Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/146306585/Argentine-Supreme-Court-Ruling-English-Translation-in-Aguinda-v-Chevron-Lifting-Embargo-that-had-been-obtained-against-Chevron-in-attempted-enforce
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 02:22:18
Document Index: 252834040

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 14', 'art. 2', 'art. 1', 'art. 5', 'art. 4', 'art. 12', 'art. 198', 'art. 6', 'art. 517', 'arto 5', 'arto 14', 'art. 2', 'art. 12', 'art. 54', 'arto\n5', 'arto 2', 'art. 5', 'arto 12', 'art. 198', 'art. 6', 'arto 517']

Argentine Supreme Court Ruling (English Translation) in Aguinda v Chevron, Lifting Embargo that had been obtained against Chevron in attempted enforcement action
Argentine Supreme Court Ruling (English Translation) in Aguinda v Chevron, Lifting Embargo that had been obtained against Chevron in attempted enforcement actionUploaded by Roger ParloffRelated InterestsCase LawSentence (Law)Crime & JusticeJusticeGovernment InformationRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedDescription: English Translation of Argentine Supreme Court ruling lifting embargo against Chevron that had been obtained by the environmental plaintiffs who won $19 billion court judgment in Lago Agrio, EcuadorView MoreEnglish Translation of Argentine Supreme Court ruling lifting embargo against Chevron that had been obtained by the environmental plaintiffs who won $19 billion court judgment in Lago Agrio, EcuadorCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentA. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v.Chevron Corporation re: Preventive Measures
[Initials] Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina
Buenos Aires, [handwritten] June 4, 2013 Having reviewed the record: In the case “Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation re: Preventive Measures.” WHEREAS: (1) Chevron Argentina S.R.L., Ingeniero Roberto Priú S.R.L., CDC Aps, and CDHC Aps have filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgment entered by the Recess Division of the Court of Civil Appeals, which, affirming the trial court’s judgment, ordered the execution of several preventive measures against the assets of those companies ordered by the deputy president of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos, Republic of Ecuador. The Ecuadorian court asked the Argentine courts to comply with the order under the terms of the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures (CIDIP-II).
The appeal was admitted in part, regarding the interpretation and application to the case of Article 5 of the Convention, and it was denied regarding the complaints based on the arbitrary-judgment doctrine. Concerning this last aspect, the defendants filed a petition for review of denied appeal with the Court.
(2) The case involves a dispute about the interpretation of certain clauses in an international cooperation treaty on procedural matters—CIDIP-II—and the judgment runs counter to the law in those clauses that appellants have cited. So the petition complies with Article 14(3) of Law 48 (Decisions: 118:127; 276: 327, and 319:2411).
CERT. MERRILL VER: JD
Further, although decisions accepting or rejecting preventive measures are not final judgments, this Court has found that, under Article 14, first paragraph, Law 48, such decisions are equivalent to final judgments when the right invoked can only be protected in that particular opportunity, as in this case, since the exclusive aim of CIDIP-II is cooperation regarding preventive measures. Moreover, that equivalence is justified when a harm is caused that is difficult or impossible to redress subsequently, as in this case, considering the financial importance of the ordered attachment.
In order to properly address appellants’ complaints, the Court must rule on both the extraordinary appeal admitted by the lower court and the direct appeal filed by defendants in connection with the remaining arguments against the appealed judgment.
(3) Under the system created by the Convention, the courts of each of the States Parties has a duty to execute the preventive measures decreed by judges of another State Party (Article 2), with the important exception that the former may refuse to do so when the measures “are manifestly contrary to its public policy” (Article 12).
(4) This Court has held on numerous occasions that the principle of procedural due process (Article 18 of the Constitution) is part of Argentine international public policy, not only in criminal proceedings (Decisions: 328: 3193), but also in proceedings
A. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation on Preventive Measures
that involve property rights (Decisions: 319: 2411). In this last decision, the Court held that this principle “must be followed not only in any court proceeding conducted in Argentine jurisdiction, but also in any proceeding that concludes with a judgment or decision entered by a foreign judicial authority that has extraterritorial effects in the Republic of Argentina” (Decisions: 319:2411, conclusion five).
(5) As explained by the Attorney General and as appears in the letter rogatory issued by the Ecuadorian court, this case involves preventive measures ordered in an enforcement proceeding of a judgment entered in Ecuador under which Chevron Corporation was ordered to pay US$ 19,021,552,000 (page 1-1(back)). In that proceeding, the court also decided that the effects of the judgment extended to Chevron Corporation’s subsidiaries, specifically the defendants in this case, Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and Ingeniero Roberto Priú, and the owners of their shares (page 201 et seq.).
Likewise, it is undisputed that the appellant companies were not parties to the case against Chevron Corporation and that they are different legal entities, whose assets the court decided to combine for purposes of enforcing the award. In fact, as arises from the grounds of the decision issued by the judge of the State of origin, that court ordered the preventive measures against the companies incorporated in Argentina and the owners of their shares based on the
theory of “piercing the corporate veil and disregard for separate legal personality,” a point that, according to the judge, is not subject to debate, since that issue “has already been decided” (page 201).
(6) Under our law, the decision to pierce the corporate veil is an exceptional one, and it can only be made under certain conditions established by law (Article 54 of Companies Act No. 19550). Moreover, since legal personality is a corporate right that protects not only the company’s assets but also the legitimate interests of those who have contracted with it, this exceptional order cannot be enforced without first conducting an adversarial proceeding, either principal or collateral, that effectively provides the parties an opportunity to make their case.
(7) Therefore, in the case at hand, the above-cited precedent applies (Decisions: 319:2411), and this Court concludes that the Ecuadorian court’s decision—to impose preventive measures on the property of the defendant companies, based on a decision to pierce the corporate veil without first holding a hearing on the matter—deprived those companies of this right, violating the principles of Argentine international public policy (Articles 17 and 18 of the Constitution), a circumstance that prevents execution of the letter rogatory.
Moreover, since this issue has been closed to further debate, since it has already been decided and is res judicata, it is unnecessary to consider
whether to apply Article 5, first paragraph, of the Convention—which submits the decision of third-party claims or objections filed by parties affected by the measures to the jurisdiction of the judge who issued the letter rogatory—to this case.
Therefore, consistent with the opinion of the Attorney General of Argentina, the Court grants the petition, rules in favor of the extraordinary appeal, and vacates the appealed judgment. With costs. Return the deposit on page 3 bis. Notify the parties and, when appropriate, remit the record. [Signature] Ricardo Luis Lorenzetti [Signature] Helena I. Highton de Nolasco [Signature] Carlos S. Fayt (Dissenting opinion) [Signature] Enrique S. Petracchi [Signature] Juan Carlos Maqueda [Signature] E. Raúl Zaffaroni [Signature] Carmen M. Argibay
-//- DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE CARLOS S. FAYT
(1) The companies Chevron Argentina S.R.L., Ingeniero Roberto Priú S.R.L., CDC Aps and CDHC Aps filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgment issued by the recess division of the Court of Civil Appeals on January 29, 2013, which affirmed the trial court’s judgment and ordered several preventive measures on the companies’ assets. The appeal was granted in part, regarding the interpretation of article 5 of the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures (CIDIP), and denied regarding the alleged arbitrariness of the judgment, in response to which the companies filed a petition for review of denied appeal with the Court.
(2) The appealed judgment executed preventive measures requested—through a letter rogatory—by the deputy president of the Provincial Court of Sucumbíos, Republic of Ecuador, within the framework of the above Convention on international judicial cooperation.
(3) Among other complaints against the appealed judgment, appellants argued that the preventive measures against them were ordered in a case brought against Chevron Corporation, to which they were not parties, because, they said, they are separate legal entities from the oil company sued in Ecuador, but the judgment issued against
that company was extended to them by application of the theory of “piercing the corporate veil,” an issue that, the Ecuadorian judge said on page 201, “has already been decided.”
(4) This Court has repeatedly ruled that decisions associated with preventive measures—whether they order, modify, or revoke them—are not final decisions for the purpose of granting the appeal governed by art. 14 of Law 48 (Decisions: 310:681; 313:116; 327:5068, and 329:440, among others).
(5) In this case, there are no grounds justifying deviation from the decisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
(6) This is so because, as the Court has held “. . . the Court is responsible— within its jurisdiction—for applying the international treaties by which the country is bound. . . , since otherwise, the nation would be liable to the international community” (Decisions: 318:514, Giroldi).
(7) The States Parties to the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures established that their judicial authorities will apply the preventive measures “. . . decreed by a judge or court of another State Party competent in the international sphere, and whose purpose is: . . .
(b) To execute measures necessary to guarantee the security of property, such as the preventive attachment
of immovable and movable property, the registration of the suit or the administration and seizure of businesses” (art. 2).
In this regard, when defining “preventive measures,” art. 1 of the Convention shows how broad the commitment undertaken is, since it extends to “procedures or measures whose purpose is to guarantee the findings or effects of a pending or future proceeding concerning the security of persons, property, or of obligations to give, to do or not do a specific thing in civil, commercial or labor matters, or in criminal trials in which civil damages are sought.”
Consistent with the breadth of the commitment undertaken by the States Parties to the Convention, the Convention establishes that: “When an attachment or any other preventive measure involving property has been executed, the person affected by this measure may plead his third-party claim or pertinent objections before the judge to whom the letter rogatory was addressed, for the sole purpose of having that claim communicated to the judge of origin when the letter rogatory is returned to him. …The objection shall be heard by the judge of the principal proceedings, in conformity with his law” (art. 5, emphasis added).
The Convention allows the State of destination to refuse to enforce the measures only when: “the party affected justifies the absolute lack of grounds for the measure (or when) . . . the judge of the State of execution may lift such measure in accordance with his own law” (art. 4), and when the measures “. . . are manifestly contrary to its public policy” (art. 12).
(8) In this regard, it does not appear that the preventive measures requested in the letter rogatory are “manifestly contrary” to our legal system, considering that the procedural rules that govern the subject expressly establish: “Preventive measures shall be ordered and executed without an adversarial hearing. No interlocutory motion filed by the party affected by the measure may stop execution” (art. 198 of the Argentine Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure).
Further support for this conclusion comes from the fact that both the convention on international judicial cooperation and our domestic legal system precisely distinguish between the characteristics of the debate that may be raised regarding these kinds of measures and those that may be raised when ordering enforcement of the judgment.
The Convention is clear in this regard, ordering: “The execution of preventive measures by a judge or court of the State of destination shall not entail any commitment to recognize and execute the foreign judgment that may have been rendered in the proceeding concerned” (art. 6).
Along the same lines, art. 517 of the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code of Procedure, among other requirements for enforcing a foreign judgment, requires: “that the judgment does not affect the principles of Argentine public policy” (paragraph 4), and “that the defendant against whom the judgment is to be enforced has been summoned in person and that his right to be heard has been guaranteed” (paragraph 2). Based on the
the characteristics of a preventive-measure proceeding, this last requirement need not be met to order such a measure.
Therefore, considering the opinion of the Attorney General of Argentina, the extraordinary appeal, as well as the separate petition for review of denied appeal, is denied, with costs. The deposit on page 3 bis of the direct presentation is declared lost. Proceed to close and file the case. Notify the parties and returned the record in the principal case to the lower court.
[Signature] Carlos S. Fayt
Extraordinary appeal filed by Chevron Argentina S.R.L., represented by Francisco Javier Romano; and by Ingeniero Norberto Priú S.R.L., represented by Julio César Rivera, assisted by Osvaldo Alfredo Gozaini, Ricardo Augusto Nissen, and León Carlos Arslanian. Service answered by María Aguinda Salazar et al., represented by Martín Beretervide, assisted by Carlos María Rotman, Rodolfo A. Ramírez, and Enrique Bruchou. Court of origin: Court of Civil Appeals, Recess Division. Court that preceded: Court of Civil Appeals, First Division.
A. 253. A. 238. RECURSO Aguinda medidas
XLIX. XLIX. DE HECHO Sala zar, Maria el Chevron precautorias.
Vistos ration los autos: "Aguinda Salazar,
cl Chevron Corpo-
precautorias".
