هذا التقرير متاح أيضًا بـ العربية

“I had to sell my dining room set to cover the cost of the case. My lawyer told me he had already charged me less than his usual fees because of my situation. Still, the paperwork and digital litigation services were what drove up the final bill.”

Sami Khamis described the cost of seeking justice as overwhelming, showing how legal expenses can threaten personal finances and highlighting the financial barriers citizens in Egypt face.

Sami works as a shared-transport driver. About a year ago, while he was on the job, he hit a young man riding a motorcycle. The motorcyclist suffered several fractures but refused to drop the case, even after Sami paid for his medical treatment. Prosecutors charged Sami with negligently causing the young man’s injuries and permanent disability, an offence that could carry a one-year prison sentence.

Over the seven-month trial, Sami spent nearly 50,000 Egyptian pounds on legal fees and what are known as mechanised litigation services — transactions and documents obtained through digital portals or automated machines rather than in person at government offices. His lawyer eventually secured an acquittal after a technical report found that Sami had complied with traffic regulations and that the motorcyclist had entered the road in the wrong direction from a one-way street, causing the collision.

“My monthly income does not exceed 12,000 pounds, and that is only if I do not miss a single day of work,” Sami said. “The lawyer was taking more than half of that every month, either as an instalment towards his fees or to cover litigation expenses.” This financial burden can make justice seem out of reach, leaving many Egyptians feeling overwhelmed and powerless.

Sami’s experience reflects a wider problem facing Egyptians who find themselves in court not only to pursue a claim or defend themselves, but also to confront a growing list of expenses that accumulate at every stage of a case. Beyond lawyers’ fees, litigants may have to pay to obtain and copy documents, serve legal notices, use mechanised services, and complete other administrative procedures. Each cost may seem manageable on its own, but over months, these hidden expenses can become overwhelming, especially for those with limited incomes.

For some, going to court can therefore become a decision shaped not only by the need for justice, but also by whether they can afford to pursue it. Addressing the rising costs and exploring reforms-such as subsidised digital services or legal aid-could help make justice more affordable and accessible for all Egyptians.

The rising cost of litigation is also emerging as Egypt’s judicial system moves towards greater digitisation and remote services. The Justice Ministry has presented the shift as a way to save time and effort and reduce travel. But as more judicial services move to paid digital platforms, including notification and judicial messaging packages, affordability becomes urgent: “how much does justice ultimately cost, and who can afford it?” This raises concerns about fairness and access, especially for ordinary citizens who may be priced out of justice.

 Litigation by subscription

As Egypt prepares to implement its new Criminal Procedure Law next October, the Justice Ministry officially launched a new digital platform at the end of August as part of its remote litigation system.

The platform offers a range of services for lawyers appearing before first-instance felony courts. Lawyers, litigants, witnesses, experts and forensic doctors can attend hearings remotely, obtain certified digital copies of case files, pay fees electronically, and receive hearing decisions and scheduling notices by text message. But these services come at a cost.

According to lawyers who have attempted to register on the platform, a lawyer must pay an annual subscription fee of 500 Egyptian pounds. Each remote felony hearing costs an additional 500 pounds, while attending a detention-renewal hearing costs 100 pounds.

The charges do not stop there. Lawyers must pay 10 pounds for each page copied from a criminal case file. The platform also offers a package of 500 text messages for 2,500 pounds, allowing users to receive hearing decisions as soon as they are issued.

Taken together, the fees turn what is presented as a system designed to make litigation faster and more accessible into a service in which costs can accumulate at almost every stage of a case.

“As a lawyer, I ultimately cannot absorb these expenses myself. They are passed on to the citizen, even when the citizen cannot afford them.” Ahmed al-Garhi told Noon Post that rising litigation and case-related costs are discouraging some clients from pursuing justice. This financial barrier risks leaving many without legal recourse, deepening social inequalities.

Al-Garhi said he had personally tried to register for the remote litigation platform and identified the fees imposed on lawyers as one of the main concerns arising from its implementation. In his view, those costs will ultimately be passed on to clients, who are likely to bear the financial burden of accessing the service.

Although participation in the system is currently presented as optional, Al-Garhi expects lawyers may eventually have little choice but to use it. Even if some lawyers sought to avoid the platform, he said, procedural deadlines could leave them no practical alternative if they need to protect their clients’ interests.

He also warned that the cumulative cost of litigation could encourage some parties to settle disputes outside court, even when the settlement is not entirely favourable to them, to avoid the expense of legal proceedings.

The problem, he said, is particularly acute in criminal cases, whether misdemeanours or felonies. Unlike a civil litigant, a defendant cannot simply withdraw from a criminal case to avoid further costs. They remain subject to the proceedings and must continue to bear the costs of legal representation and related procedures, regardless of their ability to pay.

No fees without a legal basis

Article 38 of Egypt’s 2014 Constitution states that the tax system and other public levies are intended to develop state resources and promote social justice and economic development. It also stipulates that public taxes may be imposed, amended or abolished only by law, and that no one may be required to pay taxes or fees other than those established within the limits of the law.

The provision has become central to a legal dispute over the fees now being imposed on judicial services. Lawyers challenging the charges argue that fees for litigation and related services must have a clear legislative basis, as Egypt’s Constitution requires, rather than being introduced through administrative decisions that may lack legal authority.

The dispute intensified in March 2025, when courts, including the Cairo Court of Appeal, began increasing fees for a range of judicial services, according to lawyers involved in the case. The charges covered certificates, copies of documents and other procedures required during civil and criminal proceedings. Lawyers and critics of the measures have argued that the cumulative costs could make it harder for lower-income citizens to exercise their constitutionally protected right to seek judicial remedies.

The expansion of remote litigation has added a new layer to that dispute, as lawyers question whether the digitalisation of judicial services can legitimately come with additional charges.

In early September, a group of lawyers filed an urgent case before the Administrative Court of the State Council seeking the suspension and cancellation of fees imposed for subscribing to and using the remote litigation platform. The plaintiffs argued that the charges violate Articles 97 and 98 of the Constitution, which guarantee the right to litigation and the right to defence. They said the fees could place an additional financial burden on litigants and potentially obstruct access to justice.

The lawyers also invoked Article 38, arguing that taxes and public fees must be established by law rather than imposed through an administrative decision. They described introducing the charges through the current mechanism as an encroachment on the legislature’s authority.

The lawsuit further cited earlier rulings by Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court and Supreme Administrative Court. According to the plaintiffs, those rulings establish that efforts to modernise the judiciary and introduce new technologies do not, in themselves, provide a legal basis for imposing additional financial burdens outside the legislative framework.

The case therefore raises a question that goes beyond the price of individual digital services: where does the state’s authority to modernise and finance its judicial system end, and where does citizens’ constitutional right to access justice begin?

Additional burdens

Although the General Bar Association has yet to issue an official statement, Saeed Abdel Khaleq, undersecretary of the Lawyers Syndicate, said lawyers reject the new fees, warning that clients will ultimately bear the cost.

“In the end, the citizen is the one who will bear these fees before the lawyer does,” Abdel Khaleq told Noon Post. “The lawyer is paid for his work on the case, while expenses imposed by the system are either deducted from his fee or passed on to the client.”

He said the accumulation of fees for judicial and mechanised services could push legal fees higher in the coming period, as lawyers would be unable to absorb the additional costs themselves.

Abdel Khaleq also argued that remote litigation should have undergone a broader trial phase before being expanded, allowing authorities to identify and address problems that might arise during implementation. The concern, he said, is particularly significant because services linked to case files now carry additional charges.

This, he argued, raises a broader question about the purpose of judicial digitisation: is it primarily intended to simplify litigation and make procedures more accessible, or is it also becoming a means of generating additional revenue from those using the system?

He added that the syndicate objects to the fees because, in his view, they were not established through legislation submitted to the House of Representatives, but were instead introduced by a decision of the Supreme Council of Presidents of the Courts of Appeal. He said this raises constitutional and legal questions over the authority under which the charges were imposed.

Litigation is a constitutional right, but for many Egyptians, mounting expenses can factor into whether they pursue a case at all. Those who cannot afford the costs may find themselves forced to abandon or settle claims. At the same time, defendants in criminal cases have little choice but to continue through proceedings and bear the associated expenses. As digital services expand, the debate is increasingly shifting from whether justice can be delivered remotely to whether access to that justice remains affordable.