The Dubai Court of Cassation opines on the Enforcement of a Foreign Judgment Between GCC Countries and Give Necessary Guidance on Parallel Enforcement Proceedings

On June 26, 2025, the Dubai Court of Cassation issued an important judgment in Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2025. The case dealt with the enforcement of a foreign judgment issued by the Court of Appeal in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, within the United Arab Emirates. The judgment is significant as it clarifies the application of judicial cooperation agreements among the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and addresses the issue of parallel enforcement procedures across member states.

Facts and Procedural History

The case originated when the appellant obtained a judgment from the Riyadh Court of Appeal ordering the respondent to pay a sum of money. The appellant then applied to the Dubai Execution Judge to have the Saudi judgment declared enforceable. An enforcement order was issued by the Execution Judge (the “Enforcement Order”) and an execution file was registered in the Dubai Execution Court to enforce the Saudi judgment. However, the respondent appealed the order, and the Dubai court of appeal decided to revoke the Enforcement Order on the grounds that enforcement procedures had already begun in Saudi Arabia and therefore, according to the appeal judgment, no parallel enforcement proceedings should be initiated in another jurisdiction concerning the same judgment.

Grounds of Appeal and Legal Arguments

The judgment creditor appealed to the Court of Cassation, arguing that neither the 1995 GCC Convention for the Execution of Judgments nor the 1983 Riyadh Arab Convention for Judicial Cooperation prohibits the enforcement of a judgment in more than one member state, as long as the judgment amount has not yet been recovered. The judgment creditor therefore argued that parallel execution efforts is permitted until the judgment amount is actually recovered, especially if the judgment debtor had moved asset to different jurisdictions to evade enforcement.

Reasoning of the Cassation Court

The Court of Cassation affirmed its settled position that international treaties ratified by the UAE form part of domestic law and take precedence over general provisions in civil procedure law. It further clarified that the 1995 GCC Convention is the more specific treaty in this context, taking precedence over the broader Riyadh Convention, to which both the UAE and the KSA are members.

The Court also emphasized that the GCC Convention does not prohibit parallel enforcement proceedings in more than one member state unless the judgment debt has already been satisfied. The focus should be on whether the creditor has actually received the amount awarded by the judgment in question, rather than on the mere existence of multiple enforcement proceedings t. Additionally, the court underlined that the role of the enforcing court is limited to verifying that formal requirements are met, without reviewing the merits of the original judgment.

Significance and Practical Implications

This judgment carries substantial legal significance in several respects:

• Reinforcement of Effective Judicial Cooperation in the GCC: The ruling affirms that enforcement of judgments among GCC countries should be smooth and flexible, free from unwarranted restrictions not specified in treaties in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GCC Convention. This enhances mutual trust in regional legal cooperation.
• Protection of Creditors’ Rights and Prevention of Debtor Evasion: By allowing enforcement in multiple member states (as long as the judgment has not been fulfilled), this precedent closes loopholes that debtors might exploit by relocating within the GCC.
• Priority of Special Agreements Over General Rules: The court clarified that specific agreements, like the GCC Enforcement Convention, prevail over general procedural laws or other broader treaties when conflicts arise, ensuring legal consistency and predictability.
• Defining the Scope of National Courts in Foreign Judgment Enforcement: The decision stresses that national courts should only verify formalities and refrain from re-examining the substance of foreign judgments, thus streamlining enforcement and minimizing delays.

Conclusion

This judgment serves as a key precedent in the enforcement of foreign judgments within the GCC, demonstrating the judiciary’s commitment to upholding international agreements in a way that furthers justice and prevents procedural abuse. It guides national courts to adhere strictly to treaty provisions and avoid imposing extra conditions, thereby strengthening legal certainty and fostering a reliable environment for individuals and businesses across the Gulf region.