2016 In re Petition for Injunctive Relief re: OrgLaw amendment (UC): Difference between revisions

From TalossaWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{cort}}
{{cort}}
{{CortRulingInRe
{{CortRulingInRe
|seal=File:Arms.png
|cort=Din el Cort Pü Inalt
|cort=Din el Cort Pü Inalt
|inre=PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF<br />re: OrgLaw amendment
|inre=PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF<br />re: OrgLaw amendment

Revision as of 10:05, 13 April 2016

  

Arms.png
Din el Cort Pü Inalt


In the matter of
PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
re: OrgLaw amendment
Petitioner
Avocat-Xheneral M. Schivâ


Decided
13 February 2016/XXXVII

Brief of the ruling
Appeal is dismissed

Opinion of the Court delivered by
Chief Justice Tamorán
joined by
Justice dal Nordselvă, Justice Cjantscheir, Justice Edwards, Justice Ardpresteir


Background

On December 29th, 2015, Attorney-General Miestrâ Schivâ issued an appeal challenging the ruling in Petition for Declarative Relief - Application of 47RZ28. The petition also sought to enjoin the Secretary of State from including The 3/4 Majority Amendment on the 49th Cosa ballot as a referendum, on the grounds that it was passed by the Ziu under false pretenses. The Cort Pü Inalt decided to hear the appeal as a five person bench composed of it's entire membership.

During the proceedings, Alexandreu Davinescu requested he be granted standing on behalf of the Ziu. Davinescu also accused Justice Txec Róibeard Nordselva of engaging in ex parte communications with the Attorney-General and requested that he be recused from the case.

Ruling

The appeal against the decided Petition for Declarative Relief re the Application of the Amendment to 47RZ28 is dismissed.

This Cort sees no reason why it should - or even can - modify a prior decision of the Cort, itself reached after due deliberation. The Cort believes that the granting of this injunction would be inOrganic. The Cort believes that this would cross the Separation of Powers. The Cort observes that the Amendment process has started, and cannot be stopped. The Cort states that there is no injury to the Petitioner.

The requests for third parties to take part in this case have been allowed only to the extent of hearing amicus briefs presenting further information: no further party has been allowed to join the Petitioner. Moreover, no person or body can represent the Ziu unless and until the Ziu itself authorises it.

In the claim of impropriety by Justice Nordselva, the Cort finds that no such impropriety occurred, and given the small size of Talossa and the inevitable overlapping of people within public offices, it is very difficult for total secrecy to be maintained. However, this Bench of Justices find unanimously that Justice Nordselva committed no impropriety.

Note that, as a consequence, this decision of the Cort permits 48RZ14 to be placed before the electorate.