Egypt / 28 January 2004 / Cairo Court of Appeal / International Trade Corporation v. V/O Stankoimport / 4/120 & 15/120
| Country | Egypt |
| Court | Egypt, Cairo Court of Appeal |
| Date | 28 January 2004 |
| Parties | International Trade Corporation v. V/O Stankoimport |
| Case number | 4/120 & 15/120 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | V | III |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | On 17 September 2001, an arbitral tribunal seated in the Russian Federation issued an award in favor of V/O Stankoimport (“Stankoimport”) against International Trade Corporation (“International Trade”) in arbitral proceedings administered by the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation. On 29 January 2003, Stankoimport requested enforcement of the award before the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal, who granted enforcement to the award by an order dated 15 February 2003. On 1 March 2003, International Trade filed a lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, seeking a suspension of the enforcement of the award and its setting aside on the basis of Articles V(1)(a), V(1)(b), V(1)(c) and V(1)(d) NYC. Stankoimport objected to the jurisdiction of the Cairo Court of Appeal to rule on International Trade’s request. On 9 March 2003, International Trade filed a second lawsuit before the Cairo Court of Appeal, requesting it to overrule the Chairman’s order. International Trade argued, inter alia, (i) that the request for enforcement of the award was in breach of Article 58(1) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law since it was made less than 90 days after the issuance of the award, and (ii) that the order of the Chairman of the Cairo Court of Appeal breached Article 298 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (“Code of Procedure”) by granting enforcement to the award even though the dispute between the Parties had been subject to the jurisdiction of Egyptian Courts. Deeming the two lawsuits filed by International Trade to be interlinked, the Cairo Court of Appeal decided on both in the same judgment, declining jurisdiction over International Trade’s request for setting aside and rejecting International Trade’s challenge to the order granting enforcement to the award. The Court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on International Trade’s request for setting aside the award since the Parties were in agreement that the award had been issued in the Russian Federation and that they had not agreed on the application of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. In rejecting International Trade’s challenge to the order granting enforcement, the Court held that Article 58(1) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law applies only to domestic arbitral awards or to awards made in arbitral proceedings that the Parties have agreed to subject to the Egyptian Arbitration Law. It added that enforcement of the award is governed by the NYC, which does not set any time limits for enforcement. The Court also held that the NYC does not make enforcement of a foreign arbitral award conditional upon a determination that the Courts of the State where enforcement is sought do not have jurisdiction over the dispute which is the subject matter of the award. The Court recalled that Egypt acceded to the NYC by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 and that the provisions of the NYC are applicable even when in contradiction with the Code of Procedure. The Court further noted that Article 298 of the Code of Procedure is applicable to foreign arbitral awards and that the Egyptian Arbitration Law, which applies to domestic arbitral awards, contains no similar provision. Thus, it held that Article 298 of the Code of Procedure would not apply based on Article III NYC which 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 Court of Appeal confirmed the order granting enforcement to the award, holding that International Trade had failed to establish that the award should be denied enforcement under Article V(1) NYC. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
