Egypt / 28 March 2011 / Egypt, Court of Cassation / Engineering Industries Company & Sobhi A. Farid Institute v. Roadstar Management & Roadstar International / 1042/73
| 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 : |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
