INDONESIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Emir Nurmansyah, Theodoor Bakker, Ulyarta Naibaho and Adithya Lesmana, ABNR Counsellors at Law
12.3 Approach of the Courts The general approach is that a foreign arbitral award can be recognised and enforced only upon obtaining an exe - quatur from the chief of the CJDC. In line with Article 66 of the Arbitration Law, the exequatur can be granted if: • the award is issued by an arbitrator or arbitral tribu- nal in a country with which Indonesia has a treaty, whether bilateral or multilateral, regarding the rec - ognition and enforcement of international arbitral awards (reciprocity requirement); • the subject matter of the dispute is commercial in nature; and • it does not violate Indonesian rules of public policy. Article 1 (9) of Supreme Court Reg No 3/2023 defines public policy as “all fundamental principles neces - sary for the functioning of the legal, economic, and socio-cultural systems of Indonesian society and the nation”. However, the court appears to interpret the definition of public policy to be a violation of Indone - sian law, albeit inconsistently. Prior to the enactment of the Arbitration Law, in ED & F Mann (Sugar) Limited v Yani Haryanto in 1990, the Supreme Court refused the enforcement of a London arbitral award in favour of Mann on the ground that the award had violated public policy because the under - lying contract had violated Indonesian law pertaining to a prohibition on sugar imports. In this decision, it appears that the Supreme Court held that the violation of a positive law or a provision under Indonesian law would constitute a violation of public policy. After the enactment of the Arbitration Law, in Sumi Asih v Vinmar and AAA in 2012, the CJDC observed that a violation of public policy would impede the enforce - ment of an international arbitral award if it affected: • the economic interests of the public in general; • the livelihood of the public; and • state security. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the CJDC and thus holds the position that a violation of public policy is not limited to positive law or provisions under Indonesian law, but includes implications for the wider public interest.
Attachment of Assets The execution phase may involve the assistance of the district court that has jurisdiction over the losing party or its assets. The CJDC is the authorised dis - trict court mandated to grant the attachment orders requested under a foreign arbitration award by the Arbitration Law. However, in the implementation of a foreign arbitral award, if the assets to be executed upon are located in a court jurisdiction other than the CJDC, the latter will delegate its authority to the local court jurisdiction where those assets are located (Arti - cle 69 of the Arbitration Law). If an attachment of assets is required for enforcement, a request for attachment must first be submitted to the court with jurisdiction over the location of the assets. For this purpose, the request for attachment must be spe - cific with regard to the assets, their nature and location. The relevant court will later issue an aanmaning (warn- ing letter) to the defendant (the losing party) to ask for enforcement of the award. If the losing party still insists on not complying with the award, the court will further render an order to enforce the attachment ( executorial beslag ). Execution will then be carried out with the assistance of the court bailiff. Finally, the liqui - dation of assets can be achieved through an auction. This process will be performed in accordance with the Indonesian Civil Procedural Law. If there is a challenge to the process of executorial attachment, such challenge will be entertained as in a civil case and will be subject to the normal appeal pro - cess in the High Court and cassation and civil review process in the Supreme Court. There is no definite time limit within which a final and binding decision on There is no discernible approach that the courts in Indonesia would adopt when an award is subject to ongoing set-aside proceedings at the seat of the arbi - tration. Enforcement procedures would not likely be suspended pending a resolution of the proceedings at the seat, unless the court was aware of such set- aside proceedings. a challenge can finally be obtained. Set-Aside Proceedings at the Seat
359 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook