As litigation costs rise and access to justice narrows, a new requirement has emerged—one that threatens further legal isolation for vulnerable groups: a “criminal background check” in exchange for a document from the court. A decision issued by the Public Prosecution on Sunday, July 13, and circulated on social media pages affiliated with Justice Ministry employees, mandates that citizens undergo a criminal record clearance to access certain prosecution services—most notably, obtaining official copies of case reports, court rulings, or registry-based certificates. The decision also requires the background check to verify whether the applicant has any outstanding financial claims before being granted the requested service.
Human rights advocates and lawyers view this decision as a fresh violation of the right to access justice and information, arguing that these services are not necessarily connected to any criminal background, and that mandating a “criminal record check” could complicate procedures for ordinary citizens.
In this context, lawyer Khaled Al-Ansary told Zawia3 that the decision undermines a fundamental constitutional right. “The right to litigation is one of the most important rights guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution, local laws, and international conventions—it is the foundation of societal stability, and it must not be restricted under any pretext,” he said.
He added that tying access to legal services to a criminal background check constitutes an unjustified restriction on a basic right, asking: “How can it be acceptable for a citizen to go to the prosecution to file a grievance or a legal request, only to be arrested due to an in-absentia ruling?”
Al-Ansary pointed out that this practice is already being implemented in certain courts, such as the Economic Court, even in the absence of an official decision—leading, in some cases, to citizens being denied their legal rights and facing legal consequences simply for requesting a judicial service.
He also warned of the risks of centralizing procedures. “If a citizen undergoes a criminal check in Cairo and is found to have a ruling issued against him in Aswan, he is detained and transferred to the competent prosecution instead of being allowed to appeal from his place of residence—which contradicts the principle of justice,” he explained.
Al-Ansary highlighted the technical flaws in criminal record systems, such as name similarities or delays in updating executed rulings, which could subject innocent individuals to serious legal consequences. For example, if a citizen receives an eviction ruling and attempts to appeal it, but is detained due to a name match with a convicted individual in another governorate, he could lose the opportunity to defend his right—and the ruling could be executed against him without a chance to appeal.
He affirmed that such restrictions could have severe social consequences, including growing feelings of injustice and increased crime rates as avenues for justice become blocked. Al-Ansary stressed that the Egyptian Constitution clearly protects this right, citing Articles 85, 92, and 97.
Don’t miss: Lawyers Revolt Against Soaring Court Fees in Egypt
When Procedure Conflicts with the Law: The Weakest Pay the Price
The Egyptian Constitution, in Article 85, guarantees every individual the right to address public authorities in writing and with their signature. Article 92 affirms that rights and freedoms inherent to the citizen may not be suspended or diminished. Article 97 emphasizes that litigation is an inviolable and guaranteed right for all, obligating the state to bring judicial bodies closer to the people and ensure swift adjudication of cases. It also prohibits exceptional courts and shields no administrative act from judicial oversight.
Based on these guarantees, Aziza El-Tawil, a lawyer at the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, believes the decision “constitutes a clear violation of the principle of equal opportunity and the right to access justice.” She told Zawia3 that the decision is “flawed and unconstitutional, as the core principle is to enable all citizens to exercise their rights without discrimination—especially the right to litigation and law enforcement.” She noted that the decision may deprive disadvantaged individuals from obtaining essential legal documents, merely due to the possibility of an in-absentia ruling against them—rulings that are often issued without proper legal notification.
El-Tawil added that many citizens are shocked to learn of cases filed against them—cases of which they were never notified, from the initial summons to the final ruling—due to flaws in the notification system, ultimately depriving them of their rights through procedures they were completely unaware of.
She warned that the decision would disproportionately exclude the poorest and most marginalized groups, particularly those who cannot afford legal representation and are forced to handle their legal affairs independently. “These individuals could be barred from entering prosecution offices or courts, which—under this decision—become akin to ambushes, exposing them to arrest or transfer without any legal preparation,” she said.
El-Tawil stressed that the Public Prosecution, by virtue of its role, is not an entity for enforcing judgments—it should be an instrument to uphold rights, not a barrier to them. She pointed out that the decision’s impact extends to other judicial bodies, such as the State Council, where some litigants are prevented from enforcing rulings in their favor due to prior financial claims. They are often required to settle such claims before being allowed to appeal—a practice that violates the principle of justice. She cited a case in which a court ordered someone’s appointment to a position, but the ruling was not enforced because the individual had an old financial obligation, which had accrued interest amounting to millions of Egyptian pounds (hundreds of thousands of US dollars), making repayment a precondition for accessing his right.
El-Tawil concluded her warning by highlighting the dangers of criminal background checks: arrest due to name similarities, transfer without the chance to consult a lawyer, or being forced to oppose a ruling without the ability to prepare a defense. “This type of restriction erodes citizens’ trust in the justice system, deepens their sense of injustice and marginalization, and could ultimately lead to serious social repercussions that undermine stability and increase crime rates,” she said.
Criminal Record Clearance as an Additional Restriction on the Right to Litigation
The recent decision by the Public Prosecution to impose a criminal background check as a prerequisite for accessing essential judicial services adds to the growing list of restrictions obstructing citizens’ access to justice. This development comes as the Bar Association wages a “peaceful and legal battle” against the sharp increases in litigation fees introduced by the Court of Appeals complex in recent months.
Lawyer Yassar Saad argues that the decision, despite being justified as a measure to ensure enforcement of rulings, constitutes an unlawful extension of what is known as “supplementary penalties”—which, under Egyptian criminal law, may only be imposed through a judicial ruling issued by a competent court. Speaking to Zawia3, he stressed that the Public Prosecution, as an investigative authority rather than a judicial body, is not authorized to issue decisions of a punitive or restrictive nature. “This type of penalty cannot be imposed by the Ministry of Justice, the prosecution, or any executive authority. Their sole mandate is investigation and referral—not making decisions that restrict citizens or deprive them of judicial services,” he said.
Saad added that linking access to court rulings or the issuance of legal documents to undergoing a criminal background check essentially constitutes an additional punishment imposed by the state before the citizen is even given the chance to appeal or defend themselves. “If someone has an in-absentia ruling issued against them, it is in their interest to challenge it and seek a retrial—so why treat them as a suspect from the outset?” he asked.
He pointed out that such practices contradict at least three constitutional articles and violate provisions of the Penal Code, which reserves the authority to impose penalties—including supplementary ones—exclusively to the judiciary.
Saad warned that the stated goal—ensuring enforcement of outstanding rulings—masks a deeper dysfunction in the enforcement system, which has suffered a severe decline in performance since 2012. “What’s needed is not more restrictions, but the reactivation of the electronic linkage system between courts, which would ensure real-time updates to the rulings database, rather than subjecting citizens to unlawful arrests due to outdated information,” he said.
This development coincides with a wave of rising judicial fees, sparking widespread concern among human rights advocates. Observers note that citizens are increasingly entangled in a complex web of burdens: exorbitant litigation fees that weigh heavily on them, and policing procedures that threaten their freedom in the event of unnotified in-absentia rulings. The requirement of criminal background checks adds yet another barrier to the simplest of services—such as obtaining a copy of a court ruling or a certificate from the registry. As a result, citizens—particularly those with limited income—find themselves encircled by overlapping financial and administrative hurdles. Even if they wish to defend themselves, they may end up detained due to a name similarity or outdated case data, further eroding their trust in the justice system and discouraging them from asserting their legal rights.
