This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.
THE AUTHORS:
Anwar Nasreldin, Senior Associate at Youssef + Partners Attorneys.
Nouran Salama, Counsel at Youssef + Partners Attorneys.
In recent years, Egypt has witnessed a marked improvement in its arbitration landscape, culminating in a series of significant developments throughout 2025. These advancements are most clearly reflected in the introduction of the new CRCICA Rules, a succession of pro-arbitration judicial decisions, and the emergence of high-profile arbitration events. Together, these changes underscore Egypt’s commitment to modernizing its arbitral framework and strengthening its position as a leading venue for international dispute resolution in the region. The following article explores these key milestones and their impact on Egypt’s evolving arbitration environment.
CRCICA Rules 2024
Founded in 1979 under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (“AALCO”), the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (“CRCICA”) is the longest-standing arbitral institution in both Africa and the Middle East. CRCICA has played a foundational role in shaping and advancing international arbitration practice across the region. Over the past four decades, it has evolved into a leading, independent, and neutral forum for the resolution of complex cross-border disputes, contributing significantly to the growth and institutionalization of arbitration in Africa and the Middle East.
In support of Egypt’s broader development as a regional hub for international arbitration, CRCICA has undertaken a comprehensive modernization of its procedural rules. The new CRCICA Rules, effective 15 January 2024 (the “CRCICA 2024 Rules”), mark a significant step forward for the arbitration community in Egypt and the wider region. These rules replace a framework that had been in place for approximately fourteen years, and reflect global best practices aimed at promoting greater efficiency, transparency, party autonomy, and cost-effectiveness.
As of 31 December 2024, CRCICA has administered a cumulative total of 1,747 cases, including 76 new filings in 2024. This trajectory reflects sustained market confidence in the Centre’s administration and procedures. With the entry into force of CRCICA’s updated procedural framework, the caseload is expected to continue increasing, driven by enhanced efficiency, modernized case-management tools, and alignment with contemporary international practice.
Taken together, these reforms demonstrate CRCICA’s commitment to delivering a modern, reliable, and internationally competitive arbitral framework. They reinforce the Centre’s leadership role in the region and support Egypt’s emergence as a preferred seat and venue for international arbitration.
The summary below outlines the key differences between the CRCICA Rules of 2011 and the CRCICA 2024 Rules.
Emergency and expedited procedures: The CRCICA 2024 rules introduced formal Emergency Arbitrator Rules and an Expedited Arbitration stream within the institutional framework, which provides short-term provisional relief before a main arbitration is constituted. The expedited track is designed for faster resolution with a fee scale that is lower than ordinary proceedings.
Early dismissal: Tribunals now have clear power to dismiss, at an early stage, claims or defenses that are manifestly without legal merit. This aims to save time and reduce costs by removing clearly meritless issues before full hearings.
Transparency on third-party funding: The CRCICA 2024 rules require disclosure in the request (and response) of the existence and identity of third-party funders and of funding agreements.
Revised cost structure and arbitrator fees: A flat registration fee was replaced with a tiered registration fee tied to the amount in dispute, arbitrator fee tables were updated, and explicitly discounted fee scales for expedited proceedings.
Consolidation/multi-contract and multi-party provisions: New mechanisms were added or clarified for handling complex factual or contractual matrices, including: consolidation of related arbitrations, multi-contract arbitration, and related joinder-type solutions.
Digital case management and hearings: Online filing and case administration were introduced, express authorization for hearings to be in-person, remote (videoconference), or hybrid, and a broad power for tribunals to use appropriate technological means in the proceedings.
Key Case Law Developments
- Administrative Contracts and Ministerial Approval- Egyptian Supreme Administrative Court, Decisions No. 39843 of JY 66, dated 25 June 2024
Recently, the Supreme Administrative Court underscored that arbitration clauses in administrative contracts are contingent on the explicit approval of the competent minister, without delegation, and that failure to obtain such approval renders the arbitration agreement null and void. In the case at hand, the Court found no evidence of the required approval in the record and, consequently, affirmed the Administrative Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute.
