In Egypt, for most practitioners, arbitration is no longer considered an alternative dispute resolution mechanism; indeed, it is the main path chosen by disputing parties in several industries. For instance, it is now considered abnormal to find a construction agreement that does not include an arbitration clause. Nevertheless, parties to day-to-day transactions and contracts involving minor amounts may not have arbitration as their usual choice.

International arbitration is a major success in Egypt; it is heavily used as a chosen dispute resolution mechanism. Known for its arbitration-friendly courts, it is very common to choose Egypt as a seat of arbitration and a place of enforcement of arbitral awards.

The construction and energy industries and the international goods trade experience the highest arbitration activity in Egypt. This may be explained by the large amounts of investment targeted by the contracts signed in these fields, which leads to a high number of agreements being signed and, therefore, disputed every year.

The Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) is, without doubt, the most used in Egypt. It is the oldest established most experienced institution in this matter.

Parties’ willingness to resort to CRCICA has not changed despite the establishment of new arbitration institutions, such as the Egyptian Center for Arbitration and Settlement of Non-Banking Financial Disputes (ECAS) and the new Mediation and Arbitration Centre established by the new labour law (No. 14 of 2025).

For any disputes relating to international commercial arbitration, Article 9 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law (EAL) (Law No. 25 of 1968 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended in 1997 and 2008) gives jurisdiction to the Cairo Court of Appeal. This decisions that the court has issued on arbitration-related matters show its dedication to an arbitration-friendly approach and to international arbitration doctrines and jurisprudence.

Arbitration in Egypt is governed by the articles of the EAL, which applies to arbitrations seated in Egypt and, by agreement, to international arbitrations seated abroad.

The EAL replaced the old arbitration provisions of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (Law No. 13 of 1968), and is influenced by the UNCITRAL Model Law, sharing with it its definition of “international arbitration”, rule of separability, default appointment mechanism and New York Convention-aligned enforcement grounds.

Notable divergences from the UNCITRAL Model Law include a broader scope of “international” arbitration, as Article 3 of the EAL treats an arbitration as international if the parties have agreed to refer their dispute to an arbitral institution or arbitration centre in Egypt or abroad, regardless of the parties’ places of business. The EAL also reflects Egypt’s distinct treatment of public-entity contracts by requiring arbitration agreements in administrative contracts to be signed by the competent minister, without giving the minister the right of delegation.

The EAL has not been substantially reformed since its enactment. However, it has witnessed two amendments. The first was incorporated into Article 1 by virtue of Law No. 9 of 1997, concerning the ministerial-approval requirement for arbitration agreements in administrative contracts.

Law No. 8 of 2000 changed the procedure for challenging arbitrators, which is addressed under Article 19 of the EAL. Under the original rule, if the challenged arbitrator does not resign within 15 days of the challenge, the arbitral tribunal itself decides on the challenge, and its decision is final and may not be appealed. Under the amended rule, if the arbitrator does not resign within 15 days of the challenge, this triggers referral to the competent court under Article 9 of the EAL, which alone decides on the challenge by a final ruling that may not be appealed.

Despite the fact that a committee has been formed of arbitration practitioners to propose legal reform, at time of writing, the committee has not yet finished its work and has issued no proposals.

Irrespective of the validity of the contract, the arbitration agreement needs to be valid in itself. Its validity is examined based on the formal and substantive conditions. Formal conditions require arbitration agreements to be written, even if electronically. Substantively, the arbitration agreement must not refer to non-arbitrable subject matters and must be subject to the consent of the persons who have the right to dispose of the rights covered by the arbitration agreement.

In the case of a submission agreement, Article 10 of the EAL requires the parties to determine in narrow details the exact matter of the dispute covered by the agreement. The same article provides that an arbitration agreement by reference requires the reference to be clear.

As a general rule, if a court has jurisdiction to rule on one or more subject matters, and if this jurisdiction is based on a public-policy rule, such subject matters cannot be referred to arbitration (subject matters falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts). These include matters of personal status (a person’s capacity, guardianship, filiation, custody, divorce or the validity of their marriage), bankruptcy proceedings, constitutionality review of the laws, legality of regulations and administrative acts, ownership or possession of public funds, tax disputes and any criminal matters.

The general approach to arbitrability is governed by Article 11 of the EAL and rests essentially on the possibility of the dispute being subject to settlement.

