Arbitration is a widely recognised and frequently used mechanism for resolving commercial disputes between private parties in Egypt. Contracting parties, whether domestic or international, commonly include arbitration clauses in their agreements – particularly in high-value commercial transactions – to ensure a more efficient, neutral, expedited and enforceable dispute resolution process.

The Cairo Court of Appeal has expressly recognised arbitration as an “international legal system” with established principles and standards that are well known to the international market. The Court emphasised that national courts are bound to respect these unified principles as they form part of international procedural public policy (Commercial Circuit, Challenge No. 2 of JY 139, dated 9 March 2022).

Egypt’s judiciary has, over the years, consistently adopted a pro-arbitration policy, particularly in the context of recognising and enforcing arbitral awards. The Court of Cassation expressly used the term “pro-arbitration policy” in Challenge No. 8199 of JY 80, dated 22 March 2022, confirming that the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards under Law No. 27 of 1994 on Arbitration in Civil and Commercial Matters (EAL) are to be interpreted narrowly, in alignment with party autonomy and international arbitration norms.

However, arbitration agreements included in administrative contracts must be approved by the competent minister or equivalent authority. Delegation of this authority is expressly prohibited (Article 1 of the EAL; State Council, Challenge No. 8256 of JY 56, dated 5 March 2016). Additionally, Prime Ministerial Decree No. 1062 of 2019, as amended, established the High Committee for Arbitration and International Disputes under the Council of Ministers. This Committee is mandated to review mainly agreements with foreign investors that include arbitration clauses prior to their conclusion. The Committee is also tasked with opining on ongoing commercial and investment arbitration proceedings involving the state and its affiliates.

In the context of investment arbitration, Egypt remains a prominent jurisdiction. Most of Egypt’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs) provide for arbitration as the dispute settlement mechanism. Following the 2011 revolution, Egypt has seen a notable increase in investor-state claims, including 28 ICSID cases as of July 2025.

Egypt enacted a new Investment Law (No. 72 of 2017), which introduced mechanisms for dispute avoidance and amicable settlement in an effort to reduce the state’s exposure to costly arbitration. Egypt is also regularly selected as a seat of arbitration, supported by a robust legislative framework largely aligned with the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”) and the presence of reputable arbitral institutions such as the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA).

Several industry sectors in Egypt have seen a notable increase in international arbitration activity in recent years. According to the CRCICA 2024 Caseload Report, the most active sectors included retail, real estate development, construction, tourism and hospitality, international sale of goods, healthcare, oil and gas, media and public works.

While construction disputes have traditionally dominated CRCICA’s caseload – comprising nearly 40% of cases in 2023 – a significant shift occurred in 2024, with construction matters falling to just 10.5% of the total cases. For the first time since 2019, construction was no longer the leading sector. In contrast, retail disputes rose sharply, constituting 22% of CRCICA’s caseload, followed by real estate development (12%), tourism and hospitality (6.5%), and other sectors such as international sale of goods, healthcare, and oil and gas (each at approximately 5%).

In sum, Egypt’s international arbitration landscape is no longer dominated by a single industry. Instead, the data reflects a more sectorally diverse arbitration environment, consistent with the country’s expanding economy and the increasing use of arbitration across a range of commercial fields.

The most commonly used and leading arbitral institution in Egypt is CRCICA, an independent, non-profit international organisation established in 1979. CRCICA administers both domestic and international arbitration disputes and offers a variety of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, including mediation, conciliation and arbitration. It is the principal arbitral forum of choice in Egypt and is frequently selected in contracts involving parties across the Middle East, Africa and Europe.

CRCICA’s procedural rules are based on the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and are regularly updated to reflect international best practices. Its most recent set of Arbitration Rules came into effect on 15 January 2024, superseding the 2011 version. CRCICA also maintains Mediation Rules (2013), issued in Arabic and English, and Dispute Board Rules (2021), available in Arabic, English and French. In addition to case administration, CRCICA actively promotes arbitration in the region by organising conferences, workshops and training programmes in collaboration with leading arbitration practitioners from Egypt and abroad.

In the context of disputes involving public entities, parties sometimes submit claims to the Ministry of Justice Arbitration Body, particularly when the dispute involves government authorities. While not a standing arbitral institution, this body acts as an ad hoc dispute resolution forum in specific cases. Its legitimacy has been affirmed by Egyptian courts, including the High Administrative Court in Case No. 77169 of JY 69 (26 January 2025), which confirmed the binding nature of arbitral awards issued under this framework.

In addition to CRCICA, Egypt is home to another specialised arbitral institution: the Egyptian Center for Arbitration and Settlement of Non-Banking Financial Disputes (ECAS). Established in 2019 within the Financial Regulatory Authority by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 335 of 2019, ECAS operates as an independent body focused on resolving disputes in the non-banking financial sector. Its statutes, as well as its arbitration and mediation rules, were formally issued by Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2597 of 2020. ECAS was designed to enhance investor confidence and regulatory oversight in areas such as capital markets, insurance and microfinance, although it has a narrower sectoral scope compared to CRCICA.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the EAL, the competent court for arbitration disputes is generally the court having original jurisdiction over the subject matter of the dispute. For international arbitration, whether conducted within Egypt or abroad, the Cairo Court of Appeal is recognised as the primary competent judicial authority, unless the parties have agreed to another appellate court. This Court of Appeal handles key judicial interventions including challenges to arbitral awards, applications for interim measures, and enforcement proceedings, thereby playing a central role in the judicial oversight of arbitration.

