Content uploaded by Ayman Assem
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ayman Assem on Mar 02, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/JESAUN.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architecture Engineering
1
Legalization Frameworks in Building Regulations and Their Relationship
with the Reconciliation Law in Egypt
Received 7 August 2021; Revised 1 October 2021; Accepted 1 October 2021
Lina Mohamed Magdy1
Muhammad Ibrahim Gabr2
Ayman Mohamed Assem 3
Abstract
The issuance of the Building Reconciliation law no.17/2019 has
imposed a new reality, allowing legalization for illegal constructions
which Egypt has been facing its challenges since decades. New policies
require in-depth research especially with the scarce availability of data
concerning this topic. Therefore, this paper is an attempt to study the law
issuance context and drivers from a legislative point-of-view, seeking
answers to the following questions both nationally and internationally.
Nationally, how formerly issued building laws in Egypt addressed illegal
construction? Did they allow for any type of legalization? How does the
reconciliation law differ from those laws in dealing with illegal
constructions? Internationally, Are there any similar international
examples of reconciliation laws? If yes, how do they differ from the
Reconciliation Law 17/2019 legalization’s framework? And how can we
benefit from those experiences?
The research starts by demonstrating the picture of the long-existing
phenomenon, analysing the formerly issued building laws together with
the reconciliation law, in terms of the measures of dealing with illegal
constructions using an inductive methodology. Then, conducting a
comparative analysis between those laws, regarding the allowed and
disallowed items for legalization, to understand the difference in the
dealing measures. Then an analytic discussion of the law’s framework is
conducted, paired with a comparison between the Reconciliation Law
and other similar international examples in terms of the process
framework and mechanisms. Results show that; former building laws in
Egypt had all set the mechanism for legalization within their frameworks
but with varying proportions. All formerly ruling building laws, with
their amendments failed to contain or deter the increasing building
violations at their times which is the reason why the phenomenon
continued and thus law 17/2019 was later introduced.
The Law allowed for legalizing most of the building violations in a
rather flexible manner than before, but multiple issues appeared
throughout its analysis. Therefore, recommendations include the
Keywords
Reconciliation law;
Legalization; Building
violations; Building laws;
Built environment.
1 Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
G18052683@eng.asu.edu.eg
2 Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
muhammadgabr@eng.asu.edu.eg.
3 Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
ayman.assem@eng.asu.edu.eg.
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
2
necessity of making quick action plans to maintain and strengthen the
rule of law, combining both deterrence-based and incentive-based
mechanisms, especially with the delay in the reconciliation process,
defining the reasons for the process delay to be eliminated. Plans should
be made to protect the rights of law-abiders and special consideration
should be made for vulnerable and disadvantaged group. Plans should be
made on dealing with unlegalized buildings, those which didn’t apply
for legalization, as well as dealing with similar future violations after the
law’s process completion to facilitate the incorporation of acceptable
violations in the formal realm. Comprehensive studies should be made to
find practical means of achieving better urban integration of the
legalized buildings, upgrading quality of life, and preserving the planned
urban and architectural character of neighbourhoods to overcome the
effect of the law’s generalization in dealing with violations of different
natures and contexts, as well as overlooking of various important factors
such as quality of life indicators, environmental impact controls,
sanitation, natural lighting, ventilation, and energy consumption.
Supervision and monitoring mechanisms should be included in the law’s
framework for higher transparency and increase public trust of the
process and the issued decisions.
1. Introduction
Building legalization opens a legal, political, environmental, and social debate. The results of this
process can be ambiguous, bringing positive and negative consequences [[1], [2]. In this paper the
topic will be discussed from its legislative dimension only, in light of its adoption by the Egyptian
government in 2019 (Law no.17/2019 and its amendments) and the ruling building laws and
regulations. Informal housing first became widespread in the 1960s and 1970s, mainly on the peri-
urban and desert fringes of the main cities. [3]. According to CAPMAS, at least 65% of all housing
units produced in urban areas over the ten-year period 1996-2006 were informally built, ignoring
the huge amount of informal housing units built in rural peri-urban areas around cities over the
same period [3]. Egypt has been facing the challenges of illegal building and slum formation since
decades, and most of intervention policies practiced have failed to effectively solve those problems
[4]. Since March 1881, there have been a cascade of laws and regulations issued to control the
building acts and prohibit and penalize illegal construction, both which contravenes building and
subdivision rules and that which is constructed on agricultural land [5], [6]. Building laws were and
continuously overruled by presidential decrees, and temporary regulations along the Egyptian
history [7], [5], [8], [9]. They were also characterized by their unified nature in all their stipulations
which resulted in missing objectivity when dealing with violations of different nature, different
activities and in different regions and contexts with the same measures, irresponsive to the different
needs and requirements [5], [8], [10], [11]. Enforcement of these regulations fell upon weak and
corrupt-prone to local authorities, inducing more illegal building acts, sprawl over agricultural lands
and slum formation. After the 2011 Revolution, all attempts of control evaporated, and therefore
illegal construction, both horizontal and vertical, has exploded [3]. The Built Environment
Observatory in 2019, has tracked down 8.2 million housing units that have been built without
permits since 2007, comprising 77%, a phenomenal about three quarters of housing production
contravening one or more laws governing the built environment. [3] , [12].
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
3
2. Materials and methods
This research starts by data collection for demonstrating the picture of the long-existing
phenomenon of building violations, then analyzing the previous building laws in Egypt regarding
their measures of dealing with illegal construction, together with the newly issued reconciliation
law and its mechanisms, using an inductive methodology. Data was also gathered and analyzed
concerning similar international examples. Formal interviews were handled with Eng. Rania
Mounir, General Manager of General Administration of regulations and permits at the housing and
utilities sector at MHUUC, and Eng. Nafisa Hashem, First Undersecretary, Head of the Housing
and Utilities Sector, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Communities (MHUUC), on
September 2nd, 2021, as well as Dr. Raafat Shemais, the Head of the Authority of Technical
Inspection over construction works in a formal interview on October 24th, 2021. The aim of those
interviews was to seek answers to inquiries about the available statistics of building violations and
legalization process in Egypt, former-ruling building laws and their relation to the Reconciliation
Law, and the evaluation of the implementation of the Reconciliation Law’s framework. Finally, a
comparative analysis is conducted between the three laws with their amendments, regarding the
dealing mechanisms with ‘allowed’ and ‘disallowed’ items for legalization as defined in the
Reconciliation Law, to point out how it differs in terms of the dealing measures within the
legalization framework. Also, an analytic discussion of the law’s framework is paired with a
comparison conducted between the Reconciliation Law and other similar international examples in
terms of the process framework and mechanisms.
3. Legalization measures as addressed by the Egyptian building laws
How previous building laws addressed illegal construction? Did they allow for any type of
legalization? Ever since building regulations were issued, contractors and owners committed
violations either by ignorance of the law or for beneficial purposes. Legalization mechanisms have
been introduced since then in form of reconciliation between the State and the violator and halting
of the violation status [13]. The following is a brief background of the law status before the building
codes, in the 1970s.
3.1 Law 259/1956:
It forbids issuing decisions or decrees to demolish/restitute buildings violating the following laws:
Law 51/1940 and Law 63/1945 concerning building regulations, and/or Law 52/1940 concerned
with the subdivision of plots. Therefore, all violations before 1956 had been revoked [5], [7], [13].
That freeze was exclusively for informal construction built on informal subdivision of private-
owned land, usually agricultural land, and didn’t extend to that on state-owned land, or that
contravened regulating lines. It was a temporary emergency measure taken due to the severe
housing crisis. It was then acknowledged that the leniency has encouraged many individuals to
contravene zoning and building laws [7]. For public health reasons, the law had also allowed for the
extension of formal infrastructure to public areas as well as to the private homes, though for a fee
paid for by the owners. [7].
3.2 Law 29/1966
Law 29/1966 entered into force and revoked all the decisions prior to that date. It forbids issuing
decisions or decrees to demolish/restitute buildings in violation with the following laws: Law
52/1940 regulating the subdivision of plot, Law 656/1954, and law 45/1962 concerning building
regulation, Law 55/1964 regulating construction works with its amending laws. Moreover, it halted
the enforcement of decisions and court orders before 1966 in violation of previous laws. [5] , [13] ,
[14]
3.3 Law no.106/1976
Law no.106/1976 it defined building violations as any building work construction, expansion,
increase of height, modification, restoration, demolition or finishing any existing façade with any
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
4
finishing material, done without obtaining a permit from the specified authority at first whether
from the public or private sector. (Law no.106/1976, Art. No.4). In terms of the enforcement
methods, four categories of building violations have been specified and described in law
no.106/1976; the ceased actions to be reinstituted, the works that require demolition, the null
building actions & the violations that could be exempted from demolition (Legalized).
Legalization was introduced in article no.18 of the executive regulations of law no.106/1976 where
it stated that without breaching the criminal responsibility, the committee formed by article no.15
can exempt some of the building violations from demolition in case it caused no harm to the public
health, the residents/passer-by/neighbours' security in return for paying usufructuary/ development
fees in specific cases as specified in the executive regulations. Law no.106/1976 allowed for
historical, cultural, touristic or for national security, an economic benefit or considering the special
conditions of a city, village, a sector, or even a specific building, exempting them from applying all
or some of part 2 rulings that regulates building construction and its executive regulations. That is
to be considered only in case of no harm to any citizen’s rights, and its proposal is to be made by
the specified authority and to be approved by the exemptions committee, and the final decree to be
issued by the minister of housing and utilities (Law no.106/1976, Art. No.29).
3.3.1 Subsequent actions
Article no.18 has been amended in 1996 so that exemptions committee
4
is cancelled and the
exemption from demolition is only approved through issuing a governor’s decree in specific cases
mentioned in article no.30 of the executive regulations of law no.106/1976:1) 10% of the allowed
protrusions for building facades facing roads and courts; 2) 5% of the visible length of the staircase
steps; 3) 5% of the dimensions of rooms, kitchens and bathrooms on condition that the area is not
less than 95% of the required area; 4) 3% allowance on measuring the maximum allowed heights
without increasing the permitted number of floors. In part 1, Art.1 which regulates the private
sector’s engagement in building construction, the public sector is exempt from an extra preliminary
approval from the public sector, whereas this approval is considered a precondition for issuing the
building permit. A usufruct cost/fine must be paid for those exemptions when approved, valued as a
percentage of the land price as a development fee, however this article was cancelled in the
amendment law no.101/1996 for law no.106/1976. A new part was added in amendment to article
no.13, stating that the prime minister can in case of urging needs; for a national goal, economic
benefit or considering the special conditions of a city, village, a sector, or even a specific building,
exempting them from the height ceilings. It also allowed in case of building without permit, and if
no demolition or reinstatement order was issued from the specified committee, the violator is to be
fined double the value of the required taxes, besides submitting complete building drawings to the
competent authority for certification. (Law no.106/1976, part 3, art.22, bis 1-1). Within five years
law 106/1976 was suspended with a new issuance of Informal Subdivision Reconciliation Law
135/1981, similarly to what happened before law 106/1976 issuance [7]. Contrarily, in 1982 another
updated law was passed, strengthening penalties even more while separating building and urban
planning legislation as they grew more detailed, including Laws 2/1982 and 30/1983 in amendment
to Law 106/1976 [5], together with the Urban Planning Law 3/1982 [7]. Also, Article 3 of law
30/1983
5
, allowed violators to submit before June the 7th, 1987 a request to the competent
administrative local unit to suspend any procedures against the violations and the violator so that
the procedures are stopped until the violation examination. If it proved to endanger lives or
properties or breach the regulating lines or height restrictions set by the Civil Aviation Law, it is
then reported and re-examined to issue a demolition/restitution decree. Otherwise, penalties were
specified in terms of fines unless a final sentence had been issued. This law was only applied till
June 7th, 1987 and was only eligible to violators who submitted a form before that date [7], [13].
Other laws were issued afterwards such as Laws 54/1984 and 99/1986, legalizing informal
4
Formed according to article no.30 of Law 106/1976
5
The amendment for the implementation of Law 106/1976
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
5
subdivisions and construction [7], and the housing minister decree 360/1995 that exempts the city
of Ashman from the height ceilings. [5]
Other indirect/quasi legalization mechanisms include Cairo Governor Decree 75/1990 which
allowed the formal electricity to the `Ashwaeyat (informal settlement areas), but with no further
legalization of the subdivisions nor the construction [3],[7]. Also, the Cabinet Decree 129 of 26
October 2005 which allowed the Egyptian Electricity Holding Company to extend formal electricity
to the `Ashwaeyat, while Governors’ Council Decree of 1 November 2005 allowed the same to the
illegal buildings, in response to about half-a-million requests made to the electricity companies. [7].
3.4 Law no.119/2008
The law has defined the violating building actions as any buildings or constructions
commencement, expansion, increase of height, modification, alteration, reinforcement, restoration,
or demolition of buildings that are not subject to the building demolition law and which are not
partially or fully ramshackle, or carrying out any exterior finishing works, without obtaining a
permit from the specified authority at first. All those acts require cessation of work and demolition,
or reinstatement orders as specified by the law’s regulations. (Law no.119/2008, chapter1, Art.39).
The law no.119/2008 has also criminalized any breach over the strategic plans at the national,
regional, and local levels. It is distinguished by widening the spectrum of building violation acts
compared to the previous building laws and imposing stricter sanctions on violators.
In terms of enforcement methods, four categories of building violations have been specified and
described in law no.119/2008; the ceased actions to be reinstituted, the works that require
demolition, the null building actions and the violations that could be exempted from demolition
(Legalized).
3.4.1 Subsequent actions
In 2010, article no.135 (bis), which allowed exemptions from demolition by paying fines in specific
cases mentioned before, was added to law no.119/2008 by the ministerial decree no.200/2010 and
then amended by decree no.397/2010 and decree no.272/2013, specifying the following six cases:
1) 15% of the allowed protrusions for building facades facing roads and courts; 2) 5% of the visible
length of the staircase steps; 3) 5% of the dimensions of rooms, kitchens and bathrooms on
condition that the area is not less than 95% of the required area; 4) 15% allowance on measuring the
Fig 1. Process flow diagram of dealing with construction work according to law 106/1976. (Source: Author)
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
6
dimensions and areas of all types of courts; 5) 10% allowance on measuring the maximum allowed
heights without increasing the permitted number of floors; 6) 10% of the minimum setback allowed
on measuring the setback dimensions so that the increased building area is not more than 5% of the
allowed building area.
Another move was in decree no.109/2013 issued in 20/3/2013 by the minister of housing, utilities
and urban communities, article no.121 bis. stated that in case the necessity during construction lead
to making some modifications that don’t affect the building structure such as changing the opening
place or moving an interior wall, in a way that doesn’t breach the codes and regulations, those
modifications can be then certified by the meant local authority. Also, article no.39 bis of law
no.23/2015, the amendment to law no.119/2008, has exempted the national projects built upon a
ministerial council decree, by the engineering authority of the armed forced, that are of safe
structural state and complying to the certified planning and building regulations as indicated in a
certificate issued by the authority, from building permit issuance as that certificate is instead
considered as a building permit.
After the issuance of law no.119/2008 which didn’t allow for exempting building violations from
the imposed demolition/reinstatement orders, unlike law no.106/1976 which allowed it by paying
fines, and according to the principle of non-retroactivity of laws, the ministerial committee
responsible for the supervision over the building law’s application has decreed in its periodical
letter 413029 in 6/9/2016- based on periodical letters in 9/7/2009, 18/2/2010 and 18/9/2014- that the
building violations that took place before 12/5/2008 the date law no.119/2008 was put into action,
are dealt with according to the formerly applied laws and regulations. On the other hand, the
building violations that took place after 12/5/2008 are subjected to the law no.119/2008 regulations.
This opened the legalization door in front of the building violations that were executed before the
law’s issuance in 12/5/2008, and benefit from the reduction of the violation value decreed for the
building violations that are subject to law no.106/1976 and its amendments before the issuance of
law no.119/2008.
Whereas at NUCA, in 2009, the ministerial decree 6060 of 23/9/2009 by the minister of housing,
utilities and urban communities, stated that based on the applied requests from owners of cutting
down the violation value for building without permit to 10% of its value in the new urban
communities, similar to this same condition in case of building an extra floor before the permit
issuance where the violating work is in accordance with the issued permit and the law’s regulations.
The decree delegated new cities’ governors for legalizing building violations with an affirmed
decrease to 10% of the violation work value for buildings that are subject to law no.106/1976 and
its amendments before the issuance of law no.119/2008, and defined those violation works to those
stated in the ministerial decree no.60/2006 (article no.135 bis) to be in accordance with the
allowable building regulations.
Other indirect/quasi legalization mechanisms were introduced, such as the Cabinet Decree 129 of
26 October 2005 and the Governors’ Council Decree of 1 November 2005, continued to be carried
out, even that law 119/2008 clearly banned the extension of formal utilities to buildings constructed
without a permit according to Article 62, whereas by 2011 has connected formal electricity almost
900,000 informal buildings, according to MoEE 2010/2011 [7], [15]. According to MoEE,
2011/2012 [16], the ministry of electricity had received more than one million requests for formal
electricity throughout the months following the January 2011, whereas about 880,000 semi-formal
connections were made through the so-called ‘coded meters’
6
instead of the usual formal
connections. According to the Prime Ministerial Decree 886/2016, and Minister of Electricity
Decree 254/2016, those coded meters could be converted to formal meters if in case of legalization
from the competent authorities, or else they would be removed in case of demolition court orders.
The time for receiving requests was set for June 2018 then it was later extended to January 2019.
[7]
6
Those coded meters are ones that used a numerical code for identification instead of the property owner’s name when no formal
contract exist, leaving the door ajar in case of possible future demolitions
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
7
Fig 2. Process flow diagram of dealing with construction work according to law 119/2008 with its
amendments. (Source: Author)
4. Discussion
Comparing law no.119/2008 to law no.106/1976- together with their amendments- it is obvious that
law no.119/2008 is much stricter in dealing with building non-compliances, not allowing for formal
legalization of building illegalities, and imposing harsher punishments on the violators unlike the
case of law 106/1976. Which comes in line with the housing minister decree 6060 in 23/9/2009,
which explicitly stated in its introduction that law 106/1976 allowed for legalization through fine
payment unlike law 119/2008, which doesn’t allow for any form of legalization. However, studying
the later amendments to law no.106/1976, it can be noticed that those amendments have in most
cases made it became stricter, in a form that was greatly similar to law no.119/2008 when it was
first issued. Despite the introduced facilitations to law no.119/2008, as in article no.135 (bis) in
2010, it highly specified the cases of exemptions for regularization in only six cases of very narrow
permissible limits, not responsive to the existing high rates of common building violations.
Speaking about building standards and regulations; among the key critiques is that they are mostly
high-standard for many of the low-income housing and their needs [3], which can be considered as
an idealistic approach- from the legislators’ point of view- whereas that idealism conflicted the
realism represented in the various citizens’ needs and different contexts that requires some sort of
flexibility dealing with them, resulting in what can now be seen in Egypt’s built environment from
organic self-built settlements, disparate skylines, and a general sense of urban chaos. Moreover,
these laws are overruled by presidential decrees, and temporary regulations along the Egyptian
history [5], [7], [8] [9]. Realism in turn implies the inevitable non-compliance to those ideal laws,
which thus must be properly dealt with, for sustainable urban management [7]. As to the dealing
measures with those non-compliances, much controversy exists about it, whereas some authors
[8],[9],[11],[17] see that legalization or imposing facilitations to regulations such as exemptions
leads to increasing building violations, other scholars such as; Shawkat, Y. [7],[14] and researches
such as that carried out by UNESCAP in 2012 [18], argue that a breather or relaxation to the
restrictions has to exist in the ruling policies as one of the mechanisms to encourage compliance so
that the informal or the non-compliant can be re-included within the formal realm and not be
doomed forever as an illegal entity, or else the opposite will happen especially when the informal
realm is cheaper, easier and faster. That breather could be giving more space for allowing for
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
8
paying adequate fines for legalizing acceptable
7
violations and to be accompanied with corrective
acts if needed. Also, it could be in allowing for having exceptions and exemptions from certain
regulations in certain cases while being well-monitored to avoid corruption. But it must be made
sure that those acts won’t negatively affect the city norms and values or the approved policies and
visions. They agreed that flexibility and trying to achieve balance between repression and toleration
is a key in managing any social environment, while exaggerating in any of them will only result in
increased turbulences [19], [20]. In the case of building laws, that can lead to forcing a halt to
amend or suspend them, as can be seen in the above-explained sequence in Egypt throughout the
last decades.
3.5 Law no.17/2019
In 2019, the government issued Law no.17/2019 to solve the long-existing and increasing illegal
building phenomenon all over Egypt, especially after the failure of the existing building laws and
7
For example in case when the building is compliant with building laws and regulations but lacks authorization.
Fig 3. Process flow diagram of law 17/2019 with its amendments. (Source: Author)
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
9
regulations in containing it. On parliament hearing, several proposals to the Reconciliation law
prepared by the government since 2014 were refused
8
. The law’s project was prepared since 2014,
but its issuance was mainly delayed for the parliament to be formulated after the elections were
carried out on October 17th, 2015, as the first parliament after Egypt's Constitution of 2014
9
.
Its proclaimed objectives are as follows; 1) Preservation of the real estate asset and legalizing their
violations based on legal and technical foundations; 2) Stopping of judicial prosecutions related to
building violations: 3) Preservation of the urban and architectural image; 4) Raising revenues to
overcome the infrastructure problems that those violations have caused and the aid for adequate
provision of social housing; 5) Preservation of agricultural lands.
How does this law vary from the previous laws in terms of dealing with different building
violations? Does it address the shortcomings of the former-ruling building laws?
Law no. 17/2019 is a temporary exceptional law that has given the chance for legalizing for; any
building violation to all building laws (Law no.1/2020), and the change of use in places where no
certified detailed plans exist. But not all violations can be legalized. First off there is a cut-off
period where any violations after April 8th, 2019, the date the law was passed, would not be
accepted (Art. 1). Another date, July 22nd, 2017, has been stipulated for buildings in rural areas
constructed outside of, but contiguous to, urban zones (cordon), as per orthophoto made by the
military survey authority for the whole of the Egyptian territories (Art. 1) [14]. Eight cases were
defined by law that cannot be put for legalization (Article no.1, law 17/2019 amended by law
1/2020), which will be demonstrated and discussed in the following table of comparison (Table 1).
5. Comparative analysis between the three laws with their amendments, according to
the allowed and disallowed items for legalization in Law 17/2019 (Article no.1, law
17/2019 amended by law 1/2020)
Allowed
Law no.19/2017
Law 119/2008
Law no.106/1976
Any building violation to
all building laws.
Prohibited, but
special exemptions
exist. 10
Prohibited, but some violations can be fined for, &
Special exemptions exist. 11
The change of use in
places where no certified
detailed plans exist.
Areas with no
certified detailed
plans are ruled by
temporary
regulations till
their issuance and
violating them
requires cessation
of work and then
demolition. 12
Similar to law 119/2008, however on certifying their
detailed plans; they must be convenient with the
common existing land uses. While for uses different
from the dominant ones or those violating them, to
be kept as they are, while preventing their expansion
or increase, determining a specific duration after
which those violating uses must be stopped, and
disapproving any permits for the modification,
reinforcement, or refurbishment of the violating
buildings. 13
Building condition
Law no.19/2017
Law no.119/2008
Law no.106/1976
Buildings that fail the
structural integrity tests.
Prohibited
8
Atef, N. 4 Mar 2014, “Building Violations Reconciliation Law deters contraventions”. Masress news. Online:
https://www.masress.com/almessa/230633, last accessed on: 10/4/2019.
9
As stated in the fifth report produced by the joint committee at the Egyptian parliament (‘House of Representatives’, 2019)
10
Law no.119/2008, chapter7, Art.135 bis
11
Article no.18 of the executive regulations of law no.106/1976 which was then cancelled by law no. 101/1996 to only allow for
special exemptions as mentioned in article 30 of the executive regulations
12
Article 19 bis, chapter 3, law 119/2008
13
Articles no.5, 8 &10 of law no.3/1982
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
10
Buildings that fail the
Egyptian code for fire
safety and means of
egress stipulations. 14
Prohibited except for specific exempt
cases.15
Prohibited for specific exempt
cases.16
Violations to buildings
of distinguished
architectural style, or
modifications to heritage
listed buildings.
It is prohibited any building or
constructions commencement,
expansion, modification,
reinforcement, restoration of
buildings or projects whether of
fixed or mobile nature without
obtaining a permit from the specified
authority at first and in some areas
the supreme council may require the
approval of NOUH at first. 17
Heritage buildings are protected
by the law of antiquities
preservation no.117/1983, and no
intervention can be made without
a permit after the approval of the
authority of antiquities. Also, law
no.144/2006 prohibits the
demolition or addition to any
building or construction of
distinguished architectural style. 18
Building Location
D
i
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
D
i
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
Law no.19/2017
Law no.119/2008
Law no.106/1976
Violating the building
regulating lines &
breaching public
servitude rights.
Prohibited. But the state can, for
urgent social and economic
considerations required for public
welfare, to sell, lease, or allow
exploitation of state-owned land-
which include the public roads and
amenities- through direct orders,
based on an agreement.19
Prohibited. But the state bodies
can sell/lease/ usufruct its private
lands or buildings through direct
order, through governor decree, to
buildings or land squatters, or to
land squatters who reclaimed
land- from small farmers- upon
special conditions. 20
Those that infringe on
civil aviation ceilings or
national defines
stipulations.
Violating building ceiling heights has been prohibited in both laws
no.119/2008 and 106/1976, they both required demolition for breaching
the allowable height ceilings set by the civil aviation authority and the
armed forces for national defines stipulations in case no approval was
obtained. Also, any legal action considering any building unit that exceeds
the allowable heights to be null/invalid in both laws.21
Buildings constructed on
state owned land unless
having applied for
regularization
Impermissible without regularizing its status from the meant authority at
first. Early since 1995 amendments to laws have been made to allow
regularizing adverse possession of state-owned lands where the public
authorities have the right to sell or lease its private lands through direct
order to squatters. 22
14
Article 7 of the executive regulations of law 17/2019; and its amendment Law no. 800/2020
15
Such as: Residential buildings whereas; a) floor level of the building highest floor <16 m, b) area of any floor<400 m2, c) floor
level of the basement (if exists) >3 m from the street level. Also, the Administrative, commercial. Industrial, and storage use
buildings of low risks if; a) floor level of the highest floor of the building < 4m from street level, b) area of any floor (including the
basement) <200 m2, c) floor level of the basement (if exists) <3 m from the street level. (Article no.39 & 49 of law 19/2008 & article
no.106 of the executive regulations)
16
Such as: a) Buildings whereas the highest floor level <28 m, b) Buildings of areas <2500 m2 and >1 floor, c) Buildings of areas
<5000 m2, d) In case of >1 building in a private site, e) Buildings of special nature such as industrial, storage, etc. (Article no.11 bis-
1 of law no.106/1976 & article no.32 of the executive regulations)
17
The National Organization for Urban Harmony (Law no.119/2008, part 2, chapter 2, Art.33 &35)
18
Article no.2, law no.144/2006 Regulating the Demolition of Non-Dilapidated Buildings and Establishments, and the Preservation
of Architectural Heritage
19
Article no.80, law no.182/2018, The new public contracts law
20
Ministerial council decree no.2041/2006
21
Civil aviation law no. 28/1981 in article no.24; and the signed protocols between the armed forces and the ministry of housing,
utilities, and urban communities for all certified strategic and detailed plans
22
Examples are; Law no.1107/1995, the amendment to law no.857/1985 regulating the regularization process of squatted state-
owned properties; Law no.89/1998 for tenders and auctions, article no.31-bis of law no.148/2006 for adverse possession
regularization which implied special conditions for regularization through the ministerial council decree no.2041/2006; Law
no.144/2017, article no.2 that allowed the meant authority to sell or lease its privately owned land through direct order with the
squatters or those who have reclaimed it before the law issuance; Law no.182/2018, article no.80 which stated that the state can, for
urgent needs for public welfare, to sell, lease, usufruct, or allow exploitation of state-owned land through direct orders, based on the
agreement between the minister of finance, and the meant minister or city governor.
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
11
Disallowed
Construction on
protected areas under the
law of preservation of
antiquities and the Nile
River.
Building or applying any changes to any building or area subject to the
law no.117/1983 for antiquities preservation is prohibited, and no
intervention can be made without a permit after the approval from the
authority of antiquities.
As for the Nile River, it has been regulated by law no.1383/2005 where in
article no.4 it prohibits in article no.8 building any fixed constructions on;
the Nile bridges, the islands that exist in its waterway, the areas where the
water ebbs away temporarily or permanently in a range distance of 30 m
from the trimming lines specified by the ministry of irrigation and water
resources. Also, Special exemptions exists in defined cases. 23
Building outside the specified urban zones except for
The cases specified in article no.
2 in law 119/2008, that can be
permitted accordingly
The buildings built on
agricultural land for projects
serving the agricultural &
animal production
building outside the specified urban
zones of cities & village or in areas
which don’t have certified national
strategic plans is prohibited and
regulated only through the city or
village general strategic plans and
their detailed plans which determines
those zones and the proposed
projects and land use, except for the
special cases where a building permit
must be obtained at first. 24
Building outside the specified
urban zones is prohibited in law
no.3/1982 & only allowed
according to the city or village
general strategic plans & their
detailed plans which determine
those zones, the proposed projects
& land use. But special
exemptions were made for
building on agricultural lands/
heathland that can be cultivated. 25
State projects &
projects for the
public welfare
Building state projects or projects for the purpose of public welfare
outside the certified urban zones are allowed in law no.3/1982 and law
no.119/2008 as special exemptions, but a building permit must be
obtained at first & certified from the meant governor.
The buildings built
adjacent to the
urban zones, with
complete connected
infrastructure &
where lands have
become heathland
The state has executed multiple projects and initiatives for expanding and
re-delineating the certified urban zones over the last decades for the
containment of informal buildings for their regularization26 Such as
Expanding village boundaries (al-hayz al ‘omrani), Expanding city
boundaries (kordon el madina), Containing informal areas (tahzim el
manatiq el ‘ashwa'iya) [21]. Partial/complete infrastructure to informal
buildings in areas outside the specified urban zones might either be
connected informally by inhabitants/extended formally according to laws
issued for public health27. [14]
23
Such as in cases of buildings related to drinking water and electricity stations, cable connections, and projects made for the public
welfare, after approvals. Also, they can permit the constructions that are; mobile, easy to assemble and install, not blocking the
vision, of building area < 10% of the area.
24
Including: a) buildings built on agricultural land for projects serving the agricultural and animal production, as specified in a
decree, and approved by the minister of agriculture: b) Private housing or service building built on agricultural land. (Article no.2,
law no.119/2008)
25
They include the following, but a building permit must be obtained at first; a) Building inside the certified building zones till
1/12/1981 without breaching those zones with any modification till then; b) Building on lands lying in the specified urban zones of
villages; c) Lands on which the state build projects for the public welfare; d) Lands on which projects that serve the agricultural and
animal production as certified plan and approved based on the minister of agriculture’s proposal; e) Building private housing or
service building on the agricultural land for the owner himself.
26
Tahany Turky (2020, 25 february) “Minister of MHUUC: expanding the certified urban zones might harm the state’s economic
affairs”, Al-Osboa online journal. Available at: https://www.elaosboa.news/51224, last accessed on: 18/10/2020.
27
Such as; Law 259/1956; Laws 54/1984 and 99/1986; Cairo Governor Decree 75/1990 & Cabinet Decree 129 of 26 October 2005
the Prime Ministerial Decree 886/2016, Minister of Electricity Decree 254/2016, as explained in section: 3.3.1 and 3.4.1
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
12
Change of use
Disallowed
Law no.19/2017
Law no.119/2008
Law no.106/1976
Change of use in places
where certified detailed
plans have been issued.
Except in special cases
as approved by the
competent authority. 28
Prohibited
But in law no.119/2008, the
legislator had given the governor
after the approval of the supreme
council formed, the right in case of
urging urban conditions to approve
the change of land use of all of a city
or part of it, or even a single
building-but not a part of a building-
whether for a compensation or a
usufruct cost in return for the
increase of land value by the change
of use & development fees for
change of use are paid according to
law no.222/195529.
Prohibited
But law no.106/1976 had given
the governor the right in case of
urging urban conditions, after the
approval of the local council and
the executive authority, to exempt
some city or village regions in the
specified governorate from some
of the building regulations in law
no.106/1976 with its executive
rulings, and from the urban
planning law no.3/1982 with its
executive regulations.
Other concluded points
(Not explicitly stated in Article no.1 Law 17/2019 & its amendments)
Disallowed
Violations of parking spaces’ codes
in case the change of use of all/part
of the roof/basement to the
buildings’ original use in cases
where the local authority allows for
change of use only if sufficient
parking spaces are provided for the
building (as in New Cairo city)
The permit applicant must provide sufficient parking spaces
with the number of units, the building area, the allowed
building use according to the specified regulations- and the
rulings of the Egyptian code of parking spaces in case of law
119/2008. 30 Violations have to be demolished and any legal
action concerning the changed use of the parking spaces to be
considered null/invalid. 31&32
Building violations that can be
affected by the demolition of other
building violations if they are not
‘legalizable’33. [22]
In both laws no.106/1976 and 109/2008, if the partial
demolition or reinstatement work of a building violation will
affect the residents, temporary partial or full eviction must take
place at first till completion of work on the expense of the
owner either willingly or through confiscation. 34
Table 1. Comparative analysis between the legalization mechanisms in the three laws. (Source: Author)
6. Legalization measures of the Reconciliation Law in comparison with similar
international examples
Are there any similar international examples of reconciliation laws? If yes, how do they differ from
the Reconciliation Law 17/2019 legalization’s framework? And how can we benefit from those
experiences?
In the following section some of the main features and issues of the Reconciliation Law’s
framework will be analysed and discussed in comparison with similar international examples of
28
Based on the competent authority’s approval, whereas it defines the allowed cases of change of use such as changing the use of an
area of the building to the original building use such as changing residential roofs & basements into apartments, only in case of
providing sufficient parking space within the building lot. This is according to artcile no.1-bis in the executive regulations of the
Reconciliation Law, and as carried out in the new cities such as New Cairo city, Sheikh Zayed city and others (Iskan Misr (2020, 13
March “Reconciliation decree of roof and basement violations” Iskan Misr online news portal. Available
at:https://iskanmisr.com/UserFiles/Galleries/2020/03/13/8007/ %D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B1_-
_Copy_2003130720383111.jpg, last accessed on: 12/7/2021.
29
Imposition for Improvement
30
Law no.119/2008, article no.48 in chapter 5; article no.108, executive regulations, law no.119/2008
31
Article no. 60 & 67, law 119/2008
32
Article no. 12 bis1-1 & article no.16 &17 bis1-2 of law 106/1976
33
This point has been added based on Article no.7, point no.5, of the prime minister decree no.800/2020 in amendment of the
executive regulaions of law 17/2019. Question no.5 & 56 in the MHUUC published Q&A book about the Reconciliation Law
34
Law no.101/1996, amendment to law no.106/1976, Art. No.-2) & (Law no.119/2008, Part 3, Art. No.23
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
13
specified building legalization laws. Those examples were selected by the author whereas the
primary choice of the selected countries is based on those who have applied building legalization
processes, having sufficient accessible data about those experiences. Selection criteria were defined
such as the geography and location, the economic situation, the political and governance situation,
and the societal factors, represented through accredited indicators that can help illustrate the
tendency for participating in illegal activities and the tendency for legalization. Besides, another
filtration process included factors such as the problem causes and the resultant situation. Data has
been gathered based on the case year of each country when the law was put into action. Among the
selected examples are the following laws: Albania Law No. 9209/2004 "On the legalization of
extensions to the buildings"; Albania Law no. 9404/2004
35
; Albania Law No. 9482/2006
36
. The
Sindh buildings control (amendment) ordinance, 2001; The Sindh regulation and control (use of
plots and construction of buildings) ordinance, 2002; Karachi building & town planning regulations
(amendments) 2011. The Gujarat Act No. 23/2001
37
; The Gujarat Act No.26/2011)
38
and its
amendment in 2012. Shenzhen Rules (304/2001)
39
; Shenzhen rules (387/2009)
40
; The Shenzhen
optional zoning rules
41
. Montenegro Law on regularization of informal structures (Official Gazette
of Montenegro No. 56/2016); Law on spatial planning and construction of structures, (x-
Legalization of illegal structures) 2017
42
.
6.1 Scale of implementation
The Reconciliation Law is a national scale policy, over all the Egyptian territories. According to
formal data obtained on September 2nd, 2021, from the general administration of housing research,
the housing & utilities sector at MHUUC, the body responsible for following up building laws
implementation, it shows that during the period the competent authorities in all of Egypt received
the reconciliation applications, about 2,888,869 applications were submitted: 2,815,116 at the
governorates and 73,753 at new cities (NUCA).
On September 2nd, 2021, the total gathered revenues formed about 29,196,351,167 EGP;
2,624,870,167 EGP at new cities (NUCA) and 26,571,481,000 EGP at the governorates, divided as
Fig 4. Numbers of submitted reconciliation applications in Egypt’s governorates, according to their current state.
(Source: MHUUC on 2/9/2021)
35
Law No. 9209/2004 On legalization and Urban Planning of Informal Zones
36
Law No. 9482/2006 On Legalization, Urbanization and Integration of Informal Settlements and the Establishment of ALUIZNI)
37
Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2001 ( Gujarat Act No. 23/2001)
38
The Gujarat Regularisation of Unauthorised Development Act, 2011 (Gujarat Act No.26/2011)
39
Rules of Shenzhen Special Economic Zone on Dealing Historical Illegal Private Houses (304/2001) and its rules of implementation
(305/2002)
40
Decision of the Standing Committee of Shenzhen Municipal People’s Congress for Handling Illegal Buildings Left over from the
Process of Rural Urbanization (387/2009) and its pilot implementation measures 455
41
That emerged over time through Shenzhen’s various village redevelopment projects, taking into consideration; The Decision of the
Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Big Issues on Promoting the Reform and Development of Rural
Areas, 2008; The Comprehensive Plan to Reform the Land Management System of Shenzhen City, 2012; Opinions on Optimizing
the Allocation of Spatial Resources to Promote Industrial Transformation and Upgrading, 2013
42
Adopted at the sitting of the third extraordinary session in 2017, on 30 September 2017 and amended in 2020
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
14
follows; 1,782,573,000 Examination fees, 15,954,330,000 Legalization deposit fees and
8,834,578,000 Legalization fees
43
.
According to the held formal interviews with Eng. Nafisa Hashem, Eng. Rania Mounir and other
MHUUC in charge officials, as well as Dr. Raafat Shemais the head of the technical inspection
authority, they all agreed that no prior studies were made for the law before its implementation, and
no pilot projects were carried out. An example where a pilot project was carried out before the law
implementation is Shenzhen pilot implementation measures 455/2013, regarding the pilot process
work of illegal buildings left over from the process of rural urbanization within the selected regions
selected by the municipal government. It was enacted according to the Decision of the Standing
Committee of Shenzhen Municipal People’s Congress for Handling Illegal Buildings Left over
from the Process of Rural Urbanization 387/2009 and was put on trial implementation in the
selected regions on April 1st, 2014, to test this plan in several select intra-city villages before fully
implementing it, which would encourage villages not selected to develop further their land illegally.
[23]
6.2 Duration
Law 17/2019 is of temporary nature, which is the case in most of the example of legalization
processes, including Albania 2006, Gujarat 2001-2011, Sindh 2001-2002-2011, etc. Duration may
be extended during the implementation of legalization procedures as in the case of Law 17/2019
whereas the duration for application submission was supposed to be within 6 months from the date
of the executive regulation's issuance, but it was extended for several times till March 2021
44
. The
prolongation of the procedures often encourages new illegal building constructions such as in
Albania whereas about 80000 to 100000 new illegal constructions were built after the 2006
legalization law [24]. On the contrary, the legalization process in some cases is not time-limited
such as in the optional zoning rules in Shenzhen, whereas the villagers/collective can freely decide
on the suitable timing when they apply for legalization according to their interests and the market
opportunities. [23]
6.3 Charges
Law 19/2017 specifies the legalization of illegal buildings in return for legalization charges as
specified by law and governors’ decrees in each city or governorate, like most international
examples such as in Gujarat (Gujarat act no. 23 of 2001, 26 of 2011), The Sindh, India (The Sindh
buildings control amendment ordinance, 2001, regulation and control -use of plots and construction
of buildings- ordinance, 2002, and the amendments in 2011). An example where no fees are
required for legalizing building non-compliance is in Serbia, according to the law on the
legalization of buildings (“Official Gazzete of the RS”, n˚ 96/15) and the law on amendments and
supplements to the law on legalization of facilities (Official Gazette of RoS no. 83/2018),
legalization is mostly free of charge [25]. Sometimes laws or by-laws, as well as decisions, contain
provisions which in some cases as in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Albania, and Montenegro,
facilitate the payment of legalization costs for socially vulnerable owners. In Serbia and Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the fees are exempted for housing properties up to 100 m2; this distinction in
Montenegro stands at 250 m2 [26]. In Egypt, the law hasn’t also provided special considerations or
exceptions for very poor and vulnerable groups, for example in cases where the defined measures
shape high standards to most of them and as a result subject them to the risk of demolition. The law
hasn’t differentiated between the contraventions made of necessity or out of profitability in the
eligibility for legalization, but differences existed in the price/m2 of the building contravention
45
. In
other cases, classification of legalization is carried out according to the social status of the
household is conducted based on differentiating between homes built out of necessity and others
43
According to the formal statistics obtained from the general administration of housing research, the housing & utilities sector at
MHUUC, 2 September 2021
44
“Egypt extends reconciliation over building violations until March 2021” Daily News Egypt, published on: January 2, 2021.
Online: https://dailynewsegypt.com/2021/01/02/egypt-extends-reconciliation-over-building-violations-until-march-2021/, last
accessed on: 14/9/2021.
45
Inquiry no.40, MHUUC Q&A book, July 2021
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
15
such as in; the FYR of Macedonia and Bulgaria whereas in those cases the social criteria are not
applied to individual informal constructions beyond the borders of informal settlement. Also there
have been efforts to differentiate between those who built a family home to satisfy their housing
need (for affordable primary housing) and those who have built for commercial purposes, including
luxury and secondary homes as in the case of Montenegro and Croatia. [26]
6.4 Declaration
The Law specifies that the owner/occupier of illegal building to apply for legalization through self-
declaration. This voluntary participation should be based on trust from the government &
willingness from people and it should be accompanied with parallel measures to deal with those
who don’t apply voluntarily. An example is in Albania, law no. 9404/ 29.10.2004. In 2006, it
further determined that when self-declaration is not done before the legal deadline of this law in
course of the 2 first months, the self-declaration in the following 2 months shall be accompanied
with a fine, determined according to the building’s area, its use and whether the building is built in
a formal or informal area. (Article 8, Albania law 2006 and its amendments). On the contrary, other
laws such as Gujarat 2001, 2011, 2012 ordinances a notice is sent by the authority to the
owner/occupier of the illegal development to be followed afterwards by them submitting
application to legalize their properties. In that case, complete and updated registers, with continuous
monitoring is important for successful results.
6.5 Tenure security
The law doesn’t include in its framework any mechanisms for registration, and the legalization
orders don’t prove ownership over the legalized buildings/parts of buildings. Such processes
provide varying degrees of political security of tenure, rather than legal security of tenure whereas
the security is only to the building from eviction and no power, ownership or legal status is granted
to the occupants. In practice, however, the perception within the communities concerned may well
be that their level of security of tenure is quite high. However, without simultaneous regularization
measures being undertaken [27]. An example is in Gujarat (2001, 2011, 2012) and in Sindh (2001,
2002, 2011) ordinances which legalize the status of the constructed building only regardless of its
ownership issues or even the land on which it is built, and the legalization process ends by
obtaining the building legalization certificate with no title deed registration, and the decision shall
not be deemed to decide the ownership of the regularized development. Lately, a subsequent
‘complementary step’ to the Reconciliation Law- as described by Eng. Rania Mounir (MHUUC) in
the previously mentioned formal interview- was taken by the issuance of law 186/2020 which
required all citizens to register their real estate properties at the Real Estate Registration and
Notarization Authority starting form 6 March 2020 in return of registration fees
46
. However, the
enforcement of the new Real Estate Registration Law was later postponed for facilitative reasons.
Combining both the legalization with the registration process should be precisely studied and
backed up with needed documentations and registers so as not to cause the delay of the legalization
process, as in the case of Albania 2006, whereas January 2013, only 13,855 permits for legalization
were registered with IPRO out of the 270,592 self-declared applications, which has significantly
delayed the national legalization program. reasons behind that delay included incomplete registers,
outdated maps of plots and building, lack of coordination between the competent governmental
authorities, etc. [24]. The prolonged process of legalization led to the emergence of an informal
market, where builders of illegal constructions due to the inability to sell the property through the
procedure that law requires, sell the building through written agreements between them, without
notarial act. [24]
46
Ahmed Morsy " Egypt's government to amend Real Estate Registration Law, postpone enforcement till January", Ahram Online,
published on: 28/2021. Online: https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/405025.aspx, last accessed on: 21/9/2021.
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
16
6.6 Exceptionality
The law was issued to legalize existing illegal buildings/parts of buildings that were built before the
law issuance, and it hasn’t provided sustainable solutions for the possible future violations for their
inclusion in the formal realm, nor regulated any special deterrence mechanisms for possible
building violations, contrary to what existed in the ruling building laws -in spite of the
ineffectiveness of the measures which led to the reconciliation law’s issuance. Similar examples of
‘exceptional legalization process’ include different types, an example is the Sindh ordinance, 2011
where the Sindh government allowed a 2-year (from the date of commencement of the Notification)
one-time regularization of building violation for entire Sindh for building works carried out prior to
commencement of this notification in contravention of Karachi Building & Town Planning
Regulations-2002 on payment of regularization fee and other charges, if they cannot be regularly
regularized. Another example is in Montenegro’s law on spatial planning and construction of
structures in 2017, where it determined that those eligible for legalization are those whose illegal
structure is serving as primary residence with net construction area of up to 200 m2, occupied by
the illegal structure owner and his family as their permanent, only if the owner and the members of
his family household are not owners of another residential structure in the territory of Montenegro.
In Shenzhen, the city government, temporal stipulations on indigenous villagers’ construction of
non-business residential houses 105 (June 19, 2006), the legalization policy has been mainly limited
to a “one household, one house” policy [28]. A special case can be found in Gujarat act 2001 where
the exceptional law allowed for legalizing not only existing buildings but also newly built ones, If
the development carried out before 22/11/2000 and then it was wholly destroyed by the earthquake
in Jan 2001 or rendered unfit, and the owner/occupier intends to carry out development at the same
place with same built-up area as existed before. In some cases, such as in Albania, Law No.
9482/2006, the citizen, who wishes to declare more than one informal building will not benefit from
the program’s subsidization. He may choose only one to legalize with these special tariffs, while the
rest are not of subsidized nominal amounts as the first one [24]. On the contrary, regular
legalization is the process when it is legally established the rules and regulations to follow in case of
existing or future building non-compliances, is the Sindh ordinance 2011 published in 11 Nov 2011
in Sindh, Pakistan, where regular legalization procedures were set so that in anytime thereafter if
the building works (residential or commercial) are commenced or carried out in deviation of the
approved plans or specific conditions shall not be required to be altered if such construction does
not violate the regulations. Here, the Sindh Building Control Authority may regularize the
construction after the realization of regularization fee depending on the nature and merits of the
case. Also, in Sindh ordinance no. xxxvii of 2001, where regular legalization was provided for
violations reported after the period of 12 months of exceptional legalization ended, only for
deviations within specified ranges of the permissible limits on the terms and conditions as
prescribed by the Authority. However, the results in those examples weren’t effective in cutting
down the numbers of building violations, one reason is that they weren’t backed up with strong
effectively enforced deterrent measures against any violating acts.
6.7 Supervision and Punitive actions
Law 17/2019 with its amendments didn’t include points such as supervision over the legalization
process, as well as measures of dealing with illegal buildings that didn’t apply for legalization or
even those which were refused. That point was left to be dealt with according to the unified
building law’s mechanisms which are in this case: reinstatement or demolition, returning back to
what was implicitly doomed as inefficient [11],[29] by its suspension whereas the same reasons
which led to the Reconciliation Law issuance in the first place still exist; the difficulty of vast scale
demolitions, evacuations and rehousing, as well as the possible security and social conflicts,
insufficient resources, real estate asset dissipation, etc. however, in similar examples, informal
settlement development continues and intensified as in the case of Shenzhen 387/2009, Albania
9482/2006 and Serbia 2013 (which entered into force on 1 November 2013), despite the fact that all
the respective laws contain explicit provisions on handling and stopping informal construction.
