Delimiting the Legislator's Discretionary Power in a State of Law Commentary on the Higher Constitutional Court Ruling n°134 forJudicial Year 37 , Rendered on July 6th, 2019

The present ruling has confirmed an important doctrine, which was set by the Higher Constitutional Court's precedents, but which is rarely discussed by scholarly work. This doctrine is the necessity of consistency between the legislative text and its own goals. The court always links this doctrine to a general constitutional principle, which prescribes that the state shall be governed by law; this constitutional principle was expressed by the consecutive Egyptian constitutions. The court has applied this doctrine - in the present case - on the equilibrium between the employees’ rights to a share of the companies' profit, as a constitutional right, on one hand, and the encouragement of investment in shareholding companies, as a legislative goal on the other hand. The court, while replying to the applicant's arguments, also mentioned the constitutional protection of private property, which it deemed inapplicable to the employees' right in a share of the company's profit before it was distributed. The court has also discussed the principle of equality before the law, and the extent to which the legislator could validly distinguish between different legal positions with regard to this principle.

The present commentary analyzes all the above-mentioned points, while stressing on the interpretation of the above-mentioned doctrine, mainly through the present case, as well the link between this doctrine and the constitutional principle which dictates that the state shall be governed by law.