Quick Answer: Interim measures in Israeli arbitration — asset freezes, injunctions, evidence preservation — are available from two sources: the arbitral tribunal itself once it is constituted, and the Israeli District Court which can grant emergency relief independently under Regulation 362 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5744-1984. Under the International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024 (the ICA Law), institutional arbitrations under ICCA or ICC rules can also appoint an emergency arbitrator who issues binding interim orders within 72 hours — before the main tribunal is even formed. Foreign parties with urgent interim relief needs have concrete, workable paths; knowing which to use, and when, determines whether those assets still exist by the time the merits hearing begins.

A commercial dispute turns urgent the moment you learn the other side is moving money, destroying documents, or preparing to sell the assets your claim depends on. In ordinary litigation, you call your lawyer and go to court for a temporary restraining order. In arbitration, the picture is more complicated: your clause sends the dispute to a private tribunal that may not exist yet, and arbitrators — unlike judges — have no inherent power to enforce their orders directly.

Israel has solved most of these problems, partly through decades of case law under the Arbitration Law 5728-1968 and partly through the International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024, which adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law including its comprehensive Chapter IV-A on interim measures. The result is a system that gives foreign parties genuine tools for urgent relief — but only if they know how to use them before the window closes.

1. What Are Interim Measures in Arbitration?

An interim measure is any temporary order — granted before a final award — that prevents harm to a party while the arbitration proceeds. Under Article 17(2) of the ICA Law 2024, interim measures include orders to:

  • Maintain or restore the status quo pending the dispute
  • Take action that would prevent, or refrain from taking action that would cause, current or imminent harm or prejudice to the arbitral process
  • Provide a means of preserving assets out of which a subsequent award may be satisfied
  • Preserve evidence that may be relevant and material to resolution of the dispute

In practice, foreign parties most commonly seek one of three types:

  • Asset preservation orders: freezing bank accounts, prohibiting sale of property or shares, or blocking transfer of funds abroad — the equivalent of a Mareva injunction in English law
  • Status quo orders: preventing termination of a contract, requiring continued performance while the dispute is resolved, or halting construction works pending a determination of rights
  • Evidence preservation orders: requiring the other party to preserve and not destroy specific documents, data, or physical samples

Israeli arbitration law provides two distinct channels for these remedies: orders from the arbitral tribunal itself, and orders from the Israeli District Court acting in support of arbitration. In urgent situations, both channels can be used simultaneously.

2. Interim Measures Ordered by the Arbitral Tribunal

Once constituted, an Israeli arbitral tribunal has broad authority to issue interim measures. Under Article 17(1) of the ICA Law 2024, the tribunal may grant any interim measure it considers necessary — unless the parties have agreed to exclude this power in their arbitration clause. A blanket exclusion is rare in commercial contracts, but some narrow clauses limit the tribunal to monetary relief only; check your clause before assuming interim measures are available.

For domestic arbitrations under the Arbitration Law 5728-1968, the interim power derives from the First Schedule: the arbitrator may make any order that a court could make in the same proceedings. This broad reference has been interpreted by Israeli courts as encompassing asset freezes, injunctions against breach, and evidence preservation — all the standard interim relief available from the District Court in litigation.

The threshold for granting an interim measure under ICA Law Article 17A has three elements, all of which must be satisfied:

  1. Necessity: harm not adequately remedied by a final damages award will result if the measure is not granted
  2. Prima facie case: the applicant has an arguable claim on the merits — a coherent factual and legal basis, not a full proof
  3. Balance of convenience: the harm from granting the measure is not disproportionately greater than the harm to the applicant if it is refused

For asset preservation specifically, a fourth element applies: a real risk — supported by specific evidence, not mere suspicion — that the respondent is about to dissipate, conceal, or transfer the assets in question.

In Practice: An interim measure application to a constituted tribunal is made by written request to the ICCA Secretariat (Ha-Arba'a Street 28, Tel Aviv, 6473925) or directly to the arbitrator in ad hoc proceedings. Most institutional tribunals require 24 to 48 hours' prior notice to the other party before granting interim relief — the exception is ex parte (without notice) orders, which Israeli arbitrators issue cautiously and only for genuine emergencies. Under Article 17C of the ICA Law 2024, the arbitrator may issue a preliminary order without notice for up to 20 days, after which the other party must be heard. File your request with a supporting affidavit, specific evidence of the risk (account transfers, correspondence, company registration changes), and a draft of the order you are seeking. Vague applications that simply assert "we fear the respondent will dissipate assets" are routinely refused.

3. The Emergency Arbitrator Under ICA Law 2024

The most significant practical development for foreign parties under the ICA Law 5784-2024 is the formal adoption of emergency arbitrator provisions, codified in Articles 17B through 17G. These provisions allow a party to obtain binding interim relief before the main arbitral tribunal is constituted — closing the dangerous gap between the moment a dispute crystallises and the three to six weeks it typically takes to seat a full tribunal.

The emergency arbitrator mechanism operates as follows:

  1. A party files an emergency application with the arbitral institution (ICCA or ICC, depending on the rules in the contract)
  2. The institution appoints a sole emergency arbitrator — typically within one to two business days of the application
  3. The emergency arbitrator issues procedural orders immediately and sets a compressed timetable: submissions from both sides within 24 to 48 hours, and a decision within a further 24 to 72 hours
  4. The emergency award or order is binding on the parties and enforceable in Israeli courts under Article 17H of the ICA Law
  5. The main arbitral tribunal is constituted in parallel through the normal appointment procedure and may confirm, modify, or revoke the emergency order once the case is underway
In Practice: ICCA's emergency arbitrator procedure is triggered by a written application to the Secretariat at Ha-Arba'a Street 28, Tel Aviv, accompanied by the registration fee (currently NIS 12,000–18,000 for most commercial disputes) and a self-contained affidavit establishing urgency. ICCA targets appointment of the emergency arbitrator within 24 hours. Emergency arbitrators under ICCA proceedings are selected from a specialised panel of senior Israeli advocates and former judges — expect someone with 25 or more years of commercial litigation or arbitration experience. The emergency arbitrator's fees are separate from the main tribunal's fees and are paid in advance; ICCA's current daily rate for emergency proceedings is NIS 20,000–35,000 per day. The emergency order expires automatically when the main tribunal is seated, unless specifically continued. Do not assume that winning an emergency order means the main tribunal will maintain it — brief the incoming tribunal on the factual basis for the emergency relief as soon as the first case management conference is scheduled, and apply formally for continuation of the order.

One important limitation: the emergency arbitrator mechanism is available only in institutional arbitrations under rules that expressly provide for it. If your arbitration clause simply says "disputes shall be resolved by arbitration in Israel under the Arbitration Law 5728-1968" with no institution named, no emergency arbitrator mechanism is available and you must go directly to the District Court for pre-constitution interim relief.

4. Court Support for Arbitration: The General Framework

The Israeli District Court has statutory authority to assist arbitrations both domestic and foreign through Section 14 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968 and Section 9 of the ICA Law 2024. That authority extends to interim measures.

Section 9 of the ICA Law provides explicitly:

"A court of competent jurisdiction in Israel may, before or during arbitral proceedings, grant interim measures of protection in relation to arbitral proceedings, irrespective of whether their place is in Israel or elsewhere."

This means the District Court can freeze an Israeli bank account to support a Singapore-seated ICC arbitration between a foreign claimant and an Israeli respondent. The court will apply the same three-part test — harm not remedied by damages, arguable claim, balance of convenience — and will also consider whether granting the relief is consistent with the arbitration agreement and does not prejudice the arbitral proceedings.

In Practice: Court applications under Section 9 of the ICA Law are filed in the Israeli District Court in the judicial district where the respondent is resident or where the assets are located — for Tel Aviv respondents and accounts, that is the Tel Aviv District Court (Weizmann Street 1, Tel Aviv). Filing fees for an interim measures application in the District Court run NIS 3,000–7,000 depending on the value of the claim in the arbitration. Israeli courts process urgent applications quickly: a first ex parte TRO can be obtained within 24 hours of filing; the respondent is then notified and a hearing scheduled within 72 hours to determine whether the TRO should continue. Foreign applicants must obtain Israeli legal representation — the application must be signed by a licensed Israeli advocate — and should authorise their counsel to act by notarised and apostilled power of attorney before proceedings begin, not after the crisis arrives.

