SPAIN 2026-1

Tribunal Superior de Justicia , Madrid, Civil and Penal Chamber, First Section, 18 June 2024, Case No. 36/2024, Decision No. 10/2024

(Strabag SE v. State of Libya)

 

18 - 06 - 2024

SPAIN 2026-1

Yearbook Yearbook Commercial Arbitration, S. W. Schill (ed.), Vol. LI (2026)
Jurisdiction Spain
Summary

The Superior Court of Justice granted exequatur of an ICSID award rendered in an investment dispute. The Court found that all the requirements of Art. IV of the New York Convention were met; that the subject matter of the dispute was arbitrable under Spanish law, as the dispute arose from contracts for the construction of a road in Libya; and that there was no violation of public policy. In particular, with respect to procedural public policy, the Court found that Libya had been afforded a real opportunity to participate in the ICSID arbitration.

Related topics
105

The court discusses issues relating to the quality of the parties, as physical or legal persons against whom enforcement of an arbitral award is sought, including the incapacity of a State to enter into an arbitration agreement, and questions relating to sovereign immunity. For the related defenses to enforcement, see Art. V(1)(a).

"Persons, whether physical or legal" (paragraph 1) (including sovereign immunity)
301

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.

Procedure for enforcement in general
401

The court discusses the general conditions the Convention imposes on a petitioner for seeking recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award – namely, the submission of the original arbitration agreement or arbitral award or a certified copy thereof – and examines in general whether these conditions were complied in the case at issue.

Conditions to be fulfilled by petitioner in general
500

The court discusses the overall scheme and/or pro-enforcement bias of the Convention.

Grounds for refusal of enforcement in general
502

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.

No re-examination of the merits of the arbitral award
518

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.

Paragraph 2 - Distinction domestic-international public policy
519

Public policy: The court discusses cases in which the subject matter of the award was not arbitrable in the enforcement State on public policy grounds.

Ground a: Arbitrability
523

Public policy: The court discusses alleged violations of a fundamental rule of due process in the arbitration on the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award, including the failure to communicate the names of the arbitrators, the failure to send copies of reports or letters filed in the arbitration, etc.

Irregularities in the arbitral procedure (see also Art. V(1)(b))
SPAIN 2026-1