Riyadh Arab Agreement For Judicial Cooperation 1983

Requests for court and extrajudicial documents and documents are accompanied by a document containing the following information: Each contracting party undertakes to bring the persons they have detained before a court of another contracting party, provided they are properly informed under this agreement, in order to hear their testimony or comments as witnesses or experts. and the applicant is condemned to the costs of transporting these persons. b) Where the provisions of this agreement are contrary to those of a previous special agreement, the text that is most effective for the extradition of persons charged with charges or convictions applies. (c) whether the contractual obligation that is the subject of the dispute was carried out as part of an explicit or tacit agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant or is mandatory in the contracting party. (b) if the aircraft carrying the delivering person must disembark, the applicant contractor must apply for transit of the person; if the State which is invited to give its consent to such a passage also wishes the delivery of the same person, such a passage will not take place until the applicant contractor and the aforementioned State have reached an agreement on this issue. However, the merits of the application cannot be verified, as stated in Article 7: “The task of the judicial authority of the state in which the judgment is to be carried out is limited to confirming that the judgment meets the requirements of the agreement without discussing it… The applicant undertakes to detain these persons and, subject to Article 22 of this agreement, to return them as soon as possible or within the time limit prescribed by the contracting party receiving these requests. recognition or implementation would be inconsistent with the international treaties and agreements applied by the required party. The DIFC courts recently recognized and enforced a banking decision of a Saudi quasi-court, the Committee for the Settlement of Banking Disputes (part of the Saudi Monetary Agency), which was presented to DIFC to claim the assets of a branch of a foreign bank in the free zone.

The trial upheld the traditional rules of enforcement of a Saudi judgment, order or decision in the DIFC courts. This article outlines several recent developments regarding the relationship between KSA and the common legal systems of the law with respect to the enforcement of judgments and the significance of proceedings. The existence of several arbitration offices within a country is a frequent source of confusion between parties and practitioners. It is therefore important to make clear the seat provided for in the development of a compromise clause. For example, if the parties wish to respect their arbitration procedure within the DIFC (in order to use DIFC`s modern arbitration law and, if necessary, to be able to appeal to the DIFC courts), the arbitration agreement should specifically designate the DIFC as the seat of arbitration, rather than simply referring to “Dubai” or “the United Arab Emirates”.