In addition to the Cairo Court of Appeal, Egypt’s Court of Cassation – the highest civil court – exercises supervisory jurisdiction over arbitration-related judgments. Its role is to ensure a uniform and consistent interpretation and application of arbitration law, thereby harmonising judicial practice across all courts handling arbitration matters.

Distinctly, arbitration disputes involving public entities or governmental authorities, especially those concerning public law or administrative contracts, fall within the jurisdiction of the High Administrative Court. The administrative judiciary, including the State Council and its affiliated courts, handles arbitration in the public law context. The High Administrative Court serves as the final judicial authority in administrative arbitration matters, providing a separate judicial avenue tailored to the specificities of disputes involving government entities.

Arbitration in Egypt is governed by the EAL, which replaced the arbitration provisions previously contained in the Egyptian Code of Civil and Commercial Procedures.

The EAL is based on the Model Law but diverges in several important respects. It applies to both domestic and international arbitrations (Article 1) and may extend extraterritorially to arbitrations seated abroad if the parties agree to apply Egyptian arbitration law. A notable local adaptation concerns arbitration agreements in administrative contracts involving public entities, which require prior approval by the competent minister or designated authority without delegation, reflecting Egypt’s regulatory framework for public law contracts.

The EAL introduces detailed criteria to determine the international character of an arbitration, such as institutional arbitration, the parties’ principal places of business, and the location of performance or closest connection to the dispute (Article 3). The law also imposes a stricter writing requirement for arbitration agreements than the Model Law, mandating a signed document or an exchange of written communications (Article 12), while implicitly permitting electronic communications if they satisfy this requirement. Unlike the Model Law’s “referral exception”, the EAL excludes court jurisdiction to rule on the validity of arbitration agreements before the tribunal has issued an award (Article 13), although some Egyptian courts have nevertheless examined validity issues in practice. The EAL requires an odd number of arbitrators under penalty of award nullity (Article 15) and sets a higher threshold for challenging arbitrators, limiting challenges to serious doubts about impartiality or independence (Article 18). Preliminary jurisdictional rulings by tribunals cannot be challenged before courts until the final award is rendered (Article 22). Unlike the Model Law, the EAL does not grant tribunals default authority to order interim relief; such powers must be conferred by the parties’ agreement (Article 24). The default arbitration language is Arabic unless otherwise agreed (Article 29). In the absence of an agreement on applicable law, tribunals may apply the law with the closest connection to the dispute (Article 39). The EAL adds an annulment ground not found in the Model Law – non-application of the lex causae chosen by the parties (Article 53) – and for enforcement purposes, requires that the award not contradict any prior Egyptian court judgment on the merits (Article 58). Egyptian competent courts play a pivotal supervisory role, ensuring consistent interpretation and application of the arbitration framework. Overall, the EAL balances alignment with international best practices and the Model Law with adaptations reflecting Egypt’s legal culture and administrative realities, offering a comprehensive and investor-friendly arbitration regime.

In March 2022, the Deputy Minister of Justice for Arbitration and International Disputes issued Decree No. 8 of 2022, establishing a specialised committee composed of Ministry of Justice officials, arbitration practitioners, academics and legal experts to review the EAL and propose amendments. This committee was tasked with preparing a comprehensive legislative reform proposal for submission to the Minister of Justice. On 19 May 2025, the Egyptian Council of Senate reviewed the committee’s report and commenced discussions on proposed amendments aimed at modernising Egypt’s arbitration framework to better align with international best practices and improve the investment climate. Among the most notable proposed changes is the revision of Article 3 to clarify the definition of “international arbitration”. The amendment would establish that the existence of any one of several criteria – such as parties having places of business in different countries, resorting to a permanent arbitration institution such as CRCICA, or the dispute involving more than one state – would suffice to classify the arbitration as international, removing the prior requirement that the dispute be linked to international trade. This change is expected to provide greater legal certainty and broaden the applicability of the EAL to a wider range of cross-border disputes.

Further, the proposed amendment to Article 54 seeks to reduce the time limit for filing annulment actions from 90 to 30 days, while transferring jurisdiction over annulment cases from courts of first instance to the Court of Cassation. This centralisation aims to expedite annulment proceedings, thereby reducing delays and enhancing finality in arbitration disputes. The move also reflects an intent to concentrate judicial arbitration expertise within the highest civil court, promoting consistency in rulings.

In response to a recent ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court deeming certain provisions unconstitutional, the committee has proposed amendments to Article 58 to regulate the procedures for challenging enforcement orders of arbitral awards. This signals ongoing judicial-legislative dialogue and demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring enforcement mechanisms comply with constitutional standards.

These amendments, if enacted, would mark a significant evolution in Egypt’s arbitration law, strengthening the legal framework’s clarity, efficiency and investor-friendliness.

In addition to the general requirements provided by the Egyptian Civil Code (Law No. 131 of 1948) on the validity of agreements, Articles 1, 10, 11 and 12 of the EAL set the requirements for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable as follows, noting that failure to fulfil any of these requirements renders the arbitration agreement invalid:

• The parties (whether natural or legal persons) must have the capacity to dispose of their rights and conclude an arbitration agreement, noting that bringing the matter before state courts constitutes waiver of the concluded arbitration agreement.
• The arbitration agreements included in administrative contracts must be concluded upon approval by the competent minister or by whoever assumes authority with respect to public entities. Delegation of authority shall not be authorised in this respect.
• The subject of the dispute must be arbitrable, ie, it can be subject to compromise and could be amicably settled, such as a commercial or business-related dispute. Conversely, non-arbitrable disputes include, inter alia, those relating to rights and liabilities arising out of criminal offences and matrimonial/personal status disputes.
• The issues in dispute must be clearly identified in the statement of claim submitted to the arbitration proceedings if the arbitration agreement was concluded before the dispute arose. If the arbitration agreement was concluded after the dispute arose, the parties must explicitly specify the issues subject to arbitration.
• The arbitration agreement must be in writing and signed by the parties, which includes by electronic means.

Articles 2 and 11 of the EAL provide explicitly that the matters subject to arbitration must be of an economic nature, whether contractual or non-contractual, and in addition must be subject to amicable settlement; that is to say, matters where reconciliation is not permissible cannot be arbitrable. The Egyptian Civil Code clarified the nature of these matters as those that involve personal status, public policy or criminal matters.

The general approach used in Egypt to determine the arbitrability of a dispute is that the dispute must have arisen out of a legal relationship, whether contractual or non-contractual, and be of an economic nature. In this regard, the financial interest arising from a personal status matter or a crime is arbitrable as it is permissible to reconciliate.

In cases where the parties did not determine the law governing the arbitration agreement, the Egyptian courts tend to apply the law of the seat of arbitration agreed by the parties, provided that the chosen law does not conflict with the rules of Egyptian public policy (Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 1259 of JY 49, dated 13 June 1983).

The Egyptian courts, so long as the requirements of an arbitration agreement are fulfilled, uphold the “pacta sunt servanda” principle, and respect the parties’ will and agreement to resort to arbitration.

In this respect, the Economic Court ruled that if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement upholds this agreement as the way accepted by the parties to settle disputes arising between them in connection with the implementation of their contractual or non-contractual obligations and proves the existence of this agreement, and the agreement fulfils the legal requirements for its enforcement, the Court must render the case inadmissible if the defendant pleads the above before making any claims or defence in the case (Economic Court, decision No. 145 of 2009, dated 29 December 2009).

This is further confirmed by the Court of Cassation, which held that if the defendant presents claims or defences before raising this objection, it is considered that it has implicitly accepted the court’s jurisdiction and thereby waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement (Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 6014 of JY 88, dated 15 March 2023).

Egyptian law applies the rule of separability to arbitration clauses contained in invalid agreements; that is to say, an arbitration clause may be still valid even if the remainder of the contract is not. According to Article 23 of the EAL, the arbitration clause is deemed independent and separate from the other, invalid clauses of the contract; therefore, it is not affected by the invalidity, rescission or termination of the contract.

The EAL does not set limits on the parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators; however, Article 16 thereof sets out the requirements that should be fulfilled by the arbitrator selected by each party. According to these requirements, the arbitrator must be a natural person who has full legal capacity and has not been deprived of his/her civil rights due to a conviction for a felony or dishonourable misdemeanour, or due to bankruptcy, unless he/she has been legally rehabilitated.

Other than that, there is no limitation as to gender, nationality, religion, expertise or education of the arbitrators selected by the parties.

In ad hoc arbitrations, in the absence of an agreement between the parties on a method for appointing arbitrators, or in the event that the agreed method fails, the EAL provides for default procedures as per Articles 15 and 17 thereof.

Article 15 of the EAL provides that the agreed number of arbitrators shall be an odd number and, in the absence of an agreement between the parties on the number of arbitrators to be appointed, the number shall be three.

Article 17 of the EAL provides the default procedure in the event that (a) the parties agreed to appoint one (sole) arbitrator or (b) the parties agreed to select three arbitrators.

In the event of (a) above, the competent court undertakes the appointment of the arbitrator upon the request of either party. In the case of international commercial arbitration, whether conducted in Egypt or abroad, the competent court shall automatically be the Cairo Court of Appeal unless the parties agree otherwise.

In the event of (b) above, each party shall appoint one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators shall appoint the chairperson. If a party fails to appoint an arbitrator, or if the arbitrators fail to appoint the presiding arbitrator within 30 days of the request, the competent court may intervene and make the appointment upon either party’s request. The same rules shall apply where the arbitral tribunal consists of more than three arbitrators.

In institutional arbitrations, the rules of the institution agreed upon by the parties provide the method of appointment of arbitrators. For example, in the event that the parties agreed that the arbitration proceedings should be conducted under the auspices of CRCICA, the CRCICA Rules shall apply.

It should be noted that the EAL does not regulate the failure of the method for selecting arbitrators in multiparty arbitration. However, in institutional arbitrations conducted under CRCICA, Article 11 of the CRCICA Rules addresses the constitution of the arbitral tribunal in multiparty arbitration, and in the event of failure to appoint arbitrators via the method as provided in Article 11, CRCICA shall constitute the arbitral tribunal.

As mentioned in 4.2 Default Procedures, in ad hoc arbitrations, in the event that the parties’ method to appoint arbitrators fails, the Egyptian courts may intervene in the appointment of arbitrators upon the request of either party by filing a lawsuit before the competent court (Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 489 of JY 67, 12 March 2013).

While appointing an arbitrator, the court shall apply the requirements as mentioned in 4.1 Limits on Selection. The decision rendered by the court appointing an arbitrator is not subject to appeal by any means of recourse, except in cases of breach of the law or of the parties’ agreement. However, a decision rejecting the appointment of an arbitrator may be subject to appeal (Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 5211 of JY 78, 18 February 2015).

Articles 18 and 19 of the EAL address the challenge or removal of arbitrators in ad hoc arbitrations.

According to Article 18 of the EAL, an arbitrator may not be challenged except where circumstances exist that give rise to serious doubts as to his/her impartiality or independence. It adds that neither party may challenge an arbitrator whom it has appointed or in whose appointment it has participated, except for reasons discovered after making the appointment.

Article 19 of the EAL further provides that a party may only challenge an arbitrator once. It also addresses the procedures for filing a request to challenge an arbitrator. The request must be submitted in writing to the arbitral tribunal, clearly stating the reasons for the challenge, within 15 days of the date on which the challenging party became aware of either the tribunal’s composition or the circumstances justifying the challenge. If the challenged arbitrator does not voluntarily withdraw within 15 days of the request, the matter shall be referred to the competent court, which shall issue a final and non-appealable decision. Filing a challenge request does not suspend the arbitration process. However, if the challenge is upheld, all actions taken by the challenged arbitrator, including the arbitral award, shall be null and void.

Aside from the challenge requests, Article 20 of the EAL provides that the competent court may, upon the request of either party, order the termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, if he/she becomes unable to perform his/her duties, fails to commence them, or ceases to carry them out in a manner that causes unjustified delay in the arbitration proceedings, and does not voluntarily withdraw, and the parties do not agree to remove him/her.

According to Article 16 of the EAL, an arbitrator shall accept his/her mandate in writing, disclosing any circumstances that could raise doubt as to his/her independence or impartiality.

In the same vein, Article 12 of the CRCICA Rules also requires an arbitrator to submit a written disclosure at the time of his/her appointment, revealing any circumstances that could reasonably taint his/her independence or impartiality. This obligation remains in effect for the duration of the proceedings. Furthermore, arbitrators must avoid ex parte communications with either party regarding the arbitration.

The Court of Cassation further established that the duty of impartiality and independence applies to arbitrators appointed by the parties, as it is a fundamental principle of the Egyptian Arbitration Law (Court of Cassation, Challenges No. 7913 and 13996 of JY 91, 9 May 2023).

According to Egyptian scholars, impartiality refers to the absence of bias on the part of the arbitrator either against or in favour of one of the parties. Lack of impartiality is a psychological state influenced by emotion, stemming from personal interest, affection or hostility towards one of the parties, while independence refers to the arbitrator being in a position such that  his/her opinion is not influenced by any relationship with either of the parties, whether a financial, social or professional relationship, and whether past or present.

The principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz is applicable in Egypt. According to Article 22 of the EAL, an arbitral tribunal has the authority to decide on challenges against its own jurisdiction, whether based on the absence of an arbitration agreement, the extinction or nullity of the agreement, or the dispute going beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement.

National courts are precluded from addressing issues concerning the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal once arbitration proceedings have commenced. Indeed, according to Article 13 of the EAL, national courts are under the obligation to render a case filed by one party inadmissible upon the request of the other party on the basis of the existence of an arbitration agreement.

However, if a litigation case is filed before a national court and the arbitration agreement is subsequently found to be prima facie null and void – or if the parties have opted out of arbitration and fail to timely challenge the court’s jurisdiction before addressing the merits (per Article 13 of EAL) – the court may assume jurisdiction over the dispute.

A party may rely on the challenge of the tribunal’s jurisdiction advanced by it before the national courts as a ground for annulling the award rendered by the tribunal (Article 53 of the EAL) within 90 days from the notification of the arbitral award (Article 54 of the EAL), provided that it raised a timely objection to the tribunal’s jurisdiction during the arbitration. A party that accepted the tribunal’s jurisdiction during the arbitration proceedings cannot later rely on the lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal as a ground during annulment proceedings after the final award has been issued.

National courts, upon a party’s request, must conduct a prima facie review to determine whether a valid arbitration agreement exists within the contract subject to the dispute. If the agreement is not clearly null, void or inoperative, the court must declare its own lack of jurisdiction without proceeding to a detailed examination.

If a party brings court proceedings in breach of a valid arbitration agreement, the court must, contingent upon one of the parties’ timely objection (ie, before any discussions on the merits) and a prima facie finding of the validity of the arbitration agreement, render the party’s action inadmissible, as per Article 13 of the EAL. Failure to object before addressing the merits will be construed as a waiver of the arbitration agreement and an implicit acceptance of the national court’s jurisdiction, per Article 8 of the EAL. It should be noted that bringing an action before national courts shall not preclude commencing or pursuing arbitral proceedings.

The EAL does not explicitly address the extension of arbitration agreements to non-signatories. The Court of Cassation, however, affirmed in 2018 that such an extension is possible in cases involving a group of companies or a group of contracts, universal succession, mergers or rights assignment (Court of Cassation, Civil Chamber, Challenge No. 3299 of JY 86, dated 13 March 2018). This list is not exhaustive.

When determining whether an arbitration agreement may be extended to a non-signatory, courts examine whether the non-signatory materially participated in the formation or performance of the contract at the heart of the dispute. In general, extension of an arbitration clause to third parties may be based on the following: (1) guarantor bound by main agreement; (2) “group of companies” doctrine; and (3) economic unity/composite transactions.

According to Article 24 of the EAL, an arbitral tribunal is empowered to grant interim or precautionary relief upon a party’s request, provided that the parties have expressly agreed to this authority. Such agreement may be made directly or by referring to institutional arbitration rules that explicitly confer this power on the tribunal.

Notwithstanding any such agreement, national courts retain the authority to issue interim relief, even where the parties have agreed to conduct arbitration under institutional rules that empower tribunals to issue such measures. This preserves the role of national courts in supporting arbitration by ensuring urgent protection where tribunal jurisdiction may be delayed or limited in enforceability.

Both forms of relief serve a protective function, focused on preventing irreversible harm, and are grounded in the principle that courts (or tribunals) should not prejudge the underlying dispute when granting such measures. Parties could seek to maintain the status quo, preserve evidence and/or protect assets from dissipation.

According to Article 14 of the EAL, national courts have the authority to grant preliminary or interim relief in support of arbitral proceedings, upon the request of either party. This power is grounded in public policy and cannot be waived or excluded by party agreement, even where an arbitration clause exists. Courts may also be requested to enforce interim measures issued by the arbitral tribunal as per Article 24 of the EAL.

The EAL does not currently provide for emergency arbitration. Instead, as outlined in 6.1 Types of Relief, Egyptian law allows for expedited court proceedings, whereby a party files a lawsuit before the competent national court, which should handle the matter at hand on an accelerated and prima facie basis to prevent irreparable harm. These proceedings serve a similar protective function to emergency arbitration. Jurisprudence has identified several examples of urgent measures that may be sought through such proceedings, including, inter alia, the appointment of a legal custodian over a disputed asset to preserve its value or ensure its proper management pending the outcome of the main dispute.

The EAL does not specifically address the arbitral tribunal’s authority to order security for costs. Security for costs may, however, be ordered based on the general jurisdiction and authority granted to the arbitral tribunal to order interim measures, provided that the general conditions for such measures are fulfilled.

Under Article 25 of the EAL, the parties enjoy broad freedom to determine the procedural rules governing their arbitration, including the option to submit their dispute to the rules of any arbitral institution, whether domestic or international. In the absence of such an agreement, the arbitral tribunal is empowered to adopt procedural rules it deems appropriate, provided that these do not conflict with the mandatory provisions of the EAL.

The EAL does not prescribe rigid procedural steps for arbitral proceedings, allowing parties substantial flexibility as long as public policy is respected. Under Article 26, the parties must be treated equally and given a full and fair opportunity to present their case.

While the EAL does not impose detailed procedures, it outlines certain default rules that generally apply unless the parties agree otherwise. Arbitration proceedings officially commence on the date the respondent receives the request for arbitration (Article 27). The parties typically exchange written submissions supported by evidence, including statements of claim, defence and, optionally, counterclaims, within agreed timeframes (Article 30). Amendments or supplements to these submissions are permitted (Article 32).

The tribunal may hold hearings or decide cases solely based on documents unless the parties decide otherwise. Hearing notices must be given in advance, and minutes are recorded in a procès-verbal. Witnesses and experts may be heard and examined, though testimony is not given under oath (Article 33).

If the claimant fails to submit its statement without sufficient cause, the tribunal may terminate the proceedings. Conversely, if the respondent does not submit a defence, the tribunal proceeds without interpreting this as an admission of the claimant’s claims (Article 34). Should a party fail to appear or produce requested documents, the tribunal may continue and decide based on the evidence available (Article 35).

Finally, the award must be rendered within the period agreed by the parties or, if no agreement exists, within 12 months from the start of proceedings, extendable by six months unless otherwise agreed (Article 45).

Arbitrators in Egypt must carry out their duties with strict impartiality and independence, as emphasised under the EAL (see 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements).

Their powers are broad and essential for managing arbitration effectively. These include the authority to order interim and conservatory measures, provided the parties have granted such powers, and to issue interim or partial awards. Arbitrators have the competence to decide on their own jurisdiction and to determine procedural rules when the parties have not agreed on them.

They may also appoint experts to assist with fact-finding or technical issues, assess and admit evidence, and weigh its probative value. Additionally, with the parties’ consent, arbitrators can act as amiables compositeurs, deciding the dispute based on principles of equity rather than strict legal rules.

In the absence of agreement, arbitrators decide the seat of arbitration and may convene hearings or meetings wherever they deem appropriate to facilitate the proceedings.

One important limitation is that arbitrators do not have jurisdiction to decide challenges relating to forgery of submitted documents – this remains within the exclusive competence of national courts, which handle such matters through criminal proceedings (Article 46).

