{"id":17623,"date":"2025-03-18T14:57:57","date_gmt":"2025-03-18T12:57:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/?p=17623"},"modified":"2026-10-24T15:06:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-24T13:06:51","slug":"litigation-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/litigation-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"Egypt\u2019s Court Fee Increases Trigger a Legal Challenge and Fears of Unequal Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"

The decision of Counsellor Mohamed Nasr Sayed, President of the Cairo Court of Appeal, issued on 20 February, to increase litigation fees, automated service fees and all judicial fees, which has been applied in practice since 1 March, has provoked a wave of discontent in Egyptian legal circles. Lawyers and trade unionists considered that these increases contradict the Egyptian constitution and the laws in force, as well as the international charters and treaties that oblige Egypt to guarantee citizens’ right of access to justice at a reasonable cost.<\/span><\/p>\n

The legal dispute over the increase in litigation fees has reached the courts, as a number of lawyers have filed a direct misdemeanour lawsuit against Prime Minister Dr Mostafa Madbouly, Minister of Justice Counsellor Adnan Fangary, and the court presidents who issued the recent increase decisions, charging them with “treachery” under Article (114) of the Egyptian Penal Code. This article specifically stipulates that: “Any public official who has a role in collecting taxes, fees, dues, fines or the like, and who demands or takes what is not due or what exceeds what is due, knowing this, shall be punished with temporary hard labour or imprisonment”, which is what the lawyers relied on in their lawsuit, considering that the imposition of the new increases in judicial fees constitutes the collection of sums of money exceeding the legal and constitutional limits due.<\/span><\/p>\n

The decision caused a crisis between lawyers and judges, prompting the Bar Association to announce a halt to dealings with court treasuries, and it threatened a comprehensive boycott of the courts in protest against these increases, considering that such decisions may in practice turn the judiciary in Egypt into a service available only to the rich, while the poor and those on limited incomes are deprived of a basic right, namely litigation and access to justice.<\/span><\/p>\n

“Zawia3” obtained the full list of judicial and automated services affected by the fee increases, numbering 38 services. The list included basic judicial services, among them affixing the executory formula to judgments (for family, labour and general affairs), the appeal petition upon registration, the petition for reinstatement after striking off, the petition to resume proceedings after suspension and cassation, correcting the form of the appeal, joinder of parties, service of notice and reinstatement after striking off, and re-service of notice.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The increases also covered the fees for certificate and inquiry services, such as certificates that no appeal has been filed, positive and negative certificates, and inquiries based on the civil docket, in addition to services for photocopying criminal judgments, certified true copies of session minutes, experts’ reports, criminal inquiries and photocopying of felony case files, as well as requests relating to bank account secrecy, lawyers’ fees, the review of document portfolios and documents, and grievances against fee schedules.<\/span><\/p>\n

The new increases in judicial fees come despite the issuance of<\/span> previous final court rulings<\/span><\/a> that cancelled similar increases because they violated the law. The most prominent of these rulings is the one issued by the Supreme Administrative Court on 23 December 2023, a final ruling not subject to appeal, which cancelled the decision imposing scanner fees (“automation”) on appeal statements in personal status cases, and unanimously upheld the annulment of the decision of the President of the Mansoura Court of Appeal to impose these fees.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The Cairo Court of Appeal, Sixth Civil Circuit, had also previously issued a<\/span> ruling<\/span><\/a> on 6 January 2022 cancelling the judicial fee assessment order entirely, because it lacked a legal basis, in a legal dispute that dealt with the basis for imposing the fees and not only their amount.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Recommended reading:\u00a0 <\/b>With Documents: Financial Irregularities and Conflicts of Interest in the Secondment of Judges, and Parliament Moves<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

Lawyers Halt Dealings with Court Treasuries<\/b><\/h1>\n

In the face of the new increase in litigation fees, the Egyptian Bar Association<\/span> announced<\/span><\/a> a decisive position of rejection, and decided to stop dealing with all court treasuries, at all levels of court, across the republic, in protest against these decisions.<\/span><\/p>\n

