Originally from Enforcement of Money Judgments

Preview Page

I. PRESENT ATTITUDE TOWARD ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN MONEY JUDGMENTS

A. Describe the receptiveness of your government (including courts) toward enforcement of foreign money judgments.

When no treaty or multilateral convention applies,  enforcement of a foreign judgment is governed by articles 306 to 311 of the Code of Procedure.

B. Briefly describe recent illustrative attempts, whether successful or unsuccessful, to enforce a foreign money judgment in your country, particularly with regard to enforcement of any judgments from United States courts.

On November 24, 1984, the civil Court of Dubai (United Arab Emirates — UAE) rendered a final and executory judgment ordering “M” to pay a French bank an amount of money as per a settlement reached by both parties before that court. The bank applied to the Executive Bureau in Syria (a court having jurisdiction over enforcement of judgments and authentic deeds) for enforcement of that decision, on basis of the two following treaties ratified by Syria:

Treaty between the Arab League countries dated October 19, 1983 and providing inter alia that:

“Article 31 — Enforcement-of-a-Judgment:

a. The judgment rendered by a court of a contracting party . . . shall be enforced before that party when it is enforceable before the contracting party of which the court which rendered it depends.

b. The procedure regarding recognition and enforcement of a judgment is subject to the law of the contracting party from which recognition is sought within the limits provided for in this treaty.”

Treaty with the UAE providing that:

“Art. 25 — The procedure regarding recognition and enforcement of a judgment shall be subject to the law of the country from which those measures are sought within the limits provided for in this treaty.

Art. 26 — The competent judicial authority in the State from which recognition and enforcement of the judgment is sought shall restrict itself to ascertain whether that judgment fulfills the conditions set forth in this treaty without examining the merits. That authority shall perform that mission by itself and shall state the results in its decision. When ordering enforcement, the competent judicial authority in the state from which enforcement is sought, shall take the necessary measures to grant the judgment the same publicity it would have acquired had it been rendered by that State.

Art. 28 — The settlement registered with the competent judiciary under the rules of that treaty in the country of either contracting States shall be recognized and enforced in the country of the other party after ascertaining that it has the power of an executory deed in the State where it was concluded.”

The debtor (“M”) contended that under the Syrian Procedure Code (Art. 307) it was the first degree civil court which had jurisdiction to order enforcement.

The Executive Bureau rejected that contention on the basis of the above-mentioned treaties since it was the “competent judicial authority” to enforce judgments in Syria.

Upon appeal by “M,” the Court of Appeal of Damascus ruled on October 12, 1988 (Judgment no. 530/Enforcement) that only the first degree civil court had jurisdiction to grant enforcement under the ordinary rules of procedure.

That decision illustrates how international treaties can be paralyzed by case law decisions. In the above-mentioned case, both treaties appeared useless and added nothing to the existing Syrian law.