MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Jorge Asali, Omar Colomé, Rodrigo Macin and Saul Fonseca, Bufete Asali
5.2 Circumstances for Court Intervention Mexican courts may address issues of an arbitral tri - bunal’s jurisdiction in two procedural stages, as set out in Articles 1424 and 1432 of the Commerce Code and confirmed by Tesis 162932. First, when a party requests referral to arbitration, the court may assess whether the arbitration agreement is valid, enforcea - ble, and applicable. Second, after an award is issued, courts may review jurisdiction in the context of a set- aside or enforcement proceeding. This approach reflects the principle of competence- competence, allowing arbitral tribunals to rule on their own jurisdiction, while also preserving limited judicial oversight. Once a court has ruled on jurisdiction, it may not revisit the issue at a later stage, ensuring procedural efficiency and legal certainty. Mexican courts have traditionally been supportive of arbitration, generally showing deference to valid arbitration agreements. However, with the recent 2024 judicial reform, which introduces the election of judges, there is growing uncertainty about how future courts will handle arbitration-related matters with prior precedents. 5.3 Timing of Challenge Under Mexican law, there is no single, clear-cut rule as to when a party may go to court to challenge an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction. The answer may vary depending on the procedural context and the nature of the objection. However, the general framework pro - vides two defined procedural windows where judicial review of jurisdiction is allowed: • before arbitration proceeds, when a party invokes the existence of an arbitration agreement and asks a court to decline jurisdiction (Article 1424); and • after the award is rendered, as part of annulment or enforcement proceedings (Article 1432). This structure was confirmed by the federal judici - ary in Tesis digital registry: 162932, which held that judicial review of arbitral jurisdiction may occur only once – either before or after the award, but not at both stages. This aims to preserve procedural economy and respect the autonomy of the arbitral process.
1428 and 1429, which closely follow Articles 12 and 13 of the UNCITRAL Model Law. An arbitrator may be challenged if there are justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence, or if they lack the qualifications agreed by the parties (Article 1428). Arbitrators must disclose any relevant circumstances that could affect their impartiality. If the parties have not agreed on a procedure, Article 1429 establishes that challenges must be submitted in writing within 15 days of becoming aware of the appointment or the grounds for challenge. If the tribu - nal rejects the challenge, the party may request that a Mexican law requires that arbitrators be independ - ent and impartial, and that they disclose any circum - stances that may give rise to justifiable doubts about their impartiality or independence. These obligations are set out in Article 1428 of the Commerce Code. Arbitrators must make such disclosures at the time of their appointment and must continue to disclose any relevant developments during the proceedings. If a party believes that an arbitrator does not meet these standards, they may challenge the appointment under the procedure provided in Article 1429. state court decide the matter. 4.5 Arbitrator Requirements The principle of competence-competence is fully rec - ognised under Mexican law. Arbitral tribunals have the power to rule on their own jurisdiction, including on objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. This principle is codified in Article 1432 of the Com - merce Code, which mirrors Article 16 of the UNCI - TRAL Model Law. It is also widely upheld in judicial precedents, reflecting Mexico’s consistent support for arbitration and the autonomy of arbitral tribunals. 5. Jurisdiction 5.1 Challenges to Jurisdiction
538 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook