Egypt / 10 January 2005 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / El Nasr Company for Fertilizers & Chemical Industries (SEMADCO) v. John Brown Deutsche Engineering / 966/73
| 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 : | |
| see also : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
