Travel Ban Order Nullified By Appeal Court

Due to the absence of the conditions outlined in Article "297" of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code, the Court of Appeal nullified a travel ban order.

It is stated in this article that “creditors have a right to exist even before they file.” In substantive cases, the Director of Execution Department or their authorized representative from the court's agents should be consulted to issue an order preventing the debtor from traveling and to temporarily estimate the debt if the amount is not specific.

It is granted upon a petition submitted by the concerned parties to the Execution Department if valid reasons exist. It should reflect a serious concern that the debtor might escape from paying the debt despite demonstrating the ability to do so. The officer may conduct a brief investigation if the supporting documents for the request are inadequate.

The lawyer Omar Al-Hammadi emphasized that citizens shouldn't be restrained from traveling in accordance with the constitution, nor should their freedom of movement be restricted.

A ruling was rendered by the Court of Cassation several months ago canceling the decision to confiscate passports. The court affirmed that “restricting freedoms in general and freedom of travel in particular is impermissible. The relevant state authorities do not possess the right to prolong depriving a citizen of their right to movement and travel.”

It emphasized that "the right to movement is one of the fundamental rights stipulated in the Constitution and guaranteed to citizens." It emphasized that "freedoms are a cornerstone of the country's stability; they must not be eroded. Violating the freedom of citizens is a breach of the Constitution.”

In a lawsuit seeking to lift a travel ban nearly a year ago, the Court (Civil Circuit) ruled that “substantial debt does not, in and of itself, constitute a substantial reason to evade debt.” According to the Court, the judge is entitled to determine the reasons for issuing the travel ban to the debtor and the grievances against them. The court also has the discretion to determine these reasons.

The conditions for the travel ban order must, however, be substantiated with justifiable reasons in the documents to support the decision. The travel ban order is not punitive; it does not coerce the debtor into addressing procrastination.

A legislator's obligation to estimate that exception is limited to its extent, without expanding its interpretation. This understanding prompted the legislator, being aware of the seriousness of this procedure and preventing it from becoming a tool against the debtor, to enclose it with a framework of rules and provisions that obligate those seeking it to abide by specific conditions that warrant its issuance.”

 

Get The Latest and important news on our Telegram Channel click here to join

Comments Post Comment

Leave a Comment

Submit