The results of the opinion poll conducted by the Egyptian Bar Association and published on Tuesday morning, June 24, regarding steps to escalate against the new judicial fees, showed broad participation from members of the General Assembly, with 36,184 lawyers taking part. The number of invalid votes was 1,169.
The results revealed that the majority of participants supported the option of “a general boycott of attending courts and prosecution offices and not depositing money in the courts’ cashiers,” with 21,231 votes in favor, compared to 1,486 who rejected it.
On the other hand, the option of “protesting inside the lawyers’ rest areas at the courts” received support from 9,182 lawyers, while 3,531 rejected it, indicating a relative divergence in the stances of lawyers regarding this protest mechanism. These results come as part of the continued union escalation in rejection of what the lawyers described as “unjust fees,” which they consider a threat to the right to litigate and an additional burden on both lawyers and citizens.
After the protest held by the Bar Association on Monday morning, June 23, in front of its headquarters on Ramses Street, the Bar President, Abdel Halim Allam, called for an urgent meeting of the General Bar Council and the local bar heads to be held on Wednesday, June 25, 2025, at the Lawyers’ Club in 6th of October City to officially announce the poll results and discuss implementation strategies.
Dozens of lawyers participated in the protest, which was attended by the head of the Bar Association and President of the Arab Lawyers Union, Abdel Halim Allam, to express their rejection of the decision to increase judicial fees. Similar protests were held in several courts across the country, where lawyers expressed their objection to what they described as the “unjust fees” imposed on computerized judicial services.
These moves come just two days after an Administrative Court ruling issued to suspend the General Bar Council’s decision of May 14, 2025, which called for an extraordinary General Assembly meeting that was supposed to take place on June 21 to discuss ways to escalate against the new fees.
In the reasoning behind its ruling issued on June 18, 2025, the court considered the decision to call for the General Assembly to be an overstep of the Bar Council’s authority, establishing a reality outside constitutional frameworks, which could disrupt the justice system and harm the right to litigate. The court confirmed that the council had used its authority to summon the General Assembly unlawfully.
The protests witnessed in the courts and at the headquarters of the Bar Association represent a new chapter in the series of protests organized by lawyers since the announcement by the appellate courts of new fees on some judicial services, which have been described as “automated service fees.”
These fees have sparked widespread controversy within legal and union circles, with calls for their abolition or reconsideration to ensure that citizens’ right to litigate is not harmed and to maintain the rights of lawyers without burdening them with additional costs.
In this context, Amr El-Khashab, a member of the General Bar Council, stated that the Bar Association conducted an opinion poll among lawyers across the country, the results of which showed strong support for continuing the escalation in protest against what they described as the state’s disregard for lawyers’ demands and their rights.
El-Khashab, in a statement to Zawia3, indicated that the Bar Association intends to take actions against the lawyer who filed a lawsuit before the Administrative Court to halt the General Assembly, considering this move to be “a blatant violation of the General Assembly’s will,” lacking legitimacy, and opposing the collective stance of lawyers.
El-Khashab described the ruling issued by the Supreme Administrative Court to suspend the decision to hold the General Assembly as a “politicized ruling,” saying that the court overstepped its authority by intervening in the General Assembly’s agenda, which represents, in his words, “a bias by the judiciary toward itself,” at a time when the Bar Association was exercising its constitutional right to defend justice using legitimate tools guaranteed by the Constitution and law.
El-Khashab stressed that the references in the ruling to the “disruption of a public facility” reflect a dangerous and incorrect understanding of the role of professional and labor unions, adding: “Since when have strikes and sit-ins, which are legitimate rights guaranteed by the Constitution and international conventions, become unlawful acts? What happened represents an imminent danger to the course of justice, and reveals the use of the judiciary to protect the executive authority’s policies.”
El-Khashab also criticized the Egyptian parliament, saying that “the legislative council did not perform its role in defending an issue that affects both the justice system and citizens at once, even though this is part of its mandate,” pointing out that “the parliament has become a prisoner of the pro-government majority and has abandoned its primary function in legislation and defending the interests of the people.”
