Saturday 08/Mar/2025 – 11:21 am
The Supreme Constitutional Court ruled in its session held today, Saturday, headed by Counselor Paul Fahmy Iskandar, the president of the court, rejecting the lawsuit regarding the constitutionality of the first and second paragraphs of Article 76 of the Traffic Law issued by Law No. 66 of 1973, which is replaced by the President’s decision by Law No. 142 of 2014, while it included the punishment of anyone who led a vehicle reversing the direction in the public road inside or outside the cities, and the injury of a person or more A period of no less than two years and a fine of no less than ten thousand pounds.
The traffic penalty is the opposite of the direction
The court built its judiciary on the basis that this text has seduced a social interest worthy of criminal protection, which is resulted in the control of traffic and its regular roads in public roads in order to preserve the lives and money of those who attend it, after the number of victims of car accidents in Egypt exceeded the global rates, so criminalizing this act was.
The court emphasized that, as the text appointed the pillars of the crime in a clear way that does not cause concealment about its content, and showed its previous penalty, it is reasonable penalties and is commensurate with the crime in its place, and it is not difficult for the judicial uniqueness, as it falls between two limits and maximum in relation to the negative penalty for freedom, as well as the permissibility of stopping the execution of the penalty of the financial fine. The court added that what is transferred between the judge and his authority to stop the implementation of the imprisonment penalty prescribed by the referred text is the text of Article (55) of the Penal Code -which is not presented in this lawsuit.
Also, stopping the implementation of the negative punishment for freedom is not only returned to the rules of the judicial uniqueness of the punishment on which the trial court is dominated, but the purpose of the implementation of this punishment is that the constitution is brought to the legislator to achieve a balance between them in the light of several considerations, topped by the gravity of the crime and the amount of its societal impact, and the feasibility of stopping its implementation in the rehabilitation of the convict to engage in society again.
