- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- IRAN 8
IRAN 8
Civil Court, Sadr Judicial Complex, Tehran, Chamber 40, General Civil Court, 28 February 2024, Case No. 140268920001527591
(Dongwon Systems v. Mr X)
IRAN 8
The Civil Court granted recognition and enforcement of a KCAB award, finding that the award was not invalid on the ground that the arbitration had been commenced against an Iranian company rather than against the award debtor, an Iranian national. The Court explained that the concept of piercing the corporate veil is accepted in arbitration, and that the connection between the arbitration defendant and the Iranian national was so close as to not constitute a difference. The defendant also resisted exequatur on the grounds that the KCAB and the claimant had the same Korean nationality, and that under the Iranian Civil Procedure Code, an Iranian party may not agree in advance to submit disputes to arbitrators having the same nationality as the other party. The Court found that such restriction did not apply to arbitral institutions, and that the sole arbitrator in this case had been German.
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
The court discusses issues relating to the identity of the party against whom enforcement of the arbitral award is sought, including: piercing of the corporate veil, succession, assignment, State or State entity, group of companies, agent or principal, etc. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).
The court discusses issues relating to the manner of authentication and certification of the award and/or arbitration agreement.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
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.
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.