Source: https://library.iccwbo.org/content/dr/COUNTRY_ANSWERS/CA_SUPP_0029_78.htm?l1=Country+Answers&l2=Uruguay
Timestamp: 2019-09-23 07:55:43
Document Index: 448377715

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 540', 'Art. 541', 'Art. 541', 'Art. 379', 'Art. 379', 'Art. 72', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 541', 'Art. 380']

Paul Arrighi Bustamante
Uruguay adopted the New York Convention by Decree-Law No. 15.229 on 11 Dec. 1981.
On those occasions when this issue has been dealt with (in actions claiming the annulment of an award), Uruguay courts ruled that an award rendered in Uruguay in international arbitration proceedings under the ICC Rules involving foreign companies and international trade matters was not a domestic award but should rather be considered as a foreign award.
(Sources: 2d Court of Appeals for Civil Matters, Judgment No. 161/03, 18 June 2003; 7th Court of Appeals, Judgment No. 106/2007, 16 May 2007; 1st Court of Appeals, Judgment 74/2001, 2 Feb. 2011.)
The relevant domestic rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitration awards are contained in Act No. 15.982, 18 Oct. 1988, General Procedural Code (Código General del Proceso, 'CGP').
(Source: CGP, Arts. 537, 538, 539, 540, 541, 543.)
No. However, in enforcement proceedings, the defendant may file a defence based on a statute of limitations or expiry of the obligation whose enforcement is sought.
Uruguayan law makes a distinction between the recognition and the enforcement of a foreign award.
If the mere recognition of the award is sought, i.e. a party wants a court to admit the imperative or evidentiary effects of the award, jurisdiction lies with the ordinary court at the place where the party wants those effects to be recognized.
(Source: CGP, Art. 540.)
If a party wants to enforce an award ruling against a party, then a preliminary exequatur procedure must be filed with the Supreme Court of Justice. Once this procedure is completed, the award must be forwarded to the ordinary court of first instance having jurisdiction pursuant to internal rules of jurisdiction for it to process the enforcement. For example, the court of first instance (i) of the domicile of the respondent in Uruguay, or (ii) of the place where the respondent's assets are located in Uruguay, would have jurisdiction to process the enforcement.
(Source: CGP, Art. 541)
There are no express rules to establish the court's jurisdiction.
In the only three recent cases involving the enforcement of foreign awards (Supreme Court of Justice judgments 41 of 18 Feb. 2004, 85 of 9 May 2008 and 791 of 7 Sept. 2012), the defendants were companies with registered offices or domicile in Uruguay. This circumstance or the existence of assets in Uruguay, as well as the existence of any other relevant connection with the country, are adequate grounds on which to establish the jurisdiction of Uruguayan courts over the enforcement of a foreign award.
The exequatur proceedings heard by the Supreme Court of Justice are inter partes proceedings. After the claim is filed by the applicant, the respondent is given 20 days in which to file an answer; then the opinion of the General Attorney's Office is obtained; and finally a non-appealable judgment is rendered.
(Source: CGP, Art. 541.)
Execution against the respondent's assets can be obtained after the exequatur decision of the Supreme Court of Justice at the earliest. Prior to such decision, during the exequatur proceedings the applicant may request conservatory measures, which the Supreme Court of Justice has indeed granted in some cases involving the enforcement of a foreign judgment.
Once the exequatur decision is rendered, during the subsequent enforcement process in the court of first instance, the court's first step is to issue a judgment admitting the enforcement proceedings, on the basis of which the applicant may seek to execute against the respondent's assets. The respondent is then given an opportunity to file defences against execution on the basis of prior payments made in favor of the applicant. The defence of insufficient title referred to in Art. 379 CGP would not be admissible against an award that has been granted exequatur.
(Source: CGP, Art. 379.)
(Sources: New York Convention, Art. IV(2); CGP, Arts. 539.2, 543; in judgment 85 of 9 May 2008, the Supreme Court of Justice, upon the defendant's objection, refused exequatur for an arbitral award issued in France owing to the lack of an arbitration clause signed by the defendant.)
There is no legal provision on the subject. However, for the enforcement of foreign awards, the arbitral award and the document containing the arbitration agreement.
(Sources: CGP, Arts. 539, 543; Supreme Court Decision No. 41/2004.)
Originals or duly certified copies may be filed.
(Sources: New York Convention, Art. IV(1); CGP, Arts. 539(1), 543.)
One original or duly certified copy is required (and as many ordinary copies as there are parties to the proceedings).
The originals are not necessarily kept by the court. At any stage in the proceedings the party may ask to have certified copies made and the originals returned.
(Source: CGP, Art. 72.1.)
Yes, if the documents are not in the country's official language they must be translated.
(Source: New York Convention, Art. IV(2); CGP, Arts. 539.1, 543.)
They must be translated into the country's official language, which is Spanish.
(Sources: New York Convention, Art. IV(2); CGP, Arts. 539.1, 543.)
Translations must be done by an official translator.
(Sources: New York Convention, Art. IV(2); CGP, Arts. 72.3, 539.1(2) and (3), 543.)
All documents must be translated, but in the case of very extensive documents it is possible to translate only the part that is pertinent to the proceedings.
Yes. Although in recent years there have been no cases dealing with this issue, scholarly opinion is in favour of the possibility.
None. Uruguay does not apply the forum non conveniens concept.
No, but the court can order it upon an ex parte request.
Proceedings for recognition and enforcement of awards are public, including all documents that are filed.
Upon an ex parte request, the court can order non-disclosure of the proceedings for justified reasons of security, morality or protection of the reputation of any of the parties.
(Source: CGP, Art. 7.)
No hearings are provided for in the case of recognition and enforcement of foreign awards.
If enforcement of the award is sought within the framework of existing proceedings in Uruguay, it is possible that its validity and effectiveness could be discussed at hearings in such proceedings. Hearings are public, but upon an ex parte request the court can order that the hearings be closed to the public for justified reasons of security, morality or protection of the reputation of any of the parties.
(Source: CGP, Arts. 7, 540.)
Yes, as a general rule, judgments on recognition and enforcement are published in legal reviews. However, if the proceedings for recognition and enforcement were made confidential by court decision, the judgment will also be kept confidential
There are no rules or decisions specifically prohibiting or limiting recognition and enforcement of interim or partial awards. In fact, the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration provides for recognition and enforcement of interlocutory or partial foreign awards and can be applied by analogy to cases subject to the New York Convention.
There are no rules or decisions limiting recognition and enforcement of awards granting monetary relief.
(Source: CGP, Art. 541.1.)
In view of the New York Convention's pro-award spirit, the silence of the Uruguayan rules, and the restrictiveness of the grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of awards under the New York Convention, it is possible to obtain recognition and enforcement of foreign awards granting non-monetary relief in Uruguay.
A party may obtain recognition and enforcement of only part of the relief granted in a foreign award, provided such part is clearly distinguishable from the rest, in cases of (i) partial invalidity of the award or (ii) when the applicant seeks enforcement of only a part of the relief granted.
It is not possible to obtain recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award if the party against whom it is to be enforced proves that it has been set aside or suspended by the competent authority of the country in which or under whose law it was made.
Scholarly opinion in Uruguay considers that a court may reject recognition and enforcement of an award that has been set aside or suspended by the competent authority of the country in which or under whose law it was made, even if the party against whom its enforcement is sought does not raise that defence as a public policy objection to enforcement.
The process for recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards does not involve any particular or more onerous costs than those involved in the enforcement of local awards.
If attachment of the respondent's assets is sought, the applicant must identify such assets.
(Source: CGP, Art. 380.2.)