Towards More Effective Procedure for Temporary Constitutional Protection Before the Constitutional Judiciary

Sometimes the damage affects the rights of individuals in killing, and resorting to the traditional way of initiating lawsuits to repel the aggression on their rights, and the resulting delay in adjudicating the case, would lead to catastrophic damages and irreparable results, so the judicial ruling that the plaintiff obtains after It is useless, and it is like shouting in the desert ، The legislator realized this in the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No. 13 of 1968 AD, and he created the summary judge system in Article (45) of it by saying: “A judge from the court of first instance shall be delegated to rule on a temporary basis and without prejudice to the right in urgent matters that are feared due to the expiry of time.” As for outside the city district in which the Court of First Instance is located, this jurisdiction is for the Partial Court, provided that this does not preclude the jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance as well.
These issues if they are brought to them by way of dependence.” This is what he also realized in State Council Law No. 47 of 1972 AD, allowing the court to rule to stay the implementation of the appealed decision until the matter of the case is decided in order to remedy the serious damages resulting from its implementation, pursuant to Article (49) thereof, by saying: “ Referring the application to the court does not result in staying the implementation of the decision to be annulled, provided that the court may order the stay of its implementation, if this is requested in the case sheet, and the court finds that the results of the implementation may be irreversible,….”
Here the question arises, did the procedural organization of the Supreme Constitutional Court take that temporary constitutional protection? In the case of gross violation of the constitution, and blatant departure from its provisions, in a manner that ravages the rights and freedoms of individuals, if the answer to this question is negative, then there is no doubt that it is a failure from the legislator, and he is called to rectify it as soon as possible, and if the answer is affirmative, then we proceed to another question. About the extent to which this regulation guarantees the effectiveness of such protection? Which requires standing On its borders and the controls of directing it before the constitutional judiciary, so if the answer to the last question is affirmative, then yes, it is an organization, and if the answer is negative, then the question arises about the deficiencies in this organization. If we put our hands on these aspects, we proceed to answer another question about how to remedy this shortcoming. Develop proposals that can be taken into account, which the study will present to him successively.