- You are here:
- Home
- Court Decisions
- SPAIN 2026-5
SPAIN 2026-5
Tribunal Superior de Justicia , Pamplona, Civil and Penal Chamber, First Section, 17 September 2025, Case No. 97/2025, Decision No. 10/2025
(Swisslog Logistics Inc v. AR Racking SAL)
... Read more
Tribunal Superior de Justicia , Pamplona, Civil and Penal Chamber, First Section, 17 September 2025, Case No. 97/2025, Decision No. 10/2025
(Swisslog Logistics Inc v. AR Racking SAL)
SPAIN 2026-5
The Superior Court of Justice granted recognition of an ICC award rendered in Switzerland, rejecting the respondent’s argument that the arbitral procedure had not complied with the parties’ agreement because the tribunal had allowed the late admission of documentary evidence, and that exequatur would violate Spanish procedural public policy because the respondent had not had the opportunity to rebut this evidence. The Court noted that the tribunal had discretion to admit late evidence, and held that, since the respondent had not sought to have the award annulled in the Swiss courts, it could not raise this procedural objection for the first time at the recognition stage. As to public policy, the Court concluded that there was no fundamental breach of procedural principles in this case, as required by the jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice and the Spanish Constitutional Court, and the recommendations of the International Law Association.
The court discusses the determination and relevance of the place where the award was made (in a foreign State or another contracting State.
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 the conditions under which a party may be estopped from raising a ground for refusal of enforcement under the Convention or has waived the right to raise it.
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.
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.