Abolition of Appellate Opposition in Misdemeanors in Egypt

The legislator has stipulated that the new Criminal Procedures Law shall enter into force as of the beginning of the judicial year following its issuance, namely on 1 October 2026, thereby expressing a clear legislative intent to uphold the principle of legal certainty and to preserve the stability of legal positions established under the law in force prior to the amendment, without affecting them or rearranging their legal effects retroactively.

The Criminal Procedures Law constitutes one of the fundamental pillars upon which the criminal justice system is built, as it governs the delicate balance between society’s right to prosecute crimes and achieve general deterrence, and the individual’s right to defense and to a fair trial. Accordingly, although the new procedural rules apply immediately upon their entry into force, their effects do not extend to procedures or legal positions that were validly and fully established under the previous law, except within the limits expressly permitted by the Constitution.

Within this framework, the amendment introduced by Law No. 174 of 2025, concerning the regulation of opposition to in absentia judgments rendered by the Court of Appeal, constitutes a substantive shift in the philosophy of criminal litigation, particularly in misdemeanor cases, while ensuring that defense rights that had already been established or exhausted under the law applicable at the time the legal position arose remain unaffected.

The legislator did not move toward abolishing the right of appellate opposition altogether; rather, it restructured and confined its scope in a manner that curbs its abuse and prevents its transformation into a tool for obstructing the adjudication of criminal cases or undermining the authority of judicial judgments, while preserving the minimum procedural guarantees required by criminal justice and ensuring that legal positions whose elements were completed prior to the date of entry into force remain unaffected, in respect of the principles of procedural legality and the res judicata effect of judicial rulings.

Historical Background of the System of Appellate Opposition

The system of opposition originally emerged as a procedural safeguard allowing challenges to in absentia judgments issued by courts of first instance, on the premise that a defendant’s absence deprives him of the opportunity to exercise his right of defense. Over time, this system was legislatively extended to encompass in absentia judgments rendered by appellate courts, thereby granting defendants an additional mechanism to seek reconsideration of their cases.

However, practical application revealed that this extension despite its theoretical justification produced adverse consequences, most notably the prolongation of criminal proceedings and the facilitation of procedural abuse. In practice, some defendants deliberately absented themselves from appellate hearings in order to reopen the dispute through opposition, even after the ordinary stages of litigation had been exhausted.

The Legislative Philosophy of the Amendment under Law No. 174 of 2025

The recent amendment established a general rule that in absentia appellate judgments in misdemeanor cases are, as a matter of principle, not subject to opposition, rendering admissibility an exceptional matter governed by narrowly defined conditions set out exhaustively. This approach reflects a legislative conviction that justice is not achieved through the endless multiplication of avenues of appeal, but rather through the prompt resolution of disputes while safeguarding the core rights of the parties.

In line with this philosophy, the legislator expressly provided that opposition to in absentia judgments issued by appellate courts shall not be admitted except in a single, specifically defined case: where the appeal has been filed by the Public Prosecution or by the civil claimant, and the opposing party or his/her counsel failed to attend despite being duly notified of the appeal, provided that the party submits an excuse acceptable to the court that justifies the failure to attend.

Decisive Restrictions on the Admissibility of Appellate Opposition

The new legislative provision has affirmed that appellate opposition shall be mandatorily rejected and deemed inadmissible as a matter of form in several substantive cases, namely where the opposing party has been duly served with the summons to appear in person; where the party appeared when the case was called but subsequently left the hearing; or where the party or his legal representative attended any of the trial hearings and thereafter failed to attend the remaining hearings until the judgment was rendered.

This regulatory framework reflects a clear legislative rationale, the essence of which is that a party whose certain knowledge of the proceedings has been established, or who has positively participated therein, and then voluntarily absented himself, may not thereafter invoke the in-absentia nature of the judgment to seek a re-examination of the case. Such conduct constitutes a procedural forfeiture that does not merit judicial protection.

The Legal and Practical Effect of the Inadmissibility of Appellate Opposition under Law No. 174 of 2025

Pursuant to the provisions of Law No. 174 of 2025, the inadmissibility of appellate opposition results in the in absentia appellate judgment acquiring the status of finality and becoming immediately enforceable, without granting the opposing party the right to re-submit the dispute before the same court. In such case, the only remaining avenue available to the party is recourse to cassation, within its narrow scope limited to reviewing the proper application of the law and procedural rules, provided that a serious legal ground exists.

In this manner, the legislator has redrawn the framework of criminal appeals in misdemeanor cases in a more disciplined and structured form, based on a single opposition before the court of first instance, followed by one appellate review, and thereafter an exceptional legal review before the Court of Cassation, without allowing repetition of the same procedural track.

From a practical perspective, this regulatory approach is expected to contribute to shortening the duration of litigation, limiting the obstruction of judgment enforcement, and strengthening the authority of appellate judgments as well as the stability of the parties’ legal positions. At the same time, the real challenge remains in the proper application of the standard of “acceptable excuse,” in a manner that strikes a balance between preventing procedural abuse and ensuring that the right of defense is not undermined in cases where a genuine force majeure obstacle has effectively prevented attendance.

Conclusion

The regulation of appellate opposition in misdemeanor cases under Law No. 174 of 2025 does not constitute a curtailment of the accused’s rights; rather, it reflects a conscious legislative shift toward a more effective and disciplined criminal justice system. It is a reform aimed at safeguarding the authority of criminal judgments and preventing abuse of procedural mechanisms, while preserving the minimum guarantees required by justice.

The success of this reform ultimately depends on the judiciary’s ability to apply it with a balanced judicial approach, one that distinguishes between justified absence and deliberate non-appearance, and that achieves an appropriate equilibrium between the expeditious resolution of cases and fairness to the parties, bearing in mind that criminal justice is measured not by the length of proceedings, but by the soundness of their outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

To find out more, please fill out the form or email us at: info@eg.Andersen.com

Contact Us