The main legislation governing arbitration in Egypt is the Egyptian Arbitration Law (issued by virtue of Law No. 27 of 1994, as amended) (the “EAL”). The EAL is the primary legislation regulating the arbitration process in Egypt. Each statutory provision must be considered on its own terms and, depending on its wording and purpose, may be characterized as either mandatory or supplementary.

Mandatory provisions relating to arbitration may also be found in more specific legislation. A common example is the Egyptian Commercial Law (issued by virtue of Law No. 17 of 1999, as amended) (the “Commercial Law”). Article 87 provides that disputes arising from technology-transfer contracts may be submitted to arbitration, provided that the arbitration takes place in Egypt and is conducted in accordance with Egyptian law. Egyptian law must also govern the merits of such disputes, and any agreement to the contrary is null and void. The mandatory nature of Article 87 has been confirmed by the Egyptian Court of Cassation, including in Challenge No. 10305 of Judicial Year 83, issued in 2021.

Another example is Sports Law No. 71 of 2017, as amended by Law No. 171 of 2025 (the “Sports Law”), which establishes a specific statutory framework for the settlement and arbitration of sports-related disputes, particularly in light of the 2025 amendments. These amendments introduced a revised framework for the Egyptian Sports Settlement and Arbitration Centre following the Supreme Constitutional Court’s judgment of 14 January 2023. In that judgment, the Court declared unconstitutional the provision authorizing the Egyptian Olympic Committee to issue the Centre’s governing regulations, resulting in the invalidation of those regulations. The 2025 amendments appear intended to address this constitutional defect by expressly providing for the Centre’s legal personality and independence and assigning the authority to issue its governing regulations to the Prime Minister, upon their preparation by the Centre’s Board of Directors. Under the amended Sports Law, the Centre’s jurisdiction extends to certain contractual, disciplinary and regulatory sports disputes, including disputes relating to player transfers, sponsorship and commercial agreements, disciplinary sanctions, and internal disputes involving sports clubs and federations. The Sports Law therefore constitutes a further sector-specific regime governing resort to arbitration in disputes falling within its scope.

Yes, Egypt is a Contracting State to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). Egypt acceded to the Convention on 9 March 1959, and it entered into force for Egypt on 7 June 1959.

Egypt made no reservations or declarations upon accession. In particular, it did not adopt either the reciprocity reservation or the commercial reservation permitted under Article I (3) of the Convention. Accordingly, Egypt did not limit the application of the Convention to awards issued in other Contracting States or to disputes classified as commercial under Egyptian law.

Egypt is a Contracting State to the 1965 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (the “ICSID Convention”). Egypt signed the Convention on 11 February 1972, deposited its instrument of ratification on 3 May 1972, and the Convention entered into force for Egypt on 2 June 1972.

Egypt is also party to the 1974 Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between Arab States and Nationals of Other Arab States, which establishes a regional framework for resolving investment disputes. Egypt approved the Convention pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1700 of 1974. Egypt has also ratified the 1952 Arab League Convention on the Enforcement of Judgments and Arbitral Awards, pursuant to Law No. 29 of 1954. Article 3 of the Convention provides for the enforcement of arbitral awards rendered in participating Arab League States, subject to specified grounds for refusal.

At the regional level, Egypt is also party to several agreements providing for investment dispute settlement mechanisms, including the 1980 Unified Agreement for the Investment of Arab Capital in the Arab States, approved by Presidential Decree No. 51 of 1992, and the 1981 Agreement on Promotion, Protection and Guarantee of Investments amongst the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

In addition, Egypt has concluded an extensive network of bilateral investment treaties (“BITs”). According to UNCTAD, Egypt has concluded 101 BITs, 73 of which are currently in force, many of which provide for investor-State arbitration.

Egypt has also concluded bilateral judicial-cooperation treaties containing provisions on the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, including treaties with France, the United Arab Emirates and China, among others.

The EAL is largely based on the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, as expressly acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum accompanying Law No. 27 of 1994. Egyptian jurisprudence has also recognized the EAL as being consistent with the principal international instruments governing arbitration, particularly in the context of international disputes. Consistent with the Model Law, the EAL permits disputes arising from a defined legal relationship to be referred to arbitration either by way of an arbitration clause in the underlying contract or through a separate arbitration agreement, and recognizes incorporation by reference where a contract refers to another document containing an arbitration clause.

The EAL nevertheless departs from the Model Law in a number of respects. Most notably, while the Model Law is framed to apply to international commercial arbitration, Article 1 of the EAL applies to all arbitrations seated in Egypt, whether domestic or international, and may also apply to international commercial arbitrations seated outside Egypt where the parties agree to subject the proceedings to the EAL. Article 1 further permits arbitration of disputes arising from administrative contracts, subject to the approval of the competent minister or the official exercising the minister’s powers in relation to the relevant public juridical person.

The criteria for determining whether an arbitration is international also differ. Under Article 3 EAL, an arbitration may qualify as international where the parties have agreed to refer their dispute to a permanent arbitral institution or Centre situated in Egypt or abroad. Referral to an arbitral institution is not, in itself, a criterion of internationality under Article 1(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The two regimes also differ in relation to the composition of the tribunal. Article 10 (1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law leaves the number of arbitrators to the parties and, failing agreement, Article 10(2) provides for three arbitrators. By contrast, Article 15(2) EAL requires that, where the tribunal comprises more than one arbitrator, the number of arbitrators must be odd.

A further distinction concerns the arbitral tribunal’s authority to grant interim measures. Under Article 24(1) of the EAL, the tribunal may order interim or conservatory measures only where the parties have agreed to confer such authority upon it. By contrast, Article 17(1) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, as amended in 2006, grants tribunals this authority by default, unless the parties agree otherwise. Thus, while both provisions contemplate interim measures being granted at the request of a party, they differ in the source of the tribunal’s authority to order them. The Model Law also provides a more comprehensive framework governing interim measures, including the conditions for granting them under Article 17A and a separate regime for preliminary orders under Articles 17B and 17C.

