PERU Law and Practice Contributed by: Renzo Salvatore Monroy Pino, Roberto Shimabukuro Miyasato, Aníbal Urtecho Gómez and Alexander Montenegro, Monroy & Shima Abogados
Parties have the right to request recovery of their legal costs, expert fees, and arbitration costs (arbitrators’ fees and administrative expenses). Tribunals consider the degree of success of each party, procedural con- duct, case complexity, and reasonableness of costs incurred. 8.4 Mitigation of Damages Under general principles of international law, the investor has a duty to take reasonable steps to miti- gate its losses following the host state’s treaty breach. The investor is not required to take extraordinary or commercially unreasonable measures. The burden of proving failure to mitigate typically falls on the respondent state. Awards rendered under the ICSID Convention receive privileged treatment in Peru. Article 54 of the ICSID Convention requires each contracting state to rec- ognise ICSID awards as binding and to enforce their pecuniary obligations as though they were final judg- ments of domestic courts. Peru’s status as signatory to both the ICSID Convention and the New York Con- vention means the enforcement pathway depends on the award’s classification. ICSID awards proceed directly to recognition through the Superior Court of Peru without substantive review, requiring only administrative processing to confirm formal compliance with recognition requirements such as authenticity of the award, verification that it is bind- ing and enforceable, and accurate calculation of the sums due. Non-ICSID awards follow the New York Convention enforcement route through the Superior Court of Peru, where grounds for refusal are limited to those enumerated in Article V of the New York Con- vention. 9. Enforcement of Awards 9.1 Enforcement Procedure Regarding awards set aside at the seat of arbitration, Peruvian courts would likely refuse enforcement pur- suant to Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention ‒ although recent jurisprudence on this specific issue remains limited. For awards subject to ongoing set- aside proceedings at the seat, courts possess discre-
tion under Article VI of the New York Convention to suspend enforcement proceedings pending resolution of challenges at the seat. However, the frequency with which Peruvian courts exercise this discretion remains
unclear from available case law. 9.2 Approach of the Courts
Peruvian courts adopt a generally favourable approach toward recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, applying the principle of “maximum effectiveness” (máxima eficacia) established in both the New York Convention and Article 74.2 of Peru’s Arbitration Law (Legislative Decree 1071). Recognition proceedings are non-contentious in nature and characterised as “formal and declarative acts” that do not permit review of the merits of the arbitral dispute. As Peruvian courts have emphasised, the judicial task is limited to reviewing form rather than substance; courts do not examine the facts underly- ing the controversy, the arbitrators’ interpretation of applicable law, or the legal conclusions reached. Standard for Refusing Enforcement on Public Policy Grounds Article 75.3 (b) of Peru’s Arbitration Law (Legislative Decree 1071) allows courts to deny recognition when an award “is contrary to international public policy”. This ground for refusal is subject to three interpretive principles consistently applied by Peruvian courts, as follows. • Exceptionality ‒ public policy is an extraordinary defence applicable only in extreme circumstances that would undermine fundamental constitutional principles. • Restrictive interpretation ‒ the taxative list of grounds for refusal must be interpreted narrowly to avoid expanding grounds beyond those explicitly provided. • Manifest evidence ‒ the violation must be evident and manifest, not requiring extensive factual inves- tigation by the recognising court. In the recent case of Lima Expresa v Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Expediente 00395-2024, First Commercial Chamber, September 2025) (“ Lima Expresa ”), Peru’s courts clarified that allegations of
195 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook