ISRAEL Law and Practice Contributed by: Yitzhak Yaari, Chen, Yaari, Vaki & Co.
applicant (unlike in the case of a motion for temporary relief). 5.2 Enforcement of Foreign Judgments A foreign judgment is enforced by filing a lawsuit petitioning the court to declare the foreign judgment enforceable. The conditions for enforcing a foreign judgment are: • the judgment was given in a country whose laws authorise the courts to give it; • the judgment cannot be appealed; • the obligation in the ruling is enforceable according to the laws of Israel and its content is not contrary to public policy; and • the judgment is enforceable in the country where it was given. When a judgment is declared enforceable, it can be enforced at the Enforcement Office like any Israeli judgment. A foreign arbitration award is enforced in Israel accord - ing to the provisions of the Convention on the Rec - ognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), to which Israel is a party. According to this Convention, the award is submit - ted to the court, which will approve the award unless the respondent proves any of the conditions stated in Article 5 of the Convention, which are: • the arbitration agreement is invalid or the parties to it were under some incapacity; • a party was unable to present their case in the arbi - tration proceeding; • the award does not fall within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or it contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission to arbitration; • the award is not in accordance with the arbitration arrangements agreed by the parties, or failing such agreement, is not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place; • the award is not valid because it has been set aside or it is not final according to the law in the country where it was given; • the subject matter of the dispute cannot be decid - ed by arbitration; or
• the recognition or enforcement of the award is contrary to public policy.
6. Privileges 6.1 Invoking the Privilege Against Self- Incrimination The right to remain silent is limited to criminal pro - ceedings – to a suspect in a police investigation and a defendant in an indictment – but not to a party or witness in a civil trial. By contrast, everyone has a right to immunity against self-incrimination, which is enshrined in Section 47 of the Evidence Ordinance, which provides that “a person is not obligated to give evidence if it involves an admission of a fact that it is one of the elements of a criminal offence of which he has been or may be indicted.” According to the case law of the Supreme Court, immunity from self-incrimination allows a litigant in a civil proceeding to refuse to answer a question asked in interrogatories or to disclose a document that they claim is protected by privilege. In such a case, the other party may object to this by filing a motion peti - tioning the court to determine whether the privilege does indeed apply, and for this purpose, the court may review the document. If the court orders the question to be answered or the document to be disclosed, it may not be used in a criminal proceeding unless the accused consents. Even if the right to insist on privilege against self- incrimination is given to a party in a civil proceeding, it is not necessarily advisable for them to insist on this right, since a party’s refusal to answer questions or disclose documents can be taken into account when assessing the credibility and weight of their testimo - ny, because in a civil proceeding, the parties need to “show their cards” (and for the same reason, they need to disclose all the relevant documents to the other party). 6.2 Undermining the Privilege Over Communications Exempt From Discovery Section 48 of the Evidence Ordinance provides the well-known privilege of “statements and documents exchanged between a lawyer and his client or anoth -
205 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook