Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal
Available documents (28)
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Egypt / 07 November 2018 / Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal / The legal representative of the Company for the Development of El-Rashidi El-Mizan Factories v. The legal representative for Metco International for Importation / 48/135
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 07 November 2018 Parties The legal representative of the Company for the Development of El-Rashidi El-Mizan Factories v. The legal representative for Metco International for Importation Case number 48/135 Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5703&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 03 July 2018 Parties The legal representative of the Company for the Development of El-Rashidi El-Mizan Factories v. The legal representative for Metco International for Importation Case number 3/135 Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5702&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 28 January 2018 Parties Abu-Ghenema Co. v. SHINNG Co. S.A. Case number 5/124 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(c) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5706&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 07 December 2016 Parties The legal representative Foshan Bo Hoy Textile Company Limited v. The legal representative of the Egyptian Canadian Paper Mill Company (EgyCare) Case number 31/133 Applicable NYC Provisions II Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5701&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 03 February 2016 Parties Damietta International Ports Company (DIPCO) v. Arab Contractors Company and Archirodon Company Case number 9/132 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4313&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 29 May 2012 Parties Exxon Mobil for Oil and Greases LLC v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, ICANN and Commercial Attaché of the United States of America in Egypt Case number 57/127 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6477&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 21 July 2011 Parties The C.E.O of El-Husan Company for Import, Export and food packaging & wrapping S.A.E. v. El-Khaleej for Sugar Co., and the Minster of Justice Case number 86/125 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(2) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5707&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 18 May 2011 Parties Misr International for Brokerage Co. v. Benson Financial for Financial Services Co. Case number 59/125 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5705&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 05 June 2009 Parties Mohamed Fouad Abdel Hamid Hassan v. El Sakka Professional Group Incorporation Case number 29/125 Languages English Summary On 23 July 2002, Mohamed Fouad Abdel Hamid Hassan (“Mohamed Fouad”) concluded a contract with El Sakka Professional Group Incorporation (“El Sakka Group”) by which he undertook to sing in two concerts in the United States of America. The contract contained an arbitration agreement and provided for the application of the Law of the State of New York. Following Mohamed Fouad’s failure to attend the concerts, El Sakka Group initiated arbitration proceedings before the International Centre for Dispute Resolution in New York. On 28 February 2006, an arbitral award was issued, which ordered Mohamed Fouad to pay damages to El Sakka Group. On 2 July 2008, the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal issued an order granting enforcement of the award. Mohamed Fouad challenged the Chairman’s order before the 7th Commercial Circuit of the Cairo Court of Appeal and requested that the enforcement of the award be suspended and the order be overruled on the grounds that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue it and, in the alternative, because enforcement of the award should be refused. He alleged that the Egyptian Arbitration Law is not applicable to the enforcement of the award, which must be requested before the Court of First Instance pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”). He also alleged that enforcement of the award should be refused pursuant to the NYC because he was refused a visa entry to the United States of America and was therefore unable to present his case. He further alleged that enforcement of the award should be refused pursuant to the NYC because it is contrary to Egyptian public policy. The Court of Cassation rejected the challenge and upheld the enforcement order. It reasoned that, when the NYC refers to rules of procedure, Egyptian Courts should apply the Egyptian Arbitration Law as it contains the rules of procedure applicable in arbitration. The Code of Procedure should only be applied when the Arbitration Law does not contain any applicable provisions. As the NYC refers to rules of procedure with regards to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, Egyptian Courts should apply the Egyptian Arbitration Law in this respect. The Court added that no evidence establishes that Mohamed Fouad was unable to present his case since he would have been able to appoint an attorney to represent him before the arbitral tribunal. The Court also concluded that the arbitral award is not contrary to Egyptian public policy. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=888&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 02 December 2008 Parties Misr Al-Hegaz Company for the manufacturing of pipelines and plastic products v. Grainer Exter Washinztnich GMBH Case number 54/125 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4312&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 02 July 2008 Parties Brothers for Import, Export and Supply Company (Egypt) v. Hano Acorporish (South Korea) Case number 23/125 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(1)(e) Languages French Summary On 10 July 2000, Brothers for Import, Export and Supply Company (“Brothers”) concluded a contract with Hano Acorporish (“Hano”) which provided in its Article 15 for the settlement of disputes arising from the contract by arbitration in Seoul, South Korea according to the Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, as well as for the application of Korean law. On 23 December 2004, an arbitral award was issued and ordered Brother to pay damages to Hano. On 19 March 2008, Brothers filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting the suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside on the basis of the Egyptian Arbitration Law and the NYC. The Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the challenge made by Brothers. It noted that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by its Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and international arbitration proceedings which the Parties agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law and that this position corresponds to Egypt’s commitment under the NYC to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, as well as to the Parties’ agreement to hold arbitration proceedings outside of Egypt without submitting them to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which means that they agreed that their dispute shall escape the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Courts. The Court deducted from Articles III and V(1)(e) NYC that only the Courts of the State where the award was issued have jurisdiction to rule on requests for its setting aside. As Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when in contradiction with the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and Arbitration Law. The rule that Egyptian Courts lack jurisdiction to rule on requests for the setting aside of foreign arbitral awards is a rule relating to jurisdiction and may be applied by the Court sua sponte. Since the arbitral award challenged by Brothers was issued in Seoul and none of the Parties claimed that an agreement was ever reached with respect to the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, this law did not apply to the arbitral award and Egyptian Courts lacked jurisdiction to rule on the request for its setting aside. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the challenge. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=383&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 16 January 2008 Parties Horus for Navigation and Shipping Co. v. Ergo Shipping Case number 92/124 Applicable NYC Provisions V Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6476&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 27 February 2007 Parties Cimenco Egypt v Nickelson Industrial Co. Case number 43/122 Languages English Summary On 4 August 1994, Cimenco Egypt (“Cimenco”) and Nickelson Industrial Co. (“Nickelson”) concluded a contract by which the latter undertook to supply an integrated system for unloading cement from ships. Article 9 of the contract provided for the application of English law and for the settlement of disputes arising from the contract by arbitration in London in accordance with the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). Nickelson initiated arbitration proceedings, claiming that Cimenco breached the provisions of the contract. Cimenco challenged the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction on the ground that the arbitration agreement was signed by an unauthorized person and was thus null and void for violation of rules of public policy in the Egyptian Commercial and Civil Codes. The arbitral tribunal rejected Cimenco’s jurisdictional objection in a partial award dated 23 March 2004. On 10 November 2004, a final award was rendered in Nickelson’s favor. By order dated 24 October 2005, the Chairman of the 7th Commercial Circuit at the Cairo Court of Appeal granted enforcement to the arbitral award. Cimenco challenged this order and requested that the enforcement of the arbitral award be suspended and the order be overruled, arguing that the order breached Article 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law by granting enforcement to an arbitral award which is in contradiction with Egyptian public policy. The Cairo Court of Appeal rejected Cimenco’s challenge on grounds unrelated to the NYC, holding that Cimenco did not follow the proper procedures mandated by Egyptian law. It began by explaining that requests for enforcement of decisions issued abroad are made before the Courts of First Instance pursuant to the provisions of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”), subject to the exception contained in Article 301 of said Code that international conventions apply even when they are in contradiction with the Code. Given that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State. The term “rules of procedure” mentioned in the NYC is not limited to the Code of Procedure but includes all laws organizing proceedings such as the Arbitration Law which is a procedural law falling under the term “rules of procedure”. Given that the provisions of the Arbitration Law provide for less onerous conditions than those provided by the provisions of the Code of Procedure, the former should apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and requests for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards should be made before the Cairo Court of Appeal. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=391&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 28 June 2006 Parties Milad Mansour Ghatass in his capacity as the legal representative of Falcon for Import and Trade v. The International Company for Trade Ikhwan (Atraco Company S.A., Paris) Case number 19/123 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4311&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 28 June 2006 Parties Mohamad Al-Shahat al-Sayed al-Khaliji in his capacity as the owner and director of Hala Tours v. P. Shipping Limited of Malta in its capacity as owner of the ship Poseidon x Case number 12/123 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4310&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 25 September 2005 Parties Abdel Wahed Hassan Suleiman v. Danish Dairy and Agriculture Seelizer Company Applicable NYC Provisions III Source Lebanese Review of Arab and International Arbitration, No. 38 (2006), pp. 54-55. Languages English Summary On 29 November 2000, an award was issued following arbitration proceedings under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). Danish Dairy and Agriculture Seelizer Company (“Danish Dairy”) requested enforcement of the award before the Alexandria Court of First Instance, which decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the matter and referred it to the Cairo Court of Appeal, reasoning that the Cairo Court of Appeal had jurisdiction under the Egyptian Arbitration Law because the award had been issued in an international commercial arbitration. The Chairman of the 75th Commercial Circuit of the Cairo Court of Appeal held that the Cairo Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over enforcement of foreign arbitral awards since the NYC provides that the contracting States commit to enforce foreign awards in accordance with their rules of procedure and the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) provides for the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance. However, in pursuance of Article 110 of the Code of Procedure, which requires the Court to rule on matters referred to it, the Chairman of the 75th Commercial Circuit ruled on the matter and granted enforcement to the award. Abdel Wahed Hassan Suleiman (“Mr. Suleiman”) appealed before the 91st Commercial Circuit of the Cairo Court of Appeal. The Cairo Court of Appeal rejected Mr. Suleiman’s appeal on grounds unrelated to the NYC. It upheld the order of the Chairman of the 75th Commercial Circuit except for its holding that the Cairo Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction over enforcement of foreign awards. It noted that the NYC provides that the contracting States would not impose substantially more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. The Court held that the Egyptian Arbitration Law would apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards because it provides less onerous conditions than those in the Code of Procedure. It noted that the “rules of procedure” mentioned in the NYC cover all laws organizing the proceedings, including the Egyptian Arbitration Law. Therefore, pursuant to Article III NYC, the Court applied the provisions of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, under which the Cairo Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to rule on the enforcement of arbitral awards. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=936&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original UnavailableAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 30 May 2005 Parties Omnipol v. Samiram Case number 10/122 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | III Languages English Summary On 29 September 1995, Omnipol and Samiram concluded a contract which provided in its Article 3 for the settlement of disputes between the Parties by arbitration administered by the Arbitration Court attached to the Economic Chamber and Agricultural Chamber in Prague. On 16 September 1999, an arbitral award was issued in Case No. 9/1995 in favor of Omnipol. Omnipol requested the enforcement of the award before the Cairo Court of Appeal but the Chairman of the 75th Commercial Circuit of the Court rejected its request on 18 January 2005 on the basis that the Cairo Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to order the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Chairman considered that the NYC provides that each contracting State commits to enforce foreign arbitral awards according to its applicable rules of procedure and that, accordingly, the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) is applicable, not the Arbitration Law, and the Code of Procedure provides that the Courts of First Instance, not the Cairo Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to enforce foreign awards. Omnipol challenged the Chairman’s decision before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting that it be overruled and that enforcement of the arbitral award be ordered. The 91st Commercial Circuit of the Cairo Court of Appeal began by determining whether the rules applicable to the request for enforcement of the arbitral award should be Articles 296 to 301 of the Code of Procedure or Articles 56 to 58 of the Arbitration Law. Since Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the Court reasoned that the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State and it requires Egyptian Courts to enforce foreign arbitral awards according to its rules of procedure and pursuant to the conditions contained in Article IV NYC and the following Articles. Article III NYC provides that the contracting States shall not impose substantially more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Comparing Articles 296 to 301 of the Code of Procedure, which are applicable to enforcement of foreign decisions, with Articles 55 to 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which are applicable to enforcement of arbitral awards issued in Egypt, the Court concluded that the provisions of the Code of Procedure provide for more onerous conditions. Accordingly, it decided that the enforcement of the arbitral award shall be governed by Articles 55 to 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law which provide for the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal to rule on the enforcement of arbitral awards. The Court decided to overrule the decision of the Chairman of the 75th Commercial Circuit as it did not apply Article III NYC and misinterpreted the term “rules of procedure” mentioned in the NYC as limited to the Code of Procedure, whereas they include all laws organizing the proceedings such as the Arbitration Law which is a procedural law falling under the term “rules of procedure”. It also granted Omnipol’s request for enforcement of the award given that it is not contrary to public policy in Egypt, was correctly notified to Samiram and no claim was made that it contradicts a judgment issued by Egyptian Courts. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=833&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 26 May 2004 Parties Egyptian British Company for General Development (GALINA) v. Danish Agriculture Seelizer Company Case number 7/121 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary After Danish Agriculture Seelizer Company requested the enforcement of an arbitral award issued in Denmark according to the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”) before the Alexandria Court of First Instance, Egyptian British Company for General Development (GALINA) filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting the setting aside of said award. The Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the challenge made by GALINA. It noted that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by its Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and international arbitration proceedings which the Parties agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law and that this position corresponds to Egypt’s commitment under the NYC to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, as well as to the Parties’ agreement to hold arbitration proceedings outside of Egypt without submitting them to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, with the result that they agreed that their dispute shall escape the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Courts. The Court deducted from Articles III and V(1)(e) NYC that only the Courts of the State where the award was issued have jurisdiction to rule on requests for its setting aside. As Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when in contradiction with the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and Arbitration Law. The rule that Egyptian Courts lack jurisdiction to rule on requests for the setting aside of foreign arbitral awards is a rule relating to jurisdiction and may be applied by the Court sua sponte. Since the arbitral award challenged by GALINA was issued in Denmark and the Parties did not agree on the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, this law does not apply to the arbitral award. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=832&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 28 January 2004 Parties International Trade Corporation v. V/O Stankoimport Case number 4/120 & 15/120 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III Languages English Summary On 17 September 2001, an arbitral tribunal seated in the Russian Federation issued an award in favor of V/O Stankoimport (“Stankoimport”) against International Trade Corporation (“International Trade”) in arbitral proceedings administered by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. On 29 January 2003, Stankoimport requested enforcement of the award before the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal, who granted enforcement to the award by an order dated 15 February 2003. On 1 March 2003, International Trade filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, seeking a suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside on the basis of Articles V(1)(a), V(1)(b), V(1)(c) and V(1)(d) NYC. Stankoimport objected to the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal to rule on International Trade’s request. On 9 March 2003, International Trade filed a second lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting it to overrule the Chairman’s order. International Trade argued, inter alia, (i) that the request for enforcement of the award was in breach of Article 58(1) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law since it was made less than 90 days after the issuance of the award, and (ii) that the order of the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal breached Article 298 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) by granting enforcement to the award even though the dispute between the Parties had been subject to the jurisdiction of Egyptian Courts. Deeming the two lawsuits filed by International Trade to be interlinked, the Cairo Court of Appeal decided on both in the same judgment, declining jurisdiction over International Trade’s request for setting aside and rejecting International Trade’s challenge to the order granting enforcement to the award. The Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on International Trade’s request for setting aside the award since the Parties were in agreement that the award had been issued in the Russian Federation and that they had not agreed on the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. In rejecting International Trade’s challenge to the order granting enforcement, the Court held that Article 58(1) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law applies only to domestic arbitral awards or to awards made in arbitral proceedings that the Parties have agreed to subject to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. It added that enforcement of the award is governed by the NYC, which does not set any time limits for enforcement. The Court also held that the NYC does not make enforcement of a foreign arbitral award conditional upon a determination that the Courts of the State where enforcement is sought do not have jurisdiction over the dispute which is the subject matter of the award. The Court recalled that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 and that the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when in contradiction with the Code of