As to reform, the Minister of Justice issued Decree No. 6 of 2022 establishing a committee tasked with preparing proposed amendments to the EAL. No comprehensive legislative amendments arising from that process have, however, been enacted to date.

On 6 July 2026, UNCITRAL adopted further amendments to the Model Law concerning electronic arbitral awards and electronic communications, together with an interpretative recommendation addressing the recognition and enforcement of electronic awards under the New York Convention. Egypt has not adopted those amendments, and no official proposal has yet been publicly announced specifically to incorporate them into the EAL.

Although Egypt has not yet adopted the 2026 UNCITRAL amendments, the use of electronic procedures is already well established at the institutional level. The 2024 Arbitration Rules of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (the “2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules”) expressly provide for electronic communications under Article 2(6), online filing of the Notice of Arbitration and the Response thereto under Articles 3(6) and 4(4), and hearings conducted remotely by videoconference or other appropriate means, or in hybrid form (Article 28(2)).

The principal arbitral institution in Egypt is the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration (“CRCICA”), established in 1979 under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (“AALCO”) and operating as an independent international organization.

CRCICA’s current Arbitration Rules were adopted by its Board of Trustees on 20 December 2023 and entered into force on 15 January 2024, replacing the 2011 Rules. The 2024 Rules introduced a number of significant procedural developments, including, for the first time, express provisions on consolidation, early dismissal of claims, multiple contracts, third-party funding, emergency arbitration and expedited arbitration. They also expanded the Rules’ treatment of technology in arbitral proceedings, including through provisions on electronic communications, online filing and remote or hybrid hearings.
In 2025, CRCICA issued Practice Notes on the 2024 Arbitration Rules, providing guidance on the Centre’s approach to the appointment of arbitral tribunals in multiparty arbitrations, arbitrator disclosure, the determination of arbitration costs where the amount in dispute is reduced, and requests for consolidation.

There is no specialist arbitration court in Egypt. However, certain specialized circuits within the Egyptian courts hear arbitration-related matters.

The allocation of jurisdiction is governed by Article 9 EAL. In arbitrations other than international commercial arbitrations, jurisdiction over matters referred by the EAL to the Egyptian judiciary lies with the court that would originally have had jurisdiction to determine the underlying dispute. In the case of international commercial arbitration, whether seated in Egypt or abroad, jurisdiction lies with the Cairo Court of Appeal, unless the parties agree to confer jurisdiction on another Court of Appeal in Egypt.

Once identified, the competent court retains exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the arbitration until the arbitral proceedings are concluded. This ensures that any judicial intervention arising in connection with the same arbitration is dealt with by a single court throughout the proceedings.

The EAL requires an arbitration agreement to be in writing. Pursuant to Article 12 EAL, this requirement may be satisfied by a document signed by the parties or by an exchange of letters, telegrams or other means of written communication. An arbitration agreement may take the form of a clause contained in the underlying contract or a separate agreement. Under Article 10(3) EAL, it may also be incorporated by reference where a contract refers to another document containing an arbitration clause, provided that the reference makes that clause an integral part of the contract.

Where an arbitration agreement is concluded after a dispute has arisen, Article 10(2) EAL requires the matters to be submitted to arbitration to be specified in the agreement; otherwise, the arbitration agreement is null and void.

The arbitration agreement must also satisfy the requirements of capacity and arbitrability. Pursuant to Article 11 EAL, the parties must have legal capacity to dispose of the rights that are the subject of the arbitration, and the dispute must be capable of settlement by compromise. Matters that may not legally be compromised are therefore non-arbitrable. These include, among others, matters concerning personal status and criminal liability.

Finally, additional requirements apply to arbitration agreements contained in administrative contracts. Under Article 1 EAL, such agreements require the approval of the competent minister, or the official exercising the minister’s powers in relation to the relevant public juridical person, and such authority may not be delegated.

Yes, the EAL expressly recognizes the principle of separability. Under Article 23 EAL, an arbitration clause is treated as an agreement independent from the other terms of the contract. Accordingly, the nullity, rescission or termination of the underlying contract does not affect the arbitration clause, provided that the clause is itself valid.

The Egyptian Court of Cassation has consistently affirmed the independence of the arbitration clause from the underlying contract. Most recently, in Challenge No. 21837 of Judicial Year 94, session dated 5 May 2025, the Court reaffirmed this principle.

Although the validation principle is generally regarded as a feature of an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction, Egyptian law does not adopt this principle. Accordingly, where an arbitration agreement is governed by Egyptian law, Egyptian courts will examine its validity through the lens of Egyptian law. If the agreement is found to be invalid under Egyptian law, the courts will proceed to hear the dispute as though no valid arbitration agreement exists, even if the agreement might otherwise be upheld under another national law.

In Egypt, asymmetric arbitration clauses are generally not regarded as valid, although the position warrants some qualification in light of Egyptian jurisprudence. This stems from the exceptional nature of arbitration as an alternative to litigation and the requirement that the parties’ common intention to submit their disputes to arbitration must be clear and unequivocal.

In this regard, the Egyptian Court of Cassation, in Challenge No. 15530 of Judicial Year 85, dated 19 April 2017, examined a dispute-resolution clause permitting one party, but not the other, to choose between arbitration and litigation. The Court recognized the contractual effect of this unilateral option and held that the party benefiting from it was entitled to resort to the Egyptian courts, notwithstanding the arbitration clause. However, the Court did not expressly address whether the arbitration provision would remain valid and enforceable if that party elected to pursue arbitration instead.

Accordingly, while Egyptian courts have given effect to a contractual provision granting one party a unilateral right to litigate, the enforceability of the arbitration provision in such arrangements remains less certain, particularly where one party is bound to arbitrate while the other retains the option of resorting to the courts.

The EAL does not expressly regulate the extension of arbitration agreements to third parties or non-signatories. Egyptian jurisprudence nevertheless recognizes that, in certain circumstances, an arbitration agreement may extend beyond its formal signatories.

