Clarification from TAGorg's Legal Advisor on the HCJ Rejection of the Appeal of Expropriation Resolution

AMMAN - In response to the inquiries received by the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Organisation (TAGorg) from various media outlets on the Higher Court of Justice?s (HCJ) ruling related to the rejection of TAGorg?s appeal on the expropriation resolution of the Abdali area, TAGorg?s legal advisor Omar Atout emphasized that the HCJ ruling is clear.

He stated that the purposes behind expropriation cannot deviate from the public interest. The court also clarified that its rejection was based on the fact that all real estate expropriated is entirely for the public interest. The breakdown of this is that 56% of such real estate will be expropriated for roads and 44% will be for public parks.

?This definitely means that any license issued for building upon any of the expropriated property would represent a deviation from the goals of expropriation.? Atout added.

The ruling was based on a single consideration, which was that there was no evidence presented to the court that foresees any deviation from the purposes of expropriation. As such, the appeal of the expropriation resolution was rejected.

Atout stated: ?I?d like to point out here that when the court issued its ruling, it reiterated that the property of anyone cannot be expropriated in accordance with the constitution, except for the public interest and with fair compensation per the law. There are clear provisions relating to this matter in the Expropriations Law, as Article (16) of the Law states the following: ?After paying appropriate compensation to the parties entitled to it, or depositing such compensation in the treasury or with the specialized registration director, the real estate is registered under the name of the expropriating party or is recorded on the maps/schemes as necessary under the orders of the director of the Department of Lands and Survey. Also, Article (3) of the Law states that ?No real estate is to be expropriated unless it is for a project that fulfills a public interest and this is done with fair

compensation.? Further, Article (10) of the Law says that ?If the expropriating and expropriated parties cannot agree on the amount of compensation for any reason, either party can ask the court to assign this amount.?

Atout added that although the HCJ ruling has ?contravened our beliefs, we will still adhere to its execution and evacuate our real estate, with no prejudice to all the rights entitled to us by law. We do so based on our commitment to the authority of the law.?