Egypt / 30 May 2005 / Cairo Court of Appeal / Omnipol v. Samiram / 10/122
| 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. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
