- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- PERU 2026-1
PERU 2026-1
Corte Superior de Justicia, First Civil Chamber, Commercial Subdivision, 10 September 2025, Case No. 00395-2024-0-1866-SP-CO-01, Decision No. 32
(Lima Expresa S.A.C. (LIMEX) v. Municipalidad Metropolitana de ... Read more
Corte Superior de Justicia, First Civil Chamber, Commercial Subdivision, 10 September 2025, Case No. 00395-2024-0-1866-SP-CO-01, Decision No. 32
(Lima Expresa S.A.C. (LIMEX) v. Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima)
PERU 2026-1
The Superior Court of Justice granted recognition of a partial award rendered in France, holding that it did not violate Peruvian public policy. The arbitrators' conclusions on the allegations that the underlying concession contract had been obtained by corruption related to the merits of the arbitration and could not be reviewed in exequatur proceedings. The Court also rejected the argument that annulment proceedings against the award were pending in France, reasoning that the partial award had neither been set aside nor suspended withing the meaning of Art. V(1)(e) of the New York Convention.
The court discusses the principle that the procedure for the enforcement of awards under the Convention is governed by the lex fori, as well as procedural issues (such as the competent enforcement court) not falling under the specific cases of ¶¶ 302-307.
The court discusses how to determine whether the document supplied is an award capable of being recognized and enforced, including whether the award is duly authenticated, and whether a copy is duly certified; whether a prior interim and/or partial award should be supplied together with the final award.
The court discusses issues relating to the requirements of the translation (translation by sworn translator, translation of entire award etc.) and whether a translation is necessary.
The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.
The court discusses questions relating to the general approach taken by the Convention to the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement, including its pro-enforcement bias, as well as the system of the Convention, under which recognition and enforcement may only be denied on seven listed grounds and the petitioner has only the obligations set out in Art. IV.
The court discusses the principle that the merits of the award may not be reviewed and that the court may only carry out a limited review of the award to ascertain grounds for refusal.
Award not binding, suspended or set aside: The court discusses the difference between the exclusive jurisdiction to set aside an award (primary jurisdiction), which belongs to the courts of the country of origin of the award, and the jurisdiction of all other courts to recognize and enforce the award (secondary jurisdiction); issues relating to the determination of the “competent authority”; and whether an award that has been set aside in the country of origin can be enforced in another State under the Convention.
Public policy: The court discusses the meaning of (international as compared to domestic) public policy, generally defined as the basic notions of morality and justice of the enforcement State.
Public policy: The court discusses the effect of other alleged violations of public policy on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, such as contradictory reasons, manifest disregard of the law (US), etc.