EGYPT Law and Practice Contributed by: Samer Badran, Abdelrahman Mahdy, Maya Khairy and Mazen Sayed, Badran Law Firm
11.3 Standard of Judicial Review The standard of judicial review of the merits under Egyptian law is a deferential one. Egyptian courts do not conduct a de novo review of the arbitral tribunal’s application of substantive law or its factual findings. Exceptionally, Egyptian jurisprudence recognises that an error of fact or law by the tribunal does not in itself constitute grounds for annulment, unless the award conflicts with Egyptian public policy, in which case the court may intervene ex officio pursuant to Article 53 (2) of the EAL. Egypt is a signatory and active party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforce - ment of Foreign Arbitral Awards, having acceded on 9 March 1959 by Presidential Decree No. 171/1959 dated 2 February 1959, and the Convention entered into force for Egypt on 7 June 1959 (pursuant to Article XII), placing Egypt among the founding contracting states and one of the earliest jurisdictions to be bound by the Convention. Importantly, Egypt made no reservations upon acces - sion. Egypt also ratified the ICSID Convention on 3 May 1972, providing an additional enforcement frame - work for investment arbitration awards. 12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention At the regional level, Egypt ratified the 1952 Arab League Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments and Arbitral Awards on 28 August 1954 and signed (without ratifying) the 1983 Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation in 2014. The 1983 Riyadh Convention was intended to replace the 1952 Cairo Convention and broadens the framework for judicial co-operation among Arab League member states, though its practical application has remained limited. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure Valid arbitral awards carry the authority of res judicata and are therefore enforceable. The enforcement pro - cedure is governed by Article 56 of the EAL, which vests jurisdiction in the President of the competent court (according to Article 9 of the EAL). The applica - tion for enforcement must be accompanied by:
monly allocated according to the relative success of each party’s claims, reflecting a proportionality-based approach. Tribunals retain complete discretion in both ad hoc and institutional arbitrations, with institutional rules governing cost allocation where applicable.
11. Review of an Award 11.1 Grounds for Appeal
Pursuant to Article 52 of the EAL, arbitral awards are not subject to appeal. The only recourse avail - able to parties is a set-aside action, which must be brought within 90 days from the date of notification of the award, on one or more of the exhaustive grounds enumerated in Article 53 of the EAL, namely: • Absence, nullity, voidability or expiry of the arbitra - tion agreement. • Incapacity of either party at the time of conclusion of the arbitration agreement. • Prevention of one party from presenting its defence caused by the failure to notify it of the arbitrator’s appointment or of the arbitral proceedings, or caused by any other reason. • Failure of the tribunal to apply the law agreed upon by the parties to govern the merits (a mere wrong - ful application is not sufficient to set aside the award). • Composition of the tribunal or appointment of arbi - trators in contradiction with the EAL or the parties’ agreement. • The award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement. • A legal violation in the award or the arbitral pro - ceedings in a way that affects the award. • The award conflicts with Egyptian public policy (ex officio). 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal As stated in 11.1 Grounds for Appeal , arbitral awards cannot be appealed and may only be set aside in accordance with the exhaustive grounds listed in Arti - cle 53 of the EAL. These grounds are strictly limited and cannot be expanded or modified by party agree - ment. Hence, no annulment may be sought on any ground beyond those expressly enumerated.
329 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook