An appeal filed from the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) before the Supreme Administrative Court regarding the access and mechanized services fees in Mansoura Court of First Instance

ECESR filed an a challenge before the Supreme Administrative Court regarding access and mechanized services fees against a ruling which decided that the lawsuit is inadmissible in the previous adjudication therein requesting the cancellation of the decision to imposing additional access fees before Mansoura Court of First Instance, as the Court considered that its issuance of a previous ruling regarding the cancellation of a same decision related to Mansoura Family Prosecutions is a ruling in the same merits.

The Mansoura Court had imposed financial fees for accessing mechanized photocopy services under the name of “Accessing or Mechanized Services Fees”. Moreover, the Court made that fees compulsory so that extracting copies of the rulings, newspapers and exports’ reports can’t be extracted before paying that fees.

Therefore, the Center’s lawyers filed Lawsuit No. 168 of the Judicial Year No. 45 before Mansours Administrative Court to challenge the decision issued by the President of Mansoura Court of First Instance to increase the fees of the mechanized photocopying services ( the fees of extracting copies of the rulings, statements of claims and reports) from the front office of the Court of First Instance, as attorneys on behalf of a number of litigants before court and pay on their behalf a lot of fees which sometimes don’t reflect the level of service in parallel with the value of these fees, to challenge it in order to cancel the decision and restrict it, which the Administrative Court ruled not to accept it due to previously adjudicating it, despite the difference of litigants and the subject of the lawsuit.

Lawyer Wael Ghaly and Mansoura lawyers Mr. Mohamed Mahmoud Mohamed Ateya and Mr. Ahmed Sayed Ahmed Abdel Hameed Radwan  of the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights filed a challenge No. 97740 of the Judicial Year No. 69 before the Supreme Administrative Court against the issued Ruling from the Administrative Court.

ECESR affirmed that these fees are new additional amounts to the legally stipulated fees, and represent a restriction on the right to litigation where no text is mentioned in this regard. Thus, that decision violates Article 68 of the Constitution, and that the Judicial Authority Law No. 46 of 1972 is devoid of any provision that authorizes the President of the Court with this right.

The Center explained that despite the wish of the citizen and litigant to improve the level of the service provided to him and the acceleration of completion, they always bear huge amounts of money that burden him with additional encumbrances under a severe economic crisis that the country and the whole world are witnessing.

It’s noteworthy that EGESR’s lawyers had previously obtained a ruling issued from the Supreme Administrative Court in Lawsuit No. 6955 of the Judicial year No. 43 of Mansours Administrative Court against the Minister of Justice, by rejecting the appeal submitted by the government on the ruling to cancel the decision of public Prosecution Director in Mansoura Family Prosecution regarding collecting additional financial fees for extracting and receiving rulings and statements, as imposing these fees violates the law and represents a burden on litigants.

The center welcomed the ruling issued by the Supreme Administrative Court which is considered a triumph to the right of citizens to access justice through facilitating the litigation process and it’s procedures. Together with opening a way for filing similar lawsuits all over Egypt which would mitigate the obstacles of accessing justice facility and enable the society members, especially the weaker individuals such as women and children to obtain their rights.

Moreover, the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights stressed that every issued decision on imposing additional fees in courts and prosecutions is considered a violation of the law and represents a burden on litigants and it may be appealed whatever the decision making authorities continue to collect these fees and the Administrative Court didn’t generalize the decisions issued to collect additional fees without  any right.