Case Law
Available documents (29)
sorted by (Date of decision descending) Add to selection
Quick view
Refine your search
Colombia / 08 May 2019 / Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) / Sociedad Gran Colombia Gold Segovia Sucursal Colombia v. Estyma Estudios y Manejos S.A., Latinoamericana de Construcciones S.A. and Mincivil S.A. / 05001-22-03-000-2019-00088-01
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 08 May 2019 Parties Sociedad Gran Colombia Gold Segovia Sucursal Colombia v. Estyma Estudios y Manejos S.A., Latinoamericana de Construcciones S.A. and Mincivil S.A. Case number 05001-22-03-000-2019-00088-01 Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5502&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 08 May 2018 Parties Vertical de Aviación SAS v. AAL Group Limited Case number 97824 Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Languages Spanish reverses : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5676&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 23 March 2018 Parties Innovation Worldwide DMCC v. Carboexco C.I. Ltda. Case number 11001-02-03-000-2017-00080-00 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | III | IV | V | V(1) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Languages Spanish Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5166&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 29 January 2018 Parties Vertical de Aviación SAS v. AAL Group Limited Case number 49784 Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Languages Spanish reversed by : see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=5675&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 30 October 2017 Parties AAL Group Limited v. Vertical de Aviación SAS Case number 11001-02-03-000-2016-03300-00 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4416&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 20 June 2017 Parties Andrés Valencia Montaño Case number 11001-02-03-000-2013-00573-00 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(2) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4414&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 24 May 2017 Parties Petrotesting Colombia S.A., Southeast Investment Corporation v. Ross Energy S.A.S. Case number 11001-02-03-000-2012-02952-00 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4413&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 18 April 2017 Parties Geofundaciones SAS and Bauer Fundaciones Colombia SAS, integrantes del Consorcio Geo Bauer v. Construcciones y Trituraciones SA de CV, Ingenieros Civiles Asociados SA de CV and Estyma Estudios Manejos SA, integrantes del Consorcio CICE Case number 11001-0203-000-2016-01312-00 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4411&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 24 June 2016 Parties HTM LLC v. Fomento de Catalizadores Foca S.A.S. Case number 11001-02-03-000-2014-02243-00 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(1) | III | IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | IV(2) | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(c) | V(1)(d) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4408&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 19 November 2013 Parties Poligráfica C.A. v. Columbia Tecnología Ltda. Case number 11001-0203-000-2008-00317-00 Applicable NYC Provisions IV | IV(1) | IV(1)(a) | IV(1)(b) | VII | VII(1) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4406&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 21 May 2013 Parties William Joseph Collins and Piedad Morales Hoyos Case number 11001-02-03-000-2010-00028-00 Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4405&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 03 May 2012 Parties Drummond Ltd v. Ferrovias en Liquidacion, Ferrocariles Nacionales de Colombia S.A. Case number 1100102030002008-01760-00 Applicable NYC Provisions III | V Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=4404&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 19 December 2011 Parties Drummond Ltd v Ferrovias en Liquidacion, Ferrocariles Nacionales de Colombia S.A. (FENOCO) Case number 11001-0203-000-2008-01760-00 Applicable NYC Provisions V | V(1) | V(1)(b) | V(2) | V(2)(a) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary On 13 September 1991, Drummond and Ferrovias entered into a contract for private transportation which contained an arbitration agreement providing for ICC arbitration in Paris. On 9 September 1999, Ferrovias and Fenoco concluded a concession contract. On 24 June 2003, an arbitral tribunal issued a partial arbitral award deciding on jurisdiction. On 25 July 2005, it issued another partial award and the final award was issued on 10 June 2006. Drummond sought to enforce the award in Colombia. Fenoco opposed enforcement on the grounds that the award dealt with rights over property located in Colombia, subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Colombian Courts, that the award violated Colombian public policy, that the award dealt with a matter beyond the arbitration agreement and that the proceeding violated due process. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) granted enforcement of the award. It first noted that both Colombia and France were parties to the NYC, which was thus applicable. It added that Article V NYC impedes the parties to raise grounds other than those contained in that Article. Regarding Fenoco's argument that the award related to rights over property located in Colombia, the Corte Suprema de Justicia rejected the argument, holding that it was not a ground for non enforcement as foreseen by the NYC. Regarding Fenoco's argument that the arbitral award violated Colombian public policy, the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that 'public policy' within the meaning of the NYC cannot be the same as in a national context. Public policy under the NYC relates to fundamental principles such as good faith, prohibition of abuse of rights, and due process. As such, a violation of a mandatory rule of the State where enforcement is sought cannot in itself amount to a violation of public policy. In the present case, the Court held that no violation of the fundamental rules of Colombia had occurred. The arbitral tribunal had limited its orders to execute the contract at hand. On Fenoco's argument that the arbitral tribunal had issued fines in violation of public policy, the Court held that an act contrary to a rule of public law has to be of such magnitude as to impede the award's enforcement in Colombia. The Court held that this was not the case. Regarding Fenoco's argument that, in accordance with French law, arbitration with public entities is not permitted and therefore, the reciprocity requirement was not complied with, the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that the reciprocity requirement had been complied with as both countries are parties to the NYC. Regarding Fenoco's argument that the arbitral award had dealt with a subject matter that falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Colombian Courts and therefore the award's enforcement would be contrary to Article V(2)(a) NYC, the Court recalled that an arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of an administrative act. But it noted that in the present case, the arbitral tribunal had dealt with a contractual dispute which was arbitrable. On Fenoco's argument that the award had been rendered in violation of due process (Article V(1)(b) NYC), the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that service of process was intended to let the respondent know about the proceedings so that it can present its defense. However there is no formal requirement for service of process. The Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that Ferrovias participated to the arbitral proceeding and that Colombian minimum guarantees had been respected as Ferrovias had the opportunity to present its defense. It dismissed Fenoco’s arguments. see also : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=506&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 14 October 2011 Parties Ernesto Reuter v Guiomar Aguado Rojas Case number 11001-0203-000-1999-07858-01 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary An individual requested the recognition of the judgment of a Luxembourg tribunal rendered on 29 December 1984 which granted a divorce. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied enforcement to the decision. The Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that no agreement was in force between Colombia and Luxembourg with respect to family matters. The Court noted that the sole convention in force in the two States is the NYC but the Corte Suprema de Justicia held that it did not apply in the present case. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=505&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 27 July 2011 Parties Petrotesting Colombia SA & Southeast Investment Corporation v Ross Energy S.A. Case number 11001-0203-000-2007-01956-00 Applicable NYC Provisions II | IV | V | V(1) | V(1)(a) | V(1)(b) | V(1)(e) | V(2) | V(2)(b) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary On 28 June 2001, the parties entered into a Consortium agreement containing an arbitration agreement providing for the American Association Arbitration (AAA) in New York. A dispute arose and on 19 June 2006, an award was rendered in favor of Petrotesting against Ross Energy. Petrotesting sought to enforce the arbitral award in Colombia pursuant to Law No. 315 of 1996, Decree No. 1818 of 1998, and the NYC. Ross Energy opposed enforcement on various grounds based on Article V NYC. It argued that the award was not properly translated, that a proceeding on the same subject matter was pending before a US Court, that the dispute was not arbitrable as it referred to rights over property located in Colombia, that the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement, that the award violated Colombian public policy, and that it was not properly served notice of the proceeding. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) granted enforcement to the award. It first considered that the reciprocity requirement was fulfiled as both Colombia and the United States are parties to the NYC. Regarding Ross Energy's argument on translation mistakes, the Corte Suprema de Justicia, after taking into account several testimonies, considered that there was no alteration in the meaning of the award and rejected this argument. With respect to other grounds contained in Article V, the Corte Suprema de Justicia held that it was for the party opposing enforcement to prove that the grounds in Article V(1) NYC are met while the grounds of Article V(2) can be raised sua ponte by the Court. On Ross Energy's argument that a proceeding on the same subject matter as the arbitration proceeding was pending before a US Court, the Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that it was not a ground under Article V NYC. It added that the US proceeding had been dismissed by the US Court because of the existence of an arbitration agreement. The Corte Suprema de Justicia dismissed the argument. On Ross Energy's argument regarding the arbitrability of the dispute (because it concerned rights over property located in Colombia), the Corte Suprema de Justicia held that (i) it was not a ground for non enforcement under Article V NYC and (ii) the award dealt with personal rights. Regarding Ross Energy's argument that the arbitration agreement was not valid (Article V(1)(a) NYC) because Colombian law does not allow the conclusion of arbitration agreements in public contracts, the Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that the arbitration agreement was not in the