Case Law
Available documents (46)
sorted by (Date of decision descending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Egypt / 27 October 2020 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / 18309/89
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 27 October 2020 Case number 18309/89 Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=6478&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 09 January 2020 Parties The legal representative of Interfood Co. v. The legal representative of RCMA Asia Pte Ltd Singapore Case number 282/89 Applicable NYC Provisions III | 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=5708&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 24 December 2019 Parties Mr. Mohamed Abbas Ghazi Elewa El-Naggar v. Mr. Hatem Hussein Mohamed Ahmed (in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Mansoura Sporting Club) et al. Case number 1458/89 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(e) Source Registry of the Court
Languages Arabic Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5704&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
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=2 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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 13 March 2018 Parties Capital Broadcasting Center (“CBC”) v. QSoft & Bassem Youssef Case number 2698/86, 3100/86 & 3299/86 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4579&opac_view=2 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=2 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=2 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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 28 April 2015 Parties Cairo General Contracting Company v. Mr. Abd Al-Rahman Hassan Sharbatly, Mr. Talal Jameel Abo Al-Enein in his capacity as the liquidator of the Saudi-Egyptian Company for Contracting and the Minister of Housing Case number 5000/78 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4400&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 06 April 2015 Parties El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) v. The Minister of Justice, the Secretary General of the Cairo Court of Appeals and the Head of the Bailiff Department at Al-Nozha Court Case number 15912/76 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4399&opac_view=2 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=2 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=2 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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 28 March 2011 Parties Engineering Industries Company & Sobhi A. Farid Institute v. Roadstar Management & Roadstar International Case number 1042/73 Languages English Summary The Parties entered into a contract for the transfer of know-how, which provided for the settlement of disputes by arbitration in Lugano, Switzerland, in accordance with the Rules of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC Rules”). On 4 February 2002, an arbitral award was rendered under Swiss law ordering Engineering Industries Company and Sobhi A. Farid Institute (“the Claimants”) to pay damages to Roadstar Management and Roadstar International. The Claimants filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting a suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside. On 29 September 2003, the Cairo Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction over the Claimants’ request. On 23 November 2003, the Claimants challenged the judgment of the Cairo Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation, alleging that the Cairo Court of Appeal had incorrectly applied the law by deciding that it lacked jurisdiction over the Claimant’s lawsuit even though the contract for the transfer of know-how was governed by the New Commercial Code, which provides for the jurisdiction of Egyptian Courts over disputes arising from contracts for the transfer of technology. The Court of Cassation dismissed the Claimants’ challenge. It concluded that the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law is limited by Article 1 to arbitration proceedings held in Egypt and to international arbitration proceedings which the Parties have agreed to submit to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. It added that this position complies with the NYC, to which Egypt had acceded by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959. The Court held that the dispute between the Parties regarding the arbitration proceedings had to be submitted to the Swiss Courts and not to Egyptian Courts, given that the Parties had agreed that their disputes were to be settled by arbitration in Lugano, and in the absence of any evidence establishing an agreement to apply the Egyptian Arbitration Law. The Court also noted that the New Commercial Code does not apply to the Parties’ contract because the contract was concluded after its entry into force. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=970&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 23 February 2010 Parties Nile Cotton Ginning Company v. Cargill Limited Case number 913/73 Applicable NYC Provisions I | II | V Source Registry of the Court
affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4398&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Tanta Court of Appeal Date 17 November 2009 Parties Al Ahram Beverages Company v. Société Française d’Etudes et de Construction Case number 42/42 Applicable NYC Provisions III Languages English 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. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=973&opac_view=2 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=2 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=2 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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 08 May 2008 Parties The Holding Company for Chemical Industries v. United World Limited Inc. Case number 945/69 Applicable NYC Provisions III Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4397&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 22 January 2008 Parties Misr Foreign Trade Co. v. R.D Harboties (Mercantile) Case number 2010/64 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(2)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(1)(a) Languages English Summary On 16 November 1977, Misr Foreign Trade Co. (“Misr Foreign Trade”) and R.D Harboties (Mercantile) (“Harboties”) concluded a contract for the supply of fertilizers which provided in its Article 13 for arbitration in London. Claiming that one of the conditions of the contract was breached, Harboties initiated arbitration proceedings which led to the issuance of an arbitral award ordering Misr Foreign Trade to pay damages to Harboties. Misr Foreign Trade then filed a claim before the South Cairo Court of First Instance requesting a declaration that it was not liable for any obligations under the contract, but the Court rejected its claim on 15 December 1991 because it had already been settled by the arbitral award. The decision of the Court of First Instance was confirmed by the Cairo Court of Appeal in a judgment dated 30 December 1993. Misr Foreign Trade challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged (i) that the arbitral award issued in its regard was a preliminary award and not a definitive one, which is contrary to Article V(1)(e) NYC, (ii) that Misr Foreign Trade signed the contract on behalf of other entities, meaning that the contract and the arbitration agreement it contained were binding to these entities and not Misr Foreign Trade which is not a party to the arbitration agreement according to Articles II and V(1)(a) NYC, and (iii) that the award was contrary to public policy as it breached Article 226 of the Civil Code by awarding interest from the date they were due and not from the date of the award. The Court of Cassation rejected the Claimant's challenge . The Court considered that arbitral awards have a res judicata effect (“autorité de la chose jugée”) starting from the date of their issuance and maintain this res judicata effect as long as they exist. The Court rejected the claim made by Misr Foreign Trade that the arbitral award was not definitive as well as its claim that it is not a party to the arbitration agreement given that it signed the contract containing said arbitration agreement. The Court also ruled that the arbitral award was not contrary to public policy as Article 226 of the Civil Code is a mandatory rule that is unrelated to public policy under Article V(2)(b) NYC. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=389&opac_view=2 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=2 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=2 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=2 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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 28 February 2006 Parties Alexandria Oil and Soap Company (AOSCO) v. Alexandria Company for Shipping Agencies Case number 595/63 Source Registry of the Court
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4396&opac_view=2 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=2 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=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Egypt Court Egypt, Court of Cassation Date 10 January 2005 Parties El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) v. John Brown Deutsche Engineering Case number 966/73 Applicable NYC Provisions V | III | V(2)(b) Languages English Summary On 26 March 2001, an arbitral tribunal seated in Geneva, Switzerland, issued an award ordering El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) to pay damages to John Brown Deutsche Engineering (“John Brown”). On 10 July 2002, John Brown’s request for enforcement was rejected by the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal. John Brown challenged the Chairman’s order before the Court of Appeal which, in a judgment dated 6 August 2003, overruled the Chairman’s order and granted enforcement to the award. SEMADCO challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and alleged that the arbitral award was contrary to public policy in Egypt and its enforcement should be rejected in accordance with Article V(2)(b) NYC. SEMADCO also alleged that the Courts of First Instance and not the Cairo Court of Appeal have jurisdiction to rule on the enforcement of the award given that Article III NYC provides for the application of the rules of procedure applicable in Egypt which are the rules of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) and Article 297 provides for the jurisdiction of the Courts of First Instance to rule on enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Court of Cassation rejected SEMADCO’s challenge and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal granting enforcement to the award. It noted that SEMADCO did not determine in which respect the arbitral award contravened public policy in Egypt. It added that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 and the NYC is applicable as is any other law of the Egyptian State and its Article III 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 term “rules of procedure” mentioned in the NYC is not limited to the Code of Procedure but includes all laws organizing the proceedings such as the Arbitration Law which is a procedural law falling under the term “rules of procedure”. Given that the provisions of the Code of Procedure provide for more onerous conditions than those provided by the provisions of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, the latter should apply to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The Court concluded that Egyptian Arbitration Law provided for the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal to rule on the enforcement of arbitral awards. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=834&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
