The Court

Having reviewed the documents, and having heard the arguments and the report read out by the Judge-Rapporteur, and after the deliberations;
The facts, as revealed in the appealed judgment and other documents, may be summed up as follows:
TheAppellants brought against the Respondents the civil claim No. 1584/2003 applying for the dissolution of the companies listed in the claim statement, the ascertainment of their profits and losses onanactual basis at the time of judgment, and the setting aside of (--) company to become owned thereby. The court dismissed the claim. The two Appellants lodged an appeal No. 113/2004, dated 27.5.2005, against such judgment. The court decided to appoint an expert. The Respondents submitted an application for the construction of the decision so to depute, which was registered with the appeal court as No. 770/2008, dated 31.12.2008. The court decided on the construction of the judgment as stated in its finding. The Appellants appealed such decision by way of cassation, and the appeal was presented to this Court at the deliberations chamber, and a hearing session fixed for its consideration.
Since the eligibility of judgments for appeal by cassation is a matter of public order, the court may decide thereon ex meromotu even if no party pleads the same at any stage of the claim proceedings. This is because all the rules governing the fundamentals and procedures of the adjudication system relate to public order, which makes it mandatory for the Court of Cassation to observe such rules.Accordingly, and since the construction judgment is considered, for all purposes, under Section 139 of the Procedures Law, complementary to the judgment it so construes, and is governed by the same rules relating to the means of appeal by cassation as those which govern such judgment, and since the provisions of Section 3 of Law No. 12 of 2005 on the Conditions and Procedures of Appeal by Cassation other than in the case of criminal provisions provide that “no appeal by cassation shall be made against judgments made before the settlement of the subject-matter unless the same would result in a stay of the claim proceedings”.
According to the aforesaid, and since the judgment required to be construed, which was issued at the session held on 27.1.2005, had decided the appointment of an expert without entertaining the subject-matter or resulting in a stay of the claim proceedings, thereby precluding appealing such judgment by cassation, and whereas the appealed judgment issued in construction thereof is governed by the same rules of the means of appeal by cassation as those applicable to the aforesaid judgment; it cannot therefore be appealed by way of cassation.
According to the aforesaid, it is held that such appeal by cassation is inadmissible.