This may arise, among other cases, through assignment, universal succession, merger, a group of contracts, or a group of companies, as well as where the conduct of the non-signatory demonstrates a clear intention to be bound by the arbitration agreement, including through material involvement in the negotiation, performance or termination of the underlying contract.The Egyptian Court of Cassation addressed the issue in Challenge No. 3100 of Judicial Year 86, Civil judgment of 13 March 2018. The Court confirmed that an arbitration agreement may, in principle, extend beyond its formal signatories in recognized circumstances, including in cases involving a group of companies, a group of contracts, universal succession and assignment. At the same time, the Court emphasized that consent remains the foundation of arbitration and that any extension of the arbitration agreement must ultimately be supported by a clear legal or factual basis establishing the non-signatory’s intention or succession to the relevant rights and obligations.

There have been no identified recent legislative reforms or Egyptian court decisions materially altering the approach to determining the law governing an arbitration agreement where the parties have made no express choice.

The EAL does not establish an express hierarchy of connecting factors for determining the law applicable to an arbitration agreement in such circumstances. The question therefore falls to be considered by reference to the parties’ intentions, relevant private international law principles and, where applicable, the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

First, consideration is given to whether the parties have made an implied choice of law. The law governing the underlying contract may be relevant in identifying the parties’ intended choice for the arbitration agreement, particularly where there is no indication that they intended different laws to govern the two agreements. The designation of an arbitral seat may also be relevant in assessing the parties’ intentions.

Second, where no express or implied choice can be established, the law of the arbitral seat may provide a relevant connecting factor. This approach is particularly significant in the context of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention, which expressly refers to the law of the country where the award was rendered in the absence of a choice by the parties.

Third, where the applicable law cannot be determined by reference to the parties’ intentions or the arbitral seat, general private international law principles may require consideration of the legal system most closely connected to the arbitration agreement. Relevant circumstances may include the parties’ nationality and domicile, the place of conclusion of the agreement and the broader connections of the underlying contractual relationship. However, the EAL does not expressly codify this approach as a default rule.

Egyptian jurisprudence has addressed the applicable law in the context of foreign award enforcement. In Appeal No. 2660 of Judicial Year 59, dated 27 March 1996, the Egyptian Court of Cassation considered the validity of an arbitration agreement under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention. The Court applied the Convention’s rule that the validity of the arbitration agreement is determined by reference to the law chosen by the parties to govern that agreement or the underlying contract, or, absent such choice, the law of the country where the award was rendered.

This approach was subsequently reaffirmed by the Court of Cassation in Appeal No. 5000 of Judicial Year 78, dated 28 April 2015, which likewise recognized the applicable choice-of-law rule under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention. These judgments confirm the position in foreign award enforcement proceedings, although they do not establish a comprehensive statutory hierarchy of connecting factors under the EAL.

Article 39 of the EAL recognizes party autonomy in determining the law applicable to the substance of the dispute. The arbitral tribunal must apply the legal rules chosen by the parties. Where the parties designate the law of a particular State, the tribunal must apply its substantive provisions, excluding its conflict-of-laws rules, unless otherwise agreed.

In the absence of an agreement, the tribunal must apply the substantive rules of the law it considers most closely connected to the dispute. In all cases, the tribunal must have regard to the terms of the contract and the relevant trade usages.

The Egyptian Court of Cassation reaffirmed these principles in Challenge No. 36915 of Judicial Year 95, dated 1 June 2026, confirming that the tribunal is bound by the parties’ choice of applicable law and, where the law of a State is designated without specifying a particular territorial legal system, may apply the substantive law of the territorial unit most closely connected to the dispute.

Under Article 39(4) of the EAL, an arbitral tribunal may decide a dispute according to principles of equity and fairness (ex aequo et bono), without being bound by the applicable legal provisions, only where the parties have expressly authorized it to act as an amiable compositeur. In the absence of such authorization, the tribunal must determine the dispute in accordance with the applicable substantive law.

Yes, Article 16 of the EAL provides that an arbitrator may not be a minor, legally incapacitated, deprived of civil rights following a conviction for a felony or an offence contrary to honour, or an undischarged bankrupt. Subject to any contrary agreement between the parties or specific statutory requirement, there are no restrictions based on nationality or gender.

An arbitrator’s acceptance of appointment must be in writing and must be accompanied by disclosure of any circumstances likely to give rise to doubts as to their independence or impartiality. The obligation to disclose relevant circumstances continues throughout the arbitral proceedings. The Egyptian Court of Cassation has emphasized the fundamental nature of arbitrators’ independence and impartiality, including in Challenge No. 13892 of Judicial Year 81, dated 22 February 2022.

Specific restrictions may also arise by virtue of an arbitrator’s office. For example, Article 63 of Judicial Authority Law No. 46 of 1972 prohibits serving judges from acting as arbitrators, even without remuneration, without the approval of the Supreme Judicial Council, subject to the statutory exception concerning disputes involving relatives or in-laws up to the fourth degree.

Failure to comply with applicable requirements may have implications for the validity of the arbitral proceedings and any resulting award. In particular, Article 53(1)(e) of the EAL permits annulment where the composition of the arbitral tribunal or appointment of arbitrators was contrary to the law or the parties’ agreement. However, objections to an arbitrator’s appointment or impartiality must be raised in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements. In Challenges Nos. 7913 and 13996 of Judicial Year 91, dated 9 May 2023, the Court of Cassation addressed the consequences of failing to raise known objections in a timely manner.

Yes, although the appointment of arbitrators is principally a matter for the parties, Egyptian courts may intervene in limited circumstances to ensure that the constitution of the arbitral tribunal is not frustrated by disagreements or procedural deadlock.

Under Article 17 of the EAL judicial intervention may arise where: (a) the parties have designated the competent Egyptian court to assist with the appointment process; (b) a party fails to appoint an arbitrator within the prescribed timeframe, the appointed arbitrators fail to agree on the presiding arbitrator, or an agreed appointment mechanism otherwise breaks down; or (c) an arbitrator’s appointment is challenged on grounds relating to independence or impartiality and the challenge requires judicial determination under Articles 18 and 19 of the EAL.

In institutional arbitrations, however, these appointment functions are generally exercised by the designated institution. For instance, under the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules the Centre may step in to appoint arbitrators where the parties are unable to do so, thereby limiting the need for judicial intervention.

Article 18 of the EAL permits a party to challenge an arbitrator where circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts regarding the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. However, a distinction applies where the challenged arbitrator was appointed by, or with the participation of, the challenging party. In such circumstances, the challenge may be brought only on grounds that became known to the party after the arbitrator’s appointment.

Article 19 of the EAL governs the challenge procedure. A reasoned written request must be submitted to the arbitral tribunal within 15 days of the challenging party becoming aware of the tribunal’s constitution or the circumstances justifying the challenge. If the arbitrator does not withdraw within 15 days of the request, the matter is referred, without fees, to the competent court for a final, non-appealable determination. A party may not submit a further challenge against the same arbitrator in the same arbitration. Although filing a challenge does not suspend the proceedings, a successful challenge renders the proceedings already conducted, including any arbitral award, null and void.

The 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules similarly regulate challenges to arbitrators under Article 14. A reasoned written challenge must be submitted to the Centre within 15 days of notification of the arbitrator’s appointment or knowledge of the circumstances giving rise to the challenge. The Centre then communicates the challenge to the parties and arbitrators and requests their comments. If the arbitrator does not withdraw and the parties do not agree to their removal within 15 days, the challenging party may pursue the challenge before a three-member ad hoc committee constituted from CRCICA’s Advisory Committee, whose decision is final. The arbitral tribunal may continue the proceedings pending that decision but may not issue an award until the challenge has been determined.

Recent Egyptian Court of Cassation judgments have demonstrated an increasing willingness to draw on international soft-law instruments, particularly the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration, when assessing arbitrators’ independence, impartiality and disclosure obligations.

In its judgment of 22 February 2022 (Appeal No. 13892 of Judicial Year 81), the Court expressly referred to the Orange List of the 2014 IBA Guidelines, recognizing that it identifies non-exhaustive circumstances which may give rise to doubts concerning an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality and warrant disclosure. Importantly, the Court clarified that a failure to disclose does not automatically establish grounds for annulment, as the significance of the undisclosed circumstances remains subject to judicial assessment.

The Court further developed this approach in its judgment of 9 May 2023 (Appeals Nos. 7913 and 13996 of Judicial Year 91), drawing on the Green List of the 2014 IBA Guidelines to distinguish circumstances that do not ordinarily raise justifiable doubts concerning an arbitrator’s independence or impartiality. In particular, the Court considered shared membership of professional bodies and participation in professional conferences, finding that such circumstances do not, in themselves, necessitate disclosure or undermine an arbitrator’s independence.

Taken together, these judgments reflect the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s growing engagement with international arbitration standards, particularly its reliance on the IBA Guidelines in assessing arbitrators’ independence, impartiality and disclosure obligations. They also demonstrate the Court’s emphasis on examining the particular circumstances of each case, rather than treating every failure to disclose as sufficient grounds for challenging an arbitrator or setting aside an arbitral award.

The EAL does not expressly confer immunity on arbitrators. Nevertheless, arbitrators generally enjoy protection from personal liability in the performance of their functions, except in cases involving fraud, willful misconduct or gross negligence.

An arbitrator may therefore be held liable for damage arising from such conduct, provided that the party pursuing the claim establishes the arbitrator’s fault, the damage suffered and a causal link between the two. Accordingly, liability is exceptional and does not arise merely because a party is dissatisfied with the arbitrator’s decisions or the outcome of the proceedings.

In institutional arbitration, the applicable rules may expressly address this protection. Notably, Article 55 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules excludes liability for arbitrators, the Centre and other specified participants for acts or omissions in performing their functions under the Rules, save for intentional wrongdoing.

Yes, the principle of compétence-compétence is firmly established under Egyptian law. Article 22(1) of the EAL expressly empowers arbitral tribunals to determine their own jurisdiction, including objections concerning the non-existence, expiry or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, or whether the dispute falls outside its scope.

Under Article 22(3) of the EAL, the tribunal may determine such objections as a preliminary issue or address them alongside the merits. Where the tribunal rejects a jurisdictional objection, the challenging party may only contest that determination through an action for annulment of the final arbitral award under Article 53 of the EAL.

Under Article 13(1) of the EAL, Egyptian courts are required to declare a claim inadmissible where the dispute is subject to a valid arbitration agreement, provided that the defendant invokes the arbitration agreement before submitting any claim or defence on the merits. Failure to raise this objection in a timely manner is generally treated as a waiver of the right to rely on the arbitration agreement, allowing the court to proceed with the dispute.

Where the defendant raises the objection in time, the court examines whether the arbitration agreement is valid and extends to the dispute before it. If the agreement is found to be invalid or not to cover the dispute, the court may proceed to determine the claim. Conversely, where a valid arbitration agreement applies, the court must uphold the objection and declare the claim inadmissible. This position has been consistently upheld by the Egyptian Court of Cassation, including in its judgment of 21 October 2020 (Appeal No. 17684 of Judicial Year 81), which affirmed that an objection based on the existence of an arbitration agreement must be raised before addressing the merits of the dispute.

The scope of the arbitration agreement is particularly relevant where a dispute involves third parties who are not bound by it. For instance, in disputes concerning bank guarantees, the arbitration clause in the underlying contract does not automatically extend to the separate relationship between the issuing bank and the beneficiary. In its judgment of 13 January 2004 (Appeal No. 495 of Judicial Year 72), the Court of Cassation confirmed that disputes concerning payment under a bank guarantee remain within the jurisdiction of the courts unless the guarantee itself contains an arbitration clause or expressly incorporates one by reference.

A respondent’s failure to participate does not prevent the arbitration from proceeding. Under Article 34(2) of the EAL, where a respondent fails to submit its statement of defence within the prescribed timeframe under Article 30(2), the arbitral tribunal must continue the proceedings. Such failure does not, in itself, constitute an admission of the claimant’s allegations, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Furthermore, Article 35 empowers the tribunal to proceed and render an award on the basis of the evidence before it where a party fails to attend a hearing or produce the requested documents.

Nevertheless, the respondent’s non-participation does not relieve the tribunal of its obligation to safeguard due process. Articles 26, 31 and 33 of the EAL require equal treatment of the parties, a full opportunity to present their respective cases, and the communication of submissions, evidence and hearing notifications to both parties. Accordingly, a non-participating respondent must continue to receive the relevant documents and notifications and be afforded an opportunity to present its defence.

Egyptian courts cannot compel a respondent to participate in arbitration proceedings. Instead, the EAL allows the arbitration to proceed in the respondent’s absence, subject to the procedural safeguards outlined above. This does not preclude judicial assistance in specific matters, such as the imposition of penalties on witnesses who fail to appear or refuse to testify, pursuant to Article 37 of the EAL.

The EAL does not expressly regulate the joinder of third parties to arbitration proceedings. However, under the general principle of privity of contract recognized under Egyptian law, an arbitration agreement ordinarily binds only those who have consented to it. Accordingly, third parties may voluntarily join arbitration proceedings where they and the existing parties agree to their participation.

Article 17(5) of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules expressly regulates the joinder of additional parties. It provides that, at the request of any party, the arbitral tribunal may permit one or more additional parties to join the arbitration, provided that they are parties to the arbitration agreement. The tribunal retains discretion to refuse joinder where it considers that doing so would prejudice any party, and must give all parties, including the proposed additional party, an opportunity to be heard before reaching its decision. Where joinder is permitted, the composition of the tribunal remains unaffected, and the tribunal may render one or more awards in respect of all parties involved.

Importantly, Article 17(5) does not expressly require the unanimous consent of all parties for joinder. Accordingly, an objection by an existing party does not necessarily preclude joinder, provided that the proposed additional party is a party to the arbitration agreement and the tribunal, having heard all parties concerned, determines that joinder would not prejudice any of them. The tribunal’s power to permit joinder is therefore expressly conditional upon the proposed additional party being a party to the arbitration agreement.

Egyptian law does not provide an exhaustive list of interim or conservatory measures available in arbitration. Such measures are generally intended to preserve the status quo, prevent the dissipation of assets, avert imminent harm or otherwise safeguard the parties’ rights pending the resolution of the dispute.

Under Article 24 of the EAL the parties may agree to empower the arbitral tribunal to order such interim or conservatory measures as it considers necessary in relation to the subject matter of the dispute, upon either party’s request. The tribunal may also require the provision of security to cover the costs of such measures.

Egyptian courts may likewise grant interim or conservatory measures pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Article 14 of the EAL expressly empowers the competent Egyptian court to order such measures before the commencement of arbitration proceedings or during their course. In practice, such relief generally requires the existence of a real and imminent risk warranting urgent intervention, without prejudging the merits of the dispute.

In institutional arbitration, Article 26 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules expressly provides for interim measures, including measures aimed at maintaining or restoring the status quo, preventing harm to the parties or the arbitral proceedings, preserving assets and safeguarding evidence. The 2024 Rules also introduced an emergency arbitrator mechanism under Annex 2, enabling parties to seek urgent interim relief before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

Anti-suit and anti-arbitration injunctions are not generally available or enforceable under Egyptian law. This position is consistent with Article 97 of the Egyptian Constitution, which guarantees the right of access to justice. Where court proceedings are commenced in breach of an arbitration agreement, the defendant may instead invoke Article 13 of the EAL and request that the court declare the action inadmissible, provided that the objection is raised before any substantive defence or request. The commencement of such court proceedings does not, in itself, prevent the arbitration from proceeding.

Evidentiary matters in arbitration under Egyptian law are generally governed by the Egyptian Evidence Law No. 25 of 1968 (the “Evidence Law”), unless the parties agree otherwise. Under Article 25 of the EAL, the parties are free to agree on the procedures applicable to their arbitration, including the adoption of rules of an arbitral institution, whether in Egypt or abroad. This procedural autonomy also allows the parties to agree on internationally recognized evidentiary standards, such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. In the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal may determine the procedures it considers suitable, subject to the provisions of the EAL. The tribunal enjoys considerable discretion in assessing the admissibility, relevance and evidentiary weight of the evidence presented.

Egyptian courts may provide judicial assistance where coercive powers are required, as arbitral tribunals do not themselves possess such powers. In particular, Article 37 of the EAL empowers the president of the competent court, upon the arbitral tribunal’s request, to impose the penalties prescribed under Articles 78 and 80 of the Evidence Law on witnesses who fail to attend or refuse to testify. The same provision also authorizes the court to order judicial assistance through a commission rogatoire. Accordingly, while arbitral tribunals cannot themselves compel witness attendance, judicial assistance is available to address a witness’s failure to attend or testify.

The Egyptian Bar Association Law No. 17 of 1983 (the “Bar Association Law”) governs lawyers’ professional conduct, establishing duties of honesty, integrity, confidentiality, avoidance of conflicts of interest and keeping clients informed of developments in their cases. In international arbitration, the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration (2013) provide further guidance on counsel’s ethical obligations, including conflicts of interest, communications with arbitrators and the presentation of evidence.

As regards arbitrators, Articles 16 and 18 of the EAL establish the requirements of independence, impartiality and disclosure. These obligations are further reinforced by Article 12 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules.

These obligations are not confined to Egyptian nationals. The Bar Association Law governs lawyers registered with the Egyptian Bar Association, while the EAL’s requirements concerning arbitrator independence, impartiality and disclosure apply irrespective of an arbitrator’s nationality. Foreign counsel may also be subject to the professional conduct rules of their respective jurisdictions and any applicable arbitration rules.

Confidentiality of arbitration proceedings is recognized under the EAL. Article 44(2) expressly prohibits the publication of arbitral awards, whether in whole or in part, without the consent of both parties.

