Judicial principles and studies
Constitutionality of Written‑Order Cassation and Standing Limits (Article 291)
The study summarizes the safeguards under Article 291 for cassation by written order, how limiting who may invoke it affects parties' ability to challenge, and the role of standing rules before the Constitutional Court.
Courts and procedure
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
The study summarizes the safeguards under Article 291 for cassation by written order, how limiting who may invoke it affects parties' ability to challenge, and the role of standing rules before the Constitutional Court.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that cassation by written order is brought by the Public Prosecutor General in two cases: upon a written order from the Minister of Justice or at the request of the convicted person or the financially responsible party. The remedy aims to submit the case file to the Court of Cassation for alleged legal defects in an action or a judgment that has become final and has not previously been examined by the Court of Cassation.
Summary
The legislature confined this remedy to the Public Prosecutor General, making the prosecutor the sole proper party for a written‑order cassation. Constitutional review requires a constitutional and legal nexus and must be raised by a party vested with standing under Article 60/2 of the Constitution and Article 11(a) of the Constitutional Court Law. Since the challenger was the complainant in the amicable criminal action—who, under the criminal procedure rules, does not prosecute a written‑order cassation—she lacked standing to challenge paragraphs (4,2) of Article 291; consequently the challenge was dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of standing. (Decision No. 7 of the Constitutional Court.)
Practical significance
- Confirms that written‑order cassation is an instrument reserved for the Public Prosecutor General and cannot be invoked by the complainant in an amicable criminal suit alone. - Requires the Constitutional Court to verify the challenger’s standing before admitting a constitutional plea, in line with the cited constitutional and statutory provisions. This content is an educational summary only and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
Article 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that cassation by written order is brought by the Public Prosecutor General in two cases: upon a written order from the Minister of Justice or at the request of the convicted person or the financially responsible party. The remedy aims to submit the case file to the Court of Cassation for alleged legal defects in an action or a judgment that has become final and has not previously been examined by the Court of Cassation.
Summary?
The legislature confined this remedy to the Public Prosecutor General, making the prosecutor the sole proper party for a written‑order cassation. Constitutional review requires a constitutional and legal nexus and must be raised by a party vested with standing under Article 60/2 of the Constitution and Article 11(a) of the Constitutional Court Law. Since the challenger was the complainant in the amicable criminal action—who, under the criminal procedure rules, does not prosecute a written‑order cassation—she lacked standing to challenge paragraphs (4,2) of Article 291; consequently the challenge was dismissed on procedural grounds for lack of standing. (Decision No. 7 of the Constitutional Court.)
Practical significance?
- Confirms that written‑order cassation is an instrument reserved for the Public Prosecutor General and cannot be invoked by the complainant in an amicable criminal suit alone. - Requires the Constitutional Court to verify the challenger’s standing before admitting a constitutional plea, in line with the cited constitutional and statutory provisions. This content is an educational summary only and is not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Courts, judicial principles, and enforcement
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.