Article 3 of the Egyptian Advocacy Law (No. 17 of 1983) explicitly reserves advocacy work, including representation before arbitral tribunals, to lawyers admitted to the Egyptian Bar Association, thereby prohibiting non-lawyers from performing such roles.

However, the Court of Cassation, in a landmark ruling dated 27 October 2020 (Challenge No. 18309 of JY 89), held that there are no restrictions on who may represent parties in arbitration proceedings seated in Egypt. It confirmed that parties, whether in domestic or international arbitration, may choose any representative they wish – regardless of nationality or professional qualification.

In practice, parties typically support their written submissions with relevant evidence. The Egyptian Evidence Law (No. 25 of 1968) generally governs evidentiary matters in arbitration. Additionally, subject to party agreement, tribunals apply the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration to guide evidentiary processes.

Arbitral tribunals enjoy broad discretion to admit, evaluate and weigh evidence presented. They may also modify or revoke evidentiary procedures they have previously ordered and decide on requests related to evidence without prejudicing the parties’ rights of defence. The forms of evidence commonly admitted include documentary evidence, witness statements, expert reports and tribunal-ordered site inspections. While fact witnesses and experts may be examined and cross-examined during hearings, witness testimony is not provided under oath in Egyptian arbitration.

Regarding document production, Egypt does not recognise the broad “discovery” practices. Under Article 20 of the Evidence Law, a party may request a document held by the other party only in limited and exceptional circumstances, such as when the law explicitly permits it, when the document is jointly held, or when the opposing party relies on that document during proceedings. Article 21 further requires that such requests be precise, specifying the nature, contents, relevance, materiality, and grounds for believing the document is in the possession of the opposing party, as well as the legal basis for ordering its production.

In Egypt, arbitration proceedings generally follow the same rules of evidence as those that apply in domestic courts, which are primarily set out in the Evidence Law. Although the law does not specifically address arbitration, tribunals usually refer to these rules when deciding what evidence to accept and how to evaluate it. In practice, parties often look to the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration as a helpful guide, especially during document production phases (see 8.1 Collection and Submission of Evidence).

However, arbitral tribunals must respect the mandatory rules of the applicable evidence law when it comes to the reliability and authenticity of evidence. For example, if the Evidence Law applies, a tribunal cannot rely on a photocopy of a document if the opposing party has formally denied its authenticity or the validity of the signature. This principle was confirmed by the Court of Cassation (Challenges No. 4457, 4463 and 4753 of JY 77, 9 November 2010) and is discussed in scholarly writings, which shows how seriously these evidentiary requirements are taken under Egyptian law. So, while parties and tribunals have flexibility in managing evidence, they still need to ensure that any evidence admitted meets the basic standards of trustworthiness laid down by the relevant law.

Arbitral tribunals in Egypt lack the direct enforcement and coercive powers that courts possess. Therefore, if a party fails to comply with a tribunal’s order without a valid reason, the tribunal’s main recourse is to draw adverse inferences, which can impact the party’s case.

However, under Article 37 of the EAL, tribunals may request judicial assistance from the competent court. Such assistance includes compelling witnesses to appear if they refuse or fail to attend, and the court may impose fines or penalties on uncooperative witnesses in accordance with the Evidence Law. The tribunal may also ask the court to issue a rogatory commission for collecting evidence abroad, allowing foreign courts to assist in the proceedings.

This judicial support mechanism helps bridge the enforcement gap faced by arbitral tribunals, though it generally applies only to parties and witnesses directly involved in the arbitration, not to non-parties.

Arbitral proceedings in Egypt are generally treated as confidential. Article 44(2) of the EAL prohibits the publication of arbitral awards, whether in full or in part, without the parties’ consent. There is also an implied duty of confidentiality regarding pleadings, submissions and documents exchanged during the arbitration.

Confidentiality may be breached when arbitration-related court proceedings are initiated, such as enforcement or annulment actions. Since these court processes are public, relevant information from the arbitration – including parts of the award and submissions – may become accessible in the public domain.

The explanatory memorandum to the EAL reinforces the importance of confidentiality as a key feature valued by parties to protect their commercial relationships, but it also implicitly recognises the practical limits to confidentiality once judicial intervention occurs.

Article 43 of the EAL sets the requirements for an arbitral award to be valid:

• The award must be issued in writing and signed by the arbitrators. In the case of a tribunal composed of more than one arbitrator, the signatures of the majority are sufficient, provided that the reasons for the minority’s lack of signature are stated in the award.
• The award must provide the reasoning based on which the decision was determined, unless the parties to the arbitration agree otherwise or the applicable law governing the arbitration procedure does not require the inclusion of the reasoning.
• The award must include the names and addresses of the parties, the names, addresses, nationalities and qualifications of the arbitrators, a copy of the arbitration agreement, a summary of the parties’ claims, statements and evidence, the award’s operative part, and the date and place of issuance, along with the reasons if their inclusion is required.

According to Article 45 of the EAL, the arbitral tribunal is required to issue a final award resolving the entire dispute within the agreed timeframe between the parties. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitration award shall be issued within 12 months from the initiation of the arbitration proceedings, with a possibility of an extension not exceeding six months, unless the parties agree to a longer period. If the award is not issued within the timeframe set by the law or the parties’ agreement for the entire arbitration proceedings, either party can request the president of the competent court to set a new deadline or terminate the arbitration proceedings. In such cases, either party can also bring the matter before the competent court.