Considerando: l°) Que las firmas ro Roberto curso feria Priú Chevron Argentina Aps S.R.L., Ingeniere-
S. R.L.; CDC Aps contra Nacional
y CDHC
extraordinario de la Cámara
la sala de que, al
de Apelaciones dispuso
en lo Civil la ejecución ordenadas de
confirmar versas
la de primera
instancia, contra
de dipor el Relos
precautorias de y
sus bienes Provincial fue
presidente pública del
subrogante Ecuador
Sucumbíos, a
tribunales ricana
de la Convención Cautelares concedido, al caso
Interame-
sobre el Cumplimiento El recurso
(CIDIP-II). en lo concerdel arto 5° de
fue parcialmente y aplicación en cuanto de
la Convención en la doctrina
y fue rechazado de la
a los agravios sentencias. En
fundados relación
arbitrariedad la demandada
con este último te recurso
el correspondien-
de queja por ante el Tribunal. 2°) Que en el pleito ha sido controvertida la inteliinterha sido de 14,
de diversas en materia
cláusulas procesal que se
de un tratado -CIDIP-II-
nacional contraria modo que
y la sentencia ha fundado
al derecho el recurso
la recurrente ajusta a las
en ellas, del art.
previsiones 276:327
inc. 3° de la ley 48 (Fallos: 118:127;
y 319:2411).
no son sentencias párrafo,
vas, en los términos
del arto 14, primer que deben puede
de la ley 48, a tales cuando
esta Corte ha entendido el derecho invocado
ser equiparadas
en la oportunidad tiene cauteun
en que se invoca, por exclusivo lares. Además,
como es el caso, puesto la cooperación
que la CIDIP-II de medidas
objeto esa
equiparación o imposible
se justifica reparación
se irroga
perjuicio ocurre embargo
tal como del
en el caso dispuesto.
El adecuado rio resolver de manera
tratamiento conjunta
necesaconcela de-
extraordinario que hiciera
dido por mandada contra
el a qua y la presentación en relación con el resto
el fallo apelado. 3°) Que el sistema creado por la Convención de cada uno establece Estados
el deber Parte por de
que dar de
tribunales a las Parte podrá
cumplimiento otro Estado
cautelares con la
decretadas importante "sean
(art. 2°), rehusar
de que este último contrarias esta del
a su orden públicon ha resuelto proceso el
(art. 12) ocasiones 18 de la
4°) Que que el principio
Corte debido integra
en diversas (art.
adjetivo público
Consti tución argentino, 328:3193),
internacional penal (Fallos: de
no solo en procedimientos sino también en aquellos
de carácter que versan
RECURSO Aguinda medidas
Sala zar, María precautorias.
contenido patrimonial (Fallos: 319:2411). En este último pronunciamiento señaló que a dicho principio "debe conformarse no sólo todo procedimiento jurisdiccional que se lleve a cabo en jurisdicción argentina, sino también todo procedimiento que se concluya en la sentencia o resolución dictada por autoridad judicial extranjera con efectos extraterritoriales en la República Argentina
(Fallos: 319:2411, considerando 5°). 5°) Que, tal como lo pone de resalto la señora Procu-
radora General y se desprende de la rogatoria emitida por el
tribunal ecuatoriano, se trata en autos de medidas cautelares
dispuestas en el procedimiento de ejecución de una sentencia dictada en Ecuador por el cual se condenó a la firma Chevron Corporation a pagar la suma de U$S 19.021.552.000 (fs. 1/1
vta.). En dicho proceso se decidió también que los efectos del fallo se extendian a las sociedades subsidiarias de Chevron Corporation, en particular a las aqui demandadas Chevron Argentina SRL e Ingeniero Roberto Priú, y los titulares de sus cuotas sociales (fs. 201 y sgtes.)
Está fuera de controversia, asimismo, que las socie-
dades apelantes no han tenido participación en el pleito seguido contra Chevron Corporation y que son personas jurídicas distintas cuyos patrimonios se ha decidido unificar con el de esa firma a los efectos de ejecutar la indemnización. En efecto, según puede leerse en los fundamentos de la resolución dictada por el juez del Estado requirente, las medidas cautelares contra las sociedades constituidas en la República Argentina y los titulares de sus cuotas sociales fueron tomadas sobre la base de la
del "levantamiento juridica",
del velo punto
societario sobre
y desestimación dice
trado, no
el magisse encuen-
tra ya ejecutoriada" 6°) Que nalidad juridica
(fs. 201). la decisión carácter de declarar excepcional inoponible en nuestro la persoderecho y
solo puede la ley tanto
ser tornada bajo la Ley
ciertas de
establecidas Asimismo,
por en que
(art. 54 de la personalidad no solo
es un derecho sino también contratado
de la sociedad atiende
protege timas sitivo
su patrimonio, de quienes no puede via han
a los legieste dispo-
ser puesto o
en práctica incidental,
sin la previa de un proceso
sustanciación, contradictorio 7°) el criterio
con efectiva Por
de defensa. aplicable precedente tornada por sobre al de sub lite
consiguiente, en el que ya
resulta citado
319:2411, del las
concluir imponer
la justicia bienes de sin
cautelares razón de
juridica, que
las ha privado integran
de este derecho,
(arts. 17 y 18
de la Constitución miento
que obsta al cumpli-
de la carta rogatoria. Por otra parte, al haberse
sido ya
A. 253. XLIX. A. 238. XLIX.
Aguinda medidas Salazar, Maria precautorias.
caso el arto
5°, primer
párra-
fo, de la Convención, que libró el exhorto
en tanto remite la decisión
a la jurisdicción tercerias
u oposiciones
afectadas con
por las medidas. por la señora se
Por ello, Procuradora declara
lo dictaminado se hace lugar
de la Nación, el recurso Con
a la queja,
extraordinario costas.
sin efecde
to la sentencia
el depósito los autos.
DI51-//ENRIQUE S. PETRACCHI
, , ,\
A. 253. XLIX. A. 238. XLIX. RECURSO DE HECHO
Aguinda medidas
Salazar, Maria precautorias.
Considerando: 1 0) feria Que contra Nacional la sentencia dictada por la sala de
en lo Civil instancia sobre
el 29 de y dispu-
enero de 2013, que confirmó so la traba las empresas CDC de diversas Chevron Aps
la de la anterior precautorias S.R. L.,
sus bienes, Roberto Priú
Argentina Aps,
Ingeniero recurso
S. R. L.,
extraordinaa la insobre respecaspec-
rio, que fue parcialmente terpretación del arto
(CIDIP) y denegado
to de la tacha de arbitrariedad to sobre el cual se dedujo bunal. 2°) Que de medidas el la decisión
de dicho pronunciamiento,
queja ante el Tri-
a curso carta
a la traba por
solicitada de la
-mediante Corte
rogatoriade
Sucumbíos, convención
del Ecuador, judicial Que las
de cooperación 3 0) tencia
internacional. recurrentes al agraviarse contra la sen-
adujeron,
entre otros motivos, habían
que las medidas en un pleito par-
cautelares dirigido
que las afectaban contra dado Chevron que, de
sido dispuestas en el cual se
Corporation según la
no tuvieron de
ticipación, jurídicas Ecuador,
expusieron, corporación
distintas a las que
se les había
que, manifestó
del "levantael magistra-
societario"
a fs. 201 "se
ya ejecutoriada". del Tribunal que
4') Que las decisiones
las ordenen,
es reiterada
modifiquen o
revoquen no
ya fuere que
sentencia de-
finitiva por
a los efectos 14 de ley
de la admisibilidad 48 (Fallos: 310:681;
del recurso 313:116;
regulado y
327:5068
329:440,
Que, no se
observan del
motivos al
que se ha hecho referencia
en el considerando conforme
6') Que ello es así porque el Tribunal ción~ a él "... le corresponde los tratados -en
lo ha establecido de su jurisdicel país está de
internacionales podría implicar
vinculado ... ya que lo contrario la Nación "Giroldi") 7') Que ricana que sus sobre el los Estados frente
(Fallos: 318:514,
de la Convención Cautelares
Interamedispusieron a las de ten-
autoridades cautelares Parte,
jurisdiccionales que, "... decretadas
darán por
medidas otro
o tribunales
gan por objeto:
[... ] de medidas tales necesarias para garan-
b. El cumplimiento tizar la seguridad
como embargos
y secues-
A. 253. A. 238. RECURSO
XLIX. XLIX. DE HECHO
Sala zar, Maria precautorias.
y muebles,
y administración A tal efecto
e intervención el arto
de empresas"
(arto 2°) o al referirse por Rmedi-
l° de la Convención
a qué debe das
entenderse, pone
a los fines de su aplicación, en evidencia a Rtodo la amplitud del
cautelares" dado que
asumido tienda
a garantizar en cuanto
las resultas a la seguridad de dar,
de las personas, o no hacer
o de las obligaciones fica, en procesos penales
una cosa especilaboral y en
de naturaleza en cuanto
comercial, civil".
En un sentido so asumido pone medida que:
correlativo firmantes
del compromiésta disotra por
por los estados RCuando
de la convención, embargo o
cualquier afectada
esa medida horto
podrá deducir rogatoria, de que
ante el juez al cual se le libro el exla terceria sea comunicada u oposición al juez pertinente con
el único volvérsele
al de-
el exhorto ... La oposición conforme a sus leyes"
se sustanciará
por el juez de agregado) o los suaquellos
(art. 5°, énfasis
La norma puestos casos de de
restringe, el Estado
únicamente, requerido a
inaplicabilidad Rel afectado (en los dicha
justifique juez
la absoluta del Estado con de
improcedencia cumplimiento ley" (arto a su
la medida levantar
que) ... el
4) Y cuando
las medidas (arto 12) o
R... sean manifiestamente
orden público"
8') Que en este punto
las medidas cautelares contraria" requerida a nuestro
en la rogatoria
que la traba
resulte las
"maninormas
procesales "Las medidas
se decretarán incidente
y cumplirán planteado
sin audien-
cia de la otra parte. tario Código de la medida Procesal
por el destina(art. 198 del
su cumplimiento" de la Nación) .
Tal conclusión tanto
se robustece cooperación
si se tiene en cuenta internacional
que puede plantearse
de este de dis-
tipo de medidas ponerse
y la que se desarrollará de la sentencia. la Convención de medidas no implicará extranjera en este cautelares el
la ejecución Es clara
aspecto por
dispojurisy
ne: "El cumplimiento diccional ejecutar ceso." requerido la sentencia (art. 6')
que se dictare
en el mismo pro-
En un sentido cesal Civil y Comercial
ra que una sentencia
concordante de la Nación,
el arto 517 del Código entre otros requisitos
ejecutarse, exige:
sentencia argentino" pretende y se haya
los principios la parte
de orden público demandada contra
del derecho la que se
(inc. 4) y "que
sido personalmente
su defensa"
(inc. 2), extremo,
este últi-
253. 238.
XLIX. XLIX.
Salazar, María precautorias.
no se exige para ordenar habiendo dictaminado
una medida la señora
de esa naturaleza. Procuradora Geneplanpor
Por ello, ral
de la Nación, con costas,
se desestima asi como la
el recurso queja que
extraordinario corre agregada
teado, cuerda. tación guese gen.
Declárase directa
de fs. 3 bis de la presena su archivo. al tribunal Notifide ori-
procédase principal
Recurso extraordinario interpuesto por Chevron Argentina S.R.L, representada por el Dr. Francisco Javier Romano; y por Ingeniero Norberto Priú S.R.L, representada por el Dr. Julio César Rivera, con el patrocinio letrado de los Dres. Osvaldo Alfredo Gozaíni, Ricardo Augusto Nissen y León Carlos Arslanian. Traslado contestado por María Aguinda Salazar y otros, Dr. Martín Beretervide, con el patrocinio de los Dres. Rodolfo A. Ramírez y Enrique Bruchou. Tribunal de origen: Cámara Nacional de Apelaciones representados Carlos María por el Rotman,
en lo Civil, Sala de Feria. de Apelaciones en lo
Tribunal que intervino Civil, Sala I.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To Argentine Supreme Court Ruling (English Translation) in Aguinda v Chevron, Lifting Embargo that had been obtained against Chevron in attempted enforcement actionSkip carouselAsesores Comer CIA Les s.r.l Expte 1588Programa Jurisprudencia Actualizada de La CNCPepoca4Tribunal Superior Do Trabalho Tribunal Pleno Resolução Nº 203, De 15 de Março de 2016racionalismo juridicoepoca2Sistema de Consulta de Tesis y Jurisprudencia Del Tfjfa. Listado de Tesis (2)glosario 9662 - 2016Retroactividad de La Norma Tributaria y sprograma_tributacion_y_empresa_V2013.docGlosas sobre Federico de CastroLey de Casacion.pdfDoc2_.docxproyecto de tesis civilProspecto Curso Jurisprudencia CSJNDoc TrinaLEY 144 de 1994 Por La Cual Se Establece El Procedimiento de Pérdida de La Investidura de Los Congresistas[1]e17_indPrueba ResultadosDiapositiva Grado de Abogadoborrar 4Curso de Tributacionnulidad de los contratosJurisprudencias sobre Litis Abierta al año 2014SyllabusCassagne, Juan Carlos. Las grandes líneas de la evolución de la responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado en la juriritos processuaisSelección de Jurisprudencia TcTJ-RS_AI_70068617414_05d37Cuadro Comparativo RecursosDocuments About Crime & JusticeSkip carouselNew York State crime statistics by countyOfficers killed stats from FBIKansas Wing CommandersMorton County ArrestsChicago-Cook County Violence StatsRiley v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2002)T5 B2 Garcia- Mike Fdr- ICE Academy- 7-17-03 Curriculum 100Aug Final Layoff ReportMore From Roger ParloffSkip carouselUSA v Apple - Order Denying Stay, Feb 10, 2014USA v AppleUSA v AppleUSA v Apple-Dkt 424-Michael Bromwich DeclarationUSA v AppleYaiguaje v Chevron-Court of Appeal for Ontario-December 17, 2013 USA v AppleCascades v RPX et al.USA v AppleUSA v AppleUSA v AppleUSA v AppleUSA v AppleUSA v AppleUSA v AppleAguinda v Chevron - Ecuadorian Supreme Court rulingLigon v City of New York (stop and frisk case) Chevron v Donziger - CVX letter re witnessesHearst v Aereo - D. Mass ruling for AereoChevron v DonzigerChevron v DonzigerChevron v Donziger - Chevron's Waiver of Damages Naranjo v Chevron - Ruling - Denial of MandamusCollective Claims ExamplesChevron-Ecuador BIT Tribunal OrderAmazon Defense Front press release mistakenly republished by the Chamber of Commerce Foundation, then cited as authority by the FrontChevron v Donziger Doc 1415Chevron v Donziger, Dkt 1407Jackson v DeenUSA v Qazi - DoJ on its FISA bulk surveillance notice requirements Footer MenuAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersSocial MediaCopyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Mobile Site.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaSign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadFooter MenuAboutAbout ScribdPressOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsSupportHelp / FAQAccessibilityPurchase helpAdChoicesPublishersLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightSocial MediaCopyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. .Browse Books.Mobile Site.Site Directory.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaClose DialogAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOKClose DialogGet the full title to continueGet the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.Restart preview{{ title }}{[ if (!is_document) { ]}{[ } ]}{[ if (is_article || is_issue) { ]}from {{ publication.name }}{[ } else { ]}{[ if (typeof authors !== 'undefined' && authors.length) { ]}{[ if (!is_document) { ]}by {[ } else { ]}uploaded by {[ } ]}{[ for (var i=0; i < authors.length; i++) { ]}{[ if (i > 0) { ]}, {[ } ]}{{ authors[i].name }}{[ } ]}{[ } else { ]}{{ publisher.name }}{[ } ]}{[ } ]}{{ length }}{[ if (download_url) { ]}Download{[ } ]}{{ title }}List{{ formatted_count }}View List