Report: Swiss court orders Israel to pay Iran $1.1 billion in oil pipeline dispute

[bemildred]

An Israeli oil company, the Eilat Ashkelon Pipeline Company, has been ordered to pay $1.1 billion in compensation to Iran by a Swiss court, the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported on Wednesday.

In response, Israel clarified that it will not pay the debt to the Iranians. "Without referring to the matter at hand, we'll note that according to the Trading with the Enemy Act it is forbidden to transfer money to the enemy, including the Iranian national oil company," the Finance Ministry statement said.

The compensation ruling follows a long-running legal battle between the two countries over the revenues from an oil pipeline joint venture that dates back to before the Islamic Revolution.

IRNA cited an "informed source" at Iran's Presidential Center for Legal Affairs for its information about the court's ruling.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.657394

[guillaumeb]

1. a clever way to avoid paying a debt.

declare that the one to whom you owe the money is an enemy.

[Wilms]

2. Israel is a rogue nation. n/t

[Jefferson23]

3. Did I get this right, Israel is not disputing their loss, but only using the Enemy Act not to pay

up?

Israel

The British Trading with the Enemy Act 1939 was applied to Mandatory Palestine, as to other British-ruled territories. On the creation of Israel in 1948, it was retained as an Israeli law and the various Arab countries named in it as "The Enemy". It is still in force as of 2013, though Egypt and Jordan were removed from its application with the respective peace agreements Israel signed with them.

wiki source.

Must be nice.

[shaayecanaan]

11. it almost sounds like a boycott, doesnt it?

Maybe even divestment or sanctions.

[Jefferson23]

13. ha ha

Don't stay away so long, you're valued in this I/P group.

[shaayecanaan]

14. many thanks nt

[Scurrilous]

4. I guess the Trading with the Enemy Act doesn't apply to TOW missiles etc.

Iran/Contra? Anyone recall?

[azurnoir]

5. I guess paying a court ordered debt is trading?

and expropriating isn't stealing?

behold the language of diplomacy in all its glory

[bemildred]

6. Israel needs the money. nt

[aranthus]

7. Can someone explain to me

how a Swiss court has jurisdiction over a dispute between an Israeli company and Iran?

[shaayecanaan]

9. dispute resolution clause in the jv agreement

provided for arbitration which started in France but was then concluded in Switzerland.

Israel participated in the process and lost. Now a swiss court has confirmed that they've lost.

Apparently there are other claims in the way. No doubt the Iranians will be looking to enforce the agreement elsewhere.

[oberliner]

8. Iran was the party that broke the agreement and cut ties with the pipeline and with Israel

Maybe a deal can be worked out to transfer the funds directly to one of the decedents of the Shah.

[shaayecanaan]

10. they ran that argument

and lost. Unfortunately litigation is not like debate on the internet, if you lose you don't get to pick up your ball and run home.

"We shouldn't have to pay them because they're the enemy" is a great excuse though, think of all the reparations that could be avoided if that argument was accepted.

[Little Tich]

12. It seems as if Iran has a legitimate claim.

If it was the other way, I think Iran would be obliged to pay Israel.