Kuwait’s Constitutional Court Rejects Four Appeals on Social and Labor Laws

28/05/2025

Kuwait’s Constitutional Court Rejects Four Appeals on Social and Labor Laws

KUWAIT CITY, May 28: The Appeals Review Committee at the Constitutional Court on Wednesday rejected four constitutional appeals -- against the decision to grant social allowance and the laws governing employment in the private sector, rights of persons with disabilities and establishment of the Capital Markets Authority (CMA). The first appeal was filed by a female citizen against Paragraph Four of Article One of Cabinet Resolution No. 390/2001 on granting social and children allowances to employees in government agencies and wholly State-owned companies.

She objected to the decision not to register her in the National Employment Support Program according to Cabinet Resolution No. 390/2001, despite meeting all the conditions. This is a violation of the principle of equality, as financial benefits are disbursed to males only, in violation of articles 7 and 29 of the Constitution. The court based its ruling to reject the appeal on the fact that the appellant failed to cite the constitutional provisions she claimed were violated, the grounds for violation and the constitutional challenges against it. In the same manner, the Appeals Review Committee did not provide evidence that it clarified these provisions before the trial court; thus, negating the ambiguity and ignorance surrounding the objection.

The second appeal was filed by the owner of a treatment center, based on Article 55 of Private Sector Labor Law No. 6/2010, which defined the phrase “the wage received by the employee.” She explained that the agreement for the worker to receive a percentage of the income as an incentive bonus entails, under the contested text, receiving this bonus twice: the first upon achieving the agreed percentage and the second upon the end of service. This is inconsistent with the principles of social justice and violates articles 16, 20 and 22 of the Constitution. The court stated in its ruling that the contested determination of an employee’s wage as a share of net profits does not violate the principles of social justice, as long as the financial benefits are agreed upon between the employer and the employee.

It added “the determination and calculation of end-of-service gratuity fall within the jurisdiction of the trial court and outside the scope of the Constitutional Court’s oversight.”

Meanwhile, the third appeal was filed by a citizen against Paragraph Two of Article 42 of Law No. 8/2010 on the rights of persons with disabilities. He claimed that the article was subject to suspicion of unconstitutionality, as it stipulated that the length of service required for pension entitlement must be 20 years for males and 15 years for females in order for the insured or beneficiary legally charged with caring for a person with a moderate or severe disability to receive a retirement pension equivalent to 100 percent of the salary. This violates the principle of equality and entails unjustified discrimination between males and females, in violation of Article 29 of the Constitution.

The court stated in its grounds for rejection that the contested text in no way discriminates between the genders. It did not limit the eligibility for a retirement pension in the circumstances specified by it to one gender or another, but rather set a condition related to the length of service of the pension claimant, setting it at 20 years for males and 15 years for females. The fourth appeal was filed by an import-export company against Articles 9-13 and 9-14 of Document Eleven of the Executive Regulations of Law No. 7/2010 on establishing the Capital Markets Authority and Regulating Securities Activity. These articles stipulate that if the mortgagee is a bank or financial institution and the debtor or mortgager is a professional client, it is permissible to agree, at the time of concluding the mortgage contract or thereafter, on the right of the mortgagee “in the event of the debtor’s failure to fulfill his obligations” to take possession of the mortgaged property, without being bound by the articles 231- 233 of the Commercial Code.

By Jaber Al-Hamoud

Al-Seyassah/Arab Times Staff