Egypt / 23 December 1991 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / Misr Insurance Company v. Alexandria Shipping Agencies Company / 547/51
| Country | Egypt |
| Court | Egypt, Court of Cassation |
| Date | 23 December 1991 |
| Parties | Misr Insurance Company v. Alexandria Shipping Agencies Company |
| Case number | 547/51 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | II | V(1)(a) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Nasr Company for Import and Export (“Nasr”) shipped a message on board a ship owned by the Alexandria Shipping Agencies Company (“Alexandria Shipping”). Upon delivery at the port of Alexandria, damage to the message was noticed. Following the transfer of Nasr’s rights vis-à-vis Alexandria Shipping to Misr Insurance Company (“Misr Insurance”), the latter filed a lawsuit claiming compensation of the damage suffered. On 30 June 1979, the Alexandria Court of First Instance dismissed Misr Insurance’s claim given the existence of an arbitration agreement in the bill of lading, requiring resolution of disputes by arbitration in Gothenburg, Sweden. On 27 December 1980, the Alexandria Court of Appeal confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance. On 22 February 1981, Misr Insurance challenged the judgment of the Court of Appeal before the Court of Cassation and argued that Egyptian Courts had jurisdiction over the dispute because the arbitration agreement contained in the bill of lading did not determine the names of the arbitrators, thereby breaching Article 502(3) of the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”). The Court of Cassation rejected Misr Insurance’s challenge. It noted that foreign arbitration agreements are recognized in Egypt following the accession to the NYC and its application by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 171/1959. The Court added that Articles II and V(2) NYC require the Courts of the contracting States to refer matters governed by an arbitration agreement to arbitration, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void, incapable of being performed or its subject-matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration or affects public policy. The validity and effects of arbitration agreements are to be determined in accordance with the law of the seat of arbitration, which is Swedish law in the present case, so long as the subject-matter of the arbitration does not contravene public policy and is capable of settlement by arbitration in Egypt pursuant to Articles II, V(1)(a) and V(2) NYC. The Court concluded that Misr Insurance had provided no evidence establishing that the arbitration agreement was null and void under Swedish law. It added that contravention of public policy in Egypt requires a contravention of the social, political, economic or moral foundations of the State, and that a contradiction with a legal text is not sufficient. The Court held that Article 502(3) of the Code of Procedure, which requires an arbitration agreement to determine the identity of the arbitrators, is a rule that is unrelated to public policy. |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
