Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
M. E. I. Alam Eldin Author
M. E. I. Alam Eldin
This is the first time the awards of the Cairo Regional Centre for Publication date
International Commercial Arbitration (CRCICA) have been compiled
and published in a book, by the kind permission of the Director of the 2000
Centre, Dr. Mohammed Aboul Enein. The present volume contains
awards made originally in either English or Arabic, with Arabic Source
awards in translation. All awards have been summarised with brief
M. E. I. Alam Eldin ,
commentaries on some awards by the author.
Introduction in Mohie
As mentioned in the preface, CRCICA already has, to its credit, a Eldin I. Alam Eldin (ed) ,
string of over a hundred and thirty arbitration cases. The success of Arbitral Awards of the
CRCICA has been supplemented by the active role played by the Cairo Regional Centre
Egyptian jurists in developing arbitration as an effective forum for for International
settlement of disputes. In this behalf, the new law on arbitration was Commercial Arbitration
promulgated in 1994 i.e. Law No.27/1994. (2000) (Kluwer Law
International 2000) pp. xi
The new law applies to arbitration cases having their seat of - xx
arbitration in Egypt as well as to arbitration cases where the parties
conduct proceedings abroad, but agree to the contract being
governed by the Egyptian law. The application of the new law to
arbitrations taking place in Egypt is by no means mandatory. Parties
may agree to apply a foreign procedural law to an arbitration taking
place in Egypt. The choice of foreign procedural law, although
possible in theory is not recommended because of the practical
problems that are liable to arise.
Party Autonomy
1 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
Challenging Arbitrators
The new law follows the Model law provisions of dealing with a
challenge to arbitrators. In an attempt to expedite the arbitral
process, the legislator has adopted several additional provisions in
this regard e.g. parties are not allowed to challenge their own
arbitrator's appointment after such appointment has already been
made. Further, parties may not challenge the same arbitrator twice
in the same arbitral process even though they may have different
grounds for the second challenge.
Court Intervention
2 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
page "xii"
The new law has further expanded the jurisdiction of the arbitral
tribunal. Even if a matter is outside the jurisdiction of a tribunal, that
alone is not a reason for the tribunal to cease its determination, if it
can continue notwithstanding and decide other matters that are
within its jurisdiction. This would obviously deny parties with a mala
fide intention to hinder proceedings, a process allowed by the
ECCCP's abolished article 506(2).
The new law's provisions with respect to setting aside the award
once again reflect the legislator's attempt to expedite the process of
arbitration and eliminate obstacles causing unjustified delays
previously allowed by the ECCCP.
The new law has limited the means of recourse for challenging an
award. Unlike the provisions of the ECCCP for setting aside the
award, the new law restricts an application for setting aside the
award to the specific circumstances provided for in Article 53. To
begin with, a party may only file for an application for setting aside,
3 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
Time limits for challenging awards are more stringent than those
provided for in the Model Law. The new law has, among other things
reduced the period in which an arbitral award may be set aside by
limiting it to ninety days from the receipt of the award, after which no
application for setting aside the award can be made. The filing of an
application for setting aside does not de jure result in the stay of
execution of the award, a practice previously allowed by the ECCCP
which almost threatened the very existence of arbitration as a forum
of settling disputes. However, it does allow parties to request the
court separately to stay the execution of the award while an
application to set aside is pending. If the court decides to stay the
execution of the award, it then has a period of six months, from the
date on which stay was granted, to make a judgment on setting
aside the award. The court may also, in granting a stay of execution
order a surety or pecuniary guarantee to be submitted to provide
security for the costs of the application.
page "xiii"
Parties may not request the enforcement of the award until the
period for instituting the action for setting aside expires [Article
58(1)]. Enforcement may only be refused if the award contradicts a
judgment previously rendered by the Egyptian Courts on the subject
matter in dispute. It may also be refused if it violates Egyptian public
policy or it was not properly notified to the party against whom it was
rendered. No special provision is made in the new law for the
enforcement of foreign awards which are enforceable under the
regime of the New York Convention. However, those awards made
in an international commercial arbitration outside of Egypt which the
parties have subjected to the new Law, would be enforceable under
this Law.
4 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
and have done so for the last fourteen centuries. Some of the
established principles are as follows:
5 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
His Excellency B. Sen the Secretary General of the AALCC, with the
approval of His Excellency the Minister of Justice of Egypt, set out
the functions of the CRCICA as:
Also in the event that action is not taken upon a request from a party
to discontinue the proceedings before CRCICA causing moral or
material prejudice to the party, the appropriate remedy is for the
party to make a submission to the Arbitral Tribunal and to challenge
the award according to the applicable law. The aggrieved party may
not file a claim for damages in the Egyptian courts against CRCICA.
6 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
1. Supply of services;
2. Supply and sale contracts;
3. Construction;
4. Maritime transport;
5. Work and material contracts;
6. Joint ventures;
7. Commercial agencies;
7 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
8. Management contracts;
9. Fees of consulting engineers;
10. Interpretation of contracts; and
11. Exchange rates.
page "xvi"
Damages
International Trade
8 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
Contractual Interpretation
page "xvii"
Costs
Good Faith
9 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
Contractual Obligations
page "xviii"
Construction Law
10 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
Agency
Exchange Rates
Jurisdiction
page "xix"
Fraud
Restitution
31. A party must be put in the same position that he would have
been in had the breach not occurred.
11 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM
Print preview http://www.kluwerarbitration.com/print.aspx?ids=...
12 of 12 7/4/10 1:29 AM