United Arab Emirates - The Federal Supreme Court

Tuesday Session, June 30, 2026

Presided over by Judge / Mohammed Abdul Rahman Al-Jarrah "Presiding Judge"

And the membership of Judges / Al-Bashir bin Al-Hadi Zaitoun and Islam Abdul Hadi Al-Deeb.

Appeal No. 181 of 2026 Criminal

(1, 2) Law "Procedural Laws: The Civil Procedure Law is Considered the General Law for Procedural Laws"

"Application of Law in Terms of Time: Laws Amending Jurisdiction: Non-applicability if their enforcement occurs after the closing of the hearing before the court of first instance." Drugs and Psychotropic Substances "Crimes of trafficking, promotion, and facilitation associated with them are within the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Courts at the seat of the Union's capital."

(1) The provisions of the Civil Procedure Law apply to matters for which no specific provision is made in the Criminal Procedure Law. Basis: Paragraph 5 of Article 1 of the latter law. The reason for this is that it is the general law for all procedural laws, to which reference must be made when those laws lack a provision on a particular matter. The implication of this is that the phrase "after the closing of the hearing in the case" in Article 1/2 of the Criminal Procedure Law, being general and absolute without specifying a particular court, necessitates reference to Article 1/1 of the Civil Procedure Law, which limited this exception to the closing of the hearing before the court of first instance. Accordingly, Article 88 of Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025, which amends jurisdiction to hear certain crimes of drugs and psychotropic substances committed with the intent of trafficking, promotion, and related facilitation crimes in violation of the provisions of Articles 34 and 40 of this decree, applies if it is enforced before the closing of the hearing before the court of first instance. Otherwise, the courts at all levels whose jurisdiction was amended remain competent to hear the case unless a specific provision dictates its immediate application.

---

The Federal Supreme Court

(2) The appealed judgment's ruling to annul the initial judgment and refer the case to the Public Prosecution for lack of territorial jurisdiction, based on Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025 amending jurisdiction regarding the charge against the appellee—which is the crime of importing and possessing a psychotropic substance with intent to traffic—despite the first-instance judgment being issued before its entry into force. This constitutes a violation of the law requiring its cassation and referral for a decision on the merits of the appeal.

(Appeal No. 181 of 2026 Criminal, Session 30/6/2026)

1- It is established by law and by the text of Article (1), fifth paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Law that "the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law shall apply to matters for which no specific provision is made in this law." This implies that the Civil Procedure Law is the general law for procedural laws to which reference must be made when other procedural laws lack a provision on a matter. Since the phrase "when the date of its application is after the closing of the hearing in the case" in Article (1/2) of the Criminal Procedure Law was in general and absolute terms, implying its inclusion of the closing of the hearing in the case before courts of all levels without specifying a particular court or courts, the first paragraph of Article (1) of the Civil Procedure Law has clarified that the exception for laws amending jurisdiction from the general principle is intended for when their date of entry into force is after the closing of the hearing in the case before the court of first instance. The consequence is that laws amending territorial, specific, value-based, or venue jurisdiction do not apply if their entry into force is after the closing of the hearing in the case before the court of first instance. The courts whose jurisdiction was amended remain competent to hear the case, unless a specific provision mandates its immediate application, in which case it shall be applied exclusively. Based on the foregoing, the provisions amending jurisdiction contained in Article (88) of Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025 regarding combating narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, which stipulates that "The federal courts located at the seat of the Union's capital shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the following crimes: 1- Crimes committed with the intent of trafficking or promotion and crimes indivisibly linked thereto. 2- Facilitation crimes committed in violation of the provisions of Articles 34 and 40 (first paragraph) of this decree-law," and which comes into effect from 1/1/2026, shall only apply to crimes in which the hearing has not been closed before the court of first instance. If the hearing has been closed, the law in force at the time of the crime's commission shall apply exclusively.

---

The Federal Supreme Court

2- Whereas this was the case, and the charge attributed to the appellee was the crime of importing and possessing a psychotropic substance with intent to traffic, committed on 22/8/2025 under the purview of Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, and a first-instance court judgment was issued on 4/11/2025 sentencing the appellee to life imprisonment and a fine of two hundred thousand dirhams, and deportation, with confiscation of the seized items. The appellee appealed this judgment in Appeal No. 1250 of 2025, Fujairah Criminal Appeal. On 28/1/2026, the Fujairah Federal Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form, and in substance, to annul the appealed judgment and remand the case to the Public Prosecution to take its course, based on the first-instance court's lack of territorial jurisdiction and the establishment of jurisdiction for the federal courts located at the seat of the Union's capital. In doing so, it has violated the law, which blemishes it and necessitates its cassation and referral to the Court of Appeal that issued the appealed judgment to decide on the merits of the appeal.

The Court

Whereas the facts, as evident from a review of the documents and all papers of the appeal, are that the Public Prosecution referred the appellee to criminal trial on the charge that on 22/8/2025 in the district of ..........

- He imported and possessed with intent to traffic a psychotropic substance (Pregabalin) in circumstances other than those legally authorized.

The Public Prosecution requested his punishment in accordance with Articles 1, 11, 58, 70, and 75 of Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, listed in Schedule Eight of the same law.

The court of first instance ruled in session and unanimously on 4/11/2025 to sentence the appellee to life imprisonment and a fine of two hundred thousand dirhams for the charge attributed to him, and ordered his deportation from the country after serving the sentence, with confiscation of the seized items, and obligated him to pay the fees. The appellee appealed this judgment in Appeal No. 1250 of 2025, Fujairah Criminal Appeal. The .... Federal Court of Appeal ruled on 28/1/2026 to accept the appeal in form and in substance to annul ....

---

The Federal Supreme Court

the appealed judgment and ruled anew to refer the case to the Public Prosecution to take its course, whereupon the Public Prosecution filed the present appeal.

Whereas the substance of the Public Prosecution's grounds for appeal against the appealed judgment is an error in the application of the law, as it ruled to annul the appealed judgment and decided anew that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case and referred it to the Public Prosecution to take its course, based on the argument that the legislator had issued an amendment to Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021, assigning jurisdiction to hear the present case to the federal courts located at the seat of the Union's capital, pursuant to Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025. What the appealed judgment concluded is not based on sound legal grounds; as the court of first instance had properly taken up the case and decided on it, and its judgment was appealed under the prevailing law, and the Court of Appeal began its review, and the law that amended jurisdiction was issued during the appeal's consideration. Therefore, the court must decide on its subject matter. As the appealed judgment violated this view and ruled that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case, it has violated the law, which blemishes it and warrants its cassation.

Whereas the ground of appeal is valid, as it is legally established and as per the text of Article (1), fifth paragraph, of the Criminal Procedure Law, that "the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law shall apply to matters for which no specific provision is made in this law," which implies that the Civil Procedure Law is the general law for procedural laws to which reference must be made when other procedural laws lack a provision on a matter. Since the phrase "when the date of its application is after the closing of the hearing in the case" in Article 2/1 of the Criminal Procedure Law was in general and absolute terms, implying its inclusion of the closing of the hearing in the case before courts of all levels without specifying a particular court or courts, the first paragraph of Article (1) of the Civil Procedure Law has clarified that the exception for laws amending jurisdiction from the general principle is intended for when their date of entry into force is after the closing of the hearing in the case before the court of first instance. The consequence is that laws amending territorial, specific, value-based, or venue jurisdiction do not apply if their entry into force is after the closing of the hearing in the case.

---

The Federal Supreme Court

the case before the court of first instance, and the courts at all levels whose jurisdiction was amended remain competent to hear the case, unless a specific provision dictates its immediate application, in which case it shall be applied exclusively.

Based on the foregoing, the provisions amending jurisdiction in Article (88) of Decree-Law No. 14 of 2025 on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which states that "The federal courts located at the seat of the Union's capital shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the following crimes: 1- Crimes committed with the intent of trafficking or promotion and crimes indivisibly linked thereto. 2- Facilitation crimes committed in violation of the provisions of Articles 34 and 40 (first paragraph) of this decree-law," and which is effective from 1/1/2026, shall only apply to crimes in which the hearing has not been closed before the court of first instance. If the hearing has been closed, the law in force at the time of the crime's commission shall apply exclusively. Whereas this was the case, and the charge against the appellee was the crime of importing and possessing a psychotropic substance with intent to traffic, committed on 22/8/2025 under the purview of Decree-Law No. 30 of 2021 on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, and a first-instance court judgment was issued on 4/11/2025 sentencing the appellee to life imprisonment and a fine of two hundred thousand dirhams, and deportation, with confiscation of the seized items. The appellee appealed this judgment in Appeal No. 1250 of 2025, Criminal Appeal..... and on 28/1/2026 the .... Federal Court of Appeal ruled to accept the appeal in form and in substance to annul the appealed judgment and ruled anew to refer the case to the Public Prosecution to take its course, based on the first-instance court's lack of territorial jurisdiction and the establishment of jurisdiction for the federal courts located at the seat of the Union's capital. In doing so, it has violated the law, which blemishes it and necessitates its cassation and referral to the Court of Appeal that issued the appealed judgment to decide on the merits of the appeal as will be stated in the operative part.