The Jerusalem District Court, (Motion 7333/04 Alan Steen et. Al v. The Islamic Republic of Iran et. Al rendered on December 4, 2008, Yosef Shapira, Judge) has ruled that although no diplomatic relations exist between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs must serve Iran with summons regarding a pending Motion in a Jerusalem Court to enforce three foreign judgments against Iranian assets in Israel. Three plaintiffs- all U.S citizens – victims of terrorist attacks sponsored by Iran, obtained from U.S federal courts default judgments against Iran for substantial amounts. The plaintiffs are currently attempting to have the Israeli court recognize and enforce these judgments against unspecified assets they allege are held by Israel.

In order to commence with any legal proceedings, service of the pleadings must be served upon the defendant. When the defendant is a diplomat or a foreign state, Israeli law requires that service on the defendant be made by the Israeli Foreign Ministry through diplomatic channels. However, since there are no diplomatic relations between Israel and Iran, the position of the Legal Advisor to the Government (roughly equivalent to the Attorney General in many countries) was that the service cannot be made, resulting in a defeat of the effort to enforce the judgments against Iran. The Jerusalem District Court in a 52-page decision rejected the position of the Legal Advisor and ordered the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to attempt service on the Iranian Delegation to the United Nation, or on their representatives in any other international organization in which both Israel and Iran are members, or send the pleadings by mail to the Iranian government. The District Court’s decision can be appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court.

Why Does Israel Object to the Service?

Based upon previous instances where filings of claims in Israel against Iran were defeated for lack of a possibility to serve Iran, I suspect that the Legal Advisor will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. Although not specified in the court decision, I believe that the plaintiffs aim at the substantial revenues accrued by the State of Israel from the operation of an oil pipeline jointly owned by Israel (and indirectly) by Iran in a partnership formed before the Islamic Revolution. I believe that the State of Israel who has been involved in a lengthy and complex international arbitration over these revenues wants to prevent private parties from attaching said revenues because in the arbitration, Israel is counterclaiming in an attem to offset the Iranian revenues held by Israel, against damages caused by Iran to Israel. Obviously, this is my private professional opinion not supported by the decision.