URUGUAY Law and Practice Contributed by: Leonardo Melos, Bergstein Abogados
12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention Uruguay has ratified the New York Convention without reservations. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure An arbitral award, regardless of the country in which it was issued, will be recognised as binding in Uruguay upon the filing of a written request to the competent court. The party that invokes an award or requests its enforcement must file the original award or a duly certified copy of it, along with the original arbitra - tion agreement. If the award or agreement is not in Spanish, the party must submit a sworn translation. Enforcement before local courts is still possible even if the arbitral award has been set aside by the courts at the seat of arbitration. A new analysis would be performed by the local court. Regarding sovereign immunity at the enforcement stage, case law has supported the thesis that rejects the general immunity of states. The national rulings align with international regulations on this matter, allowing enforcement in cases where the assets or activities in question were not related to an official purpose. That is to say, assets such as embassies are excluded from enforcement; nevertheless, commercial assets can be subject to enforcement. In summary, case law suggests that state immunity will not apply if the enforcing party demonstrates that the assets are intended for commercial use. 12.3 Approach of the Courts International public order should be construed as the basic set of common principles on which a state grounds its legal individuality. Therefore, for the rec - ognition of a foreign award to be rejected, such an award must infringe the essence of international pub - lic order principles in a concrete and serious manner. It should be borne in mind that – for the recognition of an award to be rejected based on the public order exception – the public order to be considered is inter - national public order, not internal public order. There - fore, the approach of local courts to the recognition of foreign arbitral awards is more favourable than that
costs. However, regarding legal fees, a costs-sharing approach is typically used. In cases where the losing party has not co-operated with the arbitral tribunal in the production of evidence or where the procedural conduct of the losing party has not met good-faith standards, fees and costs are imposed on the losing party.
11. Review of an Award 11.1 Grounds for Appeal
The award may only be appealed before a court by petition for annulment. In order to succeed, the party pursuing annulment should demonstrate one or more of the following: • that one of the parties to the arbitration agree - ment was affected by some incapacity or that said agreement is not valid; • that the party pursuing annulment has not been duly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or the arbitration proceedings have breached the due process of law; • that the award refers to a dispute not provided for in the arbitration agreement or contains decisions that exceed the scope of the arbitration agreement; • that the members of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure have not followed the arbitration agreement in place; • that, according to Uruguayan law, the subject mat - ter of the controversy is not subject to arbitration; or • that the award is contrary to the international pub - lic order of Uruguay. The annulment petition must be filed within three months following the date of the last notification of the award. 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal Parties cannot agree to exclude or expand the scope of the appeal or challenge under national law. 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review The judicial review on the merits of the case is a de novo standard.
1128 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook