CHILE Law and Practice Contributed by: Andrés Jana, Rodrigo Gil, Francisco Grob and Victoria Demarchi, Jana & Gil Dispute Resolution
12.3 Approach of the Courts Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards The national courts have adopted the general approach of recognising and mostly accepting the enforcement of arbitral awards, regardless of the country in which they were rendered and as long as they comply with the legal requirements. By way of example, regard - ing the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, the Supreme Court’s case law accepts the exequatur, as opposed to a minority of case law that rejects it. Thus, in the case of Klion SRL v Pesquera Villa Alegre SA , Case No 41,841-2017 dated 26 July 2018, the Supreme Court states: “It has become evident that, in the case of the enforcement of an arbitral award, according to the wording of Law 19,971, regardless of the country in which it was issued, it is recognised as binding in Chile if it complies with the requirements of Articles 35 and 36 of that Law, which otherwise constitutes a repetition of the relevant provisions of the New York Convention.” In another case, the Supreme Court accepted a request for the execution of an award issued in an international commercial arbitration, ruling that it is not relevant for its recognition in another country that reciprocity exists between the country in which it was rendered and Chile. According to the Supreme Court, whenever the requirements of the ICAL are complied with, national legislation recognises the award’s bind - ing character because it is an international arbitration ( I Schroeder KG (GmbH & Co) v Exportadora Las Tina- jas Limitada , Supreme Court, Case No 104,262-2020 dated 19 July 2021). This has been executed in a number of cases allowing the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, including: • Gold Nutrition Industria y Comercio v Laboratorios Garden House SA v Laboratorios Garden House SA , Supreme Court, Case No 6615-2007 dated 15 September 2008; • Almendra y Miel SA v GLG , Supreme Court, Case No 82,442-2016 dated 30 November 2017; and • Bose Corporation v MusicWorld Audiovisión Limi- tada , Supreme Court, Case No 12,710-2018 dated 9 July 2019.
Refusal to Recognise Regarding the refusal to recognise or enforce an arbi - tral award on the grounds of public policy in general, it is understood that this should be applied restric - tively and be limited only to the infringement of basic and fundamental rules of the Chilean state, so as to avoid limiting the enforcement of international awards in Chile by simply invoking local public policy (San - tiago Court of Appeal, Case No 9,134-2007 dated 4 August 2009, rejecting ground No 2 (b)(ii) of Article 34 of the ICAL). Therefore, in relation to ground No 2 (b)(ii) concerning public policy, the court of appeal has understood that it must point to the infringement of the most basic and essential rules of the Chilean state – the simple invocation of local public policy not being sufficient. In the context of public policy, it is essential to differ - entiate between domestic public policy and interna - tional public policy. International public policy applies specifically to international commercial arbitration and encompasses only the most fundamental principles of a legal system, rather than all local regulations. Con - sequently, objections based on procedural formalities outlined in civil procedure codes or court organisation - al statutes should be dismissed, unless they concern the core foundational principles of Chile’s legal frame - work. This approach has been consistently applied by Chilean courts (see, for example, Santiago Court of Appeal, Case No 9,134-2007 dated 4 August 2009; Santiago Court of Appeal, Case No 1,971-2012 dated 9 September 2013; and Santiago Court of Appeal, Case No 11,466-2015 dated 28 June 2016). 13. Miscellaneous 13.1 Class Action or Group Arbitration Chile does not provide for class action arbitration or class arbitration. 13.2 Ethical Codes The Code of Professional Ethics of the Chilean Bar Association, in force since 1 August 2011, applies in the case of affiliates. In the case of non-affiliates, since 2012 it has been possible to find Supreme Court rul - ings defending the theory that the 2011 Code of Pro - fessional Ethics applies to all lawyers in Chile.
129 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook