Enforcing a Foreign Judgment in Israel

Winning abroad ends one proceeding and begins another

A foreign judgment is evidence of what a foreign court decided. It is not, in itself, something an Israeli bailiff, bank or registry will act on. Israeli law provides a route by which such a judgment is brought before an Israeli court, and until that route has been taken the judgment has no operative effect here.

Two related things can be asked for, and they are not the same. A judgment can be declared enforceable, so that it can be executed against a debtor or assets in Israel. Or it can be recognised, so that what it decided can be relied on in Israel — in another proceeding, before an authority, or in relation to status. Which is needed depends on what the holder actually wants to do with it, and the answer shapes the application from the first page.

What the Israeli court examines

The proceeding is not a re-hearing of the dispute. The Israeli court is not asked whether the foreign court decided correctly; it examines the judgment as a judgment.

The questions it puts are about the foreign proceeding rather than its merits. Whether the foreign court had jurisdiction, judged by the principles Israeli law applies rather than by the foreign court's own view of itself. Whether the judgment is final and still enforceable in the country that gave it. Whether the defendant was properly served and had a real opportunity to be heard. Whether enforcing the judgment would be compatible with Israeli public policy. And whether the relationship between the two legal systems supports enforcement — the question usually described as reciprocity.

Money judgments are the ordinary case. Judgments requiring a party to do or refrain from something, judgments about status, and orders made in foreign insolvency proceedings each have their own treatment, and establishing at the outset which of them is in hand avoids filing under the wrong heading.

The record the application rests on

An application is only as good as the record produced with it. In practice that means an authenticated copy of the judgment, legalised for use in Israel and translated; confirmation from the foreign court or another competent authority that the judgment is final and enforceable where it was given; and the record of service on the defendant, which is the point most often attacked.

Where the foreign judgment was given in default, more of the record is needed rather than less: what was served, how, when, and what the defendant did or did not do in response. Where the application depends on a proposition of foreign law, that law is proved rather than assumed. And what remains outstanding under the judgment has to be set out and supported, including anything the foreign court awarded by way of interest and costs.

An assertion that a judgment is final is not evidence that it is. Each of these points is documentary, and each is easier to obtain while the foreign lawyers who ran the case still have the file open.

What the debtor is likely to argue

Opposition tends to run along the same lines. That service was defective or never reached the defendant. That the foreign court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter. That the judgment is not final because an appeal is live. That it was obtained by fraud. That enforcing it would offend Israeli public policy. That it has already been satisfied in whole or in part. Or that the debtor named abroad is not the person against whom enforcement is sought.

None of these is answered by argument alone; each is answered with documents. That is the reason the record is assembled before filing rather than in response to the opposition — an answer produced late invites the question of why it was not produced earlier.

Arbitral awards travel a different road

An award made in an arbitration abroad is not enforced as a foreign judgment. It goes through the separate route Israel applies to foreign arbitral awards under the international arrangements it takes part in, and the grounds on which such an award can be resisted are narrower and different in kind.

The distinction matters at the beginning. Where a dispute produced an award and then a foreign court judgment confirming it, which instrument is brought to Israel is a choice, and it is made deliberately rather than by reaching for whichever document is closest to hand.

Assets, interim relief, and the execution that follows

Enforcement is worth what the debtor has in Israel. Bank accounts, real estate registered in the debtor's name, shares in Israeli companies and debts owed to the debtor by Israeli counterparties are the usual candidates, and establishing what exists is part of the work rather than something that follows the judgment.

Israeli procedure provides interim relief, including attachment of assets and orders restraining their disposal, and it can be decisive where a debtor is in a position to move money. Interim relief is discretionary, is granted on undertakings from the applicant, and is asked for early or not at all. A debtor who learns of an application before any protective step has been taken has been given the time to arrange matters.

A foreign judgment declared enforceable is then executed as an Israeli judgment is, through the Israeli enforcement machinery: attachment of accounts and assets, registration of charges, and orders directed at the debtor personally. Execution is a procedure in its own right, with its own steps, and a debtor who resisted the application generally resists execution as well.

The practical consequence is that enforcement is planned as a whole. What is worth applying for depends on what can be executed against, and that is known before the application is filed rather than discovered after it succeeds.

Where applications lose time

Documents from abroad arrive without legalisation or translation. Service records cannot be produced because the foreign file was closed and archived. An application is filed while an appeal is still live in the original court. Assets have already moved because the application was prepared without interim relief in mind. And identification: a debtor named slightly differently in the foreign judgment than in Israeli records has to be shown to be the same person, which is a matter of evidence rather than of obviousness.

How the firm works on this

We assess what the foreign judgment or award is and which route applies to it, assemble and legalise the documentary record, prepare and file the application, apply for interim relief where assets are at risk, represent the client through the proceeding and the opposition to it before the Israeli courts, and act in the execution that follows. We work alongside the client's foreign counsel, who holds the record of the original proceeding, and report in English. We do not predict how an Israeli court will decide.