public contract for oil exploitation but in the Consortium agreement and as such had been validly entered into. On Ross Energy's argument that the award violated public policy (Article V(2)(b) NYC), the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that in private international law, public policy does not refer to the same concept as in the internal law, and the applicable concept here is international public policy, which refers to fundamental principles of the State. The Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that the agreement at stake did not involve any national interests and dismissed the argument. Regarding Ross Energy's argument that it was not properly served notice (Article V(1)(b) NYC), the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that while it did not participate to the arbitration proceedings and was not present at the hearing, no formal requirement existed with regard to service of process and that the absence of the respondent does not in itself invalidate the proceeding. It considered that it was a ground contained in Article V(2)(b) NYC as it relates to due process. As such, the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that the parties had been given an equal opportunity to present their defense: Ross Energy had been aware of the proceeding, it claimed it was not able to present its defense because the proceeding was in English and its financial situation did not allow it for translation but the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that the arbitration agreement provided for English as the language of arbitration. It dismissed the argument. Regarding Ross Energy's argument that the award was rendered beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement because while the arbitration agreement was contained in the Consortium Agreement, the arbitral tribunal ruled over a dispute related to an Operation Agreement, the Corte Suprema de Justicia analyzed the abitration agreement and held that it provided for arbitration for all disputes arising out of the Consortium Agreement and operations taking place under this Consortium agreement. The Corte Suprema de Justicia dismissed the argument. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=504&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 23 May 2011 Parties Nora Cecilia Pedrosa de Villamediana & Luis Guillermo Pedrosa Uribe Case number 11001-0203-000-2007-02058-00 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary Two individuals requested the recognition of the decision rendered by a Venezuelan Court declaring the adoption of the two petitioners by another individual. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied recognition of the decision. It first considered that reciprocity is needed when enforcing a foreign decision. It noted that no bilateral agreement was in force between Colombia and Venezuela regarding decisions related to adoption. The Court considered that the NYC did not apply in the present case as the challenged decision was not an 'arbitral award'. It added that no international treaty was in force between the two States, and that no internal regulation granted enforcement to Colombian decisions in Venezuela. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=503&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 12 May 2011 Parties Pollux Marine Services Corp. v Colfletar Ltda Case number 11001-0203-000-2011-00581-00 Applicable NYC Provisions IV Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary Company Pollux Marine Services Corp. (Pollux Marine) requested recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award rendered on 7 December 2007 in a dispute opposing Pollux Marine and Colfletar Ltda. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied enforcement of the award. It considered that enforcement was subject to requirements under both Article 695 of the Code of civil procedure (that the foreign decision is final in accordance with the laws of the country in which it was obtained and a duly certified and authenticated copy has been presented to the court in Colombia) and Article IV NYC that requires the party seeking enforcement to present a duly authenticated copy of the award, with a translation in the official language of the country where enforcement is sought. The Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that the party seeking enforcement did not comply with these requirements as it had not proved that the award was final in accordance with the law of the country where it was rendered (the petitioner only stated that the award was final in accordance with English law). The Corte Suprema de Justicia added that it did not present any legal translation of the arbitration agreement. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=502&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 19 October 2009 Parties Norma Ruth Cote Alzate v Arend Verstegen Case number 11001-0203-000-2003-00065-02 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary An individual petitioned the Court to enforce the decision granting a divorce on 15 December 1995 in Arnhem in the Netherlands. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied recognition of the decision. It noted that enforcement proceedings result in granting the same effect to foreign decisions as to national ones. For enforcement to be granted, a decision has to comply with substantial and formal requirements. In particular, the Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that no bilateral convention existed between the Netherlands and Colombia. The NYC, invoked by the petitioner, did not apply to the case at hand. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=501&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 17 September 2009 Parties Alexander Peter Van't Hof v Maria del Socorro Munoz Case number 11001-0203-000-2008-00648-00 Applicable NYC Provisions I Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary An individual requested the recognition of the decision which granted a divorce on 19 December 2007, by the Family Court of Holland. The Corte Suprema de Justicia denied recognition of the decision. It considered that no Treaty existing between Colombia and the Netherlands established reciprocity for the recognition and enforcement of decisions. The Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that the NYC did not apply to the recognition and enforcement of a decision in family matters. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=500&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Consejo de Estado Date 22 April 2004 Parties Empresa Colombiana de Vias Ferreas Ferrovias (Colombia) v Drummond Ltd (US) Case number 11001-03-26-000-2003-00034-01(25261) Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | V Source http://www.consejodeestado.gov.co (website of the Consejo de Estado)
Summary An interim award affirming jurisdiction under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) was rendered in Paris on 24 June 2003 in a dispute between Ferrovias and Drummond. On 3 July 2003, Ferrovias sought to set aside the award before the Consejo de Estado (Council of State) in Colombia. On 24 October 2003, the Consejo de Estado held that it lacked jurisdiction over the recourse to set aside the award because the award was rendered in Paris. Ferrovias appealed the decision. It argued that the recognition and enforcement procedure was governed by the law of the State where the award was sought to be enforced pursuant to Article III NYC. Ferrovias contended that the fact that the Consejo de Estado should not infer from the NYC that it lacks jurisdiction over a recourse to set aside awards rendered abroad when the NYC only deals with recognition and enforcement and not annulment of awards. The Consejo de Estado rejected Ferrovias' argument and confirmed that it lacked jurisdiction to set aside an award issued abroad under a foreign lex arbitri. The Consejo de Estado held that the NYC was applicable to the contract because the NYC applied to all disputes between natural or judicial persons without any distinction. The Consejo de Estado considered that the NYC applied to public entities. The Consejo de Estado inferred from Article V(1)(e) NYC that an international award can be supended or set aside but only by the competent authority of the country where the arbitration took place. The Consejo de Estado determined that the seat of arbitration being Paris, it did not have jurisdiction to rule over a recourse to set aside the arbitral award. The Consejo de Estado also doubted whether a recourse to set aside the award would be admissible as the award was not final and only dealt with jurisdictional issues. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=90&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 01 March 1999 Parties Merck & Co Inc. (US), Merck Frosst Canada Inc. & Frosst Laboratories Inc. (Colombia) v Tecnoquimicas S.A. (Colombia) Case number E-7474 Applicable NYC Provisions I | III | V | V(1) | V(1)(d) Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary The parties entered into an agreement containing an arbitration clause providing for arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Newak. Following a dispute, Merck & Co Inc., Merck Frosst Canada Inc. and Frosst Laboratories Inc. initiated an ICC arbitration proceeding on 3 February 1997. On 29 July 1998, a sole arbitrator rendered an award whereby he affirmed his jurisdiction and ordered the Respondent to refrain from pursuing the arbitral proceeding before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota. The ICC Secretariat issued an order whereby it affirmed that the award was final. On 26 January 1999, the Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied enforcement of the award because it was not considered an "award" within the meaning of the NYC. Merck filed a recourse ('recurso de suplica') before the Suprema Corte de Justicia (Supreme Court). The Companies Merck and Frosst filed a recourse against the order of 26 January 1999 rejecting the request for enforcement of the ICC interim award rendered on 29 June 1998. The Corte Suprema de Justicia held that no enforcement should be granted to the award and confirmed the decision of 26 January 1999. The Suprema Corte de Justicia noted that the 26 January 1999 decision did not refer to the ICC Rules with respect to the enforcement proceedings. It considered that the two are different: the enforcement proceeding has to comply with the rules of the State where enforcement is sought, in accordance with the NYC. The Corte Suprema de Justicia analyzed Article I(1) NYC as applying to awards which finally or partially settle disputes between legal or natural persons. However the Corte Suprema de Justicia held that in the present case, the award affirmed the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and ordered Tecnoquimicas to refrain from continuing the arbitral proceedings it had initiated before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota without settling the dispute on the merits. The Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that, under the NYC, "arbitral awards" substantially put an end to the arbitral proceeding and settle the dispute. affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=86&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 26 January 1999 Parties Merck & Co Inc. (US), Merck Frosst Canada Inc., Frosst Laboratories Inc. (Colombia) v Tecnoquimicas S.A. (Colombia) Case number 7474 Applicable NYC Provisions I | I(1) | III Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary A dispute arose between the companies Merck and Frosst on the one hand and Tecnoquimicas on the other. The contracts entered into by the parties provided for arbitration under the auspices of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). A sole arbitrator, nominated by the ICC, issued an interim award on jurisdiction on 29 July 1998. The sole arbitrator held that the arbitration agreements were valid, that he had jurisdiction over the dispute and ordered Tecnoquimicas to refrain from pursuing the arbitral proceedings it had started before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota. Merck and Frosst requested enforcement of the award in Colombia. By decision of 12 November 1998, the sole Justice at the Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied recognition. The Claimants appealed. On appeal, the Corte Suprema de Justicia confirmed and dismissed the application for recognition of the award. It first affirmed that it is for the enforcing judge to exercize control over the arbitral award, and in particular to verify that he had jurisdiction. The Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that the control must be made in accordance with international conventions (the NYC) and as subsidiary matter, with national law. The Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that both the United States and Colombia are parties to the NYC, and hence that it is applicable to the present case. The Corte Suprema de Justcia recalled the requirements set forth in the NYC. However, it noted that the NYC did not define the word "award". It considered that "award" should be construed in acccordance with the spirit of the NYC. It defined an "arbitral award" as a decision of arbitrators putting an end to an arbitral proceeding by deciding over the dispute. The Corte Suprema de Justicia noted that Article I(1) NYC adopted a substantial criterion in stating that it applies to awards "arising out of differences between persons", thus considering that not all arbitral decisions are enforceable but only those which decide a dispute. The Corte Suprema de Justicia concluded that an "arbitral award" within the meaning of the NYC does not include an award on jurisdiction. affirmed by : affirms : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=85&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 12 November 1998 Parties Merck & Co. Inc., Frosst, Frosst Laboratories Inc. v Sociedad Tecnoquimicas SA Case number Exp. No. 7394 Source http://www.cortesuprema.gov.co (website of the Corte Suprema de Justicia)
Summary On 23 June 1986, the companies Merck and Frosst entered into various contracts with the Colombian company Tecnoquimicas. The contracts contained an arbitration agreement providing for ICC arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties and the companies Merck and Frosst filed a Request of arbitration on 3 February 1997 before the ICC. Tecnoquimicas filed a Request for arbitration before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota on 7 March 1997. On 29 July 1998, the ICC sole arbitrator rendered an interim award holding that the arbitration agreements were valid, and that he had jurisdiction over the dispute. He ordered Tecnoquimicas to refrain from pursuing the arbitral proceeding it had started before the Chamber of Commerce of Bogota. The arbitrator did not rule on the merits. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court) denied recognition to the arbitral award. The Corte Suprema de Justicia considered that the requirements for recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award are set in Article 695 of the Code of civil procedure. It considered that recognition of a foreign decision can only occur when the decision is final, i.e., when it is a decision on the merits. The Corte Suprema de Justicia added that this principle was not diminished by the NYC which refers to "arbitral awards". The Corte Suprema de Justicia noted, pursuant to the award itself, that it was not final pending a definitive outcome on the merits. affirmed by : Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=435&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original LanguageAdobe Acrobat PDF
Country Colombia Court Colombia, Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court of Justice) Date 20 November 1992 Parties Sunward Overseas SA v Servicios Maritimos Limitada Semar (Colombia) Case number 472 Applicable NYC Provisions II | II(2) | III Summary Semar Maritimos chartered a vessel owned by Sunward Overseas to carry a cargo of 10,000 tons of maize from El Savador to Colombia. Following a dispute on the value of the cargo, on 17 February 1988, an award was rendered in New York in favor of Sunward Overseas. A US District Court granted leave for enforcement. Sunward then requested enforcement of the award before the Corte Suprema de Justicia (Supreme Court). The Corte Suprema de Justicia granted enforcement, applying both national law and the requirements of the NYC. It first held that Articles 693 and 694 of the Colombian code of civil procedure required that the State where the decision was rendered gives the same recognition and enforcement to decisions rendered in Colombia. In the present case, the Corte Suprema de Justicia held that it was the case since both the United States and Colombia have ratified and implemented the NYC. The Corte Suprema de Justicia then noted that one of the effects of the NYC is the binding character of the arbitration agreement as intended by Article II NYC. The Corte Suprema de Justicia acknowledged that the award was binding within the meaning of Article III NYC. The Corte Suprema de Justicia then examined the conditions set forth by the NYC and established that no objection could be made to the enforcement of the award: the dispute arose out of commercial rights, the award was not contrary to public policy, and the dispute was not of exclusive jurisdiction of Colombian Courts. Link to the record https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=84&opac_view=2 Attachment (1)
Original PendingAdobe Acrobat PDF