The EAL does not impose any limits on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award. Hence, the tribunal may issue different types of remedies such as specific performance or monetary compensation, legal interests and costs. Nevertheless, tribunals may not award punitive damages or any damages that are in violation of Egyptian public policy.

The parties are entitled to recover interest and legal costs, but the EAL does not regulate the recovery of them.

Article 226 of the ECC sets the interest at a rate of 4% per annum in civil matters and 5% per annum in commercial matters to be applied from the date of the judicial claim. Moreover, Article 227 of the ECC grants the parties the right to agree on another interest rate, provided that this rate does not exceed 7% per annum. The Court of Cassation added that the amounts sought by way of interest shall not exceed the amount of the debt itself, unless otherwise provided by law or custom. The legislator deviated from this rule in banking operations, as it settled on the determination of interest rates in accordance with monetary and credit policy, without being bound by the limits stipulated in any other legislation (Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 12170 of JY 92, dated 25 February 2025).

Allocation of the costs between the parties is subject to the discretion of the arbitral tribunal.

An arbitral award is not subject to appeal as per Article 52 of the EAL. Rather, parties may request the annulment of the arbitral award within 90 days of the notification of the award as per Article 54 of the EAL. The grounds for annulment are mentioned exclusively in Article 53 of the EAL as follows:

• if there is no arbitration agreement, or if such agreement is void, is voidable or has expired;
• if one of the parties to the arbitration agreement was, at the time of its conclusion, legally incapacitated or of diminished capacity under the applicable law governing such capacity;
• if one of the parties was unable to present their case due to not being properly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or for any other reason beyond their control;
• 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 arbitrators 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 annulment proceedings shall ipso jure annul the arbitral award, either partially or fully, if it conflicts with public policy.

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 initiate 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 Arbitration Agreement, parties are expected to raise any potential irregularities related to the arbitration agreement 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).

National courts reviewing annulment claims apply a deferential standard, meaning they do not reassess the factual findings or reconsider how the arbitral tribunal 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 February 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 recognition 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 Enforcement 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 enforcement 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.

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 public order and that the procedural requirements for enforcement have been met.

Awards rendered in domestic arbitrations are similarly enforceable under Article 58 of the EAL, once the challenge period has expired (or the challenge has been dismissed) and after satisfying the same procedural requirements.

Pursuant to Article 56 of the EAL, enforcement of an arbitral award, whether domestic or foreign, requires the award creditor to submit an application for exequatur before the president of the competent court. This application must be accompanied by the following documents: (a) the original arbitral award or a certified copy thereof; (b) a copy of the arbitration agreement; (c) a certified Arabic translation of the award if it was rendered in a foreign language; and (d) evidence of the deposit of the award in accordance with Article 47 of the EAL.

Before considering the application, the court ensures that the statutory period for filing a nullity action has elapsed, which is 90 days from the date of notification of the award.

In assessing the motion for enforcement, the court evaluates whether:

• the award conflicts with a prior final judgment issued by an Egyptian court concerning the same dispute;
• the award contravenes Egyptian public policy; and
• the award debtor was properly notified and given the opportunity to present its case during the arbitration.

The court’s order granting or denying enforcement may be appealed within 30 days from its issuance.

Article 57 of the EAL provides that filing a nullity action against the arbitral award does not automatically suspend enforcement proceedings. However, the court retains discretion to suspend enforcement upon a substantiated request by the award debtor, particularly where serious grounds exist. This discretionary suspension aligns with principles laid down in the Egyptian Civil and Commercial Procedures Code (CCPC), which govern suspension of judicial proceedings upon the emergence of a preliminary issue that could be determinative.

With respect to foreign arbitral awards, Articles 296-299 of the CCPC provide the default legal framework for enforcement, treating such awards similarly to foreign judgments. The court examines the jurisdictional competence of the foreign tribunal, the due notification and representation of the parties, the finality and binding nature of the award under the foreign seat’s law, the absence of conflict with Egyptian judgments, and conformity with Egyptian public policy.

Notably, Egyptian courts have increasingly applied the provisions of the EAL to foreign arbitral awards, emphasising a less stringent enforcement process consistent with the requirements of the New York Convention, as confirmed by the Cairo Court of Appeal in its ruling on Petition No. 2 of JY 139.

Although the EAL does not explicitly address the enforceability of awards set aside by the courts of the seat of arbitration, Egyptian judicial practice generally respects annulment decisions made by the competent court of the seat, resulting in non-enforcement of such awards within Egypt (Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 14385 of JY 91, dated 20 April 2024).

Regarding enforcement against state entities, Egyptian law limits the scope of enforcement against assets used for public purposes, including public utilities or sovereign functions (Article 88 of the Egyptian Civil Code). Sovereign immunity may thus be successfully invoked as a defence to enforcement, particularly when protected public assets are involved. This immunity is further supported by Egypt’s adherence to international conventions, such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), which explicitly protects diplomatic premises and property from enforcement measures.

