The Court of Appeal has nullified a judgment on a travel ban order, deeming it inappropriate due to the absence of conditions stipulated in Article 297 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code. <\/p>\n
The article emphasizes that “the creditor has a right of existence in the event of payment, even before filing. In the substantive case, the director of the Execution Department or whoever the General Assembly of the Plenary Court designates from the court\u2019s agents must be approached to issue an order preventing the debtor from traveling and to estimate the debt temporarily if it is not of a specific amount,” reports Al-Seyassah daily<\/p>\n
This order is issued based on a petition submitted by the concerned parties to the Execution Department, provided there are compelling reasons, indicating a severity leading to suspicion that the debtor might evade paying the debt despite proving their capability to do so. The officer may conduct a brief investigation before issuing the order if the supporting documents are insufficient.<\/p>\n
During his plea, lawyer Omar Al-Hammadi emphasized that citizens should not be impeded from traveling in line with the constitution, and freedom of movement should not be curtailed. <\/p>\n
The Court of Cassation had previously annulled a decision to revoke a citizen\u2019s passport, firmly asserting that \u201cit is impermissible to limit freedoms in general and freedom of travel in particular.\u201d State authorities do not possess the right to prolong the deprivation of a citizen’s right to movement and travel.<\/p>\n
The Council stressed that “the right to movement is one of the fundamental rights outlined in the Constitution and guaranteed to citizens.” It emphasized that “freedoms are a cornerstone of the country\u2019s stability and must be upheld and not infringed upon in any manner or extent. Violating the freedom of citizens is a breach of the Constitution.”<\/p>\n
In a ruling approximately a year ago, the Court (Civil Circuit) confirmed — in a case seeking to lift the travel ban — that \u201cthe substantial amount of debt, in itself, is not a substantial reason to evade debt.\u201d <\/p>\n
The Court noted that “assessing the grounds for issuing a travel ban on the debtor and the reasons for grievances against them are within the judge’s discretion, followed by the court. <\/p>\n
However, it is essential that the conditions for the travel ban order are substantiated with justifiable reasons proven in the documents and adequate to support the ruling. <\/p>\n
The travel ban order is not a punitive measure or a means to coerce the debtor into addressing the procrastination. The legislator necessitates precise conditions for the travel ban order, acknowledging the seriousness of this procedure and ensuring it does not become a tool used against the debtor.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Court of Appeal has nullified a judgment on a travel ban order, deeming it inappropriate due to the absence of conditions stipulated in Article 297 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code. The article emphasizes that “the creditor has a right of existence in the event of payment, even before filing. In the substantive […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":139450,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-139449","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-featured","category-local"],"yoast_head":"\n