Privacy Map

Africa. National jurisdiction.

Egypt EG

Primary authority: Personal Data Protection Centre (PDPC)
Part I

Domestic law

Comprehensive data protection2

  • Egypt PDPL Executive RegulationsExecutive Regulations of the Personal Data Protection Law (Ministerial Decree No. 816 of 2025)In force
    In force from     Operationalises Law 151/2020: licensing procedures and fees, DPO qualification and registration, breach procedures, transfer permits and the adequacy framework.
    Synopsis

    Operationalises Law 151/2020: licensing procedures and fees, DPO qualification and registration, breach procedures, transfer permits and the adequacy framework.

    Key themes
    • licences
    • fees
    • DPO registry
    • breach notification
    • transfer permits
    • TIAs
    • local representative
    Unique features

    Cloud hosting outside Egypt counts as a transfer needing a permit; DPOs require exams and a PDPC code; 90-working-day licence review.

    SaaS relevance

    Offshore cloud SaaS processing Egyptian data needs transfer permits and licence updates when adding new hosting countries.

    Extraterritorial
    Yes
    Breach notification
    PDPC 72h; individuals within 3 days thereafter
    DPO
    Yes
    Cross-border transfers
    Licence/permit; adequacy criteria to be published; TIAs
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Issued 1 Nov 2025; made public ~25 Dec 2025; one-year compliance window, enforcement expected ~1 Nov 2026
    Text
    No authoritative text located.
    Authority
    Personal Data Protection Centre (PDPC)
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    Uncertainty whether grace runs to Nov 2026 or end-2026. [Link: No online official text found; PDPC portal verified]

    Full record for Egypt PDPL Executive Regulations
  • Egypt PDPLLaw No. 151 of 2020 on the Protection of Personal DataIn force
    In force from     Egypt's comprehensive data protection law built around a licensing model: controllers and processors need PDPC licences, appoint DPOs, and obtain permits for cross-border transfers and electronic marketing.
    Synopsis

    Egypt's comprehensive data protection law built around a licensing model: controllers and processors need PDPC licences, appoint DPOs, and obtain permits for cross-border transfers and electronic marketing.

    Key themes
    • licensing
    • DPO
    • breach notification
    • transfers
    • e-marketing
    • sensitive data
    Unique features

    Licence/permit regime (3-year general licences; separate permits for transfers, direct marketing and CCTV); mandatory DPO registered with the PDPC; foreign targeting entities must appoint a local representative.

    SaaS relevance

    Foreign SaaS targeting Egyptian users needs a local representative and transfer permits; enforcement starts late 2026.

    Extraterritorial
    Yes
    Breach notification
    PDPC within 72h; individuals within 3 days of PDPC notice
    DPO
    Yes
    Cross-border transfers
    PDPC licence/permit + adequacy (no lower protection) + consent
    Maximum penalty
    EGP 5m and/or imprisonment
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Executive Regulations (Ministerial Decree 816/2025) issued 1 Nov 2025, published Dec 2025; enforcement expected from ~1 Nov 2026
    Text
    Authority
    Personal Data Protection Centre (PDPC)
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    Exact adoption/in-force dates from prior knowledge. Excludes CBE-regulated entities (prior knowledge).

    Full record for Egypt PDPL

Surveillance / law enforcement access1

  • Anti-Cybercrime LawLaw No. 175 of 2018 on Combating Information Technology CrimesIn force
    In force from     Criminalises privacy violations and unsolicited marketing, and requires service providers to retain user data for 180 days and keep it confidential except on judicial order.
    Synopsis

    Criminalises privacy violations and unsolicited marketing, and requires service providers to retain user data for 180 days and keep it confidential except on judicial order.

    Key themes
    • data retention
    • privacy offences
    • spam
    • law enforcement access
    Unique features

    Mandatory 180-day retention of user/traffic data by service providers.

    SaaS relevance

    Service providers in Egypt face retention and disclosure duties and criminal exposure for unlawful disclosure.

    Extraterritorial
    Limited
    Breach notification
    None
    Maximum penalty
    EGP 100,000 and imprisonment for privacy offences
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    Text
    Authority
    National Telecom Regulatory Authority (NTRA); Public Prosecution
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Law number and retention period from prior knowledge; penalty figures from DLA. [Link: Arabic text on FRA (gov.eg); English is unofficial Andersen translation]

    Full record for Anti-Cybercrime Law
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Law number and retention period from prior knowledge; penalty figures from DLA. [Link: Arabic text on FRA (gov.eg); English is unofficial Andersen translation]
Part II

Regional & international frameworks

Membership-based — check ratification status in the instrument record. 7 instruments from 2 bodies.

African Union

  • Malabo ConventionAfrican Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention)In force
    In force from     A pan-African treaty covering electronic transactions, personal data protection and cybersecurity and cybercrime. Parties must adopt data protection laws with GDPR-like principles, independent national authorities and data subject rights, and must criminalise cyber offences.
    Synopsis

    A pan-African treaty covering electronic transactions, personal data protection and cybersecurity and cybercrime. Parties must adopt data protection laws with GDPR-like principles, independent national authorities and data subject rights, and must criminalise cyber offences.

    Key themes
    • data protection principles
    • independent DPA
    • data subject rights
    • sensitive data
    • e-transactions
    • cybercrime
    Unique features

    It is the only binding pan-African data protection treaty, but few states have ratified it. It contains transfer restrictions to non-member states without adequate protection.

    SaaS relevance

    It does not directly bind companies; it underpins national laws in ratifying states.

    Cross-border transfers
    Transfers to non-AU states only with adequate protection
    Maximum penalty
    Set by national law
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Adopted in Malabo in June 2014; entered into force 2023-06-08, 30 days after the 15th ratification (Mauritania); 16 ratifications recorded as of mid-2024
    Text
    Authority
    National data protection authorities (to be set up by each party); AU Commission
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I could not get the current ratification count from the AU treaty status list; 16 was the figure as of mid-2024. The exact adoption date (27 June 2014) comes from established references.

    Full record for Malabo Convention
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I could not get the current ratification count from the AU treaty status list; 16 was the figure as of mid-2024. The exact adoption date (27 June 2014) comes from established references.
  • AU Data Policy FrameworkAfrican Union Data Policy FrameworkIn force
    In force from     A non-binding policy framework to help AU member states build national data systems. It promotes data protection, cross-border data flows within Africa, data infrastructure and a single African digital market. Member states are encouraged to adopt data protection laws and ratify the Malabo Convention.
    Synopsis

    A non-binding policy framework to help AU member states build national data systems. It promotes data protection, cross-border data flows within Africa, data infrastructure and a single African digital market. Member states are encouraged to adopt data protection laws and ratify the Malabo Convention.

    Key themes
    • data governance
    • intra-African data flows
    • data protection
    • data sovereignty
    • digital single market
    • AfCFTA
    Unique features

    It links data governance to the African Continental Free Trade Area, and favours free flow of data within Africa over localisation.

    SaaS relevance

    Soft law; it signals the direction of national data regimes and AfCFTA digital trade rules affecting SaaS in Africa.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Promotes intra-African free flow with safeguards
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Endorsed by the AU Executive Council in February 2022; published July 2022
    Text
    Authority
    AU Commission
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. No verification notes recorded.

    Full record for AU Data Policy Framework
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. No verification notes recorded.

United Nations

  • UN Cybercrime ConventionUnited Nations Convention against Cybercrime; Strengthening International Cooperation for Combating Certain Crimes Committed by Means of Information and Communications Technology Systems and for the Sharing of Evidence in Electronic Form of Serious CrimesSigned – not ratified
    The first global UN treaty on cybercrime. It requires states to criminalise a set of computer-related offences and to provide procedural powers, such as preserving and producing stored data and collecting traffic and content data, and it sets up channels for cross-border e-evidence cooperation on serious crimes. It includes a general human rights clause and conditions and safeguards on these powers.
    Synopsis

    The first global UN treaty on cybercrime. It requires states to criminalise a set of computer-related offences and to provide procedural powers, such as preserving and producing stored data and collecting traffic and content data, and it sets up channels for cross-border e-evidence cooperation on serious crimes. It includes a general human rights clause and conditions and safeguards on these powers.

    Key themes
    • cybercrime offences
    • e-evidence
    • production orders
    • data preservation
    • mutual legal assistance
    • human rights safeguards
    Unique features

    It is broader than the Budapest Convention in that evidence sharing covers any 'serious crime'. Rights groups and industry have criticised its safeguards as weak.

    SaaS relevance

    Once in force and implemented, it could widen the range of states able to issue preservation and production orders to cloud and SaaS providers.

    Extraterritorial
    Limited
    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Cooperation channels for electronic evidence
    Maximum penalty
    Set by national law
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • Adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2024; opened for signature in Hanoi on 2025-10-25; enters into force 90 days after the 40th ratification. About 3 ratifications (Qatar, Azerbaijan, Viet Nam) as of mid-2026.
    Text
    Authority
    UNODC (secretariat); Conference of the States Parties once in force
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The ratification count comes from secondary sources as of mid-2026. The convention is not in force (it needs 40 ratifications). The exact GA adoption date (24 Dec 2024, A/RES/79/243) comes from established references and I did not re-verify it.

    Full record for UN Cybercrime Convention
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. The ratification count comes from secondary sources as of mid-2026. The convention is not in force (it needs 40 ratifications). The exact GA adoption date (24 Dec 2024, A/RES/79/243) comes from established references and I did not re-verify it.
  • Right to privacy in the digital ageUN General Assembly resolutions on the right to privacy in the digital age (series)In force
    In force from     This is a recurring series of non-binding General Assembly resolutions. They confirm that people have the same privacy rights online as offline, and they ask states to review surveillance, interception and bulk data collection against international human rights law. Later resolutions also cover AI, biometrics, encryption and data brokers.
    Synopsis

    This is a recurring series of non-binding General Assembly resolutions. They confirm that people have the same privacy rights online as offline, and they ask states to review surveillance, interception and bulk data collection against international human rights law. Later resolutions also cover AI, biometrics, encryption and data brokers.

    Key themes
    • surveillance
    • interception
    • AI and privacy
    • encryption
    • business responsibility
    • remedies
    Unique features

    The series grew out of the 2013 Snowden revelations. It led to OHCHR reports and, through the Human Rights Council, to the Special Rapporteur on privacy.

    SaaS relevance

    These are soft-law expectations on business respect for privacy (UN Guiding Principles), which are relevant to transparency reporting and to how a provider handles government data requests.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • First resolution A/RES/68/167 (2013-12-18); renewed roughly every two years; latest verified A/RES/79/175 adopted 2024-12-17
    Text
    Authority
    Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) reports; UN Special Rapporteur on the right to privacy
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Treated as one row for the whole series. I did not check whether a newer resolution was adopted at the 80th session in late 2025.

    Full record for Right to privacy in the digital age
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. Treated as one row for the whole series. I did not check whether a newer resolution was adopted at the 80th session in late 2025.
  • ICCPR Art 17International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 17In force
    In force from     This is a binding treaty. Article 17 bans arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, and requires states parties to protect people from such interference by law. The Human Rights Committee monitors compliance through state reports and, for states that accept it, individual complaints.
    Synopsis

    This is a binding treaty. Article 17 bans arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, and requires states parties to protect people from such interference by law. The Human Rights Committee monitors compliance through state reports and, for states that accept it, individual complaints.

    Key themes
    • right to privacy
    • state obligations
    • legality
    • arbitrariness
    • individual communications
    Unique features

    It is the main binding global privacy guarantee and has about 170+ parties. General Comment 16 reads it as covering the gathering and holding of personal information, including by private bodies.

    SaaS relevance

    It binds states, not companies, but it shapes national privacy laws and the rules on government access to the data SaaS providers hold.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None (treaty-body views; no fines)
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Adopted by GA resolution 2200A (XXI) on 1966-12-16; in force 1976-03-23. Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 16 on Article 17 was issued in 1988.
    Text
    Authority
    UN Human Rights Committee (treaty body)
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    The party count is approximate and was not re-checked against the UN Treaty Collection.

    Full record for ICCPR Art 17
  • UDHR Art 12Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12In force
    In force from     Article 12 says no one may be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and that everyone is entitled to legal protection against such interference. It is a declaration rather than a treaty, but it is the starting point for privacy as an international human right.
    Synopsis

    Article 12 says no one may be subjected to arbitrary interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and that everyone is entitled to legal protection against such interference. It is a declaration rather than a treaty, but it is the starting point for privacy as an international human right.

    Key themes
    • right to privacy
    • correspondence
    • reputation
    • protection of the law
    Unique features

    Not legally binding in itself, though many of its provisions are treated as customary international law. Every later privacy instrument, from the ECHR to the ICCPR, builds on this text.

    SaaS relevance

    Gives no direct obligations to a SaaS business; it is useful as the human rights background for policies and DPIAs.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    None
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    • Proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948
    Text
    Authority
    None designated
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    High confidence.

    The CIPP/E project holds a copy (1948UDHR.pdf).

    Full record for UDHR Art 12
  • UN Guidelines 1990Guidelines for the Regulation of Computerized Personal Data FilesIn force
    In force from     Non-binding guidelines from the General Assembly that set minimum guarantees for national laws on computerised personal data files, covering both public and private files. They list principles such as lawfulness and fairness, accuracy, purpose specification, interested-person access, non-discrimination, security and independent supervision.
    Synopsis

    Non-binding guidelines from the General Assembly that set minimum guarantees for national laws on computerised personal data files, covering both public and private files. They list principles such as lawfulness and fairness, accuracy, purpose specification, interested-person access, non-discrimination, security and independent supervision.

    Key themes
    • fair information principles
    • sensitive data
    • access
    • security
    • supervisory authority
    • transborder flows
    Unique features

    Separate provisions extend the principles to files held by international governmental organisations. They also have an early non-discrimination rule on sensitive data and allow transfers to countries with comparable safeguards.

    SaaS relevance

    Gives no direct obligations; it is historical background to UN-system data protection policies.

    Breach notification
    None
    DPO
    No
    Cross-border transfers
    Free flow to states with comparable safeguards
    Maximum penalty
    None
    Key dates
    • Adopted
    • In force
    Text
    Authority
    None designated
    Sources consulted
    Verification

    Medium confidence.

    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I did not open the resolution text in this session. The resolution number and date come from established references. Refworld is a UNHCR mirror; the official text is in the UN Digital Library under A/RES/45/95.

    Full record for UN Guidelines 1990
    Partly verifiedMedium confidence. I did not open the resolution text in this session. The resolution number and date come from established references. Refworld is a UNHCR mirror; the official text is in the UN Digital Library under A/RES/45/95.