Egyptian courts generally maintain a strong pro-enforcement stance towards arbitral awards. They closely adhere to the annulment grounds expressly set out in the EAL, with courts traditionally interpreting the public policy ground for refusal of enforcement narrowly. This approach was confirmed by the Court of Cassation fostering respect for arbitration (Court of Cassation, Commercial and Economic Circuit, Challenge No. 8199 of JY 80, dated 22 March 2022).

The Court of Cassation has elaborated that it encompasses the protection of Egypt’s higher social, political, economic and ethical values. Importantly, this is understood as an objective notion, requiring judges to evaluate public policy based on prevailing societal trends and norms at the time of the judgment.

The court distinguished between procedural and substantive public policy: the first concerns breaches of the legal provisions governing the arbitration process itself, while the second relates to violations that arise from the content or merits of the award. This distinction helps ensure that awards are not lightly set aside for mere procedural irregularities unless they affect the fundamental fairness of the arbitration.

Finally, the Court of Cassation clarified that a breach of a mandatory rule does not automatically amount to a public policy violation sufficient to annul an arbitral award. Such breaches must be considered in context, preventing an overly broad application of public policy that could undermine the finality and enforceability of arbitration awards (Cairo Court of Cassation, Challenge No. 12790 of JY 75, dated 22 March 2011).

Class or group arbitration is not regulated under the EAL and is not a recognised procedural mechanism in Egyptian arbitration practice.

There are no specific ethical codes under the EAL governing the conduct of arbitrators or counsel. However, Egyptian-qualified lawyers acting as counsel are bound by the professional obligations and ethical rules established under the Egyptian Advocacy Law (No. 17 of 1983), including duties of integrity, confidentiality, and loyalty to the client.

Arbitrators are subject to the general standards of independence, impartiality and disclosure under the EAL, particularly Articles 18-20. These provisions require arbitrators to disclose any circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality or independence.

In practice, many arbitrators and counsel seated in Egypt adhere to international soft law instruments such as the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration and the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation. In addition, serious misconduct could give rise to removal of the arbitrator or to a challenge to the award under Article 53 of the EAL.

Third-party funding (TPF) is not expressly regulated under the EAL or the wider Egyptian legal framework. However, the absence of regulation does not necessarily render TPF invalid or unenforceable. There are recent indications of increasing acceptance of TPF in the Egyptian arbitration landscape. For example, Article 28 of the 2024 Egypt–Saudi Arabia BIT expressly recognises and regulates TPF. Similarly, the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules introduced Article 53, which governs TPF arrangements and disclosure obligations.

That said, the enforceability of TPF under Egyptian law may still raise interpretative challenges, particularly in light of Article 739 of the Egyptian Civil Code, which prohibits agreements deemed to relate to gambling or betting. However, the travaux préparatoires to this provision indicate that “gambling” is confined to activities involving pure chance or luck, as opposed to contracts with a commercial or financial rationale. Since TPF is typically structured as a risk allocation mechanism based on legal assessment rather than chance, it is unlikely to fall within the scope of Article 739.

Nevertheless, the introduction of TPF into the Egyptian legal framework should be approached with a degree of caution to ensure alignment with Sharia principles and Egyptian public order considerations. This may explain why contractual clarity and full disclosure of the funding arrangement remain critical.

The EAL does not regulate the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings. However, Egyptian law generally recognises party autonomy and the wide discretionary powers of arbitral tribunals, especially those constituted under institutional rules.

The 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules introduced for the first time express provisions for the consolidation of arbitration proceedings (Article 50), permitting consolidation under specific conditions. These include instances where the parties agree to consolidation, or where the claims in the separate proceedings arise out of the same legal relationship and the arbitration agreements are compatible. The tribunal (or CRCICA if a tribunal is not yet constituted) may also consider efficiency and procedural fairness when deciding whether to consolidate.

In ad hoc arbitrations, consolidation would only be possible where parties have agreed to it – either explicitly or by incorporating institutional rules that allow it. Without such agreement, Egyptian courts or arbitral tribunals do not have inherent statutory power to order consolidation.

As noted in 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties, Egyptian courts recognise, in limited circumstances, the possibility of extending the effects of an arbitration agreement to third parties. This typically arises in complex corporate or contractual structures – such as in cases involving the “group of companies” doctrine, where non-signatory affiliates may be deemed to have consented to arbitration through their conduct or involvement in the performance of the contract. This approach is supported by jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation (eg, Challenge No. 3100 of JY 86, dated 13 March 2018).

However, while an arbitration agreement may bind a third party in exceptional cases, arbitral awards themselves do not ordinarily have binding effect on third parties that were not participants in the arbitration. A key exception to this arises under Article 328 of the CCPC, which allows an award creditor to temporarily attach the movable assets or debts of the award debtor that are in the possession of a third party. In such cases, the third party is only procedurally involved to the extent necessary for enforcement – not as a substantive party to the arbitration or the award.

As for foreign third parties, Egyptian courts lack extraterritorial jurisdiction to directly bind them through arbitral awards or attachment proceedings. Nonetheless, in narrowly defined circumstances – such as where simulated or sham contracts have been concluded between the award debtor and a foreign third party for the purpose of concealing assets and obstructing enforcement – courts may entertain motions or legal actions to pierce through these arrangements. In such cases, the court may issue judgments or enforcement orders aimed at preserving the integrity of the arbitral process and safeguarding the rights of the award creditor.