Procedure. The Court further noted that Article 298 of the Code of Procedure is applicable to foreign arbitral awards and that the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which applies to domestic arbitral awards, contains no similar provision. Thus, it held that Article 298 of the Code of Procedure would not apply based on Article III NYC which provides that the contracting States shall not impose substantially more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. The Court of Appeal confirmed the order granting enforcement to the award, holding that International Trade had failed to establish that the award should be denied enforcement under Article V(1) NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=972&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 29 September 2003 Parties Engineering Industries Company & Sobhi A. Farid Institute v. Roadstar Management & Roadstar International Case number 22/119 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary On 1 April 1996, a contract for the transfer of know-how was concluded and contained an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration in Lugano, Switzerland according to the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). On 4 February 2002, an arbitral award was rendered by a sole arbitrator applying Swiss Law and ordered Engineering Industries Company and Sobhi A. Farid Institute to pay damages to Roadstar Management and Roadstar International who then requested enforcement of the award before the North Cairo Court of First Instance. On 9 April 2003, Engineering Industries Company and Sobhi A. Farid Institute (“the Claimants”) filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting the suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside. Roadstar Management and Roadstar International (“the Respondents”) objected to the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal on the basis of Article 1 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law and Article V NYC, claiming that the Egyptian Arbitration Law is not applicable to the dispute given that the arbitration was held in Lugano and the Parties did not agree on submitting it to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court accepted the Respondents’ jurisdictional objection. It noted that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by its Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and international arbitration proceedings which the Parties agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law and that this position corresponds to Egypt’s commitment under the NYC to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, as well as to the Parties’ agreement to hold arbitration proceedings outside of Egypt without submitting them to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which entails that they agreed that their dispute should escape the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Courts. The Court deducted from Articles III and V(1)(e) NYC that only the Courts of the State where the award was issued have jurisdiction to rule on requests for its setting aside. As Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when in contradiction with the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and Arbitration Law. The rule that Egyptian Courts lack jurisdiction to rule on requests for the setting aside of foreign arbitral awards is a rule relating to jurisdiction and may be applied by the Court sua sponte. Since the arbitral award challenged by the Claimants was issued in Lugano, Switzerland and no evidence suggested that the Parties agreed on the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, this law does not apply to the arbitral award and Egyptian Courts lacked jurisdiction to rule on the request for its setting aside. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the Claimants’ challenge. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=831&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 06 August 2003 Parties John Brown Deutsche Engineering v. El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) Case number 32/119 Applicable NYC Provisions III Languages English Summary On 26 March 2001, an award was issued following arbitration proceedings in Geneva, Switzerland, between John Brown Deutsche Engineering (“John Brown”) and El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO). John Brown requested enforcement of the award before the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal, who rejected the request on 10 July 2002. On 21 July 2002, John Brown requested the Cairo Court of Appeal to overrule the Chairman’s order and grant enforcement to the award, arguing that the award met all requirements for enforcement and was not contrary to public policy in Egypt. SEMADCO objected, arguing that the Cairo Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to rule on the request for enforcement and that the award contravened public policy in Egypt. The Cairo Court of Appeal decided to overrule the Chairman’s order and grant enforcement to the award, finding that it had jurisdiction to rule on the request for enforcement. The Court noted that Egypt had acceded to the NYC and that, therefore, the NYC was applicable even when in contradiction with Egyptian laws. It added that Article III NYC provides that the contracting States shall not impose substantially more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. The Court found that Articles 297 and 298 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which are applicable to foreign arbitral awards and provide for the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance, impose more onerous conditions than those imposed by Articles 56 and 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law applicable to domestic arbitral awards. Accordingly, the Court held that enforcement of the award should be governed by Articles 56 and 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, under which the Cairo Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to rule on the enforcement of the award. As John Brown had produced all the required documents and the award did not contravene public policy in Egypt, the Court of Appeal granted enforcement. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=969&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 27 July 2003 Parties United Engineering Industrial v. Mirco Trading SI Case number 7/120 Applicable NYC Provisions III Languages English Summary On 15 June 1999, an arbitral award was issued in arbitration proceedings between United Engineering Industrial (“UEI”) and Mirco Trading SI’s (“Mirco”) administered by the Court of International Commercial Arbitration attached to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Romania. On 30 October 2002, the Chairman of the 91st Commercial Circuit of the Cairo Court of Appeal granted enforcement to the arbitral award at the request of Mirco. UEI challenged the Chairman’s order before the 91st Commercial Circuit of the Cairo Court of Appeal. The Court rejected UEI’s challenge and confirmed the order granting enforcement to the arbitral award of 15 June 1999. It began by determining the rules applicable to the request for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award which has not been subjected by the Parties to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. Given that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC was applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State and determines the rules applicable to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards which can be governed either by Articles 296 to 301 of the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) applicable to enforcement of foreign decisions or by Articles 55 to 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law applicable to enforcement of arbitral awards issued in Egypt. Article III NYC provides that the contracting States shall not impose more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than are imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Given that Articles 296 to 301 of the Code of Procedure provide for more onerous conditions than those provided by Articles 55 to 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, the enforcement of the arbitral award rendered in the dispute between the Parties shall be governed by the latter. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=830&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 29 June 2003 Parties Nile Cotton Ginning Company v. Cargill Limited Case number 129/118 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary Pursuant to an arbitration agreement dated 30 October 1998 concluded by Nile Cotton Ginning Company (“Nile Cotton”) and Cargill Limited (“Cargill”), the latter initiated arbitration proceedings under the auspices of the Arbitration Administration Committee at the American Fats and Oils Association. On 15 December 1999, an arbitral award was issued in the United States of America, ordering Nile Cotton to pay damages to Cargill. On 27 December 2001, Nile Cotton filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting the suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside. The Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the challenge made by Nile Cotton. It noted that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by its Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and international arbitration proceedings which the Parties agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law and that this position corresponds to Egypt’s commitment under the NYC to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards as well as to the Parties’ agreement to hold arbitration proceedings outside of Egypt without submitting them to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which means that they agreed that their dispute should escape the jurisdiction of the Egyptian Courts. The Court deducted from Articles III and V(1)(e) NYC that only the Courts of the State where the award was issued have jurisdiction to rule on requests for its setting aside. Given that the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when in contradiction with the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure and Arbitration Law, the rule that Egyptian Courts lack jurisdiction to rule on requests for the setting aside of foreign arbitral awards is a rule relating to jurisdiction and may be applied by the Court sua sponte. Since the arbitral award challenged by Nile Cotton was issued in the United States of America and the Parties did not agree on the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, this law did not apply to the arbitral award. affirms : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=829&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 26 March 2003 Parties Hamdy Mohamed Abdel-Al v. Faj Henwa Berenger Corporation Case number 10/119 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary On 24 May 2001, an award was issued in South Korea under the Rules of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. The award ordered Hamdy Mohamed Abdel-Al (“Hamdy Mohamed”) to pay damages to the Faj Henwa Berenger Corporation. On 10 February 2002, Hamdy Mohamed sought an annulment of the award before the Cairo Court of Appeal. The Cairo Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Hamdy Mohamed’s request. It noted that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and international arbitration proceedings which the parties had agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court added that it is a general principle that the jurisdiction of State Courts is limited to requests for setting aside arbitral awards which are issued within the State’s territory and that, as Egypt had acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State, even when it contradicts the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure or Arbitration Law. The Court deducted from Articles III and V(1)(e) NYC that foreign arbitral awards are linked to the legal regime of the State where they were issued and that, therefore, only the Courts of the place of the arbitration have jurisdiction to rule on requests for setting aside an award. Given that the Parties agreed that the award was issued in South Korea and neither alleged that the arbitration was governed by the Egyptian Arbitration Law, the Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Hamdy Mohamed’s request. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=968&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 26 February 2003 Parties Cairo for Real Estate Company v. Abdel Rahman Hassan Sharbatly Case number 23/119 Applicable NYC Provisions V | I | III | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary On 7 March 1977, Cairo for Real Estate Company (“CREC”) and Abdel Rahman Hassan Sharbatly (“Mr. Sharbatly”) concluded a contract for the establishment of the Egyptian Saudi Company for Real Estate. Article 33 of the contract provided that all disputes arising from the contract’s interpretation or application shall be settled by arbitration and that the arbitral tribunal shall determine the rules and procedures which are to be followed when settling the dispute in accordance with the laws and regulations applicable in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. After a dispute arose between the Parties, they concluded a further arbitration agreement on 12 March 1988 providing that hearings shall be held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and that the Saudi Arbitration Law shall apply. On 6 January 1999, an arbitral award was issued in favor of Mr. Sharbatly. CREC challenged the award before the Board of Grievances in the Jeddah / Mecca Region which, in a decision of 27 November 2000, cancelled part of the arbitral award and granted enforcement to the remaining part. CREC filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting the suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside. Mr. Sharbatly objected to the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal given that the Egyptian Arbitration Law is not applicable to the dispute. The Court accepted Mr. Sharbatly’s jurisdictional objection. It concluded that, as the Parties agreed that Saudi Arabia would be the place of arbitration and that Saudi Arbitration Law would apply, the arbitration between the Parties was not subject to the Egyptian Arbitration Law and Egyptian Courts lacked jurisdiction to rule on requests for the setting aside of the award. The Court added that it is a general principle that the jurisdiction of State Courts is limited to requests for the setting aside of arbitral awards which are issued in its territory and that, as Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959, the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State even when it contradicts the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure or Arbitration Law. The Court deducted from Articles I, III and V(1)(e) NYC that foreign arbitral awards are linked to the legal regime of the State where they were issued and that, therefore, only the Courts of the place of arbitration have jurisdiction to rule on requests for setting aside. Accordingly, the Cairo Court of Appeal decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on CREC’s challenge. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=828&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 29 January 2003 Parties Abdel Hakim Esmat El Sadat v. EPA Invest A/S Case number 40/114 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary On 15 September 1997, a Danish arbitral tribunal issued an award in favor of EPA Invest (“EPA”) against Hakim Company for Trade and Maritime Consultations (“Hakim”). Abdel Hakim Esmat El Sadat filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal in his capacity as a former shareholder and director of Hakim, requesting suspension of the enforcement of the award and seeking to have it set aside. EPA objected to the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal, arguing that the Parties had not agreed on the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Cairo Court of Appeal accepted EPA’s jurisdictional objection and declined jurisdiction. It noted that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and international arbitration proceedings which the parties had agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court added that limiting the jurisdiction of State Courts to set aside only arbitral awards issued within the State’s territory is a general principle recognized by the majority of modern arbitration laws, as well as by international conventions such as the NYC, which, in Article V(1)(e) NYC, links foreign arbitral awards to the legal regime of the State where they were issued and provides that only the courts of that State have jurisdiction to rule on requests for setting aside the awards. As the arbitral award was issued in Copenhagen and there was no evidence to suggest that the Parties had agreed to apply the Egyptian Arbitration Law, the Court concluded that the arbitration between the Parties was not subject to the Egyptian Arbitration Law and Egyptian Courts lacked jurisdiction to rule on requests for setting aside the award. Accordingly, the Cairo Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the challenge made by Abdel Hakim Esmat El Sadat. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=935&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 23 May 2001 Parties Ahmed Mostapha Shawky v. Andersen Worldwide & Wahid El Din Abdel Ghaffar Megahed & Emad Hafez Ragheb & Nabil Istanboly Akram Istanboly Case number 25/116 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary On 22 August 1985, Shawky & Co. and Andersen Worldwide entered into a cooperation agreement which provided for disputes to be settled by a sole arbitrator in Geneva, Switzerland. Following a dispute between Shawky & Co. and Andersen Worldwide and the subsequent termination of the cooperation agreement, Andersen Worldwide initiated arbitration proceedings on 28 March 1994. Shawky & Co. raised objections to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator which he dismissed in an award dated 11 January 1995. On 10 June 1996, the sole arbitrator issued an award ordering Shawky & Co. to pay damages along with 8% interest to Andersen Worldwide. Ahmed Mostapha Shawky (“Ahmed Shawky”), one of the shareholders of Shawky & Co., filed a lawsuit before the South Cairo Court of First Instance, requesting it set aside both awards issued by the sole arbitrator. On 30 January 1997, a second lawsuit was filed by Andersen Worldwide before the South Cairo Court of First Instance, applying for enforcement of the award dated 10 June 1996. The South Cairo Court of First Instance decided to consolidate the lawsuits filed by Ahmed Shawky and Andersen Worldwide. By a judgment dated 22 February 1999, it rejected Ahmed Shawky’s request to have the awards set aside and granted enforcement to the award dated 10 June 1996 pursuant to the NYC. On 24 March 1999, Ahmed Shawky challenged the first instance judgment before the Cairo Court of Appeal and alleged, inter alia, (i) that the sole arbitrator had decided on allegations of corruption made by Andersen Worldwide against Shawky & Co. in breach of Article V(2) NYC, as the matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration, (ii) that the award was not binding because no treaty for the reciprocal recognition of arbitral awards existed between Egypt and Switzerland, (iii) that the lawsuit by Andersen Worldwide was filed in accordance with the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) which provides more onerous conditions than those in the Egyptian Arbitration Law, thereby contravening the provisions of the NYC, and (iv) that the award contravened public policy in Egypt by ordering the payment of interest at the rate of 8%, thereby exceeding the maximum interest rate of 4% in civil matters provided in Article 226 of the Civil Code. The Cairo Court of Appeal amended the first instance judgment, reducing the rate of interest from 8% to 4%. It rejected the rest of Ahmed Shawky’s arguments. The Court recalled that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 and that the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when they contradict the Code of Procedure. It held that, in accordance with Article V(1)(e) NYC, the Courts of the State under the law of which the award was made have jurisdiction over requests for setting aside the award. It also noted that, pursuant to Article V(1) NYC, when Egyptian Courts are requested to grant enforcement to an award, they may not review its merits. For reasons unrelated to the NYC, the Court of Appeal decided that the award did not decide on any matter that is not capable of settlement by arbitration. The Court further rejected Ahmed Shawky’s allegation that the award was not binding, reasoning that Egypt and Switzerland had both acceded to the NYC, which is sufficient for each State to recognize the awards issued in the territory of the other. The Court decided that the provisions of the Code of Procedure under which Andersen Worldwide had filed its lawsuit are not more onerous than Articles 56 and 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court added that Article III NYC does not require contracting States to provide a specific procedure to be followed by applications for enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Lastly, the Court of Appeal held that Article 226 of the Civil Code, which limits the rate of interest in civil disputes to a maximum of 4%, is a rule of public policy. It thereby reduced the rate of interest ordered by the award from 8% to 4%. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=974&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal Date 19 March 1997 Parties The Commercial Company for Investment v. Bell Rover Shipping Limited Case number 68/113 Applicable NYC Provisions V | VI | V(1)(e) Languages English Summary On 7 July 1993, the Parties entered into a contract for the lease of a ship by Bell Rover Shipping Limited (“Bell Rover”) to the Commercial Company for Investment (“CCI”). The contract was signed in Limassol, Cyprus and its Article 39 provided for the settlement of disputes by arbitration in London and for the application of English law. Bell Rover initiated arbitration, claiming that the ship suffered damages. After an award was rendered on 12 January 1995, CCI filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting the suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside. Bell Rover maintained that the Egyptian Arbitration Law did not apply to the dispute which was governed by the NYC and objected to the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal. The Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on CCI’s challenge. It ruled that the arbitration between the Parties was not subject to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, as the arbitral award was not issued in Egypt and the Parties did not agree on submitting their arbitration proceedings to that law. As the Egyptian Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction to rule on requests for the suspension of the enforcement of arbitral awards or their setting aside is limited to awards issued according to the Egyptian Arbitration Law, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on CCI’s challenge. It considered that only the NYC applies to the arbitral award and deducted from Articles V(1)(e) and VI NYC that only the Courts of the country where the award was issued have jurisdiction to rule on requests for the suspension of the enforcement of the arbitral award or its setting aside. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=827&opac_view=6 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