National courts refer to party autonomy whenever party consent determines the law governing the arbitration agreement. If not, courts will take a lex causae approach and adopt the law most closely connected to the dispute.

Concerning the enforcement of the arbitration agreement, national courts usually show no reluctance to enforce a valid arbitration agreement and will find the dispute inadmissible before them whenever one of the parties, according to Article 13 of the EAL, requests referral to arbitration before presenting any other defence in the case.

As a rule, an arbitration clause forms an independent agreement from the one that contains the arbitration clause. This is provided for in Article 23 of both the EAL and CRCICA’s 2024 Arbitration Rules. The two articles deal with the arbitration agreement as an agreement that is separate from the other terms of the main contract, granting no effect to the invalidity, rescission or termination of the main contract on the arbitration clause it contains, provided that the clause is valid. Bound by the law, national jurisdictions will apply the rule of separability.

The EAL grants the parties freedom regarding the choice of arbitrators. However, such freedom is subject to public-policy rules, the violation of which will eventually lead to the annulment of the arbitration award. Such rules include the following:

• Article 16(1) of the EAL states that an arbitrator shall not be a minor, under guardianship, or a person who is deprived of civil rights following a conviction for a felony or a misdemeanour (crime of moral turpitude) or declared bankrupt unless rehabilitated.
• Article 16(2) of the EAL stipulates that the arbitral tribunal must be composed of an odd number of arbitrators. Failure to comply with such requirement will eventually lead to the annulment of the award under Article 53 of the EAL.
• Article 16(3) of the EAL requires written acceptance by the arbitrator(s), including disclosure of any circumstances that would cast doubt on their independence or impartiality, which acceptance should be done before the mandate begins.

Article 17 of the EAL provides the default mechanism for the appointment of arbitrators. It gives the national court having jurisdiction (according to Article 9 of the EAL) the authority to appoint a sole arbitrator on request. In case of no agreement in tribunals with three arbitrators, each party appoints one arbitrator and the two arbitrators choose the chairperson, with the court intervening if a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within 30 days, or if the two appointees fail to agree on the third within 30 days of the last appointment.

The EAL does not regulate the appointment mechanism in multiparty arbitrations; however, in such a case, the national courts usually treat all claimants as one party, and all defendants as the other.

Article 17 of the EAL draws the boundaries within which Egyptian courts shall intervene in arbitrator selection:

• The intervening court is the one designated by Article 9 of the EAL, ie, the Cairo Court of Appeal for international commercial arbitration, and the court having original jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute for any other type of arbitration.
• The court shall not intervene unless a party has requested such intervention.
• The court intervenes to appoint a sole arbitrator, or the presiding arbitrator where the party-nominated co-arbitrators cannot agree, or otherwise steps in when a party, the co-arbitrators or a third party (including an arbitral institution) fail to perform their role under an agreed procedure.
• The court’s decision appointing an arbitrator is final and not subject to appeal, except in the event that the nominated arbitrators are challenged and recused (Articles 18 and 19 of the EAL).

Article 18 of the EAL allows a challenge only where circumstances raise serious doubts regarding an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, or where an arbitrator lacks the agreed-upon qualifications. This article also states that a party cannot challenge an arbitrator it appointed except upon grounds discovered after such appointment.

The EAL does not contain a detailed disclosure code, leaving such matters to be addressed by the institutional procedural rules belonging to the institution before which the parties agreed to settle the dispute, if any. However, Article 16(3) of the EAL requires written acceptance of the mandate and ongoing disclosure of any circumstances that the arbitrator finds likely to raise doubt regarding their independence or impartiality.

Article 12 of CRCICA’s Arbitration Rules requires written disclosure both before and during the proceedings, with any doubt resolved in favour of disclosure. CRCICA expects arbitrators to consult the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest, to disclose relationships with co-arbitrators, witnesses, experts and all other related bodies, eg, third-party funders, and to complete a disclosure questionnaire.

It should be noted that, according to the Egyptian courts, neither a disclosure nor an omission to disclose 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 accordance with the principle of competence-competence.

Article 22(1) of the EAL empowers the arbitral tribunal to decide on pleas relating to its own jurisdiction, including objections based on the nullity, absence, extinction or limited scope of the arbitration agreement.

Without prejudice to the parties’ right to seek judicial 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.

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 presenting 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 challenged along with the final award through an annulment action (Article 53).

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).

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 jurisdictional 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 challenged 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.

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 tribunal found the case admissible or not.

With reference to Article 13(1) of the EAL, if a party initiates litigation over a matter covered by an arbitration 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.

Failure to timely object is treated as an implicit waiver of the arbitration agreement, allowing the court to proceed with the case.

Article 13(2) further provides that the mere filing of such court proceedings does not suspend or bar the arbitration. Hence, the tribunal may commence, continue and render an award regardless of the pending court action. This reflects a clear pro-arbitration stance; Egyptian courts are generally unwilling to allow proceedings to continue once a valid objection is raised.

While the EAL does not expressly govern jurisdiction over third parties, the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s jurisprudence has confirmed that, in certain circumstances, the effects of an arbitration agreement may extend to non-signatories. Such circumstances include:

• the group of companies doctrine;
• the group of contracts doctrine;
• succession;
• assignment; and
• conduct evidencing a clear intention to be bound, such as active involvement in the negotiation, performance or termination of the contract.

Such extension applies equally to domestic and foreign third parties, as Egyptian jurisprudence draws no distinction based on nationality on this issue.

According to Article 24 of the EAL, an arbitral tribunal may grant binding preliminary or interim relief only where the parties have expressly authorised it to do so. If the party against which such relief is granted fails to comply with the tribunal’s order, the party in whose favour the relief was granted may pursue enforcement procedures to ensure the performance of the interim measure.

National courts serve both as a primary source of relief and as an enforcement backstop for tribunal-ordered measures. Article 14 of the EAL grants the Cairo Court of Appeal jurisdiction to order interim and conservatory measures before or during arbitral proceedings. In parallel, Article 24 allows tribunals to order such measures only upon express party agreement. Where a party fails to comply, the tribunal may authorise the other party to seek a court enforcement order.

Unless the enforcement of the interim relief is required on Egyptian territory, Egyptian courts do not extend interim relief to foreign-seated arbitrations. Judicial assistance to foreign-seated arbitration is confined to recognising and enforcing final binding awards under the New York Convention.

Available relief includes conservatory measures protecting disputed assets, execution attachments on movable property and bank accounts, evidentiary assistance compelling witnesses under Article 37, and suspension of enforcement pending annulment actions where serious grounds exist under Article 57.

While the EAL contains no provisions for emergency arbitrators, the CRCICA Arbitration Rules introduced this mechanism in Article 26 where if the arbitration has not commenced or the arbitral tribunal is not fully constituted, an emergency arbitrator may, at the request of a party, be appointed to determine the requested interim relief. From the beginning, Egyptian courts have shown a high level of recognition towards the emergency arbitrator’s decisions by according enforceability to the first decision issued by the emergency arbitrator.

Under Egyptian law, courts may not order security for costs, as such a requirement is considered unconstitutional as it infringes upon the fundamental right of access to litigation. This is largely attributable to the principle of the gratuitousness of judicial protection, which forms part of the constitutional guarantees of access to the courts. By contrast, an arbitral tribunal may order security for costs because arbitration is not subject to the principle of the gratuitousness of judicial protection applicable to state court litigation. Such authority exists provided that the parties have expressly agreed to it, either in their arbitration agreement or through the institutional arbitration rules they have chosen to govern the proceedings.

Subject to the parties’ agreement where possible, the EAL contains arbitration procedural rules that govern, among other procedures, the tribunal’s constitution, the conduct of proceedings and the award(s).

Article 25 of the EAL establishes party autonomy as the foundational procedural principle, granting parties broad freedom to agree on the applicable procedural rules and the possibility to submit their dispute to specific institutional rules. Only in the absence of party agreement does the tribunal exercise its own procedural discretion, subject to mandatory EAL provisions.

While procedure is primarily governed by party autonomy, the EAL establishes several mandatory steps applicable to all arbitral proceedings.

Foundational to any arbitration is the proper constitution of the tribunal. Article 15 of the EAL requires an odd number of arbitrators on penalty of annulment, while Article 16 mandates written acceptance from each arbitrator alongside disclosure of any circumstances affecting their independence or impartiality. Proceedings formally commence, per Article 27, upon the respondent’s receipt of the request for arbitration, triggering all subsequent timelines.

Once constituted, the tribunal must ensure equal treatment of all parties throughout, granting each a full opportunity to present its case, a procedural guarantee enshrined in Article 26. Article 30 requires the claimant to submit a written statement of claim and the respondent a written statement of defence, both within agreed or tribunal-determined timeframes.

