Latest news with #Law23.02
Morocco World
5 days ago
- Politics
- Morocco World
Ouahbi Responds to Constitutional Court's Rejection of Civil Procedure Code
Marrakech – Justice Minister Abdellatif Ouahbi has embraced the Constitutional Court's decision to invalidate several articles of the new Civil Procedure Code, framing the ruling as a positive development for Morocco's democratic institutions. The Court declared 35 articles of Law 23.02 unconstitutional on Wednesday, effectively sending the legislation back to Parliament. 'We do not fear constitutional oversight; on the contrary, we encourage it and see it as a genuine guarantee of the rule of law,' Ouahbi declared in a statement released by the Ministry of Justice. 'Those who doubt the role of the Constitutional Court are questioning the very essence of democracy itself.' Despite the setback to his ministry's reform agenda, Ouahbi portrayed the ruling as an opportunity. 'This decision opens the door to high-level legal debate and reinforces our reform project within and through institutions,' he stated. The minister characterized the Court's observations as 'adding value to the legislative work,' insisting they would ultimately 'strengthen citizens' trust in justice and consolidate principles of good judicial governance.' In its official statement, the Justice Ministry expressed 'respect for the competencies and independence of the Constitutional Court,' calling the decision 'an important constitutional milestone in the democratic construction process.' The ministry noted that the ruling 'reflects the vitality of the Kingdom's constitutional institutions and embodies the spirit of positive interaction between powers, within the framework of respecting the principle of separation of powers, rule of law, and protection of rights and freedoms.' The Court's decision came after Parliament completed the legislative process in July, following intense debate. The bill had followed a lengthy path since its introduction to the Council of Government in August 2023, facing strong opposition from lawyers along the way. Among the rejected provisions was Article 17, which would have permitted the public prosecutor to request annulment of final judicial decisions deemed contrary to public order within five years. The Court determined this violated the principle of legal certainty. Articles 408 and 410 were rejected for allowing the Justice Minister to refer cases to the Court of Cassation for judges allegedly exceeding their authority or on grounds of legitimate suspicion. This contravened the separation of powers principle and judicial independence guaranteed by Article 107 of the Constitution. The Court also invalidated Article 90's provisions for remote hearings, which lacked necessary procedural guarantees. Articles 107 and 364, which prohibited parties from responding to the royal commissioner's conclusions, were found to restrict the adversarial principle unduly. Additionally, the Court rejected Article 84 for using subjective criteria in the notification process, including language about individuals 'whose appearance suggests they are sixteen years old.' This was deemed to compromise defense rights and regulatory clarity. Article 339, which exempted judges from providing reasoning when accepting recusal requests, was found contrary to Article 125 of the Constitution, which requires all judgments to be reasoned without exception. Read also: Morocco Plans Special Courts in Stadiums for 2030 World Cup The Court also invalidated Articles 624 and 628, which would have given the Justice Ministry control over the judicial information system. The Court maintained that judicial administration falls exclusively under judicial authority. Ouahbi pledged to 'take the necessary legal and institutional measures, in coordination with all stakeholders, to adapt the provisions in question.' He added that this would occur 'within the framework of legislative continuity that ensures the development of the justice system in a way that serves the interests of litigants.' The ministry's statement stressed that the drafting process 'was marked by a broad participatory approach and rich deliberations' with input from judicial authorities, professional organizations, and rights groups. It renewed its commitment to continue working 'in a spirit of constructive institutional dialogue.' Morocco will continue operating under the current Civil Procedure Code while the ministry revises the rejected provisions. The amended text must pass through both parliamentary chambers before returning to the Constitutional Court for final approval. The Court validated the remaining provisions in the 644-article code.
Morocco World
5 days ago
- Politics
- Morocco World
Morocco's Constitutional Court Rejects Key Parts of Civil Procedure Reform
Rabat – Morocco's Constitutional Court has ruled that several key provisions in the newly proposed Civil Procedure Code are unconstitutional. The law, known as Law 23.02, was referred to the Court by the President of the House of Representatives last month to ensure its compatibility with the 2011 Constitution. Although much of the proposed text was approved, the Court struck down a number of critical articles, saying they undermine judicial independence, legal clarity, and the right to a fair trial. The decision marks a setback for Justice Minister Abdellatif Ouahbi, whose ministry spearheaded the reform process. Article 17 – Undermining legal finality The Court rejected the first paragraph of Article 17, which allows the public prosecutor to request the cancellation of final court rulings. The court said this violates the principle of legal certainty, which is a core element of the right to a fair trial. Letting prosecutors reopen closed cases, they argued, 'harms the principle of legal certainty.' The Court added that it would unjustifiably interfere with the stability of judicial decisions. Article 84 – Delivery of court summonses The Court also rejected the fourth paragraph of Article 84, which allows court summonses to be delivered based on assumptions, like someone simply claiming to be the recipient's agent or a family member appearing to be over 16. The Court said this created legal uncertainty and could harm the right to a fair trial. It ruled that such vague rules violate the Constitution, so this part and other related articles were declared unconstitutional. Article 90 – Remote hearings without clear rules The last paragraph of Article 90 allows for remote court hearings, such as through video conferencing. While the Court acknowledged the usefulness of such tools, it said the article did not include enough guarantees to protect the rights of defendants and litigants, particularly their ability to participate fully and understand proceedings. Articles 107 and 364 – Gagging lawyers The Court found that the last paragraph both of Articles 107 and 364 because they said parties have the right to get a copy of the Royal Commissioner's legal opinions without being allowed to respond to them. The Court explained that the right to defend oneself is essential in a fair trial, and parties must be able to comment on all opinions affecting the case. Blocking any response to these opinions unfairly limits the defense and violates the constitutional right to equal defense, so these parts were ruled unconstitutional. Article 288 – Technical error with legal consequences Article 288 was declared unconstitutional because it referred to the wrong legal article. It pointed to Article 284, which deals with who is responsible for keys to sealed doors, instead of Article 285, which explains the proper procedures to follow when a will or other documents are found sealed. This mistake made the law unclear and confusing, violating the constitutional requirement that laws must be clear and understandable. Article 339 – Silent rulings are not acceptable The Court invalidated Article 339, which would allow judges to issue decisions without providing written reasoning in certain cases. The Court firmly stated that all judicial decisions must include a legal explanation, as required by the Constitution, to allow for transparency and possible appeal. Articles 408 and 410 – Ministerial overreach on case transfers One of the most strongly worded rejections concerned Articles 408 and 410, which give the Minister of Justice the power to transfer cases between different courts or regions. The Court said this violates the principle of judicial independence and could be used to pressure judges or manipulate outcomes. The Court stressed that case management decisions must remain in the hands of the judiciary, not the executive branch, which includes the government and the Minister of Justice. Only judicial authorities, like the Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation, have the right to oversee the proper conduct of trials and request such referrals. Giving this power to the Minister of Justice, a member of the executive, violates the independence of the judiciary and goes against constitutional principles. Articles 624 and 628 – Digital justice must remain judicial Finally, the Court struck down Articles 624 and 628, which would have given the Justice Ministry control over the digital infrastructure used by courts and the authority to assign judges to use it. The Court ruled that these responsibilities belong to the Higher Council of the Judiciary (CSMJ), not the Ministry. While the constitution allows cooperation between branches of government, judicial work must remain fully independent, the court says. 'The mere 'coordination' with the mentioned governmental authority (the ministry of justice) regarding it is considered a violation of the principle of separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, as established by Articles 1 and 107 of the Constitution,' says the court. Tags: civil procedureouahbipolitics
