|
Summary
|
On 25 September 1991, an arbitral tribunal seated in Geneva, Switzerland, issued an award in favor of Société Française d’Etudes et de Construction (“Société Française”) against Al Ahram Beverages Company (“Al Ahram”) in an arbitration under the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). On 14 April 2005, the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal held that he lacked jurisdiction to rule on Société Française’s request for the enforcement of the award, noting that the award was rendered abroad and was therefore governed by the NYC and its enforcement should be requested before the competent Court of First Instance pursuant to Article 297 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”). Société Française applied for enforcement of the award before the Khanka Court of First Instance. By a judgment dated 24 September 2009, the Khanka Court of First Instance granted enforcement to the award and reduced the applicable interest rate to 7%. Al Ahram appealed before the Tanta Court of Appeal, arguing that the award should not be enforced as it contravened public policy in Egypt.
The Tanta Court of Appeal decided that the Khanka Court of First Instance lacked jurisdiction over the request for enforcement of the award and overruled its judgment. The Court of Appeal noted that requests for enforcement of decisions issued abroad are made before the Courts of First Instance pursuant to Article 297 of the Code of Procedure, subject to the exception contained in Article 301 of the Code of Procedure that international conventions are applicable even when they are in contradiction with the provisions of the Code of Procedure. The Court recalled that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 and that the NYC is therefore applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State. Referring to Article III NYC which provides that the contracting States shall enforce arbitral awards in accordance with their rules of procedure, the Court noted that the term “rules of procedure” in the NYC is not limited to the Code of Procedure but includes all laws organizing proceedings, such as the Egyptian Arbitration Law. It added that Article III NYC also provides that the contracting States shall not impose substantially more onerous conditions on the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards than those imposed on the enforcement of domestic arbitral awards. Comparing the provisions of the Code of Procedure applicable to enforcement of foreign decisions with Articles 55 to 58 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which apply to enforcement of arbitral awards issued in Egypt, the Court concluded that the provisions of the Code of Procedure set more onerous conditions than those of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. Accordingly, it decided that the enforcement of the award would be governed by the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which provides in its Articles 9 and 56 for the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal over requests for enforcement of awards issued in international commercial arbitrations. The Court therefore referred the matter to the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal.
|
sorted by (Publication date descending, Resource ascending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your searchEgypt / 17 November 2009 / Tanta Court of Appeal / Al Ahram Beverages Company v. Société Française d’Etudes et de Construction / 42/42