At the conclusion of proceedings, Articles 40 and 43 govern formal award requirements, mandating awards to be issued in writing after deliberation, signed by the majority of the arbitrators and supported by reasoning for the award.

Under Article 16 of the EAL, arbitrators must maintain strict independence and impartiality throughout the proceedings, with a continuing duty to disclose any circumstances that may raise doubts as to either.

Moreover, arbitrators hold broad procedural authority. Pursuant to Article 25, in the absence of party agreement on procedure, the tribunal may adopt the rules it considers appropriate, ensuring flexibility and filling gaps in party agreement.

Under Article 24, where both parties so agree, the tribunal may order interim and conservatory measures upon request.

Pursuant to Article 36, the tribunal may appoint one or more experts to submit written or oral reports on specific issues. Where the parties have not designated a seat, Article 28 empowers the tribunal to determine the seat of arbitration having regard to the circumstances of the case and the parties’ convenience.

Finally, Article 39(4) permits the tribunal to decide the dispute either according to the rules of law or, with party authorisation, ex aequo et bono.

Under Egyptian law, the right to appear as a legal representative before arbitral tribunals is governed by Article 16 of the EAL, which states that parties are free to choose representatives of their own selection, without requiring those representatives to hold Egyptian nationality or Egyptian Bar membership, or even to be a lawyer.

The collection and submission of evidence in Egyptian arbitration is governed by the EAL, the Egyptian Evidence Law (Law No. 25 of 1968 on Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters, as amended), party agreement and, increasingly, soft law instruments such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence, which, while non-binding, serve as practical guidelines.

According to the EAL, there is no discovery or broad disclosure mechanism. Document production is limited to specific, narrow and well-defined requests. While parties are broadly empowered to agree on procedural rules, the tribunal’s power to order document production is confined to requesting that a party produce a specific document in its possession that is of essence for dispute resolution.

Where no party agreement governs evidentiary procedure, the tribunal retains residual discretion to conduct proceedings as it deems appropriate, determining the admissibility, relevance and weight of all submitted evidence.

As to the forms of evidence, Article 30 of the EAL permits parties to attach supporting documents to their statements of claim or defence.

Witness testimony is primarily oral, with written statements uncommon in ad hoc arbitrations but increasingly standard in large international arbitrations. Witnesses do not testify under oath, and cross-examination is permitted, with the tribunal retaining independent questioning rights. Expert evidence under Article 36 of the EAL takes the form of a written report followed by oral testimony. Notably, the EAL contains no specific rules, leaving such questions to tribunal discretion or party agreement.

The EAL does not establish a standalone evidentiary code. The rules applicable are effectively those governing domestic matters, namely the Egyptian Evidence Law, which applies by extension even though it contains no express provisions specifically addressing arbitration.

Regarding court assistance in evidentiary matters, Article 37 of the EAL empowers the tribunal to request the competent court (according to Article 9) to compel witnesses to testify even through applying sanctions under the Egyptian Evidence Law, representing an intersection between arbitral and domestic evidentiary frameworks in Egypt.

While the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence are non-binding soft law instruments, they serve nonetheless as general guidelines in large international arbitrations, increasingly filling the gap and offering practical guidance on document production, witness testimony and expert evidence, with tribunals retaining full discretion in their application.

Article 37 of the EAL empowers tribunals to request the Cairo Court of Appeal to compel witnesses who refuse to attend or respond to do so, through applying sanctions under Articles 78 and 80 of the Egyptian Evidence Law, representing the primary judicial assistance mechanism for witness compulsion.

Noting that Article 37 of the EAL refers to witnesses, one would suggest that it only calls for non-party attendance. However, should the tribunal require a party’s personal attendance, notwithstanding its legal representation, this attendance would be considered as a witness statement and, hence, Article 37 would apply. Therefore, it is safe to consider that the EAL draws no explicit distinction between party and non-party attendance.

In regard to confidentiality, Article 44 of the EAL establishes that arbitral awards may not be published, in whole or in part, without the explicit approval of both parties, forming the primary statutory confidentiality protection under Egyptian law.

Regarding pleadings and submissions, the EAL contains no express provisions protecting confidentiality. Nonetheless, counsels remain bound by confidentiality obligations under the Egyptian Advocacy Law (Law No. 17 of 1983, as amended).

