Portugal / 19 March 2009 / Portugal, Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice) / 299/09
| Country | Portugal |
| Court | Portugal, Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice) |
| Date | 19 March 2009 |
| Case number | 299/09 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | III |
| Source |
Registry of the Court |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Company S (a Belgian company) obtained a favourable award against Company P in an arbitration in Zurich under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. Company S subsequently sought to enforce the award before the Juízo Cível de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of First Instance). Company P opposed enforcement on the ground that the award had not been previously recognised in Portugal pursuant to the Portuguese Code of Civil Procedure. The Juízo Cível de Lisboa decided in favour of Company P and denied enforcement of the award. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal). Company S filed an appeal with the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice). The Supremo Tribunal de Justiça granted enforcement of the award. It noted that pursuant to Article III NYC, Portugal recognises and enforces arbitral awards rendered in another Contracting State pursuant to the applicable rules found in Portuguese domestic law. It further noted that the arbitral award dealt with rights of a private nature and was issued by an arbitral tribunal seated in a Contracting State. The Supremo Tribunal de Justiça therefore held that, given the above and in light of the “principle of equivalence”, the status accorded to a domestic arbitral award should also be accorded to a foreign arbitral award, thereby making it unnecessary for a foreign award to be reviewed and confirmed. It analysed the first sentence of Article III and noted that while it showed deference to the procedural rules of the enforcing jurisdiction, it should nonetheless be considered in conjunction with the second sentence of Article III NYC which provides that such procedural rules should not impose substantially more onerous conditions or charges on the recognition or enforcement of arbitral awards to which the NYC applies than are imposed on domestic arbitral awards. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
