Portugal / 08 June 2010 / Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) / 243/10.9YRLSB-7
| Country | Portugal |
| Court | Portugal, Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) |
| Date | 08 June 2010 |
| Case number | 243/10.9YRLSB-7 |
| Applicable NYC Provisions | III |
| Source |
http://www.dgsi.pt (official website of the Instituto de Gestão Financeira e Equipamentos da Justiça I.P.) |
| Languages | English |
| Summary | Company T obtained a favourable award in an arbitration in Zurich under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce. In seeking to enforce the award before the Juízo de Execução de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Enforcement), Company T claimed that, under both the NYC and the Portuguese Arbitration Act, the award was immediately and automatically enforceable. The Juízo de Execução de Lisboa denied enforcement of the arbitral award on the ground that the award can only be enforced after having been confirmed and recognised by a competent Portuguese court. Company T appealed to the Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa (Lisbon Court of Appeal) on the grounds that the NYC should prevail over Portuguese procedural law and Article III NYC draws a parallel between foreign arbitral awards and domestic arbitral awards. Specifically, Company T maintained that Article III NYC provides that foreign arbitral awards should face no more onerous conditions for recognition and enforcement than domestic arbitral awards. As such, because there is no requirement that domestic arbitral awards be recognised prior to being enforced, foreign arbitral awards should benefit from the same treatment under the principle of equivalence. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa affirmed the decision of the Juízo de Execução de Lisboa, thereby denying enforcement of the arbitral award. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa noted that even though the NYC is in force in Portugal, a foreign arbitral award is not automatically enforceable, but must go through a prior process of review and recognition by the competent court. It analysed Articles I and III NYC and held that enforcement and recognition of an arbitral award are different in nature, and, as such, should be resolved by different courts. The Tribunal da Relação de Lisboa further held that while Portugal was committed to ensuring that the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is carried out in accordance with the NYC, the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards made in another Contracting State is not automatic, and must be carried out pursuant to procedural rules of Portuguese law. |
Attachment (1)
 Original Language Adobe Acrobat PDF |
