Ashraf Ali, Partner in AMERELLER’s Cairo Office together with Ibrahim Abo El-Soud, Managing Associate, successfully represented a leading international hotel management company in a jurisdictional dispute arising during execution proceedings related to an arbitral award denominated in a foreign currency. Thereafter, the opposing party sought to use the Administrative Judiciary as a forum to challenge Circular No. 4 of 2018 on Enforcement Fees, in an attempt to halt ongoing execution measures.
The case therefore presented a focused question of significant procedural importance: whether the Administrative Judiciary may review internal judicial circulars relating to enforcement procedures falling within the remit of the ordinary judiciary, or whether such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the ordinary judiciary.
Background
During the execution of a foreign-currency arbitral award, the opposing party submitted an objection before the competent Enforcement Department disputing the exchange-rate date applied in determining the proportional enforcement fee, which had been determined pursuant to Circular No. 4 of 2018— an internal circular regulating how enforcement authorities calculate proportional fees in foreign-currency enforcement, including the applicable exchange-rate date.
Following the dismissal of that objection, the opposing party sought to halt the ongoing execution measures by resorting to the Administrative Judiciary, seeking to annul Circular No. 4 of 2018 on the premise that it imposed a binding rule on enforcement authorities and therefore constituted a final administrative decision subject to annulment
In our submissions, we argued—by reference to the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law, the Judicial Fees Law, and the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court—that Circular No. 4 of 2018 is not a regulatory or administrative decision capable of annulment, but an internal interpretive circular directed to those responsible for applying the Judicial Fees Law in the context of foreign-currency enforcement.
We further demonstrated that procedures and decisions relating to execution—including the assessment of enforcement fees in the execution of foreign-currency awards—are judicial acts undertaken within the framework of the Enforcement Department and therefore fall outside the scope of administrative review. Accordingly, any objection to a fee assessment must be pursued exclusively through the mechanisms provided under the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law before the competent ordinary court, rather than through an annulment action before the Administrative Judiciary.
The Court was therefore required to determine the true legal nature of Circular No. 4 of 2018 and whether the Administrative Judiciary could be used as an indirect avenue to interfere with the ordinary judiciary’s execution process, a question that necessarily touched upon the constitutional separation of judicial functions and the limits of administrative review.
Court Findings
The Administrative Judiciary Court began by examining the legal nature of Circular No. 4 of 2018 and held that it does not constitute a final administrative decision capable of annulment. Drawing on the Supreme Constitutional Court’s ruling on Circular No. 2 of 2009 and the consistent jurisprudence of the Supreme Administrative Court, the Court reaffirmed that internal circulars issued within the judiciary—when intended merely to guide the application and interpretation of statutory provisions, particularly the Judicial Fees Law—do not amount to regulatory decisions or subordinate legislation. Rather, they serve as internal interpretive instructions addressed to those responsible for applying the law. Accordingly, Circular No. 4 of 2018 cannot be challenged through an annulment action before the Administrative Judiciary.
The Court then addressed the question of jurisdiction. It emphasized that execution procedures are governed exclusively by the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law and are supervised by the Enforcement Department established at each Court of First Instance. The Court underscored that decisions and orders issued by the Enforcement Department, including matters involving the assessment of enforcement fees and the valuation of foreign-currency obligations, retain a judicial character. As a result, disputes arising from execution procedures must be pursued through the grievance and appeal routes provided under the Civil and Commercial Procedure Law before the competent courts of the ordinary judiciary—not before the Administrative Judiciary.
Drawing on longstanding jurisprudence, the Court further reaffirmed that the Administrative Judiciary’s jurisdiction over execution matters is limited exclusively to the execution of its own judgments. Allowing it to intervene in execution measures carried out by another judicial authority would contravene the constitutional principle of judicial independence and improperly allow one judicial body to oversee the decisions of another.
Having established that Circular No. 4 of 2018 is not an administrative decision and that the underlying dispute pertains to execution matters reserved by law to the ordinary judiciary, the Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. Accordingly, and given that the Enforcement Department is not a “court” to which referral is permissible under Article 110 of the Civil Procedure Law, the Court confined its ruling to declaring lack of jurisdiction.
Significance and Conclusion
The judgment clarifies the limits of the Administrative Judiciary’s review power over matters originating within the ordinary judiciary’s execution system. The Court made clear that internal interpretive circulars issued in connection with enforcement fees and enforcement procedures—such as Circular No. 4 of 2018—do not qualify as administrative decisions and therefore do not fall within the State Council’s annulment jurisdiction. In doing so, the Court reaffirmed that disputes arising from the application of such circulars must be treated as part of the judicial execution system of the ordinary courts, not as administrative acts subject to review by the Administrative Judiciary.
The decision also reinforces the constitutional scheme under which each judicial body is responsible for the execution of its own rulings without oversight from another. By confirming that execution-related decisions made by the Enforcement Department and the execution judge are judicial rulings, the Court prevented the State Council from being used as an indirect forum to challenge the ordinary judiciary’s execution activity.
In practical terms, this clarification reduces the risk of parallel or conflicting proceedings and enhances the reliability and predictability of Egypt’s execution framework, factors of direct relevance to foreign investors and to confidence in Egypt’s broader business environment.
If you would like more information about this topic then please contact us.
-
PARTNER
-
SENIOR ASSOCIATE
CAIRO | MENA Associates in association with AMERELLER
Downtown: Immobilia Building | 26 A Sherif St. | Office No. 1029 | Postal Code 11121 | Cairo, Egypt
Sheikh Zayed: Polygon Business Park | 7-3B1 SODIC-West | Sheikh Zayed | Postal Code 12451| Cairo, Egypt
