On Saturday, May 31, 2025, the First Individuals Circuit of the Administrative Court ruled to reject the urgent motion in Case No. 51843 of Judicial Year 79, filed by the legal team of the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) against the Minister of Justice in his official capacity and the President of the Cairo Court of Appeal. The lawsuit challenges decisions related to the increase in judicial fees. The court scheduled a hearing on September 9, 2025, to consider the substantive merits of the case.<\/p>\n
During the same session, the court set the same date for hearing the merits of all similar lawsuits filed by various lawyers challenging the judicial fee increases.<\/p>\n
The ECESR had filed the lawsuit on Thursday, April 10, 2025, before the Administrative Court of the State Council, seeking the annulment of a decision issued by the President of the Cairo Court of Appeal, which increased monetary charges for services provided by the court.<\/p>\n
In their petition, submitted by lawyers Malek Adly, Khaled El-Gamal, Sameh Samir, and Wael Ghali, the Center stated it was surprised by the issuance of the contested decision, which imposed increases on the fees for 33 judicial services provided by the Cairo Court of Appeal. The Center argued that these increases effectively amounted to the imposition of new, additional, and mandatory fees on various court procedures, including the registration of claims, renewal requests following dismissal, motions to resume stayed proceedings, renewal from cassation, correction of appeal forms, joinder of parties, review of document bundles, all forms of service and re-service, and the issuance of certified copies of judgments and expert reports, among other judicial procedures, as detailed in the contested decision.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit asserted that these fees were imposed without any legal basis, and that the contested decision mandated the payment of such charges as a condition for registering and proceeding with appeals, obtaining certified copies of judgments, and receiving enforceable copies\u2014thereby imposing a restriction on the constitutional right to access justice in violation of Article 68 of the Constitution. The plaintiffs further argued that Law No. 46 of 1972 on Judicial Authority contains no provision authorizing the President of the Court to impose such fees.<\/p>\n
The plaintiffs emphasized that judicial fees are intended as a contribution by litigants toward the costs of operating the judiciary and must be imposed only through legislatively enacted instruments, as required by the Constitution. They noted that the Unification of Principles Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court has previously affirmed this principle, rendering the contested decision unlawful and an undue financial burden on litigants.<\/p>\n
The decision, they argued, contravenes existing legal provisions and is therefore legally null and void, especially in light of prior rulings, including the Supreme Administrative Court\u2019s judgment issued on January 12, 1991, in Case No. 2748 of Judicial Year 32, and the ruling by the Alexandria Administrative Court on January 30, 1997, in Case No. 991 of Judicial Year 50\u2014both of which affirmed the same legal standard.<\/p>\n
In its petition, the Center underscored that the constitutional legislator has guaranteed the right to litigation for all individuals, and that ensuring justice among litigants is the core mission of the judiciary. The imposition of additional fees constitutes a restriction on this right and undermines the constitutional protections afforded to it.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, the Center requested the court to accept the case procedurally and, on an urgent basis, to suspend the enforcement of the decision issued by the President of the Cairo Court of Appeal increasing charges for court services, along with all resulting effects\u2014particularly the suspension of the decision\u2019s implementation. The Center also requested the judgment be executed in its draft form without prior service of notice, and that the respondents be ordered to bear the costs of the urgent motion.<\/p>\n
On the merits, the Center requested that the court annul the contested decision and all resulting effects, and that the respondents be ordered to pay legal costs and attorney\u2019s fees, with execution of the judgment in its draft form without notification.<\/p>\n
It is worth noting that the Cairo Court of Appeal and its circuit courts had decided to raise fees for automated services starting in March 2025, despite a prior ruling that annulled a similar decision imposing additional fees for the issuance and receipt of judgments and certificates from the Family Prosecution Office in Mansoura\u2014raising significant questions about the legality of imposing additional fees on automated services in Egyptian courts.<\/p>\n
Previously, the ECESR and other attorneys secured a final ruling from the Supreme Administrative Court nullifying a decision by the Head of the Prosecution Administration at the Mansoura Family Prosecution Office, which had imposed additional fees in violation of the law and constituted a financial burden on litigants.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On Saturday, May 31, 2025, the First Individuals Circuit of the Administrative Court ruled to reject the urgent motion in Case No. 51843 of Judicial Year 79, filed by the legal team of the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) against the Minister of Justice in his official capacity and the President of …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":808329,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[562],"tags":[],"coauthors":[936],"class_list":["post-808510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n