Failure to accept the claim of nullification of refusal to refund judicial fees in case of reconciliation

Breaking news

The Supreme Constitutional Court, under the chairmanship of Counselor Dr. Hanafi Ali Jibali, ruled out the inadmissibility of the claim that articles 20 (20 bis) of Law No. 90 of 1944 on judicial fees are unconstitutional.

The lawsuit, number 176 of year 26, included the claim that articles 20 and 20 bis of the Judicial Fees Act were unconstitutional.

Article 20 of the Judicial Fees Act stipulates that "if the dispute ends, the court shall establish what the parties have agreed upon in the minutes of the hearing, or order that it be attached to the said record in accordance with article 124 of the case before a final judgment is issued in a sub-matter or preliminary judgment on the subject. The fees shall be calculated on the value of the interest thereon if the claim is of unknown value and the settlement of the value-added matters, which can be carried out without the need for a new court, As well as drawing th If the value of the case is more than 1,000 pounds and the reconciliation is signed on less than the fee on the basis of a thousand pounds, and if the value is not found in the reconciliation record, the drawing on the origin of the applications, even if it exceeds 1,000 pounds. Fees in reduced claims ".

Article 20 bis of the Judicial Fees Act provides that "if the defendant abandons the dispute or reconciles with his opponent at the first hearing of the case and before the commencement of the proceedings, only one quarter of the fee paid shall be due to the action."

. (tagsToTranslate) Supreme Constitutional Court (t) Law of Judicial Fees (t) Not Accepting a Case (t) Unconstitutionality of Law (t) Response of Judicial Fees