Confidentiality protections face significant practical limitations. The Jus Mundi Egypt 2023 report confirms that submissions and awards frequently become public when submitted before courts in set-aside actions or enforcement proceedings, which occurs commonly given that losing parties regularly pursue challenges before the national courts.

Regarding subsequent proceedings, the EAL contains no specific privilege rules preventing disclosure of arbitral materials. Once arbitral documents enter court proceedings, they become part of the public court record, effectively eradicating all confidentiality protections.

Article 43 of the EAL lists the mandatory formal requirements for a valid arbitral award.

The award must:

• be rendered in writing; and
• be signed by the arbitrators or a majority thereof, with reasons recorded for any abstention from signature.

The award must include:

• the parties’ and arbitrators’ details;
• written reasons (unless the parties have agreed otherwise or the award records a settlement);
• the parties’ names and addresses;
• the arbitrators’ names, addresses, nationalities and capacities;
• a copy of the arbitration agreement;
• a summary of the parties’ submissions, pleadings and documents;
• the findings of the tribunal; and
• the date and place of issuance.

In addition, Article 44 requires delivery of a signed copy to each party within 30 days of issuance.

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 and costs.

However, arbitrators cannot award punitive damages, unless specified in statutory provisions, as these contradict mandatory public-policy rules in Egypt, representing an absolute limitation that cannot be overcome by party agreement and regardless of the applicable law chosen by the parties.

Article 24 of the EAL permits interim measures and injunctive relief only where the parties have expressly granted this power in their arbitration agreement. In the event of non-agreement on these matters, such relief falls entirely outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Article 53 of the EAL provides that any award that contradicts Egyptian public policy shall be set aside ipso jure, representing the ultimate outer boundary on all arbitral remedies regardless of party agreement or applicable institutional rules.

Interest

Arbitrators may award simple interest in accordance with Egyptian law. Compound interest cannot be awarded under any circumstances.

Article 226 of the Egyptian Commercial Code (Law No. 17 of 1999, as amended) sets the interest rate at 4% per annum in civil matters and 5% per annum in commercial matters. Should the parties decide to agree on another interest rate, it cannot exceed 7% per annum (Article 227 of the Egyptian Commercial Code), with awards exceeding statutory interest limits facing annulment by national courts.

Legal Costs

The EAL contains no specific rules on cost allocation, leaving this entirely to tribunal discretion. Typically, awarded costs include arbitrator fees and arbitration centre costs. Awarding lawyer fees and other expenses is uncommon, though it does occur in some cases.

General Practice

Egyptian arbitration follows neither the strict “costs follow the event” nor a pure cost-sharing approach. General practice dictates that parties bear costs equally unless the unsuccessful party could have avoided arbitration or its claims were deemed frivolous. Where costs are apportioned, they are commonly 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.

Pursuant to Article 52 of the EAL, arbitral awards are not subject to appeal. The only recourse available 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 arbitration 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 wrongful application is not sufficient to set aside the award).
• Composition of the tribunal or appointment of arbitrators 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 proceedings in a way that affects the award.
• The award conflicts with Egyptian public policy (ex officio).

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 Article 53 of the EAL. These grounds are strictly limited and cannot be expanded or modified by party agreement. Hence, no annulment may be sought on any ground beyond those expressly enumerated.

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 Enforcement 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 accession. Egypt also ratified the ICSID Convention on 3 May 1972, providing an additional enforcement framework for investment arbitration awards.

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.

Valid arbitral awards carry the authority of res judicata and are therefore enforceable. The enforcement procedure 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 application for enforcement must be accompanied by:

• the original award or a signed copy thereof;
• a copy of the arbitration agreement;
• a certified Arabic translation of the award if rendered in a foreign language; and
• a copy of the procès-verbal confirming deposit of the award with the competent court.

Under Article 58 of the EAL, enforcement may only be granted once the 90-day deadline for filing an annulment action has expired, and is subject to three cumulative conditions:

• the award must not contradict a prior Egyptian court judgment on the merits;
• it must not violate Egyptian public policy; and
• the respondent must have been duly notified of the arbitral proceedings.

Regarding ongoing set-aside proceedings, the mere filing of an annulment action does not automatically suspend enforcement. Suspension remains within the court’s discretion upon the applicant’s request and subject to the existence of serious grounds.

As for awards set aside at the seat, the EAL does not include a provision equivalent to Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention on non-enforcement of annulled awards; the latter has, however, the same value as a legislative act and courts would base their decision upon it. Noting that Article V(1)(e) does not require state courts to enforce or to abstain from enforcing an arbitral award that has been set aside in its seat, Egyptian courts assess on a case-by-case basis whether an award set aside at the seat remains enforceable in Egypt. In practice, Egyptian courts would be reluctant to recognise and/or enforce foreign awards that were set aside or nullified at the seat.

Finally, state immunity cannot generally be invoked at the enforcement stage, provided that the state entity concerned has validly consented to arbitration and obtained the necessary prior approvals. However, sovereign immunity may still be successfully invoked to shield specific categories of public assets from enforcement. Article 87 of the Egyptian Civil Code (Law No. 131 of 1948, as amended) provides that public assets of the Egyptian state are immune from enforcement and attachment procedures.

Egyptian courts adopt a generally pro-enforcement approach. The competent court for enforcement examines whether the formal and substantive conditions for enforcement are satisfied but does not review the merits of the award or reassess the arbitrators’ reasoning.

Pursuant to Article 58 of the EAL, an exequatur may be refused on only three grounds, including contravention of Egyptian public policy, which the court may raise ex officio. Public policy is the most significant and commonly invoked ground for refusal. While the EAL does not explicitly provide for the distinction between domestic and international public policy, Egyptian courts have nonetheless adopted this distinction in practice. This means that when reviewing a foreign arbitration award, courts would apply a higher threshold.

The EAL contains no provision expressly authorising class actions or group arbitration proceedings. However, while no rule prevents group arbitration proceedings from being conducted, a class-action arbitral award may be limited by (1) the legal requirements of public policy related to capacity and authority, and (2) the relative effect of res judicata of the arbitral award.

Counsel

The EAL contains no express provision imposing binding ethical obligations on counsel appearing in arbitral proceedings. Nonetheless, Egyptian lawyers registered at the Egyptian Bar Association acting as counsel remain subject to the disciplinary framework of the Egyptian Advocacy Law, notably the duties of professional integrity, confidentiality, loyalty to the client, and avoidance of conflicts of interest albeit, without dedicated and codified rules of professional conduct comparable to Bar Association ethics codes in other jurisdictions.

Arbitrators

Under the EAL, arbitrators are bound by the overriding duties of independence and impartiality enshrined in Article 16, the continuing duty of disclosure, and the duty to treat the parties with strict equality and afford each a full opportunity to present its case under Article 26.

Soft Law Instruments

Beyond the foregoing, both counsel and arbitrators are guided in practice by soft law instruments, most notably the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration and the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration, which, while non-binding, are widely applied in proceedings seated in Egypt.

The EAL contains no express provision governing third-party funding. Accordingly, third-party funding is not expressly prohibited under Egyptian law. Hence, unless the parties agree on a different rule, they can resort to it freely.

The EAL contains no express provision governing the consolidation of separate arbitral proceedings. Nevertheless, consolidation is not prohibited, and may be achieved through party autonomy and, in institutional arbitration, through the applicable institutional rules.

For instance, Article 50 of the CRCICA Arbitration Rules expressly grants CRCICA the power to consolidate two or more arbitrations pending under the Rules into a single set of proceedings. Consolidation is permissible when all parties have agreed in writing to consolidation, where all claims in the arbitrations are made under the same arbitration agreement, or where the arbitration agreements are compatible and the claims arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions.

The EAL contains no express provision on the extension of arbitration agreements to third parties.

Nonetheless, extension to a non-signatory third party may be exceptionally permitted where express or implied consent by the third party can be demonstrated or where the circumstances of the case justify it. Notably, the Egyptian Court of Cassation has confirmed that an arbitration clause may extend to non-signatories – for example, on the basis of the following doctrines: group of companies, succession, assignment, or conduct evidencing a clear intention to be bound.

As a general matter, the effect of an arbitral award is confined to the parties to the arbitration, consistent with the privity principle underlying Article 55’s res judicata effect. A party that was not bound by the arbitration agreement (unless by reason of the above-mentioned extension doctrines) cannot be bound by the resulting award, and this principle applies equally regardless of whether the non-signatory is domestic or foreign. Conversely, where a court or tribunal determines that one of the recognised extension doctrines applies to a particular non-signatory, that entity is treated as a party to the arbitration agreement for jurisdictional purposes and can accordingly be bound by the resulting award.