MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Luis Asali, Omar Colomé, Katia Hernández and Jesús Figueroa, Bufete Asali
10. Appeal 10.1 Levels of Appeal or Review to a Litigation In Mexico, litigants have several mechanisms to chal- lenge judicial decisions. • Ordinary Appeal ( Apelación ): (a) heard by a second-instance court; (b) reviews both factual and legal aspects of the first-instance judgment; and (c) available for final judgments and, in some cases, certain interlocutory rulings. • Amparo (Constitutional Protection): (a) a separate constitutional review proceeding before federal courts; (b) while not formally considered a second level of appeal, it can serve a similar function in prac- tice, as it allows the court to review the legality and constitutionality of a judgment or act; and (c) the proceeding may result in the annulment or modification of the challenged act if constitu- tional violations are identified. This framework allows both review of the merits and protection of constitutional rights, although ordinary appeals primarily address factual and legal determina- tions from the first-instance court. 10.2 Rules Concerning Appeals of Judgments In Mexico, appeals of judgments are governed by the following general rules. Right to Appeal Final judgments may be appealed by the losing party, except in cases of oral proceedings. In oral proceedings, review is available only through constitutional protection (Amparo), whereas in written proceedings the losing party may pursue both appeal and amparo remedies. Scope of Appeal Appellate courts review both legal and factual issues. Common grounds for appeal include: • errors of law or procedure;
Documentary Requirements A legalised or apostilled copy of the foreign judgment must be provided, along with proof that it is final and enforceable in the originating jurisdiction.
The Mexican Court The court assesses:
• whether the formalities established in treaties to which Mexico is a party regarding rogatory letters from abroad have been fulfilled; • that the judgment was not issued as a conse- quence of exercising an action in rem; • that the foreign court or tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter in accordance with rules recognised under international law compat- ible with those adopted by Mexican law; • that the defendant was personally notified to ensure the guarantee of a hearing and the opportu- nity to exercise their defence; • that the judgment has the character of res judicata in the country where it was issued, or that no ordi- nary remedy exists against it; • that the action giving rise to the judgment is not the subject of ongoing proceedings between the same parties before Mexican courts, or at least that the relevant rogatory letter or request for service has been processed and delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the competent local authorities; • that the obligation to be enforced is not contrary to Mexican public order; and • that the judgment meets the necessary require- ments to be considered authentic. Despite compliance with all these requirements, the judge may still refuse enforcement if it is demonstrat- ed that judgments are not enforced in similar cases in the country of origin. Treaties and Conventions Where applicable, treaties such as the Hague Conven- tion on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments may streamline the process. Once recog- nised, the foreign judgment is treated like a domestic judgment and may be executed through the same enforcement mechanisms.
715 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook