Prof. Salim Salama Hatamla
Professor of Public Law, Department of Comparative Law
Sheikh Nouh Judges College for Sharia and Law
International Islamic Sciences University
Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Abstract:

This research topic deals with studying the idea of the interest requirement in the constitutional lawsuit, as it is one of the basic principles upon which the constitutional lawsuit is based, which belongs to the real judiciary, and in which the dispute revolves around the legitimacy of laws or regulations in themselves, and it is an area in which individuals do not have personal rights, but rather they merely have an interest that does not amount to a right. Therefore, the constitutional judiciary is satisfied with this interest to accept the claim of unconstitutionality.
The importance of the study is highlighted in identifying the provisions of the interest clause, after clarifying its concept in light of the legislation regulating the procedures for filing a constitutional lawsuit, and the legal situations that may arise from it which lead – in some of them – to deciding to reject or accept the lawsuit. Studying this topic has raised several problems. The most important of which was: the absence of a stipulation of the interest condition in the Constitutional Court law, and the extent of its connection to the interest in the substantive case, with the different cases of filing it, as well as a problem revolving around the extent of acceptance of the interest described as potential. Accordingly, the study aimed to highlight the interest condition, its descriptions, and the reasons for its absence, according to difference in the method of filing a constitutional lawsuit.
The scope of the study, in terms of subject matter, relates to the requirement of interest as a condition for accepting a claim of unconstitutionality, in terms of its nature, the extent of its connection to interest in the substantive case, and an explanation of the reasons for its expiry. In terms of temporal scope, the study addressed this topic, through Jordanian Constitutional Court Law
No. 15 of 2012.
In order to do this, the researcher followed the descriptive approach to identify the problem through examining legislative texts and constitutional judiciary rulings, while also following the analytical approach to the concepts contained in the interest clause, as well as analyzing the position of the Jordanian legislator, and the judiciary rulings and commenting on them, while highlighting the extent of their impact on the acceptance of the constitutional lawsuit and its progress.
One of the most important findings of the study is, firstly: the Jordanian legislator did not include an explicit text in the Constitutional Court law, according to which the necessary interest condition is required to accept a claim of unconstitutionality. Secondly, considering the defence of lack of interest as a formal defence, and not a substantive defence for not accepting the case. Accordingly, the study recommends that the legislator explicitly stipulate the interest requirement within the folds of the law. It also recommends that the role of the Constitutional Court be limited to examining the legality of the contested law, so that it does not extend to examining the interest requirement in the substantive case, or examining the extent of the seriousness of the challenge thereto, and relying on the lack of their availability as grounds for rejecting a constitutional lawsuit, such that the Constitutional Court appoints itself as a court of appeal on its own rulings.

Keywords: subsidiary payment, original lawsuit, realized interest, seriousness of payment, and judicial referral.

Read Full PDF Text (Arabic)