COLOMBIA Law and Practice Contributed by: Juan Mendoza, Manuela Hernández Contreras, Andres Parra and Daniel Munera, DRET
reciprocity or commerciality – meaning Colombia will recognise awards regardless of whether the seat state is itself a party to the Convention, and regardless of whether the underlying dispute is strictly commercial in nature. Colombia is also a party to the 1975 Panama Convention on international commercial arbitration. Law 1563 adds a third layer: its own recognition regime, with its own procedure and grounds. A party seeking recognition of a foreign award files before the Supreme Court, which reviews the request against an exhaustive list of grounds – modelled on the New York Convention’s own Article V, and similar to, though not identical to, the grounds available for annulling an international award seated in Colombia. Both instruments coexist alongside Law 1563’s own regime, and Colombian courts apply whichever framework is more favourable to recognition, under the pro-enforcement principle that runs through the whole system. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure Colombia draws a sharp line between two categories of award. Awards seated in Colombia, including inter - national ones, are treated as domestic awards and are directly enforceable, with no prior recognition pro - ceeding required – unless, as noted in 11.2 Excluding/ Expanding the Scope of Appeal , the parties waived annulment, in which case recognition becomes nec - essary despite the Colombian seat. Foreign-seated awards, by contrast, require recognition – an exequa - tur – before they can be enforced, before the Supreme Court’s Civil Cassation Chamber if the parties are pri - vate, or the Third Section of the Council of State if a public entity is involved. The Recognition Procedure Once a request is admitted with complete documen - tation – the original award or a copy, together with the arbitration agreement – the other side has ten days to respond, and the court must decide within the follow - ing 20 days. The decision is final, issued in a single instance, with no further appeal available. Awards Annulled at the Seat Awards set aside at the seat raise a separate question. If recognition has already been requested, a Colom -
bian court can postpone its decision and require security from the party asking for that postponement. Annulment at the seat is a ground for refusing recogni - tion, but it does not operate automatically. Colombian courts retain discretion over whether to actually refuse recognition on that basis. Sovereign Immunity On sovereign immunity, Law 1563 itself closes off this defence at the arbitration stage: no state or state- owned company can invoke its own domestic law to challenge its capacity to be a party to an arbitration. At the enforcement stage specifically, immunity from execution over assets used for public purposes may still survive under general international law, though Colombian case law has not yet developed a settled Colombian courts take a markedly pro-recognition approach. Where a rule or its interpretation could go either way, the Supreme Court applies a pro-enforce - ment principle to resolve the ambiguity in favour of recognising the award. International public policy, the ground most often invoked to resist enforcement, is interpreted narrowly. It does not cover any conflict with a mandatory rule of Colombian law – only a genuine violation of the legal system’s fundamental values and principles. The Supreme Court has been explicit that the applicable standard is international public policy, not domestic public policy, and that the pro-enforcement principle should be used to keep that standard confined to true essentials. position on this narrower question. 12.3 Approach of the Courts The statute itself reflects this narrow, unified standard across both annulment and recognition. Article 108 of Law 1563, on annulment, allows the court to act on its own initiative where “the award is contrary to Colombia’s international public policy”. Article 112, on recognition, uses the same formula: recognition may be denied only where “recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to Colombia’s interna - tional public policy”. The wording is deliberately iden - tical – the same narrow standard governs both stages, and the Supreme Court’s pro-enforcement approach applies equally to each.
269 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook