The Constitutional Court considered through discussion and found that the facts in the petition or the supporting documents did not show that the petitioner had his rights or freedoms violated and suffered distress or damage from the violation of his rights or freedoms directly by the Secretary-General of the EC or the EC. It was merely the petitioner’s expression of opinion as a former member of the Move Forward Party regarding the performance of the duties of the Secretary-General of the EC and the EC. In this case, it did not comply with the criteria, methods, and conditions under the Constitutional Court’s procedural law. Therefore, the petitioner could not file such petition under Section 213 of the Constitution.
credit : สล็อต เว็บตรง