Home | | Contact Us

Eviction of Cabins in Al-Montazah a

Eviction of Cabins in Al-Montazah and Implementation of the Administrative Seizure Law
In mid-October, the Minister of Tourism released twelve decisions related to the eviction of cabins, chalets, and kiosks in the area of Al-Montazah Palace in the city of Alexandria through administrative eviction or by use of force.[1] The decisions included over seven hundred cabins, chalets and kiosks in different areas of Al-Montazah, which is administered by the Al-Montazah Tourism and Investment Company. Through these decisions, the Minister of Tourism tasked Al-Montazah Company with supervising a public tender for the relevant properties. The current decisions follow a previous decision by the Minister of Tourism in April 2013 that prevented the Al-Montazah Tourism and Investment Company from renewing usufruct licenses for cabins and chalets in al-Montazah, obligating it instead to offer the properties in accordance with the Tenders and Bids Law. The recent eviction decisions were based on the April 2013 decision which was upheld by the Administrative Courts in the face of a challenge brought against it by residents of the cabins in question in June 2013. The Court’s decision considered that residents of the relevant properties were illegal occupants as of April 2013. On the other hand, a number of occupants of the cabins and chalets in question challenged the recent eviction decision before the Administrative Court, calling for their complete cancellation. The challenge was based on the fact that occupants have direct contractual agreements with the Egyptian Urbanization and Tourism Construction Company (the administrative parent of the al-Montazah Company) that have been in place since the 1950s, or that they are the heirs of principal contractors, or that they have been given permission by the relevant administrative authority to pass down the rights of use from the principal contractors. Between statements promising that evictions will not be carried out before the settlement of the legal dispute and before judicial decisions are made, and other statements indicating that the government will go ahead with evictions, it is pertinent to clarify the legal framework guiding administrative seizures and eviction and how it pertains to this lawsuit as well as other related ones.
Administrative Eviction Law
The 1955 Administrative Eviction Law (as amended) stipulates that if any person renting or enjoying the right of usufruct of a State property does not pay their dues, the State retains the right to implement steps towards the administrative seizure of any real estate, movable property, wills, stocks, bonds, or debts owed by others to such persons. Such actions require written orders from the Minister (or a relevant representative) notifying the owner or occupant of the property of the possibility of such actions (including a warning of seizure), as well as a notice of the fees required (including the nature and history of such fees). The government representative is prohibited from proceeding with the seizure until a month after the notice is given. According to Article 74 of the Law, any appeals or disputes pertaining to the fees required, or the validity of the seizure procedures, must necessarily suspend any measures of seizure or re-sale to be undertaken by the authorities until such disputes have been resolved.
Origins of the Dispute and Decisions by the Administrative Courts
The recent dispute is rooted in a decade-long question relating to the nature of the relationship between the residents of the cabins and the state. Following the 1952 Revolution, the castle and gardens of Al-Montazah were confiscated as part of the ruling Mohamad Ali family property.  At once, the government began granting permission for the use, development, and administration of the area to private companies, starting with the Egyptian Properties and Buildings Company, which administered the area from 1953 to 1979. From 1982 to the present day, the Al-Montazah Tourism and Investment Company has been running the area. The area’s cabins and chalets were assigned to individual citizens through usufruct and rental agreements between them and the companies running the area. These contracts raised questions regarding the nature of the Al-Montazah area itself (whether it was public or private land), the nature of the relationship between a citizen possessing a rental or usufruct contract, the concession company (Al-Montazah Company) and the State, and whether such relationship should be considered a regular civil rental relationship between two parties, or whether such contracts are to be deemed administrative contracts since they ultimately regulate a public utility. The Administrative Court released a number of decisions concerning the cabins and chalets of Al-Montazah, some of them touching on the above-mentioned questions, such as the nature of a ‘rental relationship’ and the role of the State in regulating such public utilities. Despite the availability of a number of decisions concerning these matters, there appears to be a need to ensure the consistency of the views and principles of this case, as well as other cases of a similar nature. For instance, in 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court decided that the administrative authority holds the right to amend a contract concluded between the company (Al-Montazah Company) and individual occupants of Al-Montazah’s cabins and chalets (the lessees), as well as the right to terminate such a contract.[2]  The same court, however, decided in 2004 to consider such a contract a “private contract”, i.e. not an administrative one, and that such a contract regulates a private contractual relationship.[3]  This meant that the administrative authority, in this case the Ministry of Tourism, does not hold the right to amend or terminate a contract between the company and the occupant. In 2005, however, the Supreme Administrative Court decided once again that a contract between an occupant and the company is a license of usufruct in relation to “public money”, which means that it should be considered an administrative contract. This in turn meant that the administrative authority (The Ministry of Tourism) may modify the contract, as long as such modification is not arbitrary and as long as the Ministry does not abuse its authority. Despite the fact that there may have been a number of details that have led the court to come to different conclusions from one case to another, it may still be beneficial if these cases were referred to the Circuit for the Unification of Principles, which is part of the Supreme Administrative Court, to further clarify the decisions made, and to clarify the principles they are based upon.   [1] Minister of Tourism's Decisions Nos. 851-862/2014 on the Eviction of Cabins in the area of Al-Montazah Palace, Official Gazette, Issue Nos. 232 (cont.) and 232 (cont.) (a), 15 October 2014. [2] Supreme Administrative Court, Challenge No. 2285, Judicial Year 31, Decision released 09/02/1992. [3] Supreme Administrative Court, Challenge No. 2678, Judicial Year 46, Decision released 28/4/2004.
