MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Enrique Espejel, Diego Mora-Jensen, José Joaquín Pacheco and Luis Enrique Pérez García, White & Case
ment delivered in a labour law court case would be enforced. Consumer protection awards Mexican consumer protection legislation – specifical - ly, the Federal Consumer Protection Law – allows for a specialised procedure for the enforcement of awards delivered to settle consumer disputes. In this respect, it is important to emphasise that the arbitral awards referred to in this law are delivered solely and exclu - sively by the Federal Consumer Protection Agency ( Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor , or PROFECO) or by the arbitrator appointed by the parties (Article 121). The enforcement of this type of arbitral award must be carried out within 15 days following service of notice, unless otherwise expressly agreed by the parties. For the enforcement of arbitral awards issued by the PROFECO, the courts also have competence, but enforcement will be carried out through an executive proceeding as though the award were an enforceable title that entails execution – that is to say, through an abbreviated judicial procedure that allows for a pro - visional seizure. Financial services user protection awards Finally, Mexican legislation on the protection and defence of users of financial services also provides for the issuance of an arbitration award as an alter - native means of resolving disputes. The arbitration procedure is carried out by the regional, state or local delegations of the National Commission for the Pro - tection and Defence of Users of Financial Services ( La Comisión Nacional para la Protección y Defensa de los Usuarios de Servicios Financieros , or CONDUSEF). The amiable compositeur resolving the arbitration pro - cedure is CONDUSEF itself – the arbitration awards of which will have the status of an enforceable judgment (pursuant to Article 73 of the Law for the Protection and Defence of the Financial Services User). As to the issue in question, the enforcement of such awards is overseen by CONDUSEF, which may adopt all necessary measures to ensure the execution and collection of the final arbitral award (including enforce - ment measures). If an award is made against a finan - cial institution, CONDUSEF can appeal to the courts
that have competent jurisdiction. In the authors’ opin - ion, such courts may be the courts in charge of com - mercial or administrative matters, depending on the subject matter of the arbitration award. 4.3 Categories of Arbitral Awards Not Enforced Pursuant to Mexican commercial law, certain domes - tic and international commercial arbitration awards will not be enforced by Mexican judges despite the initiation of the corresponding lawsuit. For the pur - poses of this chapter, awards are not enforced for the following reasons. Defects in the Arbitration Proceedings Awards will be unenforceable where defects in their structure, processing or issuance do not affect the decision itself but, rather, form the circumstances that led to the arbitral decision. The main distinctive fea - ture of this category is that the defect that causes the award’s non-enforcement is not in the reasoning or decisions of the arbitrators but in the process or framework within which the decision was made. Awards with pathological arbitration agreements Awards may not be enforced if the arbitration agree - ment is defective. An example of a pathological arbi - tration agreement would be where one of the parties to the arbitration agreement was affected by some dis - ability. Although the commercial legislation is not clear in this respect, the authors believe that judges must determine whether a person is incapable according to the law governing the contract or legal act in which such arbitration clause is included. Another example of a pathological arbitration agreement would be one that is not valid by virtue of the law governing the contract or legal act in which the arbitration clause is included. Awards that violate due process Awards will not be enforceable where there has been a procedural violation in the arbitration process, includ - ing violation of the essential procedural formalities (eg, service of notice, guarantee of hearing, and opportu - nity to prove and deliver a final decision).
314 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook