Israel's Request for 'Confidentiality' in Iran's Oil Case Rejected

According to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the Israeli government requested the Swiss arbitration court to apply 'confidentiality' regarding the details of the case in which the National Iranian Oil Company has sued Israel, but Switzerland rejected this request. Haaretz reported on Tuesday, December 25, that the Israeli government asked the Swiss arbitration court to refrain from mentioning the names of related Israelis and other details of this case, especially in the publication of the details of Iran's complaint against Israel. This is a long-standing case that has recently been announced, in which Israel has been condemned to pay heavy financial compensation to Iran. Iran and Israel established the 'Eilat-Ashkelon Pipeline Company' on February 29, 1968. The company's goal was to transfer Iranian oil through a 242-kilometer pipeline to Eilat on the Red Sea coast and then to the port of Ashkelon in the Mediterranean Sea and subsequently to Europe. The National Iranian Oil Company claims that at the time of the revolution, 800,000 tons of oil remained in this pipeline, which Israel sold by transferring it to Europe but did not pay Iran its 50% share. Haaretz wrote that Israel's request for 'confidentiality' surprised Swiss court officials because, although it is customary for the court's decisions to be communicated to limited parties, this case has been described as a 'controversial case' that has attracted global media attention. According to Haaretz, Israel's request to keep the details of this case secret continues the country's policy of secrecy regarding issues related to Iran. Following the Iranian revolution and the announcement of anti-Israeli policies by the Islamic Republic of Iran, trade and official relations between the two countries ended. Although the Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize Israel, it has reserved the right to sue Israel. The contract establishing the Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline company stated that 'whenever a dispute arises between Iran and Israel over the details of transactions in this company, both parties have the right to refer to the Swiss arbitration court.' It was added that the President of the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris would also have the right to appoint the final arbitrator in handling potential complaints from both parties, and the opinion of this arbitrator would be decisive. On October 14, 1994, Iran introduced its chosen party to initiate the arbitration process and requested Israel to introduce its arbitrator, but the Israeli government at that time opposed this, arguing that Iran does not recognize Israel and seeks its destruction. However, Iran referred to the French court in August 1995; the Swiss arbitration court had previously stated that the results of administrative proceedings conducted in the French court were 'not noteworthy.' However, Haaretz reported that the French court had forced Israel to introduce its arbitrator to the Swiss arbitration court, but Israel rejected it again. Ultimately, in 2003, Israel's appeal was rejected, and the Swiss court was tasked with handling the case. In this lengthy complaint, Iran benefited from the services of the renowned Swiss law firm 'Piton and Peter,' while Israel hired the rival law firm 'Brown and Page,' which also consisted of famous Swiss lawyers. According to Haaretz, in January 2013, the Swiss arbitration court condemned Israel to pay trial costs, and a year later, it recognized the National Iranian Oil Company as legitimate in this complaint. Nevertheless, the result of the arbitration conducted by the Swiss arbitration court was only made public a few days ago. In 2004, Iran requested the payment of $800 million in compensation, both for the confiscated oil and for the costs of the lengthy complaint process. It seems that Israel still retains the right to appeal against the arbitration decision and the obligation to pay $100 million in compensation. Haaretz reported on December 25 that the Israeli military censorship office had prohibited the media from publishing information regarding Iran's complaint against Israel, while 'everyone was aware of it,' and informing the public about it 'did not conflict with Israel's security.'