By: Ismaeil Taiel – Senior Associate
Hamad Alqahtani – Attorney
The Decision and Its Scope
Supreme Judiciary Council (“SJC”) Decision No. 9 of 2026 (“Decision”) represents an important step toward the development of electronic litigation in Qatar. It is not limited to holding hearings remotely; it also regulates service of process, the exchange of briefs and documents, the management of hearings, and the electronic filing of judgments and appeals against them, while preserving the legal guarantees of the litigation process.
The Decision distinguishes between an ordinary hearing, a video hearing conducted by audio and video, and a virtual hearing, which is based on the electronic exchange of briefs and requests without simultaneous attendance. It also authorises the President of the SJC to designate the circuits that will apply this system, allowing the type of hearing to be chosen according to the nature of each case.
The Procedural Safeguards of Litigation Do Not Change with the Means
Article 4 affirms that conducting a trial electronically does not affect its fundamental procedural safeguards. A court must verify the validity of service and attendance, and enable the parties to submit their requests, review their opponents’ documents and respond to them, document the proceedings, and provide the necessary technical support.
A technical malfunction should not be treated as a mere transient glitch; its significance depends on its effect on the right of defence. If it prevents a party from attending the hearing, reviewing the relevant material, or responding, it may render the procedure invalid. Documenting access attempts and technical incident reports is therefore essential.
Electronic Service and the National Address
Article 5 links access to electronic hearings to the National Authentication System, the SJC’s systems, or the service link sent to the national address, pursuant to National Address Law No. 24 of 2017. As a result, telephone, email, and registered address data now produce direct legal effects.
An ordinary message is not sufficient to constitute judicial service. It must originate from an approved system, and both its dispatch and its content must be provable. The person concerned is also responsible for keeping their details up to date; otherwise, service sent to outdated details may still have legal effect.
Proof of Attendance and Verification of the Identity of Participants in the Electronic Hearing
Article 6 requires the number and capacities of attendees at an electronic hearing to be recorded because attendance gives rise to procedural effects. Article 3 also permits witnesses, experts, and interpreters to attend with the court’s permission, subject to verification of their identities and recording of their attendance.
Article 12 grants the presiding judge the power to control speaking and listening to maintain order and prevent disruption, provided that this does not deprive the litigants or their lawyers of the opportunity to present their defence and respond to the other party.
Hearing Times, Publicity and Privacy
Article 7 provides that hearings are to be held during official working hours, although they may be held at another time if the circumstances of the case so require. Article 9 preserves the public nature of video hearings, while permitting them to be held in private to protect public order, public morals or the sanctity of the family.
Article 13 prohibits obstructing the proceedings or infringing the parties’ privacy, and prohibits recording or filming of hearings without the written permission of the Presiding Judge. However, imposing a criminal penalty for unauthorised recording or publication requires an express statutory provision.
Technical Readiness Is Part of the Validity of the Procedure
Article 11 obliges the court registry to prepare the system and activate the links sufficiently in advance of the hearing. This duty is important because a correct, active link is the practical means of accessing the court in an electronic hearing. If a litigant is unable to gain access because of a malfunction beyond their control, they should not be treated as having failed to appear voluntarily.
One of the key practical proposals discussed in the Decision is to provide an immediate channel for reporting technical faults, such as a support number or a direct email address for the court clerk, and to make it available alongside the hearing link so that a litigant can demonstrate a timely attempt to access the hearing. It is also advisable to place the hearing link on the electronic case page itself rather than relying solely on separate messages, which may be confusing or overlooked, particularly when a lawyer or litigant has multiple hearings on the same day.
The Virtual Hearing and the Return to In-Person Attendance
Article 10 regulates the virtual hearing as a means through which briefs, requests and documents are filed electronically without simultaneous attendance.
Conversely, Article 8 permits the court or the parties, for serious reasons, to revert to an ordinary hearing whenever it is not possible to hold the hearing electronically, or the interests of justice require in-person attendance. Electronic technology thus remains a means of facilitating litigation rather than a mandatory substitute in all cases.
Deliberation, Judgment and Appeal by Electronic Means
Article 14 requires electronic judicial deliberations to take place confidentially among the judges who heard the pleadings, through a secure system that prevents access by others.
Article 15 treats the electronic filing of a judgment as equivalent to its public pronouncement, and permits appeals to be lodged through the system without changing the methods or time limits for appeal. Parties must therefore comply with the applicable appeal procedures and retain proof of filing and payment of fees, while promptly documenting any technical malfunction, as such a malfunction does not automatically suspend the applicable time limit.
The Particular Nature of Criminal Proceedings
The Decision does not stop at civil or commercial cases. Article 16 provides that video or virtual hearings apply in the criminal courts to the extent set out in the Decision and in a manner that does not conflict with the safeguards established in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This limitation is particularly important because criminal proceedings affect personal liberty and engage heightened safeguards, including the attendance of the accused, the right of defence, the hearing of witnesses, the examination of evidence, and confrontation. The use of electronic means in criminal proceedings must therefore not be absolute or automatic, but must remain governed by the nature of the criminal procedure and the safeguards prescribed by law.
In other words, the Decision does not open the door to converting criminal trials into fully electronic proceedings in all circumstances. It permits the use of video or virtual means only where this does not conflict with criminal-trial safeguards. This is consistent with the point made above: an electronic hearing is a means, not an end in itself, and criminal proceedings have a distinct character from other types of cases.
Conclusion
In our view, the Decision is an important step in developing Qatar’s litigation system. Beyond permitting remote hearings, it establishes an integrated framework for conducting judicial procedures electronically, from service of process and hearing access to the exchange of written submissions and documents, filing judgments, and appealing them.
However, its success will depend on sound implementation. What matters is not merely the existence of an electronic system, but its ability to ensure effective service, enable litigants to attend, review and respond, document proceedings accurately, and address technical malfunctions that may affect defence rights or statutory time limits.
If these rules are applied effectively, electronic litigation will facilitate the administration of justice and reduce the burden on courts, lawyers, and litigants while preserving fair-trial safeguards and defence rights. Conversely, if technical considerations override procedural safeguards, a tool intended to simplify litigation may instead complicate it. The true measure of the Decision’s success is therefore the balance between procedural efficiency and litigants’ rights.
