- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- within International Law topic(s)
In light of the rapid structural transformations taking place within Egypt's justice system, it has become increasingly important to reconsider the tools governing appeals before the Court of Cassation—especially amid the significant rise in the number of appeals, many of which are repetitive or of limited financial value. In this context, the mechanism of the"cassation appeal threshold"has emerged as one of the most prominent legislative instruments adopted by the legislator to rationalize the appeal process. It aims to reduce the burden on the Supreme Court and ensure that its resources are allocated to cases that raise fundamental legal issues affecting the integrity of the entire legal system.
Law No. 157 of 2024 represents the latest milestone in this series of reforms. It raises the minimum financial threshold for cassation appeals toEGP 500,000, signaling a clear legislative shift toward redefining the function of cassation within the broader justice system. However, this amendment cannot be fully understood without tracing its historical development and analyzing its institutional and normative dimensions.
From a Tool of Individual Redress to a Supreme Legal Authority
For decades, cassation appeals were not subject to any financial limit; admissibility was contingent solely upon the existence of a substantive legal or procedural error, such as misapplication of the law, procedural nullity, or a violation of the right to defense. This model was appropriate when appeals were limited in number and the role of cassation was clear—as a guarantor of the correct application of legal principles.
However, this reality began to shift as litigation increased in volume and complexity. The Court of Cassation gradually moved from being a guardian of legality to a body burdened with formally deficient or low-value appeals. This necessitated the introduction of quantitative criteria—namely,a financial threshold—to supplement the substantive standards and better regulate the litigation process.
Legislative Milestones in Regulating the Threshold
1. Before 2007:
Since the enactment of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure in 1968, cassation appeals were not subject to any financial threshold. This reflected the principle of equality in access to the highest level of judicial review, regardless of the case's monetary value.
This amendment introduced, for the first time, a minimum financial threshold ofEGP 100,000for cassation appeals, affirming that cassation is no longer an absolute right but a privilege governed by judicial efficiency.
The threshold was raised toEGP 250,000, in direct response to economic conditions and inflation. Exceptions were maintained for cases where the financial value could not be determined.
The latest reform raised the threshold to EGP 500,000, while preserving exceptions for cases whose value cannot be materially assessed. This development reflects a fundamental shift in the philosophy of the Court of Cassation—from a forum for resolving minor personal disputes to a high-level institution of legal interpretation and reasoning.
Temporal Scope of Application
A central question concerns the temporal scope of the new threshold: does it apply based on the date of filing the lawsuit or the date of the judgment?
While procedural rules generally apply immediately upon enactment, the legislator explicitly clarified—in Article 2 of Law No. 157 of 2024—that lawsuits filed before 1 October 2024 shall remain subject to the prior threshold. This provision ensures legislative certainty and protects the legal standing of parties at the time of the law's issuance.
Exceptions to the Threshold
The legislator excluded certain types of cases from the threshold requirement, including but not limited to:
- Cases related to the establishment or denial of parentage.
- Appeals against administrative decisions.
- Disputes of a continuous nature or those not subject to financial valuation.
However, such exceptions are not without challenges. Judges retain discretionary power in classifying whether a case falls within these categories, which may result in inconsistent applications. This issue calls for interpretive guidance from the Court of Cassation or more precise legislative amendment.
Proposal for Specialized Circuits for Low-Value Appeals
Despite the merit in raising the threshold, it is essential to stress that restricting access to cassation should not exclude litigants with lower-value disputes from judicial oversight. In this regard, the legislator could have adopted a model similar to that of criminal circuits handling cassation in misdemeanor cases, by establishing specialized civil cassation circuits to adjudicate appeals falling below the financial threshold.
These circuits would be strictly bound by the legal principles established by the Court of Cassation and would have no authority to deviate from settled jurisprudence. This approach would safeguard procedural justice and ensure uniform legal application, while also preserving the Supreme Court's capacity to focus on developing jurisprudence and unifying legal interpretations.
Conclusion
The legislative development of the cassation appeal threshold in Egypt is not merely a circumstantial response to increased case volume. It represents a fundamental shift in the understanding of the Court of Cassation's role as a unifier of legal interpretation and an institution of legal doctrine. Law No. 157 of 2024 stands as a pivotal milestone in this reform path, raising the threshold in a way that ensures the Court's resources are reserved for appeals that raise significant legal challenges.
Nonetheless, limiting cassation access for low-value disputes should not result in denial of the right to litigation, especially where legitimate legal positions may be at stake. Accordingly, the proposal to establishspecialized civil cassation circuits—strictly bound by established precedents—offers a balanced and pragmatic solution. It upholds the right to legal recourse while promoting judicial efficiency and protecting higher courts from overload.
Achieving judicial efficiency should not come at the expense of procedural justice. Rather, it should be pursued through the refinement of appellate mechanisms that preserve the core right to appeal while regulating its exercise—an essential step in the broader vision of modernizing Egypt's judicial system.
To view the full article please click https://eg.andersen.com/cassation-appeals-law-157-2024/ here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
