Egypt / 25 September 2005 / Cairo Court of Appeal / Abdel Wahed Hassan Suleiman v. Danish Dairy and Agriculture Seelizer Company
| 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. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Unavailable Adobe Acrobat PDF |