In mid-October, the Minister of Tourism released twelve decisions related to the eviction of cabins, chalets, and kiosks in the area of Al-Montazah Palace in the city of Alexandria through administrative eviction or by use of force.[1] The decisions included over seven hundred cabins, chalets and kiosks in different areas of Al-Montazah, which is administered by the Al-Montazah Tourism and Investment Company. Through these decisions, the Minister of Tourism tasked Al-Montazah Company with supervising a public tender for the relevant properties. The current decisions follow a previous decision by the Minister of Tourism in April 2013 that prevented the Al-Montazah Tourism and Investment Company from renewing usufruct licenses for cabins and chalets in al-Montazah, obligating it instead to offer the properties in accordance with the Tenders and Bids Law. The recent eviction decisions were based on the April 2013 decision which was upheld by the Administrative Courts in the face of a challenge brought against it by residents of the cabins in question in June 2013. The Court’s decision considered that residents of the relevant properties were illegal occupants as of April 2013. On the other hand, a number of occupants of the cabins and chalets in question challenged the recent eviction decision before the Administrative Court, calling for their complete cancellation. The challenge was based on the fact that occupants have direct contractual agreements with the Egyptian Urbanization and Tourism Construction Company (the administrative parent of the al-Montazah Company) that have been in place since the 1950s, or that they are the heirs of principal contractors, or that they have been given permission by the relevant administrative authority to pass down the rights of use from the principal contractors. Between statements promising that evictions will not be carried out before the settlement of the legal dispute and before judicial decisions are made, and other statements indicating that the government will go ahead with evictions, it is pertinent to clarify the legal framework guiding administrative seizures and eviction and how it pertains to this lawsuit as well as other related ones.
Administrative Eviction Law
The 1955 Administrative Eviction Law (as amended) stipulates that if any person renting or enjoying the right of usufruct of a State property does not pay their dues, the State retains the right to implement steps towards the administrative seizure of any real estate, movable property, wills, stocks, bonds, or debts owed by others to such persons. Such actions require written orders from the Minister (or a relevant representative) notifying the owner or occupant of the property of the possibility of such actions (including a warning of seizure), as well as a notice of the fees required (including the nature and history of such fees). The government representative is prohibited from proceeding with the seizure until a month after the notice is given. According to Article 74 of the Law, any appeals or disputes pertaining to the fees required, or the validity of the seizure procedures, must necessarily suspend any measures of seizure or re-sale to be undertaken by the authorities until such disputes have been resolved.
Origins of the Dispute and Decisions by the Administrative Courts
The recent dispute is rooted in a decade-long question relating to the nature of the relationship between the residents of the cabins and the state. Following the 1952 Revolution, the castle and gardens of Al-Montazah were confiscated as part of the ruling Mohamad Ali family property.  At once, the government began granting permission for the use, development, and administration of the area to private companies, starting with the Egyptian Properties and Buildings Company, which administered the area from 1953 to 1979. From 1982 to the present day, the Al-Montazah Tourism and Investment Company has been running the area. The area’s cabins and chalets were assigned to individual citizens through usufruct and rental agreements between them and the companies running the area. These contracts raised questions regarding the nature of the Al-Montazah area itself (whether it was public or private land), the nature of the relationship between a citizen possessing a rental or usufruct contract, the concession company (Al-Montazah Company) and the State, and whether such relationship should be considered a regular civil rental relationship between two parties, or whether such contracts are to be deemed administrative contracts since they ultimately regulate a public utility. The Administrative Court released a number of decisions concerning the cabins and chalets of Al-Montazah, some of them touching on the above-mentioned questions, such as the nature of a ‘rental relationship’ and the role of the State in regulating such public utilities. Despite the availability of a number of decisions concerning these matters, there appears to be a need to ensure the consistency of the views and principles of this case, as well as other cases of a similar nature. For instance, in 1992, the Supreme Administrative Court decided that the administrative authority holds the right to amend a contract concluded between the company (Al-Montazah Company) and individual occupants of Al-Montazah’s cabins and chalets (the lessees), as well as the right to terminate such a contract.[2]  The same court, however, decided in 2004 to consider such a contract a “private contract”, i.e. not an administrative one, and that such a contract regulates a private contractual relationship.[3]  This meant that the administrative authority, in this case the Ministry of Tourism, does not hold the right to amend or terminate a contract between the company and the occupant. In 2005, however, the Supreme Administrative Court decided once again that a contract between an occupant and the company is a license of usufruct in relation to “public money”, which means that it should be considered an administrative contract. This in turn meant that the administrative authority (The Ministry of Tourism) may modify the contract, as long as such modification is not arbitrary and as long as the Ministry does not abuse its authority. Despite the fact that there may have been a number of details that have led the court to come to different conclusions from one case to another, it may still be beneficial if these cases were referred to the Circuit for the Unification of Principles, which is part of the Supreme Administrative Court, to further clarify the decisions made, and to clarify the principles they are based upon.   [1] Minister of Tourism's Decisions Nos. 851-862/2014 on the Eviction of Cabins in the area of Al-Montazah Palace, Official Gazette, Issue Nos. 232 (cont.) and 232 (cont.) (a), 15 October 2014. [2] Supreme Administrative Court, Challenge No. 2285, Judicial Year 31, Decision released 09/02/1992. [3] Supreme Administrative Court, Challenge No. 2678, Judicial Year 46, Decision released 28/4/2004.