Enforcement of foreign court judgments in iran courts

Enforcement of foreign court rulings on the condition of contract or reciprocal treatment

Date : 12/10/2012 Phone : 9109970220301180

Issues related to this sample of voting and issuance authority

This is an example of the verdict issued by Branch 3 of the Appeals Court of Tehran province on these issues: the implementation of foreign court rulings, mutual treatment, the contract for the implementation of rulings of foreign courts, the contract for the implementation of sentences, reciprocal behavior.

Vote Abstract

Implementation of sentences issued by foreign courts in Iran requires the existence of a mutual agreement (judicial cooperative) with the country that issued the sentence..

Primitive Vote

On May 20, 2012, at the extraordinary time of the case, the attached file is under the control of 38/910077, which demands b. On behalf of A.A. and M.H., he requested the implementation of the sentence issued by the Uae, which is firstly translated with the comments in its translated papers: Currently, there is no reciprocal agreement between Iran and the UAE, and because no documents have been presented and withConsidering that in some cases, including this court, the original court has not been carried out in accordance with the reciprocal transaction in the country, and on the other hand, what is certain is that due to the sovereignty of the governments, the rulings of one country’s judicial courts in another country are not applicable, and on the other hand, the order to execute the sentence from the competent authority of the issuing country was not considered, and what is in the translation and appendix of the case is the certificate of implementation of the foreign sentence. It is without the signature of the head of the branch or the infinitive of the sentence and lacks the stamp of the uae’s judicial authority, and regardless of the fact that the certificate also stated the commercial vote number 502/2008, which is rejected by the appeal number 342/2007 and the appeal verdict no. 676/2007, therefore, according to Article 174 of the Civil Sentence Enforcement Law, the rejection of the request is issued and announced..

Head of Branch 38 of Tahra N General Legal Court – Ebrahimi Hour

Appeals Court Verdict

Appeals to The Court No. 553 dated 03/09/2012 issued by Branch 38 of tehran General Court, whereby the rejection of the appeal petition was issued for failing to resolve the defects in the moratorium, is not justified. Because the appeals are not in accordance with any of the cases mentioned in Article 348 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the verdict in terms of observance of the principles and rules of the proceedings and the principles of inference and mentioning the justified directions and compliance of the matter with the law and legal principles is free of problems, so by rejecting the appeal documented in Article 353 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appeals decision is clearly upheld.. 

 Tehran Province Appeals Court Branch 3