PERU Law and Practice Contributed by: Renzo Salvatore Monroy Pino, Roberto Shimabukuro Miyasato, Anibal Jong Urtecho Gómez and Alexander Montenegro, Monroy & Shima Abogados
13.3 Circumstances to Challenge an Arbitral Award In Peru, award challenges follow a restrictive approach under Legislative Decree 1071, limiting grounds for annulment to specific procedural defects rather than substantive review. Parties can file annulment actions with the Superior Court within 20 business days of notification or resolution of interpretation/correction requests. The Arbitration Law establishes exhaustive annulment grounds: arbitration agreement invalidity; improper notification preventing case presentation; awards exceeding submission scope; improper tribunal com- position or procedural irregularities; non-arbitrable subject matters; and public policy violations. Courts cannot review factual findings or legal interpretations, making errors of law inadmissible grounds. Annulment actions do not automatically suspend enforcement unless the party provides security and obtains a tem- porary stay. Consequences vary by specific ground – some cases return to arbitration for correction, while others terminate entirely. Peruvian courts uphold 70% to 75% of challenged awards, reflecting respect for arbitral finality while maintaining oversight for funda- mental procedural guarantees. 13.4 Procedure for Enforcing Domestic and Foreign Arbitration In Peru, enforcement procedures differ between domestic and foreign awards, though both benefit from an arbitration-friendly framework. For domestic awards, the process is streamlined without requiring judicial confirmation before enforcement. Once awards become final (after the 20-business-day annulment fil- ing period expires or after annulment rejection), pre- vailing parties can directly initiate enforcement before commercial or civil courts of first instance. The process begins with filing the award and prop- er notification evidence. Courts issue enforcement orders requiring compliance within five business days. Opposing parties’ defences are strictly limited to payment evidence, enforcement period expiration or pending annulment proceedings. For foreign awards, enforcement requires prior recognition under New York Convention standards through Superior Court applications, including certified award copies, origi-
tration agreements, kompetenz-kompetenz and pro- cedural party autonomy. Peru distinguishes between domestic and foreign awards for enforcement purposes. Domestic awards are immediately enforceable without judicial confirma- tion once the annulment notification period expires. For foreign awards, Peru applies the 1958 New York Convention and 1975 Panama Convention. Enforce- ment involves Superior Court applications with limited procedural review rather than substantive reconsider- ation. Refusal grounds mirror Article V of the New York Convention, with courts maintaining a pro-enforce- ment stance and interpreting exceptions narrowly. Recognition proceedings typically resolve uncom- plicated cases within two to four months, creating a supportive arbitration environment that respects arbitrators’ decisions while maintaining limited judi- cial oversight. 13.2 Subject Matters Not Referred to Arbitration In Peru, the Arbitration Law establishes that matters involving “freely disposable rights” are arbitrable, creating boundaries around eligible subject matters. Several categories are excluded from arbitration due to public policy considerations or exclusive jurisdic- tion provisions. Non-arbitrable matters include: criminal matters (exclusively state jurisdiction); family law issues involv- ing marital status, relationships, parental authority and adoption (reserved for judicial determination, though property division in divorce may be arbitrable); labour disputes concerning individual employment rights (though some collective bargaining disputes may be arbitrable); constitutional rights cases (must use judi- cial constitutional protection proceedings); adminis- trative law matters involving government regulatory powers (though administrative contract disputes often include valid arbitration clauses); bankruptcy pro- ceedings (exclusive jurisdiction of specialised courts and INDECOPI); and lower-value consumer protection claims (must follow special procedures). These limi- tations balance promoting arbitration with reserving public interest matters or cases involving vulnerable parties for state oversight.
901 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook