Last Thursday, before government agencies (already closed) went into the Eid al-Adha holiday, information circulated about a decision from the Council of State to suspend the Cabinet's decision regarding the increase in communication tariffs. It is notable that it had not been more than a few hours since more than one complaint was filed with the Council of State opposing Cabinet Decision No. 155 dated May 20, 2022. The rampant chaos surrounding the general situation also extended to news from the judiciary, as the decision to suspend implementation would require more than two weeks before being addressed by the relevant authority.
This situation could be recorded in court, especially after the company "Touch" began collecting subscriptions for July based on the new tariff. Its bills raised an uproar before it clarified that it calculated the communications and data consumed in June at an exchange rate of 1514.5 L.L., while it calculated subscriptions for July according to the new reduced tariff at the rate of the Sayrafa platform. Additionally, the "haircut" has affected prepaid cards after converting the value of the balances from Lebanese pounds to dollars based on the Sayrafa rate.
Among these complaints:
- Some made their way to the Council of State, such as the annulment review filed by lawyer Pierre Harb, because "Decision 155 contradicts its terms and provisions with the Lebanese Constitution and the Money and Credit Law, disregarding the concept of national sovereignty over its currency." This includes the annulment review filed by "United" requesting a suspension of implementation.
- Others were presented before the Public Prosecutor's office, like the complaint submitted by the "People Want System Reform Association" based on “available information about the sale of premium mobile lines by the Ministry of Communications, contrary to legal procedures and in a manner that led to the waste of public funds.” There was also one filed by lawyer Louay Ghandoor, head of the "Lebanese Task Force for Combating Corruption," against the cellular companies for "fraud and theft of user balances."
- Some were submitted to urgent judiciary, such as the one presented by the “International Cooperation for Human Rights” association, represented by its president lawyer Ziad Bitar and activist Nimat Badreddine, aiming to "issue a decision preventing the mobile companies from collecting charges for June in US dollars or its equivalent in Lebanese pounds according to the Sayrafa rate, and to obligate 'Alfa' and 'Touch' to request the banks to collect the bill for June and before according to the old rate or 1520 L.L., and to refund the amounts that were paid for June according to the Sayrafa rate."
Regarding the urgent judiciary, a decision is expected to be issued within the next few hours. As for the Public Prosecutor, it was learned that the plaintiff's side has been heard and the investigations are awaiting completion. Concerning the Council of State, the litigation department in the Ministry of Justice, acting as the state's attorney, informed the Ministry of Communications of the complaint's content and requested its observations, which should be ready within fifteen days (the period began last Thursday). The Council will decide on the request within two weeks from the date of depositing the response from the Ministry of Communications.
In this context, constitutional researcher Judge Jihad Ismail stated in a statement that "after establishing the severe and significant damage from the disputed decision, which undermines the principles of social justice and equality, explicitly guaranteed in the provisions of the Constitution, it has become imperative for the Council of State to annul the decision under Article 108 of the Council of State's regulations. This is because the Communications Law No. 431/2002 affirms the principle of access to services for all citizens, while the contested decision would deprive a large segment of the Lebanese society from communication services due to the tremendous cost increase, restricting the benefit to a specific group of people, which contradicts the principle of equality before public burdens."
