The Iraqi Federal Court of Cassation has held that differences in the way companies and their authorised representatives are identified across legal systems should not, by themselves, result in the dismissal of a claim seeking recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Background
A company applied to the Iraqi courts for recognition and enforcement of a final foreign commercial judgment. The lower court dismissed the claim because the foreign judgment and the Iraqi pleading used different wording to describe the representative capacity of the parties.
Court’s Findings
The Court explained that a company acts through the natural person authorised to represent its legal will. A difference in procedural terminology does not necessarily create a different corporate party.
The Court overturned the dismissal and returned the case for examination of the substantive conditions governing recognition and enforcement. It did not decide that the foreign judgment was automatically enforceable.
Practical Implications
Applicants should submit certified copies of the foreign judgment, evidence of finality and enforceability, corporate records establishing the parties’ identity, evidence of representative authority, certified Arabic translations and an explanation of any difference in party designations.
Conclusion
The decision requires Iraqi courts to examine the legal identity of the parties and the substance of the foreign proceedings. Formal differences in drafting should not prevent the court from considering whether the judgment satisfies the statutory enforcement requirements.