Notably, the Court clarified that the duty to obtain the minister’s approval does not rest solely with the administrative authority. By framing the approval requirement as a mandatory, universally applicable rule that carves out a narrow exception to ordinary judicial jurisdiction—and for which ignorance is no excuse—the Court appears to have raised the bar on the consequences of non-compliance, diverging from earlier decisions that had placed the burden primarily on the administrative authority.
- Conversion of Currency in Damages- Egyptian Court of Cassation, Decision No. 32779 and 32790 of JY 93, dated 8 May 2025
In a significant reaffirmation of Egypt’s monetary public policy, the Court of Cassation has clarified the limits of party autonomy in arbitration seated in Egypt, particularly where awards purport to grant compensation in foreign currency contrary to mandatory foreign‑exchange rules.
On 8 May 2025, the Egyptian Court of Cassation annulled an arbitral award in the Appeal nos. 32779 and 32790 for the judicial year 93, after an arbitral tribunal awarded damages in US dollars under a domestic contract. The Court reaffirmed that foreign‑exchange rules are matters of Egyptian public policy. An arbitral award granting foreign‑currency compensation in contravention of these constraints is subject to annulment under Article 53 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. This is a limiting precedent: private autonomy (even an agreement on a foreign currency) cannot prevail over mandatory monetary/public‑order rules.
- Strict Interpretation of Article 53 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law- Egyptian Court of Cassation Decision No. 3659 for JY 92, dated 23 June 2025
This judgment further reinforces the autonomy of arbitration in Egypt by drawing a sharp line between limited judicial review for annulment and impermissible merits review. The court emphasized that Egypt’s Arbitration Law confines annulment to specific, enumerated grounds and does not authorize courts to re‑weigh evidence, re‑characterize claims, or second‑guess an arbitral tribunal’s legal reasoning where the tribunal has applied the agreed law and relevant legal sources. By reversing a partial annulment that intruded on the tribunal’s assessment of limitation and implied waiver, the judgment strengthens parties’ confidence that arbitral awards seated in Egypt will be insulated from merits review. It also emphasizes that tribunals may, under Egyptian law, rely on widely recognized legal maxims set out in the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedures.
The Court of Cassation stated that annulment in Egypt is confined to the exclusive grounds mentioned in Article 53 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law and does not permit courts to revisit a tribunal’s factual findings, contract characterization, or relief—errors of judgment alone are not annulment grounds. Issues like limitation and the legal effect of prolonged silence (implied acceptance or waiver) fall within the tribunal’s remit, and a party’s failure to object in time can signal implicit consent. Here, the tribunal applied the parties’ chosen law, relying on the Civil Code, the Arbitration Law, and CRCICA Rules to assess obligations under the 26 March 2008 settlement, and its use of the maxim that one cannot profit from one’s own wrong—reflected across Egyptian law and permissible under Civil Code Article 1(2)—did not displace the applicable law. Given the record, especially the companies’ silence from 2008 through completion in 2013 and the six years before filing in 2019, the tribunal’s conclusions on limitation and waiver stood, leaving no basis for annulment.
- Recognition and Enforcement of Informal Arbitration Awards -Egyptian Court of Cassation Decision No. 5823 for JY94, dated 17 May 2025
The following judgment reaffirms that arbitral awards are subject to a self-contained enforcement regime under the Egyptian Arbitration Law (Law 27/1994). The Court of Cassation held that only the President of the court originally competent (or a delegated judge)—and, for international arbitration, the Cairo court of appeal—may issue the enforcement order for arbitral awards. By treating these jurisdictional rules as matters of public order that courts must raise on their own, the decision prevents ordinary trial courts from re‑characterizing arbitral awards or revisiting their merits, thereby strengthening the finality and enforceability of arbitration.
The Court of Cassation ruled that the lower courts erred by adjudicating the merits of a claim founded on an arbitral award, after mischaracterizing the award and related “customary session” minutes as a mere private document.
It held that a request to enforce an arbitral award in a domestic arbitration is, in substance, a petition to affix the exequatur, which falls within the exclusive functional jurisdiction of the President of the court originally competent to hear the underlying dispute (or a delegated judge). This rule is of public order and cannot be waived or altered by agreement.
Court of Cassation – Civil – Civil Division – Appeal No. 5823 of 94 AH | Session Date 17/5/2025
Key Arbitration Events
Egypt Arbitration Days 2025
One of the most important updates in Egypt in 2025 is the Egypt Arbitration Days (“EAD”), held from 13 to 16 October in Cairo, which is establishing itself as one of the most prominent platforms for arbitration in the MENA region. The event has quickly become a key gathering for anyone involved in arbitration, attracting participants from seasoned arbitrators and in-house counsel to judges and academics. Over four lively days, attendees explored topics ranging from investment arbitration and the protection of Egyptian investors to the evolution of Egypt’s arbitration law and cross-border mediation. Beyond the sessions, the energy came from informal exchanges highlighting how Egypt is increasingly shaping the future of dispute resolution in a region bridging Africa, Asia, and Europe.
Potential Legal Reform to the Egyptian Arbitration Law
It has been over 30 years since the enactment of the 1994 EAL, and during this period, practice on the ground witnessed changes and challenges that revealed the need for urgent legislative intervention to develop it.
As of 2025, there is no new enacted arbitration law replacing Law No. 27 of 1994 (the current Egyptian Arbitration Law (“EAL”). However, proposed amendments are underway.
The proposed amendments are currently part of a legislative study discussed by the Council of Ministers. The proposed changes to the 1994 EAL include the following:
- Amendment to Article 3: Redefine and clarify “international arbitration” so that meeting any one of the criteria in the article suffices. The prior/customary reading required a link to “international commerce / trade” to qualify arbitration as “international.” This aims to avoid inconsistent judicial determinations, and to reduce uncertainty about whether a given arbitration is “domestic” or “international.”
- Amendment to Article 9: Confer exclusive jurisdiction to the Cairo Court of Appeal for arbitration related matters referred to courts under the EAL, whether the arbitration is “domestic” or “international”. This aims at ending the conflict between different Egyptian courts and unifying judicial interpretations.
- Amendment to Article 54: Reducing the time limit for filing an action to annul an arbitral award from 90 to 30 days, and transferring jurisdiction over annulment actions to the Court of Cassation instead of the courts of first instance to ensure expedited adjudication.
- Amendment to Article 56: Make the court referred to in Article 9 (the Cairo Court of Appeal) the exclusive competent court for enforcement of all arbitral awards.
- Amendment to Article 58: Repeal Article 58(1) of the EAL, which currently bars applications to enforce an arbitral award until the time limit for bringing an annulment action has expired.
Further updates may follow as Egypt continues refining its arbitration framework.
Conclusion
Egypt’s continued evolution as an arbitration hub is underpinned by a modernized institutional framework, progressive case law, and ongoing legislative reform (“Hub-formation!” Youssef’s guide to transforming MENA seats – Global Arbitration Review White list / Institutions Worth a Closer Look – Middle East & Africa – Global Arbitration Review). These developments reinforce Cairo’s position as a leading seat for international arbitration in the region, offering parties a reliable, efficient, and internationally recognized forum for dispute resolution.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Anwar Nasreldin is a Senior Associate in the International Arbitration Department at Youssef + Partners Attorneys, specialising in international arbitration and arbitration-related litigation. He acts as counsel in proceedings under major institutional rules, including CRCICA, DIAC, and ICC, and advises on complex commercial and investment disputes. His experience spans all stages of the arbitral process, from case assessment and drafting of core pleadings to hearing preparation, as well as enforcement and annulment proceedings before Egyptian courts.
Nouran Salama is a Counsel at Youssef + Partners Attorneys, specialising in international arbitration and cross-border disputes. She advises regional and multinational clients on complex commercial, construction, and investment matters, and has acted in arbitrations under major institutional rules including the ICC, LCIA, CRCICA, and DIAC. She combines advocacy skills with regional expertise, supporting clients through all stages of the arbitration process—from strategy and drafting to hearings and enforcement.
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
