EGYPT Law and Practice Contributed by: Ahmed Kotb, Mohamed Ehab, Mohamed Sameh and Yasmine ElSakka, Khodeir & Partners
11.3 Standard of Judicial Review National courts reviewing annulment claims apply a deferential standard, meaning they do not reassess the factual findings or reconsider how the arbitral tri - bunal interpreted and applied the relevant substantive laws during the arbitration process. Accordingly, any error in the tribunal’s interpretation of facts or law does not, by itself, constitute grounds for annulment, unless such an error results in a violation of public policy. This position has been consistently adopted by the Court of Cassation (Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, Challenge No. 7307 of JY 76, dated 8 Feb - ruary 2007; Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, Challenges No. 9450 and 9584 of JY 80, dated 13 November 2012; Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 13447 of JY 91, dated 11 June 2024). Egypt is a party to several treaties governing the rec - ognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, most notably the 1958 New York Convention, ratified on 9 March 1959 and in force in Egypt since 7 June 1959, without any reservations. Additionally, Egypt ratified the 1952 Arab League Convention on the Enforce - ment of Judgments and Arbitral Awards and signed the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation in 2014. Egypt has also concluded multiple bilateral treaties that incorporate provisions on the mutual enforcement of arbitral awards, including treaties with Italy, France, Jordan, the UAE, China and others. At the domestic level, the recognition and enforce - ment of foreign arbitral awards is governed primarily by the EAL, particularly Articles 52-58. The general rule is that a foreign arbitral award may be enforced in Egypt if it does not conflict with public policy. 12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention The competent court for enforcement is the Cairo Court of Appeal, which has jurisdiction to examine whether the formal and substantive conditions for enforcement are satisfied. Egyptian courts do not, in principle, review the merits of the award or reassess the arbitrators’ reasoning. Instead, the court’s role is limited to ensuring that the award does not contravene
• if the arbitral award excluded the application of the law agreed upon by the parties to govern the subject matter of the dispute; • if the arbitral tribunal was constituted, or the arbi - trators were appointed, in a manner contrary to the law or the agreement of the parties; • if the arbitral award ruled on matters not included in the arbitration agreement or exceeded the scope of that agreement. However, if the parts of the award concerning matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those that are not, only the latter parts shall be annulled; or • if the arbitral award is itself void, or if the arbitration procedure was null and such nullity affected the award. In addition to the above, the court hearing the annul - ment proceedings shall ipso jure annul the arbitral award, either partially or fully, if it conflicts with public policy. 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal Arbitral awards cannot be appealed; they can only be annulled on the exclusive grounds listed in Article 53 of the EAL. Courts cannot expand these grounds, and parties cannot agree to expand the scope of appeal per se. Parties may be deemed to have waived their right to seek annulment of an arbitral award if they fail to initi- ate annulment proceedings within 90 days from the notification of the award as prescribed by Article 54 of the EAL, starting from the date of notification of the award. Furthermore, as outlined in 5.5 Breach of Arbi- tration Agreement , parties are expected to raise any potential irregularities related to the arbitration agree - ment or to a non-mandatory provision of the EAL, both grounds for annulment in their own right, before the arbitral tribunal during the proceedings. Failure to do so – assuming the party had knowledge of such irregularity – may be construed as a waiver of the right to later invoke that ground in annulment proceedings (Cairo Court of Appeal, Challenge No. 91 Commercial in Cases No. 87 and 90 of JY 120, dated 28 February 2004; Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 15091 of JY 80, dated 27 December 2011).
198 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook