The court decisions available on this website interpret and apply the New York Convention. These court decisions are published in the Yearbook Commercial Arbitration since its Volume I (1976).
For instructions on how to search for court decisions per topic and per country in this website, please refer to our helpful access guide here.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of what is the proper method for enforcing foreign arbitral awards which have been certified by a competent court in the seat of the arbitration, i.e., whether by seeking recognition and enforcement of the award or by seeking recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment certifying the award. It clarified that the proper process is provided under section 29a of the Israeli Arbitration Law, 5728-1968 and in the New York Convention; it is only in rare and exceptional cases that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award may be pursued by seeking enforcement of the foreign judgment certifying it, through the procedure set out in the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Law, 5718-1958.
The Supreme Court also explained the phrase “becomes binding” in Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention means that it is no longer possible to file an appeal from the award in the arbitration proceeding, as distinct from an appeal before a court. The Court further confirmed that (i) once the arbitral award is set aside at the seat of the arbitration, it should not be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention, except in exceptional cases (for example, the decision to set it aside was made by a judicial forum that is not autonomous and independent); and (ii) certification of the arbitral award in the seat of the arbitration does not automatically lead to recognition and enforcement by virtue of the New York Convention. However, rejection of claims pertaining to the validity of the arbitral award in a motion to certify or set it aside could give rise to cause of action estoppel that bars identical claims from being raised in the opposition to enforcement and certification of the arbitral award in Israel.
Supreme Court of Israel, 21 April 2021
(Luminati Networks Ltd. V. B.I. Science Ltd.)
301
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Procedure for enforcement in general
500A
Residual power to enforce notwithstanding existence of ground for refusal
501
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Grounds are exhaustive
514
Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
515
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the conditions under which an award that has merged into a court judgment in the country of origin can still be enforced as an award under the Convention, and whether a decision granting recognition under the Convention can be enforced as a foreign court judgment in a third country.
Merger of award into judgment
516
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
"Set aside"
701
More-favorable right provision: The court discusses issues relating to the more-favorable right provision in general, including who may invoke it, and when.
Israel 12. Siemens AG v. Israeli Electric Cooperation Ltd, Supreme Court of Israel, Case No. no. 3331/14, 13 August 2014
217
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Referral to arbitration in general
220
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Israel 11. District Court, Tel-Aviv-Yafo, 15 June 2014
214-216
Field of application
217
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Referral to arbitration in general
226
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
Third parties (see also Art. I sub F "problems concerning the identity of the respondent", ¶106)
Israel 9. Central Magistrate Court of Israel, Netanya, 4 March 2013
220
The court discusses how to interpret the Convention’s requirement that the agreement is not null and void etc., as well as specific cases of invalidity: e.g., lack of consent (misrepresentation, duress, or fraud), vague wording of the arbitral clause; other terms of the contract contradict the intention to arbitrate, etc.
Israel 8. Supreme Court of Israel, 11 October 2012
217
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Referral to arbitration in general
226
Multi-party disputes: The court discusses under which conditions non-signatories are covered by an arbitration agreement entered into by another party.
Third parties (see also Art. I sub F "problems concerning the identity of the respondent", ¶106)
Israel 6. Central Magistrate Court of Israel, 15 April 2010
513
Ground d: Irregularity in the composition of the arbitral tribunal or arbitral procedure
518
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
521
Public policy: The court discusses the consequences of the apparent or actual bias of an arbitrator on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award.
Lack of impartiality of arbitrator
524
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
The court discusses whether the dispute falls within the wording of the arbitration agreement; and whether claims in tort fall within the scope of the agreement.
Scope of arbitration agreement
217
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Referral to arbitration in general
222
The court discusses the principle of competence-competence, including whether the parties “intended to have arbitrability decided by an arbitrator”, and the separability of the arbitration agreement from the main contract.
Arbitrator's competence and separability of the arbitration clause
Israel 4. Supreme Court of Israel, 24 January 2010
217
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Referral to arbitration in general
218
The court discusses whether referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration is mandatory under the Convention and whether mandatory referral is an internationally uniform rule which supersedes municipal law.
Israel 3. District Court, Jerusalem, 13 January 2009
101
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
501
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
Grounds are exhaustive
503
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Burden of proof on respondent
524
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.
Israel 2. Supreme Court of Israel, 7 September 2005
217
The court discusses the meaning and effect of the referral of the resolution of disputes to arbitration, including: who can ask for referral and when, whether a party has waived its right to request arbitration, the defense that there was no contract at all; whether there was a condition precedent to the commencement of arbitration (e.g. mediation), stay of proceedings v. compelling arbitration, and national procedural specificities such as remand and removal (US), effect of class action. etc.
Israel 1. District Court, Jerusalem, 23 November 2004
101
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
Award made in the territory of another (Contracting) State (paragraphs 1 and 3 - first or "reciprocity" reservation)
301
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
Procedure for enforcement in general
503
The court discusses the burden of proof of the grounds for refusing enforcement under the Convention.
Burden of proof on respondent
514
Ground e: Award not binding, suspended or set aside - "Binding"
518
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
519
Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.
Ground a: Arbitrability
524
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.