This decision came after an emergency meeting held on 8 March with the participation of the Head of the Bar and President of the Arab Lawyers Union, Abdel Halim Allam, members of the General Bar Council and the heads of the sub-syndicates, to discuss the repercussions of the crisis resulting from the imposition of increases they described as “unprecedented”, which covered 38 services under the name “service charges”.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Bar Association affirmed in an official statement that these decisions “departed from the constitutional and legal frameworks”, which require that fees be imposed by law, stressing that what happened constitutes a flagrant violation of the constitutional right to litigation, as a right that is protected and guaranteed for all citizens without discrimination.<\/span><\/p>\n

The meeting tasked the Head of the Bar with contacting the responsible authorities to resolve the crisis, and announced that the General Bar Council and the heads of the sub-syndicates would remain in permanent session until a radical solution to the matter is reached.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Recommended reading: <\/b>Ahead of the Club Elections: Judges Angry After Their Children Fail Military Courses<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

A Violation of the Constitution?<\/b><\/h1>\n

Counsellor Mohamed Nagy Derbala, former Vice-President of the Court of Cassation, describes, in statements to Zawia3, the recent decisions to increase judicial fees as “flawed” and as a “flagrant violation” of the principles of the constitution, especially Article (97), which stipulates that “litigation is a protected right guaranteed to all, and the state shall bring judicial bodies closer and facilitate their procedures”, explaining that these increases have imposed a “huge financial barrier” that prevents citizens from reaching their natural judge.<\/span><\/p>\n

Derbala points out that these decisions entrench “discrimination” between citizens on the basis of financial ability, and clearly contravene the text of Article (53) of the constitution, which affirms that “citizens are equal before the law, and are equal in rights and freedoms”, considering that such measures deprive a broad sector of citizens of their right to resort to the courts because of the exaggerated financial cost.<\/span><\/p>\n

The former Vice-President of the Court of Cassation warns of the seriousness of the societal repercussions of these decisions, stressing that they may push citizens to “refrain from resorting to the courts and look for other alternatives”, and calls for an immediate reversal of these increases and a focus instead on strengthening the independence of the judiciary and facilitating access to it, so that litigation does not become “the preserve of the rich only”.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nasser Amin, head of the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, affirms to Zawia3 that the recent decisions on increasing judicial fees represent an unprecedented violation of the law and the constitution, considering that what the Ministry of Justice, the Egyptian courts and the prosecution offices are doing represents a flagrant breach of the constitutional principle that clearly stipulates that “there shall be no fees or taxes except by law”, and adding that the money collected from citizens under these decisions is a “levy” collected through treachery, and constitutes a clear legal crime.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Amin explains that what is happening now is an extension of a policy that began about ten years ago, through which the state seeks to “shed its obligations” to provide basic services to citizens, including litigation services, which are supposed to be free under the constitution and international conventions, stressing that the state is obliged to guarantee citizens easy access to justice without material or financial obstacles.<\/span><\/p>\n

The head of the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession reveals that they are about to file a direct misdemeanour lawsuit before the Egyptian courts, formally accusing Prime Minister Dr Mostafa Madbouly and the court presidents who issued these decisions of the crime of “treachery” under the text of Article (114) of the Penal Code, which stipulates that “any public official who has a role in collecting taxes, fees, dues, fines or the like, and who demands or takes what is not due or what exceeds what is due, knowing this, shall be punished with temporary hard labour or imprisonment”.<\/span><\/p>\n

Amin concludes his remarks with a warning about the seriousness of these decisions, stressing that they entrench class divisions in access to justice, as they deprive the poor and those on limited incomes of their right to litigation, which leads to a decline in citizens’ trust in justice and may push them to try to obtain their rights by other means outside the framework of the law, something that will have serious repercussions on the stability of society.<\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span>Dr Mohamed Mahmoud Mahran, professor of international law and member of the American and European Societies of International Law, affirms to Zawia3 that imposing judicial fees this high clearly contravenes the basic principles of international law, the Egyptian constitution and the international conventions that Egypt has signed, all of which guarantee the right to litigation free of charge or at a modest cost for all citizens. He explains that Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Egypt has ratified, affirms the need to remove all obstacles, including economic ones, to guarantee equal access to justice.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Mahran criticises the noticeable expansion in the imposition of additional fees under the name “service charges”, pointing out that this approach is incompatible with Egypt’s international obligations and with the global trend towards easing the financial burdens on litigants. He adds that in some cases the cost of photocopying the case papers alone has reached more than EGP 8,000, while in other lawsuits judicial fees amounting to millions of pounds have been imposed, which has led to strict measures against citizens unable to pay, extending to the seizure of their property and funds.<\/span><\/p>\n

Mahran also sets out the danger these increases pose to society, as he expects them to lead citizens to turn away from resorting to the courts, or to be forced to resort to alternative means, some of them illegal, to obtain their rights. He explains that this situation will necessarily undermine the standing of the official judiciary and encourage recourse to private arbitration, which has now become a less costly option compared with litigation in the Egyptian courts, warning that the judiciary may turn into a privilege for the rich and companies only.<\/span><\/p>\n

In a related context, Ahmed Helmy, a lawyer before the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court who specialises in defending hundreds of defendants in cases of a political nature and terrorism cases, tells Zawia3 that these exaggerated fee increases will lead to an almost complete halt to the course of litigation in major cases, especially those related to terrorism. Helmy states that the number of papers in terrorism cases runs into the thousands, which makes the fees for photocopying the papers of a single case reach tens of thousands of pounds, in addition to the other judicial fees.<\/span><\/p>\n

Helmy questions the ability of families and relatives of defendants to bear these exorbitant costs, explaining that these burdens will confine the right to litigation to the wealthy class only, while the poor and those on limited incomes are deprived of real access to justice. He points out that law firms have already begun refusing to accept new cases, and that he personally has decided to close all civil and commercial cases and devote himself only to finishing the remaining Supreme State Security cases, announcing his intention to retire permanently after completing these cases, and stressing that the situation has become unbearable and that the continuation of this policy will turn trials into formal procedures, in which litigation is completed with court-appointed lawyers or is limited only to those who can afford it.<\/span><\/p>\n


\n<\/span>
\n<\/span>Recommended reading:<\/b> Bribes and Squandered Rights: 23,000 Real Estate Corruption Cases in Egypt<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

Development That Never Happened<\/b><\/h1>\n

Human rights lawyer Mohamed Afifi tells Zawia3 that the justifications for increasing judicial fees that judicial bodies have habitually offered, namely that they aim to develop the justice system, have not materialised on the ground, as the courts have not seen any notable improvement in the services provided to litigants, lawyers or even court employees since the fee increases began about ten years ago and until now. Afifi describes the current state of the courts as “inhumane”, saying that litigants are forced to wait in unequipped corridors and halls that lack the minimum of services.<\/span><\/p>\n

Afifi adds that even if the logic of increasing fees in order to improve services were accepted, the question that arises is: “What development has actually taken place in the courts over the past years?”, stressing that what is happening in practice is the imposition of administrative fees by court presidents without a law, which constitutes a kind of levy on litigants and should not come from judges. He explains that if the courts need additional financial resources, the matter requires going back to the Ministry of Justice, which in turn contacts the Ministry of Finance and Parliament to approve the necessary budget, rather than imposing arbitrary fees borne directly by citizens.<\/span><\/p>\n

Afifi also points to another type of fee imposed on citizens, reaching 7.5% of the value of disputed land and property, which means that the judiciary has become a financial partner in citizens’ property, greatly increasing the burdens on litigants. He concludes his remarks by warning that the continuation of this policy will turn the judiciary in Egypt into a service provided to the rich only, and will push the poor and those on middle incomes to resort to tribal solutions, customary councils or even the use of force outside the law, especially as citizens continue to suffer from slow litigation procedures.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the same context, Omneya Hassouna, a lawyer before the Court of Cassation and the Supreme Constitutional Court, affirms to Zawia3 that the recent decisions on increasing judicial fees did not take into account citizens’ difficult financial reality, which will push litigants to seek “parallel justice” such as customary councils, and thus society may turn into an environment in which illegal or individual solutions to disputes spread.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hassouna adds that lawyers are currently abiding by their Bar Association’s decision to stop dealing with court treasuries, but the direct impact falls on clients, who have already begun refraining from filing lawsuits because they cannot afford the prescribed fees. She affirms that a number of clients have already backed away from going to court and asked her to look for other alternatives, which reflects a state of despair about obtaining their rights through the courts because of the high cost.<\/span><\/p>\n

In direct testimony from one of the litigants, he reveals to Zawia3 that he was surprised to be asked for judicial fees equivalent to 20% of the value of the disputed housing unit, despite his settlement with the opposing company and both parties’ withdrawal of the lawsuit, which prompted him to challenge the fee assessment decision. He explains that if he is unable to pay these fees, his property may be seized by the judiciary itself and not by the opposing company, which means that citizens are harmed merely for resorting to the court, instead of finding protection for their rights there.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Recommended reading: <\/b>\u00a0Absence of Oversight: Who Dares to Hold the Asset Freeze Committees to Account?<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Continuing Escalation<\/b><\/h1>\n

A member of the Bar Association’s council, speaking to Zawia3 on condition that his name not be published, talks about the Bar Association continuing to escalate its measures against the increase in judicial fees if its demands for their cancellation are not met. He points out that the Head of the Bar, Abdel Halim Allam, has already begun contacting judicial leaders and responsible state bodies with the aim of reaching a solution that ends the current crisis, noting that the Bar Council is in permanent session and that all options, including boycotting the courts and suspending judicial work, are firmly on the table if these decisions are not reversed, and stressing that the Bar Association will not allow these increases to pass, which he considers “destructive to the work of the legal profession and the entire justice system”.<\/span><\/p>\n

By contrast, a senior judicial source at the Cairo Court of Appeal, speaking to Zawia3, justifies the court’s decision to increase judicial fees by saying that “the rise in prices in general has imposed a new financial reality on the courts, which made the increases necessary”. He explains that the courts receive daily requests from lawyers and citizens for various judicial services, such as photocopying cases and issuing certificates and documents, and these services consume millions of pounds a month from the courts’ budget, and it is not realistic for the courts’ public treasury to bear these expenses without compensation.<\/span><\/p>\n

The judicial source adds that other state institutions apply fees to the services they provide to the public, and the judiciary is no exception to this framework, stressing the need to impose fees that cover the cost of these services and ensure that they continue to be provided regularly. He points out that if the fees are cancelled or reduced, the courts will come under great pressure as a result of increased demand for services, which may leave them unable to meet the needs of litigants or lawyers as required; the new fees therefore help regulate demand for services and cover their expenses without exhausting the courts’ budget.<\/span><\/p>\n

As implementation of the decisions to increase judicial fees begins, the crisis between lawyers and the judicial bodies is intensifying, and escalation appears imminent, amid questions about the future of the right to litigation and the possibility of it turning into a privilege reserved for the financially able. This crisis raises several possibilities: there may be a partial retreat by the judges, through amending some of these fees or cancelling parts of them in response to legal pressure from lawyers and civil society organisations, or the legal confrontation may continue and develop into a prolonged conflict inside the courts, with possible rulings that may cancel some of those decisions.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Nor can an escalation of the Bar Association’s position through strikes and open-ended sit-ins be ruled out, which may increase political and social pressure on the judicial and executive bodies to back down from these increases. On the other hand, the judicial and executive authorities may insist on their current position, which would worsen the crisis and lead citizens to turn away from using the courts, something that seriously threatens the principle of equality before the law and the right of access to justice.<\/span><\/p>\n

The last scenario remains on the table: a full response to the lawyers’ demands and the permanent cancellation of the decisions to increase fees, in order to preserve the stability of the judicial system and guarantee all citizens access to justice without financial obstacles.<\/span><\/p>\n

Whatever path this crisis takes, what is certain is that the continued rise in litigation costs threatens the essence of the legal system and the basic rights of citizens in Egypt. Will the pressure succeed in restoring balance to the justice system, or will the Egyptian judiciary turn into an exclusive arena for the financial elite? The coming days will determine the course of the crisis.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The decision to increase litigation fees, automated service fees and judicial fees has provoked a broad legal and social crisis, as lawyers and legal experts considered the decision to be in violation of the Egyptian constitution and laws.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":12105,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[390],"tags":[],"kateb":[8763],"class_list":["post-17623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-human-rights","kateb-tarek-g-hafiz"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/\u0631\u0633\u0648\u0645-\u0627\u0644\u062a\u0642\u0627\u0636\u064a.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17623"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17623\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24124,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17623\/revisions\/24124"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12105"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17623"},{"taxonomy":"kateb","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zawia3.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kateb?post=17623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}