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
17
According to Dr. Raafat Shemais, the head of the Technical Inspection Authority, he expressed that
not addressing those points represented a clear deficiency in the law’s framework. Because of the
temporary nature of the law and since it didn’t halt the implementation of building law 119/2008,
the same measures and dealing mechanisms with building illegalities apply to the above-mentioned
cases, which are the cessation of work for reinstatement or demolition
47
. In the formal interview
with Eng. Rania Mounir (MHUUC), she explained that this point wasn’t addressed due to its
irrelevance, as the law was issued to set the rules for legalizing the existing building illegalities
which comply with its stipulations, and not to deal with those which fail or miss the legalization
process, and that is because of its temporary nature. However, she explained that the issue is still
under study and several proposals have been presented at the parliament and by the above-
mentioned joint committee formed in the 6-month interim phase, but so far, no different
mechanisms were issued. As to the supervision issue, according to law, the only way for the
applicant to appeal against the legalization process is to file an appeal after the issuance of the
committee decision complaining about the decision of the required legalization value, to be
reviewed by the appeal committee. Dr. Raafat Shemais (Head of Technical Inspection Authority)
explained that this causes the law’s implementation to be more corrupt-prone with the lack of
transparency and process monitoring.
6.8 Improvements/Redevelopments
The law didn’t include in its framework steps for improving/developing the building’s form/shape
or its integration into the urban context, or even address the building’s external appearance,
architectural character, urban context and visual identity- in a way similar to law 119/2008 [8],[11]
and other former ruling building laws [9]- except in a single point which is; the full painting of all
unfinished exterior building facades as a requirement for legalizing violating buildings, that is
clearly insufficient to resolve the impacts of the long-existing chaotic building state on the urban
and architectural environment. No special prior studies or surveys were made to survey the existing
condition and study the possible impact of the law’s implementation and the legalized building
violations on the architectural and urban context, unlike cases such as Albania 2006, whereas
ALUIZNI
48
carried out successfully: classifying all properties according to their eligibility for
legalization; conducting field surveys of almost all classified objects; Creating a database of
construction plots, informal buildings, and current owners [24]. Also in Peru 1996, whereas field
campaigns, legal & physical surveys, & door-to-door census were carried out to gather the required
data, but the process in those cases were costly and complex. However, according to Eng. Rania
Mounir (MHUUC), she demonstrated that the law wasn’t issued to put solutions to improve or
develop the existing building condition and so far, no special plans were made to redevelop or
improve the condition of the legalized buildings or to integrate them into their urban contexts,
besides directions were given to facilitate the process so as not to over-burden the citizens. She
explained that the law has shaped in its articles the desired building and urban form implicitly
throughout its guidelines, such as the height ceilings, preserving regulating lines, structural stability,
etc. UNECE identified two approaches to legalization of informal settlements (1) legalization that is
carried out independently of the urban development/ redevelopment plans; an example is in Gujarat
2001, 2011, 2012, and the Sindh 2001, 2002, 2011 whereas according to law the legalization
process ends by obtaining the building legalization certificate; (2) legalization that is carried out as
an integral part of renewed efforts to develop statutory plans regulating development at the local
level [29],[30]. An example is the Turkish Redevelopment Law No. 2981, The redevelopment law,
which offers two choices for regularizing slums and gecekondus: preservation or improvement of
the squatter house. In the preservation process the slum is preserved as it is upon payment of
required duties to the municipality or governorship in return for development and service provision.
While in the case of improvement, the improvement of slums is carried out by the squatters with no
fees to be paid. [31] [32] , [33]
47
Inquiry no.56, MHUUC Q&A book, July 2021
48
Agency for legalization Urbanization and Integration of Informal Zones and buildings, the process operator
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
18
Also in Albania law No. 9482/2006 “the law on Legalization, Urbanization and Integration of
Informal Settlements and the Establishment of the Agency for Legalization, Urbanization and
Integration of Informal Areas and Constructions”, one of its main objectives was the urbanization of
informal zones, blocks and buildings, as well as their integration into the territorial and
infrastructural development of the county, thus improving their living conditions (article 1, Albania
law 2006 and its amendments) and it set the necessary rules for its implementation upon the
conclusion of the legalization process [24]. This caused the prolongation and the delay of the
legalization process in some cases such as in Albania 2006, whereas the detailed planning process
was postponed due to the large investments of time and resources needed as the government aimed
to complete legalization quickly and improve infrastructure, applying minimum urban planning
norms and standards as possible [24]. However, on the other side achieving those goals helped
provide better quality of life and set the guidelines for adequate urban environment, as in the case of
Shenzhen optional zoning program [23] and in Turkey, 1984. [34]
6.9 Compliance
The Reconciliation Law allowed for legalizing building contraventions- except the cases included
in Article no.1 of the law- whether they are within or exceeding the allowable limits in the building
laws and regulations. Other examples such as in Serbia law 96/2015, where the law couldn’t be
applied to the buildings which have been built without a building permit after November27, 2015,
i.e., building approval in line with the regulations according to which the obligation of obtaining the
building permit, in line with the regulations governing the registration of ownership right over
immovables. Another example is the Sindh buildings control (amendment) ordinance 2001, in the
regular legalization in case violations were reported after the period of 12 months from the
ordinance issuance. It only allowed for specified building works such as excess covered area,
commenced, or carried out of a building plan which was approved prior to the promulgation of the
Sindh Building Control Amendment Ordinance 2001, of any deviation where the deviation does not
exceed beyond 20% of the permissible limits on the terms and conditions as prescribed by the
Authority. In the case Montenegro law of legalization of illegal structures 2018, the illegal structure
has to have been constructed in accordance with the basic zoning parameters from the applicable
planning document adopted prior to the entry into force of the Law or within the time limit of the
Law (article 154, Montenegro law, 2018).
6.10 Unification/Generalization
The Reconciliation Law has inherited from the former ruling laws the wide scope and the unified
nature in all their stipulations which resulted in missing objectivity when dealing with violations of
different nature, different activities and in different regions and contexts with the same measures,
irresponsive to the different needs and requirements [5], [8], [10], [11]. For example; the law
addresses different activities such as; residential, commercial, industrial, administrative,
institutional, touristic, service buildings and others regardless of the fact that it is used for profitable
or non-profitable reasons, targeting the legalization of violations of all natures such as; slums
(Ashwa’iyat), squatter settlements, sprawl on agricultural lands, dense city buildings, low, mid and
high-rise buildings, luxurious gated communities, ..etc. in all of Egypt’s regional sectors such as;
coastal, rural, agricultural, desert regions, dense city centres, new urban communities, which is
considered a central shortcoming [5], [10],[8], [11]. The only difference is made between urban and
rural areas considering the legalization price and the exception from finishing the exterior building
facades. Thus the spectrum widening is only numerical but not an objective one, with the aim of
targeting the largest number of building violations in the least amount of time, such as the case of
Albania Law no. 9404/2004, Law No. 9482/2006, Montenegro Law on regularization of informal
structures (Official Gazette of Montenegro No. 56/2016), Law on spatial planning and construction
of structures, (x- Legalization of illegal structures) 2017, Turkey Law No. 2981 of 1984
(Redevelopment Law) with its amendments (Law No. 3290 and Law No. 3366), Peru Land Titling
Program 26687/1996. However, that is unlike the cases of Gujarat Act No. 23/2001, 26/2011, Sindh
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
19
ordinance 2002, 2011 and Shenzhen Rules (304/2001) and (387/2009), whereas the law was
specified for a certain region/province/state of the country, having specified characteristics, and
especially Shenzhen which had the law specified for dealing with illegal private housing buildings
only. However, Eng. Rania Mounir (MHUUC) explains that in her opinion, the process is the same
at permit issuance process, so it would be senseless asking for their provision in those illegally
built. She explains that to MHUUC, the law’s generalization is not a shortcoming, but on the
opposite, it aims at imposing equality values among citizens by unifying general mechanisms, while
enhancing decentralization through leaving points such as building heights and street widths to the
city/governorate to their special condition and as reflected in the detailed plans. She added that the
non-categorization of regions based on their environmental factors is not valid, as all building codes
address the building itself and not within a special context. Concerning this point, Dr. Raafat
Shemais, the Head of the Authority of Technical Inspection over construction works made it clear
that special code for fire safety to existing buildings was prepared by HBRC to be applied
throughout the examination process of the reconciliation applications
49
, with minimum allowed
specifications to increase the efficiency of existing building fire safety and protect people’s lives.
He explained that this was due to the inapplicability of the applying the existing code to the already
existing buildings, the matter that tripped many of the submitted applications and risking the lives
of many people. He added that will be added to the existing fire safety code, as special section for
the case of existing buildings. Other factors such as factors such as quality of life indicators,
environmental impact controls, sanitation, ventilation, and energy consumption factors weren’t
addressed by the law or its complementary decrees.
Another generalization issue was the amendment in law 1/2020 which allowed legalization for all
building violations in anytime, not only those in the time of law 119/2008, but the matter also which
forced all unlegalized building violations to apply for legalization or else they will have to face
actions like demolitions or reinstatement, the dealing measures of the ruling building law 119/2008.
However, based on the principle of non-retroactivity of laws, according to what came in the
Supreme Administrative Court order 6252/63 buildings built before the issuance of law 119/2008
don’t submit to its stipulations. That means that not all buildings can be demolished, and some can
pay fines instead, speaking about those which were built before law 119/2008 issuance, and
therefore every building or part of a building will be handled case by case
50
.
7 Conclusions
Surveying the former building laws in Egypt, their amendments and how they dealt with building
violations, they had all set the mechanism for legalization within their frameworks but with varying
proportions, therefore the Reconciliation Law cannot be considered as the first Law to introduce
building legalization. All formerly ruling building laws, with their amendments failed to contain or
deter the increasing building violations at their times which is the reason why the phenomenon
continued and thus law 17/2019 was later introduced. It can be easily read that the Law issuance has
come in line with the typical cycle which took over throughout the decades as explained above,
between restriction and toleration, issuing strict regulations then halting them for reconciliation
repeatedly.
Comparing Law 17/2019 with the legalization mechanisms within the former building laws’
frameworks, it has provided higher flexibility in dealing with building violations than the building
law 119/2008 in terms of; widening allowed violation types and non-restriction to certain allowed
49
Published in the official gazette, issue no.10, on January 13th, 2020 based on the ministerial decree no.682/2019 on 28/8/2019,
842/2019 on 17/10/2019 and its amendment in decree 871/2019 on 9/11/2019. Online:
http://laweg.net/Default.aspx?action=ViewActivePages&ItemID=115107&Type=6
50
Qaranshawy, S. 28 Feb 2021, “Surprise in the Supreme Administrative court decree: The state does not have the right to remove
the violating buildings that were established before the approval of the “Unified Building Law.” The Court confirms: Building
without a license is a “temporary and not continuous” action.. Exclusive”. AL-Masry Alyoum news portal. Online:
https://www.almasryalyoum.com/news/details/2271027, last accessed on: 29/1/2022.
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
20
limitations, quite similar in that to the legalization mechanisms in law 106/1976 before it was
amended in 1996 regarding facilitating the measures of dealing with building violations and the
allowed cases for legalization; even that law 106/1976 predominates with the sustainability of its
legalization measures, not being temporary ones. According to both Eng. Rania Mounir (MHUUC)
and Dr. Raafat Shemais (Head of Technical Inspection Authority), they agree that one of the main
reasons that caused the existing condition is the allowance of law 106/1976 the regular legalization
of most of building violations which tempted many to build illegally with the aim of having those
acts legalized afterwards, unlike the case in law 109/2008, which is the reason why an initial
proposal, by the regulations committee at the housing sector, of combining both the reconciliation
law with law 109/2008 was refused. Other officials and scholars such as Riad, M. A. 2018 [35] and
Dr. Elgabry, the HBRC materials institution dean
51
see that law 119/2008 has played the main role
in the increase of building violations since its issuance.
Drawing upon the above similarity and based on cases from similar examples such as Albania 2004
and 2006 laws, which led to increased building densities, encouraging urban sprawl especially after
the allowance of land use changing in 2006, and that was intensified with the inability of the
government enforcing demolition/confiscation of illegal developments and the prolongation of the
procedures and the multiple extended periods [24]. The same happened in the Sindh province as the
number of illegal buildings continued to increase in the form of densification of exiting slums and
the subdivision of existing dwellings and in most cases the government procrastinated to avoid
taking lawful actions and in September 2009, the supreme high court issued a notice to the authority
to restrain from demolishing any part of the building that could regularized under the law and that
impacted the amount of new illegal building & its future demolishing after being inhabited
illegally
52
. Also, in Gujarat 2011 whereas even after the extension of deadline of Gujarat act 2011,
was ruled out, the government could not go ahead with demolitions due to the large numbers, with
the lack of police protection, that is besides the high number of refused applications
53
. Therefore, it
can be expected the possibility of the continuity in building violations occurrence upon the issuance
and application of the Reconciliation law, and not cutting down or putting an end to the existing
situation, especially that the process isn’t backed up with strong and effectively enforced deterrent
measures against any violating acts. That proved right, tracking down the numbers of reported
building violations after the Reconciliation Law issuance on April 8th, 2019, and comparing it with
51
Amr Kamal (2021, 6 Feb) “The ghost of the violating towers threatens millions of lives” Al-Gomhuria Online news portal.
Available at: https://www.gomhuriaonline.com/PrintNews-773511, last accessed on: 15/7/2021.
52
Dawn online newspaper, 11 Sep 2009 “KARACHI: SHC stays demolition of building” Dawn newspaper online platform published
on: September 11, 2009. Available at: https://www.dawn.com/news/973892, last accessed on: 17/3/2021.
53
The Indian express online newspaper, 20 Aug 2013 “Impact fee drive fails to regularize illegal structures” The Indian Express
news journal, published on: August 20, 2013. Available at: http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/impact-fee-drive-fails-to-
regularise-illegal-structures/1157518/, last accessed on: 21/3/2021.
Fig 5. The legislative variation among building laws, acts and decrees between repression and toleration,
chronologically. (Source: Author)
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
21
the numbers since back at 2011, whereas they noticeably exploded after the January 2011
revolution and continued with high rates as shown in (Figure 6
54
). It can be noticed that; the
declaration of building reconciliation laws is always accompanied with relative increase in the
number of building violations with the aim of getting them legalized, as in 2014 and 2019.
However, it can be noticed that building violations continued to occur after the law issuance since
mid-2019, but with lower rates especially in urban areas, which is a positive indicator and relevant
measures should be taken to protect those results.
As to comparing between the allowable and the disallowable building violations for legalization in
the studied laws -from the legislative point of view- the law came as an exceptional situation to
widen the spectrum of the allowable violations for legalization. It allowed for legalization for all
building violations except for specified cases. Dealing with those cases changed between the three
laws; 106/1979, 109/2008 and 17/2019; whereas dealing with them in the new law became more
flexible in some cases, stricter in others and unchanged in the other cases.
Stricter as in the cases of; the change of use in places where no certified detailed plans exist, like
law 119/2008 and contrary to law 106/1076 which dealt with the case in a more objective way,
aiming at preserving the built environment and the existing real estate asset. Also, in the case of
breaching the building regulating lines which was clearly prohibited, but mechanisms were put
afterwards for its regulation through direct agreement with the state in return for money as in the
case of building on state-owned land; contrary to law 17/2019 which completely prohibited any
violation to the building regulating lines or breach of the public servitude rights without mentioning
any other possible solution for regularization. Another case is, the applied violations that can be
affected by the demolition of other building violations which have not all applied for legalization,
the matter that leads to refusing the application because of the necessity of demolishing the
unapplied, contrary to the previous laws in specified cases whereas it allowed fine payment in
return for demolition exemption or requiring restitution if necessary. The measures remained
unchanged in the cases of; failing the structural stability tests, fire safety measures, violations to
buildings of distinguished architectural style and heritage listed buildings, infringement of civil
aviation ceilings or national defines stipulations, construction on protected areas under the law of
54
According to the formal statistics obtained from the general administration of housing research, the housing & utilities sector at
MHUUC, 2 September 2021
Fig6. Numbers of building violations in Egypt (Rural+ Urban regions) between 2011 and 2021. (Source: MHUUC on
2/9/2021)
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
22
preservation of antiquities and the Nile River, in addition to violations of parking spaces’ codes and
regulations. Change of use in places which have certified detailed plans, as allowed in several cities,
was prohibited but law 17/2019 allowed for changing the use of service areas –parking, basement,
and roof areas- into the building’s allowed use, only if sufficient parking space is provided for those
converted areas, within the building lot. Also, in case of legalizing building violations that can be
affected by the demolition of other building violations if they are not ‘legalizable’, the mechanisms
remained unchanged.
Drawing upon the comparison with the similar international examples, it can be concluded the
following; Probability of increasing numbers of building violations is high, therefore the situation
must be studied and quick action plans must be made to maintain the rule of law, combining both
deterrence-based and incentive-based mechanisms, especially with the delay in the reconciliation
process as demonstrated in the above (Figure 4), which encourages non-abiders to commit further
violations, and even also encourages those who applied for reconciliation to commit new violations
throughout the long process, for higher profits. Therefore, quick actions should be made to define
the reasons for the process delay to be eliminated, together with strengthening monitoring and
control measures over building acts, especially throughout that phase. Plans should be made to
protect the rights of law-abiders or to compensate them adequately and incentivize the respect for
laws and regulations. Also, special consideration should be made for vulnerable and disadvantaged
groups for their housing legalization or providing them with alternative ones in case of their
impossible legalization. Studies and plans should be made on dealing with similar future violations
after the law framework completion, and mechanisms should be put, not only to legalize existing
informal structures, but also to encourage the incorporation of new unavoidable structures that can
be easily incorporated in the formal sector [24]. Cost effectiveness studies shall be carried out
before the law implementation to find out ways to balance between affordability of fees to low- and
middle-income residents, and at the same time not cheap that it encourages illegal building rather
than following formal procedures for building, buying, or even renting a house. Also, multiple steps
should be taken to provide affordable social housing covering the increasing housing needs, as the
lack of social or affordable housing can exacerbate the problem of illegal development. The new
built environment will be affected after the legalization process, especially that in the absence of
urban integration and redevelopment plans for the legalized buildings, and the absence of any prior
studies. Therefore, comprehensive studies must be made to address those issues and find practical
means of achieving better urban integration, quality of life and preserving the planned urban and
architectural character of neighbourhoods as the requirement of finishing the exterior building
facades to complete the legalization process is not enough on its own to achieve that. Those studies
shall also cover the different development requirements of all of Egypt’s regional sectors such as
coastal, rural, agricultural, desert regions, etc. The structural safety besides fire safety of the
building is required for legalization, whereas factors such as natural ventilation and lighting weren’t
addressed by the Reconciliation Law, regardless of their permit-reliance in the ruling building laws
and detailed plans, the matter which can have unfavorable effects on living quality and health
conditions. Also, environmental impact controls, and sanitary factors are also overlooked, despite
its variable effects in each activity such as residential, commercial, industrial, touristic, service, and
other, which might cause future problems especially with the increasing levels of environmental
pollution and the missing formal prior or post planning of those projects and their impact on their
surrounding environment and utilities. Supervision and monitoring mechanism should be set and
included in the law’s framework to provide higher transparency, decrease possibilities for
corruption, and increase public trust of the process and the issued decisions.
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
23
References
[1] Tsenkova, S., “Urban planning and informal cities in southeast Europe”. Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research. 29. 292-305. October 2012.
[2] Jiménez Barrado, V. “Evolution and Management of Illegal Settlements in Mid-Sized Towns. The Case of Sierra
de Santa Bárbara (Plasencia, Spain)” Sustainability 12(8):3438. 2020. DOI: 12. 3438. 10.3390/su12083438.
[3] UN-Habitat, “Egypt Housing Profile” United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), Cairo, Egypt,
2016. ISBN: 978-92-1-132704-5
[4] Elsisy, A. et al. “Decision Making Ideology: Correlation Analysis Between Informal Settlements Growth &
Upgrading Policies in Egypt” New Cities and Community Extensions in Egypt and the Middle East (pp.139 -157)
January 2019, Egypt. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-77875-4_8
[5] Shemais, R. “Building regulations follow-up systems”, Unpublished Ph.D thesis in architecture, faculty of
Engineering, Al-Azhar University, June 2002.
[6] Farahat, M. 2010 “The environmental dimension in the Egyptian building legislations, a critical analysis in from
the perspective of solar radiation” Unpublished Masters’ thesis in architecture, faculty of Engineering, Cairo
University, 2010.
[7] Shawkat, Y.,”Sixty Years of Legalizing Informal Buildings in Egypt 1956-2019” The built environment
observatory, 10 October 2019, [Online]. Available at:
http://marsadomran.info/en/policy_analysis/2019/10/1805/. [Accessed on 26 September 2020]
[8] Ezzat, W. 2015 “Effect of building regulations on architectural idenity, applying on new urb an communities”
Unpublished Masters’ thesis in architecture, faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, 2015.
[9] Gad El-Haq, M. 2001 “Legislations regulating construction in Egypt, between theory and application” Unpublished
Masters’ thesis in architecture, faculty of Engineering, Cairo University, 2001.
[10] Ekramy, S. 2016 “An approach to preparing building regulations to residential land division projects” Unpublished
Ph.D thesis in urban and regional planning, faculty of urban and regional planning, Cairo University, 2016.
[11] Abdel-Aal, A. “Adaptable systematic methodology for applying building laws for urban development in Egyptian
cities”, Unpublished Masters’ thesis in architecture and urban planning, faculty of Engineering, Cairo University,
2012, pp. 126-132.
[12] Shawkat, Y., “Who Builds Egypt’s Housing? Construction Facts by Sector 2008 > 2018” The built Environment
Observatory, 4 November 2019, [Online]. Available at:
https://marsadomran.info/en/facts_budgets/2019/11/1837/, [Accessed on 14 Juy 2021].
[13] URHC, “Egyptian legislations in relation to the rehabilitation of Historic Cairo”. A Report prepared by URHC
team, based on an Arabic reporting submitted by Eng. Hassan Fahmy, in the framework of Urban Regeneration
project for Historic Cairo – UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, Cairo, Egypt, 8 July 2013.
[14] Shawkat, Y., “Egypt’s Construction Violations Reconciliation Law: All You Need to Know” The built
environment observatory, 16 January 2020, [Online]. Available at:
http://marsadomran.info/en/policy_analysis/2020/01/1880/. [Accessed on 15 Juy 2021].
[15] MoEE, ‘Egypt Electricity Holding Company Annual Report 2010/2011’ Ministry of Electricity and Energy, 2011,
[Online]. Available at: http://www.moee.gov.eg/english_new/report.aspx. [Accessed on 15 Juy 2021].
[16] MoEE, ‘Egypt Electricity Holding Company Annual Report 2011/2012’ Ministry of Electricity and Energy, 2012,
[Online]. Available at: http://www.moee.gov.eg/english_new/report.aspx, [Accessed on 15 Juy 2021].
[17] Krijnen, Marieke & Fawaz, Mona. (2010). “Exception as the Rule: High-End Developments in Neoliberal Beirut”.
Built Environment, 36. 245-259, July 2010, DOI: 10.2148/benv.36.2.245.
[18] UNESCAP (2012), “Integrating Environmental Sustainability and Disaster Resilience in Building Codes”. United
Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP); Asian Institute of Technology.
(2012). Bangkok. ISBN-13: 978-92-1-120649-4
[19] Hernández, F. (2017) “Marginal Urbanisms: Informal and Formal Development in Cities of Latin America”
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, May 11, 2017. [Online]. Available at:
https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=_m7XDgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s, [Accessed on 2 November
2021]
[20] Friedland, R. 1982 “Power and crisis in the City: Corporations, unions and urban policy” Macmillan International
Higher Education, Nov 25, 1982. [Online]. Available at:
https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=VkBdDwAAQBAJ&dq=balance+between+repression+and+toleration+in
+urban+governance&source=gbs_navlinks_s, [Accessed on 2 November 2021]
[21] Tadamun (2014) “Coming up short: Egyptian government approaches to informal areas”. Published on 16
September 2014, [Online]. Available at: http://www.tadamun.co/coming-short-government-approaches-
informal-areas/?lang=en#.YSv3uLAzapo. [Accessed on 15 Juy 2021]
[22] Q&A book about the Reconciliation Law no.17/2019 in both September 2019 and July 2021. [Online]: September
2019 version available at: http://admin.mhuc.gov.eg//Dynamic_Page/637050972083779060.pdf [Accessed on 15
JES, Vol. 50, No. 1, Pp. 1-25, January 2022
DOI: 10.21608/jesaun.2021.93380.1073
Part E: Architectural Engineering
24
July 2021], and July 2021 version available at: http://mhuc.gov.eg/Meida/NewsDetails/12405, [Accessed on 30
July 2021]
[23] Qiao, S. (2015) “Chinese Small Property: The Co-Evolution of Law and Social Norms”, 2015. [Online]
Available at: https://www.tilburguniversity.edu/sites/default/files/download/Qiao-The%20Co-
/Evolution%20of%20Property%20Law%20and%20Norms_2.pdf. [Accessed on 17 May 2021]
[24] UN (2015) “Formalizing the informal: Challenges and Opportunities of informal settlements in South-East
Europe”, United Nations, New York, and Geneva, published in 2015 by United Nations Fig Publication, ISBN
978-87-92853-32-5.
[25] Slava, Zekovic & Petovar, Ksenija & Nor-Hisham, Bin. (2020) “The credibility of illegal and informal
construction: Assessing legalization policies in Serbia” Cities. 97. 102548. 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102548.
[26] UNECE (2016) “Informal settlements in countries with economies in transition in the UNECE Region”
Background paper for the preparation of potential technical guidelines on informal settlements in the UNECE
countries with economies in transition (EECCA and the Western Balkans) 2016. [Online] Available at:
https://unece.org/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/Literature_Review_on_Informal_Settlements.pdf
[Accessed on 17 April 2021]
[27] UN-habitat (2007) “Enhancing urban safety and security: Global report on human settlements” 2007. 1-448.
10.4324/9781849771146. Available at: https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/files/urbansafetyandsecurity.pdf. Last
accessed on: 30/1/2021.
[28] Qiao, S. (2016) “Dealing with Illegal Housing: What Can New York City Learn from Shenzhen”, 43
Fordham Urb. L.J. 713. [Online]
Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol43/iss3/6 [Accessed on 17 April 2021]
[29] Dabbour, A. (2017) “Building law loopholes and their impact on the built environment” the international
scientific journal in architecture, engineering, and technology, Baheth print ISSN: 2536-9946, IEREK press.
[Online] available at:
https://press.ierek.com/index.php/Baheth/article/download/217/pdf#:~:text=%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%AB%20
%D9%8A%D9%81%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%B6%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AD%D8%AB%20
%D9%88%D8%AC%D9%88%D8%AF%20%D8%A3%D8%AD%D8%AF,%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8
%B7%D9%84%D8%A9%20%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B7%D8%B1%D9%8
A%D9%82%20%D8%A7%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%84%20%D8%8C%20%D9%88%D9%83%D8%
B0%D9%84%D9%83 [Accessed on 19 July 2021]
[30] UNECE (2009) “Self-made cities. In search of sustainable solutions for informal settlements in the United Nations
Economic Commission for Europe region” UNECE, 2009 [Online]. Available at:
https://unece.org/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/SelfMadeCities.pdf [Accessed on 20 June 2021]
[31] Uzun, Bayram et al. (2010) “Legalizing and upgrading illegal settlements in Turkey”. Habitat International -
HABITAT INT. 34. 204-209. 10.1016/j.habitatint.2009.09.004.
[32] Yelda Kzlda Özdemirli (2018), "Struggles for Housing – Legitimate, Self-Contradictory, or Both? Impacts of
Clientelism and Rights-Seeking on Informal Housing in Ankara”, from: The Routledge Handbook on Informal
Urbanization Routledge. Ankara, 2018. Published on: 18 Dec 2018. Available at:
https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315645544-3, Accessed on: 10 Feb 2021.
[33] Sadikoglu Asan, H., & Ozsoy, A. (2018) “The Enduring Influence of Informality in Istanbul: Legalization of
Informal Settlements and Urban Transformation”. Berkeley Planning Journal, 30(1). [Online]
http://dx.doi.org/10.5070/BP330137619 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4rv5m7z4 [Accessed on
23 July 2021]
[34] UN-Habitat (2014) “Land readjustment experiences in turkey” urban legal case studies | Volume 3, United Nations
Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). First published in Nairobi in 2014.
[35] Riad, M. A. (2017) “Laws and regulations governing the Egyptian urban areas and shortcomings”, Journal of
environmental sciences, institute of environmental studies and research, Ain Shams University. Article
6, Volume 43, Issue 1, Summer 2018, Page 105-138. DOI: 10.21608/JES.2018.30848
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Lina Mohamed et al. Legalization frameworks in building regulations and the reconciliation law in Egypt
25
.
