EGYPT Law and Practice Contributed by: Samer Badran, Abdelrahman Mahdy, Maya Khairy and Mazen Sayed, Badran Law Firm
Article 12 of CRCICA’s Arbitration Rules requires writ - ten disclosure both before and during the proceed - ings, with any doubt resolved in favour of disclosure. CRCICA expects arbitrators to consult the IBA Guide - lines on Conflicts of Interest, to disclose relationships with co-arbitrators, witnesses, experts and all other related bodies, eg, third-party funders, and to com - plete a disclosure questionnaire. It should be noted that, according to the Egyptian courts, neither a disclosure nor an omission to dis - close necessarily entails bias, though non-disclosure may be a relevant factor in a challenge. Under Egyptian law, an arbitral tribunal may rule on objections concerning its own jurisdiction in accord - ance with the principle of competence-competence. Article 22 (1) of the EAL empowers the arbitral tribu - nal to decide on pleas relating to its own jurisdiction, including objections based on the nullity, absence, extinction or limited scope of the arbitration agree - ment. Without prejudice to the parties’ right to seek judi - cial review of the final award, it should be noted that Article 22 (3) allows the tribunal to either decide the jurisdictional challenge as a preliminary matter or join it to the merits of the dispute. 5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention 1. Pre - arbitration : Article 13 of the EAL mandates courts before which a dispute subject to an arbitration agreement is brought to dismiss the action provided that the defendant raises this objection before pre - senting any claim or defence concerning the merits. 2. Post - award : Under Article 22 (3), where the tribunal rules on jurisdiction as a preliminary stage, ie, before the final judgment, such a ruling can only be chal - lenged along with the final award through an annul - ment action (Article 53). 5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
Adhering strictly to the competence-competence principle, Egyptian courts show an arbitration-friendly approach and a general reluctance to intervene during active proceedings. Courts do review negative jurisdictional rulings issued by tribunals within set-aside proceedings (Article 53). 5.3 Timing of Challenge Under Article 22 (2) of the EAL, parties are entitled to go to court to challenge a tribunal’s jurisdiction only after a final arbitral award has been rendered. Egypt strictly enforces the competence-competence principle under Article 22. This means that once a case is filed and the tribunal is constituted, any juris - dictional issues, such as the invalidity of the arbitration agreement, must be raised directly before the arbitral tribunal itself. If the tribunal issues a preliminary ruling asserting its jurisdiction, that decision cannot be immediately chal - lenged before national courts. A party must wait until the entire arbitration process concludes and a final award on the merits is issued. Only then can it file an annulment lawsuit under Article 53 to set aside the award. 5.4 Standard of Judicial Review for Jurisdiction/Admissibility Bound by Article 53 of the EAL and the competence- competence rule, national courts deciding on a set- aside claim challenging an arbitral award based on a purported jurisdiction or admissibility plea shall only assess the plea on a deferential standard. They would only assess the grounds on which the arbitral tribunal decided that it had or did not have jurisdiction to rule over the dispute, and the grounds on which the tribu - nal found the case admissible or not. 5.5 Breach of Arbitration Agreement With reference to Article 13 (1) of the EAL, if a party initiates litigation over a matter covered by an arbi - tration agreement, the court must declare the action inadmissible only if the defendant raises this objection before submitting any substantive claim or defence on the merits.
324 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook