EGYPT Law and Practice Contributed by: Ibrahim Shehata, Tasneem El-Naggar and Safa Rabea, Shehata & Partners
Judicial rulings Administrative Court Judgment (23 October 2021, Case No 50804 of 75 Judicial Year): • the Administrative Court reviewed the Minis - try’s objection and ruled that execution objec - tions must be based on new facts arising after the judgment, rather than re-arguing the original case; • it rejected the objection due to the absence of new facts and upheld the enforceability of the original ruling; and • the court reaffirmed that filing an appeal does not automatically suspend judgment execu - tion unless explicitly ordered by the Appeal Examination Division. Supreme Administrative Court Appeal (Case No 60817 of 67 Judicial Year): • the Ministry appealed the Administrative Court’s decision but did not obtain a suspen - sion of execution; • the Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the objection lacked a valid legal basis and rejected it; and • the Court ordered the Ministry to bear the costs of the proceedings under Article 184 of the Procedures Law. Legal implications Article 5 of the PDPL and national security While the Ministry invoked the national security exemption under Article 5 of the PDPL, nei - ther the Administrative Court nor the Supreme Administrative Court engaged with the merits of this claim. Instead, the rulings focused on pro - cedural issues, highlighting the importance of presenting new facts in execution objections.
Judicial enforcement principles Both judgments underscore that court rulings must be respected and executed unless a valid legal basis for suspension is provided. This rein - forces the rule of law and the finality of judicial decisions. Accountability in litigation By ordering the Ministry to bear the costs, the courts sent a clear message about the conse - quences of raising procedurally invalid objec - tions. This litigation demonstrates the procedural and substantive complexities of balancing national security concerns with data protection rights under the PDPL. It highlights the courts’ empha - sis on procedural correctness and the rule of law in disputes involving data protection and gov - ernment accountability. 2.3 Collective Redress Mechanisms Egyptian law does not include a dedicated legal framework or specific legislation for collective redress, such as class action lawsuits, as seen in some other jurisdictions, like the EU with the Representative Actions Directive. However, there are procedural avenues through which individu - als with similar claims can collectively seek redress, including in cases involving violations of personal data, as follows. • Representation by associations or legal entities – organisations such as consumer protection associations, labour unions or NGOs can represent groups of individuals in disputes. For example, employees whose personal data has been mishandled by an employer or a labour entity can collectively seek redress with the support of a union. Similarly, NGOs advocating for data privacy rights can assist individuals in pursuing
110 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook