Fees for E-Court platform revive debate over commodifying justice
As the government promotes digital justice as a way to make litigation easier and faster ahead of the new Criminal Procedure Law, lawyers were surprised to find that registration on the E-Court platform for costs 500 Egyptian pounds for basic services.
The justice ministry officially launched the platform on Aug. 31, including a lawyers’ services platform for first-instance criminal courts.
The platform allows lawyers, litigants, witnesses, experts, and forensic pathologists to attend hearings remotely, obtain certified digital copies of case files, pay fees without visiting a courthouse, and receive hearing decisions and dates by SMS, according to the ministry’s launch statement.
A price list
When lawyers, including human rights lawyer Ahmed Moawad, tried to register, they found that the system requires lawyers to pay an annual subscription of 500 pounds (around $10), plus another 500 pounds to attend a single felony hearing remotely, and 100 pounds to attend a detention-renewal hearing.
The platform also charges 10 pounds ($0.20) per page for copies of a criminal case file, and offers a package of 500 text messages for 2,500 pounds ($49) to receive hearing decisions, such as a postponement, as soon as they are issued.
Moawad told Al Manassa that the system is now operational through the justice ministry’s portal ahead of the new Criminal Procedure Law taking effect Oct. 1. He said the first problems are the “high fees,” which will directly affect citizens.
He warned of “social and legal repercussions,” saying that turning the justice system into a “profitable investment service” could make it harder for ordinary citizens to go to court and push some toward informal hearings or taking the law into their own hands.
No fee without a law
The Egyptian Lawyers Syndicate has periodically challenged decisions imposing new litigation fees or increasing charges for court services. The latest such dispute was the crisis over fees for automated services, which unfolded over four months last year.
So far, however, the Egyptian Lawyers Syndicate has received no formal complaints about the new system because it is still in its initial rollout phase, according to Secretary-General Mahmoud El-Dakhly.
“The matter is still new,” El-Dakhly told Al Manassa. “Once it is applied in practice, the problems will become clear, because the internet and communications systems in Egypt are not perfect, and things will not work the way people imagine.”
Addressing the debate over the legality of the fees imposed under the new system, El-Dakhly declared them unconstitutional. “There is no fee without a law enacted to authorize it,” he said. “What is happening is an arbitrary fee created through executive delegations, which is illegal. No fee can be levied except by law.”
Lawyer Wael Ghali of Mansoura agreed. He previously won a court ruling voiding a decision by the head of the Mansoura Court of Appeals to impose automation fees on personal-status cases.
The justice ministry had not introduced legislation to parliament to authorize the payments, nor had the authorities issued laws to that effect. “Up to now, we have no law regulating this matter, Ghali said. The Constitution says you cannot impose taxes or fees except by law,” he told Al Manassa.
“The Judicial Fees Law dates back to 1945 and has not been amended. All these additional fees come through administrative decisions by court presidents. The fee for a page differs from Abbasiya to South Cairo. One is 3 pounds and another is 5, even though the product and administrative body are the same. You have turned litigation into something investment-driven and profit making,” Ghali explained.
El-Dakhly explained why lawyers and litigants may have to pay the fees despite their alleged invalidity. “You will have to pay this service fee out of necessity, because of the deadlines tied to filing the case and the client’s interests. They have you there. If the 40-day appeal period is running out, what am I supposed to do? Or a criminal or cassation appeal? You will find yourself forced to pay whether you like it or not to protect the client’s interests.”
“This remote litigation service is optional on paper, not mandatory. There is a conflation between administrative directions and the law, and our state operates through directives even when they violate the law. I suspect and worry that what is optional now will become mandatory later,” Ghali added.
Paying “under the table”
Ghali nevertheless acknowledged a positive aspect of the new system, particularly for lawyers traveling from the provinces to courts in Cairo. “For a lawyer who travels to Cairo from a distance, this system will be excellent for saving time and money.”
The system could also help reduce petty corruption, he added. “Today, if I want to complete a procedure, copy a case file, or quickly obtain a court decision, I pay between 300 and 600 pounds under the table to a clerk, bailiff, or police officer. So some lawyers may compare it to that.”
But Ghali also pointed to technical problems that could affect the new system, similar to earlier automated services launched by the ministry that remained out of service or were affected by weak infrastructure. He cited the electronic case-copying service for criminal cases, which he said does not actually work.
Moawad agreed, predicting that infrastructure would struggle to cope with court proceedings. He cited remote detention-renewal hearings already in use: “Every so often they tell you the prison has no internet, they can’t bring the defendant.”
Based on his experience, Moawad said: “The reality is that I pay more money and wait longer. The system makes things easier for the judge, but it doesn’t make things easier for me as a lawyer or litigant. We go there and find an employee complaining that the system is down and the internet is disconnected. We spent a week at the October Prosecution Office with work stopped, and they were operating using internet flash drives.”
Commodifying the judiciary
Criticizing the commercialization of the judiciary, El-Dakhly said the Justice Ministry ignores the social dimension and views the system purely as an investment, while private tech companies installing the platforms prioritize profit over fundamental rights.
“People can no longer bear being drained by more fees,” he warned. “Some people will not go to court because of the fees and will give up their rights, and that prevents poor people from accessing their rights.”
Moawad echoed those concerns, saying high fees and delays could push citizens to disregard the rule of law.
“With these exorbitant litigation fees and the delays, people will not go to court. When citizens lose confidence in the state, they return to primitive methods, going to a tribal sheikh to hold a customary hearing or taking matters into their own hands. The sharp rise in crime at present is caused by people losing faith in the rule of law.”
El-Dakhly did not rule out syndicate action against the fees, saying practical disputes were likely once they were implemented and expanded.
“There will definitely be battles. The solution we will seek is to meet with the justice minister and agree on how to manage this system in a way that suits both sides, and at the very least reduce the fees to levels appropriate for ordinary citizens.”