He concluded his statement by saying: “The Bar Association will continue to defend its right to apply the Constitution and the law and will not back down from attempts to suppress it or limit its movement. It is shameful for the judiciary to ignore the Constitution and for the Ministry of Justice to turn into an investment sector for making money, rather than being a facility that ensures justice for all citizens.”
The right to litigate is one of the fundamental pillars of the rule of law, explicitly guaranteed in Article 97 of the Egyptian Constitution, which ensures that all citizens have the right to resort to the judiciary without discrimination and prohibits shielding any administrative action or decision from judicial review. With the escalating judicial fee crisis, legal professionals warn that the rising cost of litigation not only threatens this right but also reproduces a justice gap that classifies citizens based on their financial capacity, contrary to the essence of the constitutional text and the principle of equality before the law.
The Judicial Fees Crisis Threatens the Justice System
Article 76 of the Egyptian Constitution stipulates that: “The establishment of unions and federations on a democratic basis is a right guaranteed by law. They shall have legal personality, exercise their activities freely, contribute to raising the level of competence among their members, defend their rights, and protect their interests. The state guarantees the independence of unions and federations, and their management councils can only be dissolved by a judicial ruling. No such union or federation shall be created within the administrative bodies.”
Article 77 further states: “The law regulates the creation of professional unions and their management on a democratic basis, guarantees their independence, defines their resources, the way their members are registered, and holds them accountable for their behavior in practicing their professional activity, in accordance with ethical and professional codes of conduct. Only one union may be established for each profession. It is not allowed to place it under trusteeship or for administrative authorities to intervene in its affairs. Its management councils can only be dissolved by a judicial ruling, and the union’s opinion must be sought on draft laws related to it.”
Commenting on the ruling issued by the Supreme Administrative Court canceling the Bar Association’s General Assembly, lawyer Yasser Saad sees a fundamental disagreement about the limits of judicial oversight on the work of professional union general assemblies. He points out that unions, according to the constitution and international charters, are independent entities, enjoying organizational freedom, and their general assemblies are the highest authority within them.
Saad explained in an interview with Zawia3 that the judiciary has been intervening for years in resolving various disputes between lawyers and the Bar, particularly regarding issues of registration. However, the crisis intensifies when this intervention expands to include internal organizational matters of the unions, such as calling for the General Assembly to convene. He added, “What we are asking for is a fundamental right for lawyers to meet and discuss their situation, and no authority— including the State Council—has the right to interfere in their agenda or decide whether to convene it or not.”
Saad confirmed that preparations for the General Assembly of the Bar Association had already started before the Administrative Court ruling was issued, with movements organized from the provinces, transport arrangements, and hotel bookings made in response to the invitation from the Bar President and the Board.
Saad criticized the Bar Council’s decision not to proceed with the assembly, stating: “The meeting could have been held under other legal names, without directly clashing with the ruling, especially since preparations were complete.” He suggested that the council’s retreat might have been due to pressures or instructions amid local and regional tensions.
He noted that, instead, the council decided to conduct a broad opinion poll on two key issues: refraining from paying judicial fees and holding sit-ins inside the lawyers’ rest areas at the courts. He mentioned that these steps came after mounting pressure that led the Supreme Judicial Council to intervene and ask the appellate courts to reconsider the fees, as the judicial council is the legally competent authority, not the higher appeal council.
Saad affirmed that what is happening so far does not constitute real escalation, but rather a beginning of partial movements, including a partial cessation of fee payment, partial abstention from attending, and organizing protests at the courts and local Bar offices.
Saad stressed that the judicial fee crisis does not only concern lawyers but directly affects citizens, saying: “Lawyers should not be viewed solely as defenders of citizens, because they are an integral part of this society, and they should enjoy the same constitutional rights, most importantly the right to litigate. Imposing high fees restricts this right and makes access to justice exclusive to the wealthy, excluding the poor from their natural right to defend themselves.”
Saad argued that such policies could lead to a division within the legal profession itself, where the practice of law would be limited to financially capable lawyers, which would severely undermine the principle of justice and equality. He also warned that authorizing the Supreme Appeal Council to issue such decisions is an infringement on the right to defense and a flagrant interference in the Bar Association’s work, contradicting constitutional provisions and international charters that guarantee the independence of the legal profession and respect for the dignity of its practitioners.
Saad concluded his statements by saying: “The recent decisions regarding judicial fees violate the principles of constitutional justice and could lead to a loss of public trust in the justice system, even among the capable classes, because when justice is subject to whims, it loses its meaning, even though it is one of the most important pillars of the state.”
Freedom of Trade Unions and Judicial Overreach
The freedom of union organization is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Egyptian Constitution and the international charters to which the state is a signatory. In addition to the provisions of the Egyptian Constitution that guarantee the right to establish unions and prohibit any form of administrative interference in their affairs or the imposition of trusteeship upon them, Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirms “the right of every person to form associations, including the creation of unions and joining them to protect their interests.” This aligns with what is stated in International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 98, which obligates countries to protect trade union activities from external interference.
In this context, lawyer Aziza Al-Tawil described the ruling issued by the Administrative Court to suspend the convening of the extraordinary General Assembly of the Bar Association on June 21, 2025, as “shocking on several levels,” confirming that it constitutes a serious violation of the freedom of organization and trade union work, and directly contradicts the provisions of the Constitution, law, and international charters.
Al-Tawil added that the ruling reflects judicial overreach into the powers of unions, explaining that upon reviewing the legal text governing the convening of general assemblies, it becomes clear that it is the right of the members of the assembly to call for an extraordinary meeting to discuss issues affecting the profession, whether related to increases in judicial fees or other matters. She considered that the court had provided an incorrect and unlawful interpretation, thereby depriving the General Assembly of this fundamental right.
She explained that the reasoning of the ruling indicated that calling for the assembly was considered “an interference with public facilities and a disruption of the public good,” which she described as violating the principles of the Egyptian Constitution, which clearly recognizes the right to strike and peaceful protest, as well as conflicting with international conventions signed by Egypt that guarantee the freedom of trade union organization.
Al-Tawil pointed out the irony that some entities, including the judiciary itself, had previously engaged in strikes, such as in 2012 following the constitutional declaration, when many judges stopped working. She asked, “How can this right be criminalized for lawyers while it is exercised by other institutions?”
She emphasized that the current crisis does not only concern lawyers but directly affects citizens, asserting that imposing high judicial fees in the context of difficult economic conditions leads to the reduction of litigation opportunities and transforms the justice system into an elite service that only the wealthy can access.
Al-Tawil considered the ruling to be a dangerous precedent, pointing out that the Bar Association had appealed this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court to correct the legal and constitutional errors it contained, despite the fact that the General Assembly’s scheduled meeting had already passed.
She concluded her statement by warning that depriving the right to convene under a fragile legal cover is a wake-up call that threatens not only the Bar Association but all professional unions in Egypt. She said that the issue is not just an organizational procedure, but it affects the future of trade union freedom as a whole, stressing that if this situation continues, coupled with inflation and low wages, it will lead to citizens refraining from seeking justice due to the high costs of litigation. This undermines the principle of justice itself and threatens one of the state’s most important facilities at its core.
Amid rising tensions between the Bar Association and the judicial authorities, the current crisis intersects with a number of compounded crises. On one hand, the constitutionally guaranteed right to litigate faces a direct threat due to the rise in judicial fees, which limits the ability of citizens, particularly those with low incomes, to access justice. On the other hand, judicial interference in the decisions of the Bar Association’s General Assembly raises broad questions about the limits of professional organizations’ independence and the legitimacy of judicial oversight over their collective will. The absence of official intervention to resolve the crisis deepens concerns among union members, as escalation continues without clear signs of serious government action to contain the situation or address the root causes of the dispute.
