacation, and not from the date of notification, similar to what is the case in the law of civil lifts and promised implicit immunity for the decisions of the Central Bank of the appeal, That this violates Article (100) of the Constitution, which prohibits the immunization of any work or administrative decision of the appeal.
“The Federal Supreme Court found that the legislator’s intention to make the period of appeal under Article 69 of the Central Law came as a legislative option and not contrary to the Constitution and based on the legal principle of (presumed science) to the relevant parties for the transactions they call “He said.
He pointed out that “that direction – under the provision – does not include immunity for the decisions of the Central Bank of the existence of a way to challenge before (Financial Services Court) and this is what the Federal Supreme Court in its ruling 147/2017, which requires a decision issued by the Central Bank to follow up from The commencement of the proceedings until its issuance and appeal if it finds a violation of the law and accordingly decided to return the case.” Source