Furthermore, Article 54 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules provides broader confidentiality protection, covering arbitral awards, decisions and materials prepared or submitted during the proceedings, subject to certain exceptions. Article 56 further provides for the retrieval of original documents and the possible destruction of copies retained by the Centre following the expiry of nine months from communication of the award.

Egyptian courts regard the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration as non-binding soft-law instruments that may provide guidance when assessing arbitrators’ independence, impartiality and disclosure obligations. This approach is reflected in the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s judgments of 22 February 2022 (Appeal No. 13892 of Judicial Year 81) and 9 May 2023 (Appeals Nos. 7913 and 13996 of Judicial Year 91), in which the Court expressly referred to the Orange List and Green List of the 2014 IBA Guidelines, respectively, when considering questions concerning arbitrators’ independence, impartiality and disclosure obligations.

The Guidelines also play a recognized role in Egyptian institutional arbitration practice. Notably, Section II of CRCICA’s Practice Notes, issued in December 2025, expressly provides that arbitrators are expected to seek guidance from the IBA Guidelines when assessing their disclosure obligations. The Practice Notes further emphasize the continuing nature of these obligations, including the disclosure of relevant relationships with fellow arbitrators, witnesses, experts and third-party funders.

As regards the 2024 revisions to the IBA Guidelines, no reported Egyptian court decisions have been identified specifically addressing the expanded Orange List, the treatment of public statements made through social media or professional networking platforms, or the revised due diligence obligations of parties and arbitrators. These revisions nevertheless provide further guidance on identifying and disclosing potential conflicts of interest, consistent with the principles of independence, impartiality and disclosure recognized under Egyptian arbitration law and institutional practice.

A distinction should be drawn between ad hoc and institutional arbitration. In institutional arbitration, the applicable rules generally govern the estimation and allocation of arbitration costs, whereas the EAL does not expressly regulate these matters. In ad hoc arbitration, the parties typically agree on the arbitrators’ fees and expenses, with their ultimate allocation determined in the arbitral award.

In institutional arbitration, Articles 41 to 49 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules provide a framework for determining and allocating costs, including administrative fees, arbitrators’ fees and reasonable legal expenses. Article 49 establishes that costs are, in principle, borne by the unsuccessful party, unless otherwise agreed, while allowing the tribunal to apportion costs differently in light of the circumstances of the case.

Both pre- and post-award interest may be recoverable, subject to the applicable substantive law. Where Egyptian law applies, Article 226 of the Egyptian Civil Code (the “ECC”) provides for statutory interest at an annual rate of 4% in civil matters and 5% in commercial matters where payment of a monetary obligation of a determined amount is delayed. Such interest generally accrues from the date of judicial demand, unless otherwise agreed or provided by law or commercial custom, and may continue until payment. As regards arbitration costs, interest may accrue once the amounts payable have been determined and become due, subject to the applicable legal requirements.

Applications for security for costs are approached with caution in Egypt and are rarely granted, generally being reserved for exceptional circumstances. Although the EAL does not expressly regulate security for costs, such requests may be considered within the framework of interim measures, subject to the tribunal’s powers and the applicable arbitration rules. In particular, Article 26 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules empowers arbitral tribunals to grant interim measures where the prescribed conditions are satisfied.

In practice, parties generally bear their own legal expenses and arbitration costs throughout the proceedings, with the possibility of recovering all or part of those costs through the final arbitral award.

The EAL lays down a series of formal and procedural requirements that arbitral awards must satisfy to secure recognition and enforcement in Egypt. Article 43 requires awards to be issued in writing and signed by the arbitrators. In the case of a multi-member tribunal, the signatures of the majority will suffice, provided that the reasons for any missing signatures are stated. Importantly, awards must also be reasoned, unless the parties agree otherwise or the law governing the arbitral proceedings dispenses with this requirement.

Article 43 also specifies the particulars that must be included in the award. These comprise the names and addresses of the parties and arbitrators, the arbitrators’ nationalities and capacities, a copy of the arbitration agreement, a summary of the parties’ claims, submissions and supporting documents, the dispositive part of the award, and the date and place of its issuance.

Once these requirements are satisfied, the successful party may take the necessary steps towards enforcement. Under Article 47, the original award or a signed copy must be deposited with the competent court, accompanied by a certified Arabic translation if the award was issued in another language. Article 56 further requires the enforcement application to be supported by the award, a copy of the arbitration agreement, any required certified translation and proof of deposit.

The final step is obtaining an enforcement order (exequatur), which is subject to the safeguards set out in Article 58 of the EAL. The statutory period for bringing a  nullity action must have expired, and the competent court must verify that the award does not conflict with an earlier Egyptian court judgment concerning the same dispute, does not contravene Egyptian public policy, and has been duly notified to the party against whom enforcement is sought.

The recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in Egypt typically takes around 10 to 14 months, although the timeframe may vary depending on the circumstances of each case and any challenges brought against enforcement.

Under Articles 56 and 58 of the EAL, a party may apply for an enforcement order (exequatur) on an ex parte basis, without initiating ordinary adversarial proceedings. Where the EAL is not applicable, and in the absence of an applicable treaty providing otherwise, the Egyptian Civil and Commercial Procedures Law (the “Procedures Law”) governs the enforcement procedure. Articles 296 to 298 of the Procedures Law provide for ordinary court proceedings, in which the opposing party is notified and afforded an opportunity to present its case.

However, Article 301 of the Procedures Law gives precedence to applicable international treaties. In this regard, the Egyptian Court of Cassation confirmed in its judgment of 10 January 2005 (Appeal No. 966 of Judicial Year 73) that the 1958 New York Convention takes precedence over conflicting domestic procedural provisions. Applying Article III of the Convention, the Court held that foreign arbitral awards may benefit from the less onerous enforcement procedures provided under the EAL, rather than being subject to the more burdensome procedures prescribed by the Procedures Law.

As regards the standard of review, Egyptian courts generally refrain from revisiting the merits of arbitral awards, whether domestic or international. Their examination is confined to the applicable grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement under the relevant statutory or treaty framework.

Arbitral awards are not subject to ordinary appeals before Egyptian courts. However, where Egypt is the seat of arbitration, or where the parties have agreed to apply the EAL to international commercial arbitration proceedings seated abroad, Article 52 permits a party to challenge an award through an action for annulment.

The grounds for annulment are exhaustively set out in Article 53 of the EAL and are limited to specific legal and procedural defects, rather than a reconsideration of the merits. These include the absence, invalidity or expiry of the arbitration agreement; a party’s lack of legal capacity or inability to present its case; failure to apply the substantive law chosen by the parties; irregularities in the tribunal’s constitution; decisions exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement; and defects in the award or proceedings affecting its validity. The court may also annul an award of its own motion where it contravenes Egyptian public policy.

As regards procedure, Article 54 requires an annulment action to be brought within 90 days of notification of the award to the party against whom it was rendered. The action is filed through ordinary court proceedings before the competent court, as determined under Articles 9 and 54 of the EAL.

Parties may agree to waive their right to challenge an award following its issuance. However, Article 54(1) expressly provides that a waiver made before the award is rendered does not prevent a party from subsequently bringing an annulment action.

As a general rule, the binding effect of an arbitral award is confined to the parties to the arbitration proceedings. This follows from the consensual nature of arbitration, whereby the parties’ agreement determines the scope of the tribunal’s jurisdiction and the persons bound by its decisions. Accordingly, third parties who are neither parties to the arbitration agreement nor otherwise bound by it cannot ordinarily be bound by the resulting award.

Nevertheless, the Egyptian Court of Cassation has recognized that an arbitration agreement may, in certain circumstances, extend to non-signatories. In its judgment of 13 February 2014 (Appeal No. 7595 of Judicial Year 81), the Court confirmed that a non-signatory to whom the arbitration agreement extends may be joined to the arbitration proceedings, subject to the consent of the other party to the arbitration and, in the case of joinder, the non-signatory concerned. Where a non-signatory becomes a party to the arbitration proceedings in accordance with these requirements, the resulting award may be binding upon that party.

As regards challenges, Article 55 of the EAL confers the force of res judicata on arbitral awards, while Articles 52–54 govern actions for annulment. In its judgment of 9 May 2023 (Appeals Nos. 7913 and 13996 of Judicial Year 91), the Egyptian Court of Cassation confirmed that standing to bring an annulment action rests with a party against whom the award was rendered, provided that one of the statutory grounds for annulment is established. Accordingly, a third party who was not a party to the arbitration proceedings would ordinarily lack standing to seek annulment of the resulting award.

The EAL neither expressly regulates nor prohibits third-party funding of arbitration proceedings. However, the introduction of Article 53 of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules marks a significant development, establishing, for the first time, an express framework for the disclosure of third-party funding in arbitrations administered by the Centre.

Under Article 53, a party receiving third-party funding is required to disclose the existence of the funding arrangement and the identity of the funder at the commencement of, and throughout, the arbitral proceedings. This obligation is reinforced by Articles 3(3)(i) and 4(1)(d), which require the disclosure of such information in the notice of arbitration and the response thereto, respectively. Accordingly, while the Rules do not prohibit third-party funding, they subject it to express disclosure requirements.

Yes, emergency arbitrator relief was introduced under the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules. Article 26(1), read together with Annex 2, allows parties to seek urgent interim or conservatory measures before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Under Annex 2, the Centre will normally appoint an emergency arbitrator within two days of accepting the application, with a decision generally required within 15 days of the referral.

Articles 8 and 9 of Annex 2 provide that emergency decisions may take the form of an order or award and are binding on the parties upon issuance, carrying the same effect as interim measures ordered under Article 26. However, while the parties undertake to comply with such decisions without delay, their enforceability before Egyptian courts is not expressly addressed under the EAL. Accordingly, emergency decisions should not automatically be treated as enforceable through the same procedure applicable to final arbitral awards.

While the EAL does not expressly provide for expedited arbitration based on the value of a claim, the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules introduced an expedited procedure under Article 1(5) and Annex 3. Unlike expedited procedures in some jurisdictions, its application is not subject to a monetary threshold but rather to the parties’ agreement.

Annex 3 establishes a streamlined procedure, generally providing for the appointment of a sole arbitrator, shorter procedural deadlines and the issuance of an award within six months of the tribunal’s constitution, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or extended by the Centre.

Although relatively new, the procedure has already seen its first application. According to CRCICA’s 2025 Annual Caseload Report, the Centre registered its first case under the Expedited Arbitration Rules in 2025, representing one of the 97 new cases registered that year.

A notable recent development arose from the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s judgment of 8 May 2025 (Appeals Nos. 32779 and 32790 of Judicial Year 93), which annulled a CRCICA arbitral award on public policy grounds. The Court held that awarding compensation in US dollars, where the underlying transaction was denominated in Egyptian pounds and the parties had not agreed to payment in foreign currency, contravened mandatory Egyptian foreign-exchange regulations.

The Egyptian annulment subsequently became central to enforcement proceedings before
the High Court of the British Virgin Islands (“BVI Court”). In its judgment of 29 January 2026, the BVI Court considered whether the award could nevertheless be recognized and enforced notwithstanding its annulment in Egypt. Although Section 86(2) of the BVI Arbitration Act permits enforcement of awards set aside at their seat, the Court emphasized the principle of judicial comity and the importance of respecting judgments of competent foreign courts. Ultimately, the BVI Court declined to enforce the award, finding no sufficient basis to disregard the Egyptian Court of Cassation’s annulment judgment.

These proceedings illustrate the significant weight accorded to Egyptian annulment judgments in cross-border enforcement disputes, while recognizing that foreign courts may retain discretion to enforce an award notwithstanding its annulment at the seat.

No recent Egyptian court decisions specifically addressing allegations of corruption in arbitration proceedings have been identified.

