Many because of Karim El Chazli (Consulting and Testifying Professional on Arab Legal guidelines) for the tip-off
I. Introduction
The sphere of international judgments within the MENA area has witnessed further authorized developments. After Morocco, which adopted in February a brand new Code of Civil Process containing an up to date regime for the enforcement of international judgments (see my earlier on this weblog), Saudi Arabia adopted swimsuit by adopting a brand new Execution Regulation (Nizam at-Tanfidh), accepted by the Council of Ministers on 15 April 2026 (27–28 Shawwal 1447 H), which comprises guidelines on the enforcement of international judgments. The brand new legislation replaces the prevailing Execution Regulation promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/53 of three July 2012 (13 Sha’baan1433 H).
The Execution Regulation governs, inter alia, the execution of “titles of obligation” (sanadat tanfidhiyya (pl.), sanad tanfidhi (sing.); lit. “enforceable titles”) basically, as outlined by the Regulation. These embrace, amongst others, international judgments, international arbitral awards, and international genuine devices declared enforceable in accordance with the principles set out within the Regulation. The brand new Execution Regulation (new Article 7) provides to the prevailing checklist (former Article 9) mediated settlement agreements concluded overseas. This addition seems to be linked to the truth that Saudi Arabia is a State Social gathering to the 2018 Singapore Conference, which was ratified on 5 Could 2020 and entered into pressure on 5 November of the identical yr.
II. Enforcement Necessities
With respect to the regime relevant to the enforcement of international judgments, the brand new circumstances are actually laid down in new article 9 of the brand new Regulation.
New Article 9(1) of the 2026 Execution Regulation reads as follows (unfastened tentative translation):
1. With out prejudice to the obligations of the Kingdom below worldwide treaties and agreements, the courtroom [the Execution Court] shall not declare enforceable a international judgment or order besides on the idea of reciprocity and after analyzing that the next circumstances are met:
a) The dispute by which the international judgment or order was rendered doesn’t fall throughout the unique jurisdiction of the courts of the Kingdom.
b) There is no such thing as a comparable case pending within the Kingdom that was filed earlier than the case by which the international judgment or order was rendered.
c) The events to the proceedings by which the international judgment was rendered had been duly summoned, correctly represented, and given the chance to defend themselves.
d) The international judgment or order has grow to be closing, in accordance with the legislation governing the competent judicial authority that rendered it.
e) The international judgment or order doesn’t battle with a previous judgment or order—on the identical material—rendered by a reliable judicial authority within the Kingdom.
f) The international judgment or order doesn’t violate the general public coverage of the Kingdom.
Paragraph 2 offers with the enforcement of international arbitral awards and international mediated settlement agreements, whereas paragraph 3 offers with the enforcement of international genuine devices.
III. Observations
If we evaluate the brand new enforcement necessities with these set out within the 2012 Execution Regulation, we are able to see that the majority of them have been reproduced with none vital modification, though in some instances barely totally different wording has been used. That is notably true of the necessities listed in objects (c) [service and the right of defence], (d) [finality], (e) [conflicting judgments], and (f) [public policy], in addition to of the proviso, which comprises a reference to the reciprocity requirement.
On the similar time, some vital variations might be noticed, notably with respect to the principles on oblique jurisdiction (1) and the existence of a pending case earlier than Saudi courts (2). Additional essential clarifications relate to 2 different basic points: the prohibition of révision au fond (3) and the limitation interval for imposing titles of obligation (4).
1. Oblique Jurisdiction
First, essentially the most notable change issues the management of the oblique jurisdiction of the rendering courtroom. Certainly, below the 2012 Execution Regulation, the jurisdiction of the international rendering courtroom was topic to a double management: first, by verifying that the dispute didn’t fall throughout the jurisdiction of Saudi courts (basically, and with none particular limitation); and second, by checking that the rendering courtroom had jurisdiction in accordance with its personal guidelines of worldwide jurisdiction.
The brand new Execution Regulation considerably modifies the scope of the jurisdictional requirement and limits it to instances over which Saudi courts have unique jurisdiction. In doing so, the Saudi legislator joins different nations within the area which have adopted comparable approaches, notably Tunisia (see Béligh Elbalti, “The Jurisdiction of Overseas Courts and the Enforcement of their Judgments in Tunisia: A Want for Reconsideration”, 8(2) Journal of Non-public Worldwide Regulation (2012) 195, and lately Morocco (see Béligh Elbalti, “The New Moroccan Framework on Worldwide Jurisdiction and Overseas Judgment Enforcement – A Preliminary Crucial Evaluation”, on this weblog. For a comparative overview on the assorted approaches adopted within the MENA area, see Béligh Elbalti, “The popularity of international judgments as a device of financial integration: Views from Center Jap and Arab Gulf nations”, in P. Sooksripaisarnkit and S. R. Garimella (eds.), China’s One Belt One Street Initiative and Non-public Worldwide Regulation (Routledge, 2018) 226; idem, “Perspective from the Arab World”, in M. Weller et al. (eds.), The 2019 HCCH Judgments Conference – Cornerstones, Prospects, Outlook (Hart, 2023) 187 ).
The issue with the brand new rule, nonetheless, is that Saudi legislation on worldwide jurisdiction doesn’t include clear guidelines on what constitutes “unique jurisdiction.” The related provisions on worldwide jurisdiction contained within the Regulation of Process earlier than Sharia Courts (Nizam al-Murafa’at al-Shar’iyya, Royal Decree No. M/1 of 24 November 2013 (22 Muharram 1435H), Articles 24 to 30) don’t outline or clearly establish which heads of jurisdiction are unique. In consequence, the scope of the requirement might stay unsure in observe, which might result in a restrictive or inconsistent method within the recognition and enforcement of international judgments.
2. Pending case earlier than Saudi Courts
Merchandise (b) of Article 9 of the brand new Regulation is an addition that has no equal in Article 11 of the 2012 Execution Regulation. Whereas this requirement is usually discovered within the worldwide conventions relevant within the area (notably the 1983 Riyadh Conference and the 1995 GCC Conference), it has virtually no equal within the home laws of Arab nations (with the notable exception of Lebanon. See Elbalti, “Perspective from the Arab World”, op. cit., 192). It must be famous, nonetheless, that Article 9(b) requires that the motion beforehand introduced earlier than Saudi courts and nonetheless pending be “comparable (mumathila)” to the one by which the international judgment was rendered. Whereas the terminology used is considerably obscure, this implies that each actions ought to contain the identical material (as is extra clearly required in Article 9(e) regarding conflicting judgments). It’s, nonetheless, unclear whether or not this requirement additionally extends to the identification of the events.
3. Express prohibition to overview the deserves of international judgments
Underneath the 2012 Execution Regulation, there isn’t any express provision prohibiting a overview of the deserves of international judgments. Nonetheless, such a prohibition could also be inferred from the imposition of numerous formal and procedural necessities for having international judgments declared enforceable. In judicial observe, the precept of the prohibition of révision au fond is regularly affirmed; nonetheless, some selections recommend that it has not at all times been strictly noticed (see Elbalti, “Perspective from the Arab World”, op. cit., 185). The brand new Regulation has addressed this challenge expressly in Article 4(2), which offers that “Topic to the provisions of Article (9) of the Regulation, the courtroom shall be sure that the title of obligation satisfies its statutory necessities, with out analyzing the deserves of the correct forming its material”.
4. Limitation interval to execution of the titles of obligations
The brand new Enforcement Regulation clarifies the limitation interval relevant to the execution of titles of obligation. Underneath new Article 11, execution lapses upon the expiry of ten (10) years from the date on which the title turns into due and enforceable. Though this rule additionally applies to international judgments as titles of obligation (Article 7 of the brand new Regulation), the wording of the availability means that it issues international judgments solely as soon as they’ve been declared enforceable by the Execution Court docket. The Regulation, nonetheless, comprises no particular limitation interval governing the submitting of an utility for a international judgment to be declared enforceable in Saudi Arabia. This means that, in precept, judgment collectors might apply at any time for such a declaration. In contrast, as soon as enforceability has been granted, precise execution can be barred upon the expiry of the ten-year limitation interval.
