EGYPT Law and Practice Contributed by: Ibrahim Shehata, Hesham Kamel, Mohamed Abed and Omar Selim, Shehata & Partners
Procedural Alternatives to Collective Redress Multiple claimants in a single action Under the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law, mul - tiple claimants may bring a single action where the subject matter or legal cause is common or closely connected. Each claimant must individually establish standing, damage and causation. This mechanism does not constitute collective redress in the technical sense. Regulatory complaints In data protection matters, data subjects may file complaints with the Center. The Center’s decisions are administrative in nature and do not amount to judicial collective redress or collective compensation. Admissibility Criteria All claims must satisfy the general requirements of standing and direct personal interest. Egyptian law does not provide a mechanism for certifying a repre - sentative claimant or aggregating claims of persons who are not formally parties to the proceedings. Indicative Timelines Actions involving multiple claimants follow the ordi - nary timelines of civil litigation. There are no expedited or special procedural rules for claims with a collective dimension, and proceedings may be lengthy, particu - larly where technical expertise is required. Typical Relief Available remedies include: • monetary compensation, assessed individually for each claimant based on the damage suffered; • injunctive or corrective orders to cease unlawful conduct; and • regulatory or administrative measures imposed by competent authorities. Egyptian law does not provide for collective or aggre - gate damages awarded to an undefined group.
brought against a telecommunications operator, it has significant implications in terms of data privacy laws. The Court held that a company may incur civil liability for data protection violations, even during the previous absence of the Regulations. Liability was established by the Court under general tort law, and compensa - tion was awarded without any statutory cap, as civil indemnification is not subject to the limits applicable to criminal fines. Enforcement Through Custodian’s Liability The Court characterised the defendant as the custo - dian (controller) of the claimant’s personal data and applied the doctrine of the custodian’s liability, which does not require proof of fault. Liability may only be avoided by proving an external cause beyond the cus - todian’s control. Allegations of fraud, employee error or technical failures were held insufficient to exempt the company from liability. As a result, the company was deemed responsible for failing to prevent unauthorised access, misuse and manipulation of the claimant’s personal data, and was required to exercise a heightened duty of care reflect - The judgment signals a shift in the judicial approach to the enforcement of the PDPL, with the following key implications: • liability without fault may be imposed for personal data breaches on the basis of the custodian’s liability; • defences are narrowly construed, and internal fail - ures or third-party fraud may not absolve liability; and • financial exposure is significant, with compensation awards potentially reaching millions of Egyptian pounds. 2.3 Collective Redress Mechanisms There is no general legislative framework allowing a claim to be brought on behalf of an undefined group of affected persons, including in privacy or data pro - tection matters. ing its professional position. Implications for Data Privacy
78 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook