Constitutional Interpretation Request No

Constitution "interpretation thereof." Interpretation request. The Federal Supreme Court " jurisdiction thereof". The Federal Supreme Court Law "application thereof." Union government. Union Emirates. Case of necessity.

- The jurisdiction of the Federal Supreme Court over a constitutional interpretation request. The basis therefor?

- The scope of the Federal Supreme Court is limited to interpreting the provisions of the Constitution and does not extend to interpreting the provisions of laws that the court addresses only by examining their constitutionality in accordance with the conditions prescribed in the Constitution.

- The interpretation request does not have a judicial aspect, which is based on prosecution and defence, and the settlement of a dispute between two parties in the meaning known in the Civil Procedures Law. It is sufficient to be submitted to the court by the government of the Union or the governments of the Emirates of the Union to interpret a constitutional text whose provisions are ambiguous and not reflect clearly and adequately the meaning intended by the constitutional legislator, in order to remove any such ambiguity and clarify its meanings and purposes so as to ensure the consistency of its application.

- The constitutional interpretation request is an in-kind request filed with the court to remove the ambiguity or confusion that may have tainted the text required to be clarified and it extends to the implicit meaning and requirements thereof, and which are not addressed explicitly, but are rather addressed implicitly and by the provisions that address cases of emergency.

- Upon interpreting the texts of the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has jurisdiction over clarifying ambiguous phrases and inferring the significance thereof according to the interpretation methods in order to investigate the meaning and purposes thereof.

- The state of emergency and public health concerns regarding the emerging corona virus pandemic "Covid-19" justify the use of procedural and preventive means that would prevent the risks that may affect a person's health and reap the souls whose preservation is one of the major legitimate purposes and allows the National Assembly of the Union to use modern technology means and visual communication, whether with respect to its sessions, the manner they are held, deliberations in the presence of the majority of its members, and achieving the principle of publicity or secrecy of the sessions as stipulated in Articles 75, 86 and 87 of the Constitution. Provided that this exception is subject to the continuance of the emergency and revolves around its existence and absence.

Whereas the court - while examining the request for interpretation - initially notes that it derives its jurisdiction over the constitutional interpretation request from Article 99/4 of the Constitution of the State of the Union and Article 33/5 of Law No. 10 of 1973 on the Establishment of the Federal Supreme Court, and that its jurisdiction is limited to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution, and does not extend to the interpretation of the texts of laws which the court addresses only to investigate their constitutionality in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the Constitution. The court also confirms that the constitutional interpretation request does not have a judicial aspect in the sense of being based on prosecution and defence and on settling a dispute between two parties, and that the constitutional circuit of the court considers the request when it is submitted to it by the federal government, one of its authorities, or the governments of the Emirates of the Union so as to interpret a specific constitutional text and clarify its meanings and purposes, in order to ensure the consistency of its application, and that it is not necessary for the matter to reach the level of disagreement or dispute in the well-known sense of the Civil Procedure Law, since this is not set forth as a requirement under the Constitution or the law on the establishment of the court; rather it is sufficient that the constitutional text be interpreted differently by multiple authorities and raises questions about the requirements of its provisions as desired and intended by the constitutional legislator, to resort to this court in order to clarify the ambiguity therein and ensure the consistency and stability of the application of the Constitution; and therefore, the constitutional interpretation request is merely an in-kind request wherein the party requests the court to remove any ambiguity and confusion in the text required to be clarified. As such, the interpretation request shall address only facts that require interpretation in a broad sense, whether with respect to the ambiguity surrounding the text or the deficient apparent meaning to deal with an emergency that was not anticipated by the legislator upon its enactment, and accordingly, the request for interpretation extends to the meanings and requirements of the text which are not tackled explicitly, but are rather addressed implicitly by the provisions that address cases of emergency.

Upon interpreting the texts of the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has jurisdiction over clarifying ambiguous phrases and inferring the significance thereof according to the interpretation methods in order to investigate the meaning and purposes thereof. Whereas Articles 75, 86 and 87 of the Constitution, which are the subject of the request for interpretation, have raised, upon their application in light of the emerging coronavirus (Covid-19), differing interpretations and opinions with respect to the sessions of the National Assembly of the Union remotely being held remotely by the use of modern technology means, regarding (the venue of the sessions of the Union National Assembly in the Union capital, the publicity of the sessions and its confidential deliberations, the attendance of the majority of the members and the vote), which necessitates the elaboration of an accurate interpretation that settles any dispute or disagreement regarding the purposes and provisions of the aforementioned articles and will be binding on all to achieve a balance between the objective intended by the Constitution as regards those texts and their proper enforcement and implementation to the extent required. In face of the dangerous pandemic that has struck all countries of the world and given the emergency conditions that the UAE is going through as a result of the emerging Corona virus (Covid-19) and its dire risks that may affect people’s health and threaten their lives, as well as the damage it may inflict on the components of the nation in all its forms, whether these risks are of a material nature, or if they require the state to deal therewith under a legislative regulation or take preventive measures that are necessary and in an urgent manner in order to face this exceptional emergency situation represented by the spread of the aforementioned virus, which led the state to confront force majeure or urgent situations and to expedite these measures; therefore, its intervention and application thereof is justified by the state of necessity and the public health concerns regarding this virus, and based thereon, to the extent that is commensurate with the requirements of the situation the country is going through in light of the continuing danger of the mentioned virus, being measures of an exceptional nature dictated by the nature and necessity of the current situation, and the said necessity justifies the use of procedural and preventive means that would ward off the epidemic risks that may affect the person's health and reap the souls whose preservation is one of the major legitimate purposes. Among the methods used by all state institutions to carry out their governmental and institutional tasks, is the remote communication between the employees or those dealing therewith, by means of modern technology and visual communication, for fear of infection with the Corona virus and in order to avoid its dire effects if they are present in one place. And since the emergency and urgent necessity imposed by this virus have fulfilled its requirements and exceptional cases in the Union National Assembly, whether in relation to its sessions, the manner they are held, obtaining the opinion of the majority of its members, and the principle of the publicity or confidentiality of the deliberations, all as indicated by the texts of Articles 75, 86 and 87 of the UAE Constitution, and in the face of that exceptional emergency situation,

The National Assembly of the Union may use as exception, the means of remote modern technology to carry out its parliamentary and legislative tasks, in accordance with the nature of the instant and emergency phase that the country is going through, provided that this exception is subject to the continuance of the emergency and revolves around its existence and absence, and this does not prejudice the previously stated constitutional texts, given their content and purposes as intended by the constitution, and therefore, they shall be interpreted in the manner stated here above by the court in its reasons.

The Court

Whereas, in the facts - as apparent in the documents - on 16/4/2020, the President of the National Assembly of the Union, deposited with the Case Management Office of the Federal Supreme Court a request for the interpretation of Articles (75, 86, 87) of the Federal Constitution, which stipulate as follows 1) Article 75 “Sessions of the Union National Assembly shall be held in the Union capital. Exceptionally, sessions may be held in any other place within the Union on the basis of a decision taken by a majority vote of the members and with the approval of the Council of Ministers.”, 2) Article 86 “Sessions of the Assembly shall be public. Secret sessions may be held at the request of a representative of the Government, the President of the Assembly or one third of its members.”, 3) Article 87 “Deliberations of the Assembly shall not be valid unless a majority of its members at least are present. Resolutions shall be taken by an absolute majority of the votes of members present, except in cases where a special majority has been prescribed. If votes are equally divided. the side which the President of the session supports shall prevail", on the grounds that the new Corona virus (Covid-19) pandemic has caused the Union National Assembly to face difficulties in performing its constitutional and parliamentary duties as regards the holding of its regular sessions at the headquarters of the capital Abu Dhabi, especially with respect to discussing draft laws presented to it, some of which to be considered summarily in these circumstances in accordance with the legal systems in force at the Assembly, and some projects required by the government to completed due to the circumstances of the current stage. These difficulties are represented in the inability of the Assembly to hold its public sessions, due to the great health risk, and in order to preserve the safety of the President and members of the Assembly and all those who, by virtue of their functional duties, participate in the regular sessions of the Assembly, which include at least 55 members in one closed place. And in view of these emergency circumstances, the Assembly intends to hold its sessions remotely by means of modern technology, and in order to fulfil all the constitutional guarantees, the matter requires the interpretation of the aforementioned constitutional texts, whether with regard to how the Assembly sessions will be held remotely and in a place other than the capital's headquarters, the presence of the majority of the votes of the members and the approval of the Council of Ministers on this exception as required by the aforementioned Article 75, or with regard to the use of modern technology, such as publishing the session’s work in the media in a way that achieves the publicity thereof, or the necessity for the public to attend those sessions as a fundamental guarantee of the principle of publicity, being a fundamental measure whose violation results in its invalidity, as required by Article 86, as well as with regard to the attendance of the majority of the members of the Assembly for deliberations and the issuance of decisions by an absolute majority of the votes of the members present, in cases other than those wherein a special majority is required, and in case of a tie, the president of the session shall have the casting vote... and that when the Assembly initiates these procedures remotely by means of modern technology. At the end of the statement, the President of the Assembly requested the court to issue a ruling interpreting the provisions of Articles (75, 86 and 87) of the Constitution and justifying the use by the Assembly of modern technology means to hold its sessions remotely, based on the provisions of the state of necessity and the justifications for the emergency and exceptional circumstances that so require.

After the request for interpretation was presented to His Excellency the President of the Court, he appointed Judge / ........ to prepare the case. After deliberation before the judge rapporteur, the Public Prosecution submitted a memorandum whereby it left the matter to the court’s opinion.

Whereas the court - while examining the request for interpretation - initially notes that it derives its jurisdiction over the constitutional interpretation request from Article 99/4 of the Constitution of the State of the Union and Article 33/5 of Law No. 10 of 1973 on the Establishment of the Federal Supreme Court,

and that its jurisdiction is limited to the interpretation of the provisions of the Constitution and does not extend to the interpretation of the texts of laws which the court addresses only to investigate their constitutionality in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the Constitution.

The court also confirms that the constitutional interpretation request does not have a judicial aspect in the sense of being based on prosecution and defence and on settling a dispute between two parties, and that the constitutional circuit of the court considers the request when it is submitted to it by the federal government, one of its authorities, or the governments of the Emirates of the Union so as to interpret a specific constitutional text and clarify its meanings and purposes, in order to ensure the consistency of its application, and that it is not necessary for the matter to reach the level of disagreement or dispute in the well-known sense of the Civil Procedure Law, since this is not set forth as a requirement under the Constitution or the law on the establishment of the court; rather it is sufficient that the constitutional text be interpreted differently by multiple authorities and raises questions about the requirements of its provisions as desired and intended by the constitutional legislator, to resort to this court in order to clarify the ambiguity therein and ensure the consistency and stability of the application of the Constitution;

and therefore, the constitutional interpretation request is merely an in-kind request wherein the party requests the court to remove any ambiguity and confusion in the text required to be clarified.

As such, the interpretation request shall address only facts that require interpretation in a broad sense, whether with respect to the ambiguity surrounding the text or the deficient apparent meaning to deal with an emergency that was not anticipated by the legislator upon its enactment,

and accordingly, the request for interpretation extends to the meanings and requirements of the text which are not tackled explicitly but are rather addressed implicitly by the provisions that address cases of emergency.

Upon interpreting the texts of the Constitution, the Federal Supreme Court has jurisdiction over clarifying ambiguous phrases and inferring the significance thereof according to the interpretation methods in order to investigate the meaning and purposes thereof.

Whereas Articles 75, 86 and 87 of the Constitution, which are the subject of the request for interpretation, have raised, upon their application in light of the emerging coronavirus (Covid-19), differing interpretations and opinions with respect to the sessions of the National Assembly of the Union remotely being held remotely by the use of modern technology means, regarding (the venue of the sessions of the Union National Assembly in the Union capital, the publicity of the sessions and its confidential deliberations, the attendance of the majority of the members and the vote), which necessitates the elaboration of an accurate interpretation that settles any dispute or disagreement regarding the purposes and provisions of the aforementioned articles and will be binding on all to achieve a balance between the objective intended by the Constitution as regards those texts and their proper enforcement and implementation to the extent required. In face of the dangerous pandemic that has struck all countries of the world and given the emergency conditions that the UAE is going through as a result of the emerging Corona virus (Covid-19) and its dire risks that may affect people’s health and threaten their lives, as well as the damage it may inflict on the components of the nation in all its forms, whether these risks are of a material nature, or if they require the state to deal therewith under a legislative regulation or take preventive measures that are necessary and in an urgent manner in order to face this exceptional emergency situation represented by the spread of the aforementioned virus, which led the state to confront force majeure or urgent situations and to expedite these measures; therefore, its intervention and application thereof is justified by the state of necessity and the public health concerns regarding this virus, and based thereon, to the extent that is commensurate with the requirements of the situation the country is going through in light of the continuing danger of the mentioned virus, being measures of an exceptional nature dictated by the nature and necessity of the current situation, and the said necessity justifies the use of procedural and preventive means that would ward off the epidemic risks that may affect the person's health and reap the souls whose preservation is one of the major legitimate purposes. Among the methods used by all state institutions to carry out their governmental and institutional tasks, is the remote communication between the employees or those dealing therewith, by means of modern technology and visual communication, for fear of infection with the Corona virus and in order to avoid its dire effects if they are present in one place.

And since the emergency and urgent necessity imposed by this virus have fulfilled its requirements and exceptional cases in the Union National Assembly, whether in relation to its sessions, the manner they are held, obtaining the opinion of the majority of its members, and the principle of the publicity or confidentiality of the deliberations, all as indicated by the texts of Articles 75, 86 and 87 of the UAE Constitution, and in the face of that exceptional emergency situation, the National Assembly of the Union may use as exception, the means of remote modern technology to carry out its parliamentary and legislative tasks, in accordance with the nature of the instant and emergency phase that the country is going through, provided that this exception is subject to the continuance of the emergency and revolves around its existence and absence, and this does not prejudice the previously stated constitutional texts, given their content and purposes as intended by the Constitution, and therefore, they shall be interpreted in the manner stated here above by the court in its reasons.