In the absence of specific provisions governing the standard of proof for corruption in arbitration, the general principles of Egyptian evidence law apply. Accordingly, the party alleging corruption bears the burden of establishing the facts supporting its allegations and must substantiate them with sufficient evidence. This is consistent with Article 1 of the Evidence Law, which places the burden of proving an obligation on the party asserting it.

Egypt is neither a signatory nor a contracting party to the Energy Charter Treaty (the “ECT”). As such, the question of withdrawal does not arise, and the sunset clause under Article 47(3) of the ECT, which extends certain treaty protections for 20 years following withdrawal, is not applicable to Egypt.

We are not aware of any Egyptian court decisions concerning intra-European investor-State arbitration or the recognition and enforcement of awards arising from such proceedings, nor of any pending proceedings before Egyptian courts addressing these issues.

Egyptian arbitration has witnessed a growing shift towards technology-driven and more cost-effective proceedings, particularly following the introduction of the 2024 CRCICA Arbitration Rules. The Rules expressly accommodate electronic communications and online filing under Articles 2(6), 3(6) and 4(4), while Article 28(2) empowers arbitral tribunals, after consulting the parties, to conduct hearings in person, remotely by videoconference or in a hybrid format. The Rules also introduce expedited arbitration under Article 1(5) and Annex 3, offering a more streamlined procedure aimed at reducing time and costs.

These reforms have translated into practical developments. According to CRCICA’s 2025 Annual Caseload Report, of the 162 hearings held using the Centre’s facilities, nine were conducted remotely and 18 in a hybrid format, representing a combined 17% of hearings, compared with approximately 10% in 2024. These figures illustrate the increasing use of virtual and hybrid hearings alongside traditional in-person proceedings.

Beyond institutional arbitration, Egypt’s broader judicial framework has also embraced digitalization. Law No. 146 of 2019, amending the Economic Courts Law No. 120 of 2008, introduced electronic litigation procedures, including electronic filing, submission of documents and payment of court fees. The Economic Courts’ electronic litigation platform also facilitates remote attendance at hearings through videoconferencing, subject to the applicable procedural requirements. While these developments do not directly govern arbitral proceedings, they reflect a wider move towards technology-enabled dispute resolution within the Egyptian judicial system.

Although no recent Egyptian court decisions or arbitral awards specifically addressing ESG-related disputes have been identified, Egypt has witnessed several noteworthy legislative and regulatory developments in this area.

On the environmental front, Prime Ministerial Decree No. 2466 of 2024 amended the Executive Regulations of Environment Law No. 4 of 1994, refining environmental impact assessment procedures and introducing provisions governing environmental reviews of existing facilities, environmental monitoring, record-keeping and reporting obligations.

Further, Prime Ministerial Decree No. 662 of 2025 subjected plastic shopping bags to the extended producer responsibility regime, imposing registration, reporting and waste-management obligations on producers and importers.

In relation to climate change and sustainability, Financial Regulatory Authority Resolution No. 36 of 2026 introduced carbon-footprint reporting requirements for non-banking financial institutions meeting the prescribed capital threshold, together with an obligation to offset 20% of their reported carbon emissions through the purchase of carbon credits. Resolution No. 115 of 2026 subsequently extended the initial reporting deadline to 31 December 2026.

On the social and human rights front, Labour Law No. 14 of 2025 strengthened workplace protections by expressly prohibiting harassment, bullying and physical, verbal or psychological violence under Article 4, while Article 5 broadened the prohibition of discrimination in employment. Further, Law No. 185 of 2023 amended Articles 306 bis (A) and 306 bis (B) of the Penal Code, introducing stricter penalties for sexual harassment, particularly where the offence is committed in the workplace or involves an abuse of authority.

Egypt has not recently introduced any autonomous economic sanctions regime or adopted sanctions based on EU law. However, Decision No. 1 of 2024, issued by the Egyptian Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Unit, approved a mechanism for implementing targeted financial sanctions under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning terrorism, terrorist financing and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

We are not aware of any recent Egyptian court decisions addressing the impact of international economic sanctions on arbitration proceedings.

Egypt has yet to introduce legislation or specific rules governing the use of generative AI or large language models in judicial or arbitral proceedings. Nevertheless, recent initiatives reflect a growing emphasis on the integration of AI into the Egyptian legal and judicial landscape.

In January 2025, Egypt launched the second edition of its National Artificial Intelligence Strategy (2025–2030), setting out a comprehensive framework for AI development and adoption, with particular emphasis on responsible governance, safety and ethical considerations.

Building on these efforts, the Ministry of Justice and Egyptian judicial authorities adopted the Unified Digital Justice Strategy in August 2026, envisaging the integration of AI technologies into judicial processes, including legal analysis, as part of a broader digital transformation of the justice system. While these initiatives signal a shift towards AI-assisted judicial processes, they do not yet prescribe specific rules governing its use in litigation or arbitration.

Egypt has not adopted a specific legal, institutional or procedural framework governing the arbitration of digital asset or blockchain-related disputes. Accordingly, such disputes would, in principle, be governed by the general provisions of the EAL, subject to the applicable requirements concerning arbitrability and the validity of arbitration agreements.

Nevertheless, Egypt has introduced regulatory measures addressing digital contracts, blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies. In particular, Financial Regulatory Authority Resolution No. 140 of 2023 expressly recognizes smart contracts as a form of digital contract and regulates the use of blockchain technology in non-banking financial activities.

Separately, Article 206 of Central Bank and Banking Sector Law No. 194 of 2020 prohibits the issuance, trading or promotion of cryptocurrencies, as well as the operation of related trading platforms and activities, without a license from the Central Bank of Egypt.

The Central Bank subsequently reiterated these restrictions in its warning statements of September 2022 and March 2023, confirming in the latter that no licenses had been issued for cryptocurrency trading activities in Egypt.

As regards dispute resolution, neither the foregoing regulatory framework nor the EAL specifically addresses arbitration agreements incorporated into smart contracts or digital asset terms. We are not aware of any Egyptian court decisions determining the validity or enforceability of such arbitration agreements.