Egyptian Center Files Appeal to Annul Cairo Court of Appeal’s Decision to Increase Fees for Automated Judicial Services
On Thursday, April 10, 2025, the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights filed an appeal before the Administrative Court of the State Council, seeking to annul the decision issued by the President of the North Cairo Court of Appeal regarding the increase in service fees for judicial services provided by the court.
In its appeal—submitted by attorneys Malek Adly, Khaled El-Gammal, Sameh Samir, and Wael Ghali—the Center stated that it was surprised by the issuance of the contested decision, which increased the fees for 33 judicial services offered by the Cairo Court of Appeal. These include the registration of case pleadings, motions for renewal following dismissal, motions to resume stayed proceedings, renewal following appeals before the Court of Cassation, correction of appeal forms, joinder of parties, review of document bundles, all notifications and re-notifications, and the issuance of certified copies of judgments and expert reports, among other judicial procedures—as detailed in the contested decision.
The appeal argued that these fees were imposed without any legal basis and that the contested decision effectively required mandatory payment for the aforementioned services. As a result, the filing and registration of appeals, the continuation of appeal procedures, and the issuance of certified and enforceable copies of judgments became contingent upon the payment of these fees. The Center considered this a restriction on the right of access to justice, in violation of Article 68 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Judicial Authority Law No. 46 of 1972 contains no provision authorizing the President of the Court to impose such fees.
The appellants emphasized that judicial fees are considered a contribution by litigants toward the financing of the judiciary, and that such fees must be imposed by a legislative instrument, as constitutionally mandated. This principle has been affirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court’s Unification of Principles Chamber, rendering the contested decision unlawful and an additional financial burden on litigants.
The decision also contradicts binding legal provisions, thereby rendering it legally null and void. This is particularly significant given prior rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court dated January 12, 1991 (Case No. 2748/32JY), and of the Alexandria Administrative Court dated January 30, 1997 (Case No. 991/50JY), which reaffirmed the same legal principles.
The Center’s appeal further emphasized that the Constitution guarantees the right of access to justice for all, and that the delivery of justice among litigants lies at the core of the judiciary’s mandate. Imposing additional fees constitutes an infringement on this right and undermines the constitutional protections afforded to it.
Accordingly, the Center requested the court to accept the appeal procedurally and, on an urgent basis, to suspend the implementation of the decision issued by the President of the North Cairo Court of Appeal to increase judicial service fees, along with all resulting legal consequences—particularly the suspension of the decision’s enforcement. The Center also sought enforcement of the ruling in draft form without prior notification, and requested that the respondents bear the costs of the urgent proceedings.
On the merits, the Center requested the annulment of the contested decision and all resulting effects, in addition to an order compelling the respondents to pay all litigation costs and attorneys’ fees, with enforcement of the ruling in draft form without notification.
It is worth noting that the Cairo Court of Appeal and its affiliated circuits had decided to increase fees for automated services effective March 2025, despite a prior ruling annulling a similar decision that imposed additional fees for obtaining and receiving judgments and certificates at the Family Prosecution Office in Mansoura. This raises questions regarding the legality of imposing additional charges on automated services in Egyptian courts.
Previously, the Center’s legal team and others had secured a ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court annulling the decision of the Director of the Prosecution Department in the Mansoura Family Prosecution Office to impose additional fees, on the grounds that such fees were unlawful and placed an unjust burden on litigants.