5. Regulation 362 Freezing Orders: The Fastest Route

For asset preservation specifically, Regulation 362 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5744-1984 is often the fastest tool available. A Regulation 362 order is a temporary restraining order (TRO) granted by the District Court on an ex parte basis — without prior notice to the respondent — to freeze assets, bank accounts, real property, or business operations pending the main proceedings.

Regulation 362 orders in support of arbitration are sought in the District Court even where the substantive dispute belongs to the arbitral tribunal. The court's role is limited to protecting assets from dissipation; once the order is granted, the underlying merits are for the arbitrators. Courts in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa have all granted Regulation 362 orders explicitly in support of arbitration, citing Section 14 of the Arbitration Law as the jurisdictional basis.

To obtain a Regulation 362 order, the applicant must establish:

  • A prima facie arguable claim
  • Real risk that the respondent is about to dissipate, conceal, or remove the assets
  • That granting the order will not cause disproportionate harm to the respondent

The applicant must also provide security — typically NIS 50,000–250,000 depending on the size of the freeze — to compensate the respondent if the order is later found to have been wrongly granted. This security can take the form of a bank guarantee (*arevut bankait*) or a cash deposit with the court registrar.

In Practice: A Regulation 362 application is filed at the Tel Aviv District Court duty judge in urgent cases. The duty judge system means an urgent TRO application can be heard any day, including Fridays and on the eve of Jewish holidays, by the judge on duty. The order, once granted, is served simultaneously on the respondent and directly on the financial institution — Bank Leumi, Bank Hapoalim, Mizrahi-Tefahot, and every other Israeli bank will freeze the specified accounts within hours of receiving a court-sealed order without requiring any further legal process. For an Israeli company with accounts at multiple banks, the order must specifically name each bank or describe accounts broadly enough to catch them all — your Israeli counsel should obtain an updated banking affidavit from the respondent's financial statements or company registry before filing the application. A freeze that misses the main operating account because the application only named one bank is a common and avoidable failure.

6. Enforcing Tribunal-Issued Interim Measures

An interim measure issued by an Israeli arbitral tribunal does not enforce itself. If the respondent refuses to comply, the applicant must convert the measure into a court order through one of two routes depending on the applicable law:

Under the ICA Law 2024 (international arbitrations): Article 17H requires the party seeking enforcement to apply to the Israeli District Court for recognition. The court's review at this stage is limited — it may refuse only on the same narrow Article 17I grounds applicable to final awards: incapacity, no proper notice, measure outside the scope of the clause, or public policy. Once recognized, the court issues an enforcement order and the measure becomes executable through the Execution Office (*Hotzaa LaPoal*) in the same district.

Under the Arbitration Law 5728-1968 (domestic arbitrations): Section 23 of the Arbitration Law allows the District Court to confirm an arbitral order, converting it into a court judgment enforceable by the Execution Office. The Section 23 application is filed in the district where the assets are located or the respondent is registered. Confirmation of an interim measure — as distinct from a final award — does not require the arbitration to be concluded; it is available at any point during the proceedings.

In Practice: Once the Execution Office receives a confirmed interim order, it can immediately issue bank freezes under Section 40 of the Execution Law 5727-1967, real property liens under Section 44, and prohibitions on company share transfers under Section 42. The Execution Office fee for opening an enforcement file is currently NIS 750–2,500 depending on the scope. Crucially, the Execution Office can also issue a travel ban (*atzor yetzia*) against an individual respondent or the directors of a corporate respondent, preventing them from leaving Israel until they comply with or provide security for the order. This leverage is particularly effective against Israeli entrepreneurs whose businesses depend on international travel — your Israeli counsel should assess whether a travel ban motion is appropriate at the same time as the enforcement application.

7. Israeli Courts and Foreign-Seated Arbitrations

Israel's willingness to support foreign-seated arbitrations through interim measures is not limited to ICA Law cases. Israeli District Courts have granted Regulation 362 freezing orders in support of ICC arbitrations seated in London, Paris, and Singapore, relying on Section 9 of the ICA Law and the well-established principle that Israeli courts will assist international commercial arbitration wherever the respondent has assets within Israeli jurisdiction.

Key considerations for foreign-seated cases:

  • The Israeli court will not review the merits of the foreign arbitration — it evaluates only the interim measure application on its own threshold criteria
  • The foreign arbitration must be a genuine arbitration under a recognized framework (UNCITRAL, ICC, LCIA, ICDR, or similar); informal dispute resolution clauses do not qualify
  • The applicant must show that the foreign-seated tribunal cannot itself grant effective interim relief quickly enough, or that the relief sought operates specifically against Israeli assets that only an Israeli court order can effectively reach
  • An arbitration clause with an exclusive foreign court jurisdiction clause (not an arbitration clause) does not benefit from Section 9 of the ICA Law; those disputes use the standard court-to-court enforcement routes instead
In Practice: For foreign companies arbitrating against Israeli counterparties outside Israel, the standard package is: commence institutional arbitration (ICCA or ICC) and simultaneously file a Regulation 362 application in the Tel Aviv District Court citing Section 9 of the ICA Law. The two proceedings run in parallel. If the emergency arbitrator also issues an order, that order is then presented to the Israeli court for recognition under Article 17H — layering a court confirmation onto the arbitral order gives you both direct enforcement through the Execution Office and the psychological weight of a court-sealed document on the Israeli bank. This parallel-process approach adds NIS 15,000–25,000 in local legal fees but substantially reduces the risk that the respondent successfully moves assets during the gap between your filing and the arbitral order.

8. Anti-Suit Injunctions in Israeli Arbitration

An anti-suit injunction is an order requiring a party to withdraw from — or not to commence — proceedings in a court or another arbitral tribunal in breach of the arbitration agreement. They are the most controversial form of interim relief in international arbitration because of their impact on the sovereignty of foreign courts.

Israeli arbitral tribunals can issue anti-suit injunctions as a form of interim measure under Article 17 of the ICA Law. Whether Israeli courts will enforce them depends on where the foreign proceedings are brought: against proceedings in courts of countries with which Israel has strong judicial cooperation (UK, US, Germany, France), Israeli courts have confirmed such orders cautiously; against proceedings in courts that would themselves refuse to recognize an Israeli anti-suit order, the practical value diminishes.

More commonly used in Israeli practice is the compel to arbitrate motion under Section 5 of the Arbitration Law 5728-1968: if a party commences Israeli court proceedings in breach of an arbitration clause, the other side moves to stay the court proceedings and compel arbitration. This is a faster and more reliable remedy than an anti-suit injunction and produces a result — the stay of court proceedings — enforceable by the Israeli court that granted it.

In Practice: A Section 5 motion to compel arbitration and stay court proceedings must be filed before the party has pleaded the merits — submitting a statement of defence in the Israeli court proceedings without first raising the arbitration clause is treated as a waiver of the right to arbitrate. If you receive notice of Israeli court proceedings brought in breach of an arbitration clause, your Israeli counsel must file the Section 5 motion at the first possible hearing date, before submitting anything substantive on the merits. Israeli District Courts typically schedule Section 5 motions within three to four weeks and grant stays readily when the arbitration clause is clear; the motion itself rarely requires more than one hearing to resolve.

9. Practical Steps for Foreign Parties Needing Urgent Interim Relief

Here is a practical sequence for a foreign party that learns its Israeli counterparty is about to transfer assets or breach a material obligation:

  1. Within 24 hours: Engage Israeli legal counsel immediately. Document the evidence of the risk — bank transfer notifications, emails announcing intent to sell assets, corporate registry changes showing share transfers — and send it to counsel. Without specific evidence of imminent dissipation, neither a court nor an arbitrator will grant ex parte relief.
  2. Day 1–2: Decide whether your arbitration clause is institutional or ad hoc. If institutional (ICCA or ICC), your counsel files the emergency arbitrator request with the institution simultaneously with a Regulation 362 application in the District Court. If ad hoc, go directly to the District Court.
  3. Day 2–3: The District Court ex parte TRO is served on the respondent's bank(s) and on the respondent. Accounts are frozen. The emergency arbitrator (if applicable) issues their preliminary order.
  4. Day 4–7: The District Court holds a contradictory hearing — both sides appear — to determine whether the TRO should continue as a permanent interim injunction. The applicant provides security (bank guarantee or cash). The respondent may argue the measure should be dissolved.
  5. Weeks 2–6: The main arbitral tribunal is constituted through normal appointment procedures. At the first case management conference, seek formal continuation of the interim order from the tribunal and confirm with the court whether its order should be maintained in parallel or converted to a tribunal order.
In Practice: Security for a Regulation 362 freezing order protecting a NIS 5 million claim typically runs NIS 100,000–250,000. Your Israeli bank or the Israeli branch of an international bank can issue the bank guarantee (*arevut bankait*) — allow two to three business days for a guarantee to be issued even when the bank relationship is good. If you cannot provide security fast enough, ask your Israeli counsel whether the court will accept a conditional order: the freeze takes effect immediately but is conditional on security being lodged within three business days. Israeli District Courts have granted conditional orders in complex commercial arbitrations where the need for the freeze was clear and the applicant's delay in providing security was explained. This is not automatic — it requires a specific request supported by evidence of good-faith efforts to arrange security quickly.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, through two routes. Under Regulation 362 of the Civil Procedure Regulations 5744-1984, you can apply to the Israeli District Court for an ex parte temporary restraining order to freeze assets, bank accounts, or business operations pending arbitration. Courts grant these within 24–48 hours in urgent cases and the order is served simultaneously on the debtor and the relevant bank or registry. Under Section 17B of the International Commercial Arbitration Law 5784-2024, you can appoint an ICCA emergency arbitrator who issues binding interim orders within 72 hours of the request. Both routes can run together for maximum protection.

An interim measure is any temporary order — asset freeze, injunction, evidence preservation — made by a constituted arbitral tribunal during proceedings. An emergency arbitrator is a separate, expedited mechanism available only under institutional rules (ICCA, ICC, LCIA) where a sole emergency arbitrator is appointed within one to two business days specifically to grant urgent relief before the main tribunal is constituted. Under the ICA Law 2024, emergency arbitrator orders are enforceable in Israel as if they were court injunctions; ad hoc arbitration orders under the older Arbitration Law 1968 are enforced only by applying to the District Court for Section 23 confirmation.

Yes. Section 9 of the ICA Law 5784-2024 explicitly authorises Israeli District Courts to grant interim measures in support of arbitrations seated abroad, provided the respondent has assets or business operations in Israel. The applicant must establish the same three criteria: arguable claim, real risk that the respondent will dissipate assets, and balance of convenience. Israeli courts have granted asset freezes and injunctions in support of ICC arbitrations seated in London, Singapore, and New York.

A tribunal-issued interim measure under the ICA Law 2024 is enforced by filing a recognition application in the Israeli District Court under Section 17H. Once recognised, the court issues a mirror enforcement order and the measure becomes enforceable through the Execution Office — with bank account freezes, property liens, and contempt of court proceedings available against directors who obstruct compliance. For domestic arbitration orders under the Arbitration Law 1968, a Section 23 application converts the measure into a court order enforceable through the same Execution Office channels.

Under Article 17A of the ICA Law 2024, a party requesting an interim measure must establish three elements: harm that cannot be adequately remedied by an award of damages will result if the measure is not granted; a prima facie arguable case on the merits — not a full proof, but a coherent factual and legal basis; and the balance of convenience favors the grant. For asset preservation orders, Israeli courts and emergency arbitrators additionally require specific evidence of a real — not hypothetical — risk that the respondent is moving, concealing, or dissipating the assets in question.

Related Guides