Critique of Damascus Banking Court of Appeal’s Decision no.22/ Case no. 32 urgent, held at its public hearing on 01.09.2020 In the case between (F A & his colleague as appellee) vs. (His Excellency the Minister of Finance & General Manager of Commercial Bank of Syria, both in their official capacity as appellants originally and secondary)

Abstract

This research is about commenting on decision no. 22/2020 held by Banking Court of Appeal in Damascus regarding the jurisdiction of Banking Court of First Instance to hear cases of provisional seizure and abolishing it, denying the jurisdiction of Civil Court of first instance on this kind of cases; and setting the commencement date of the eight-day period stipulated in Article /323/ Civil Procedures Act, to be the date of actual notification of the seizure decision; in addition to describing its decision as final and not subject to any kind of challenge, even though it was issued at an urgent case. Then the author discusses the factual and legal bases adopted by the court to reach its rulings, and shows the serious professional error committed by the court in the facts of the case, which led to the final decision of abolishing the provisional seizure put on the appellee very early. Further, author addresses the social and economic implications of the direction taken by the Court in its decision. In all these stages, the author dealt with the decision according to Acts, jurisprudence and doctrine, without missing his own opinion about the different parts of the decision.