Data

Date:
17-10-2022
Country:
Paraguay
Number:
122
Court:
Tribunal de Apelación en lo Civil, Comercial y Laboral – Sexta Sala
Parties:
Consorcio Asunción v. MOPC-Estado Paraguayo

Keywords

DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO PARAGUAYAN PARTIES - APPLICATION OF THE PARAGUAYAN ARBITRATION LAW - REFERENCE TO THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES IN ORDER TO CONFIRM THAT THE SOLUTION ADOPTED UNDER THE APPLICABLE DOMESTIC LAW WAS IN CONFORMITY WITH INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS

Abstract

The present case concerns a request to set aside an arbitration award for excess of the arbitrators' powers, violation of due process rights and violation of public policy.

The Appellate Court acknowledged that applicable Paraguayan Arbitration Law contemplates limited grounds for the annulment of arbitral awards and the request for annulment is not an opportunity to revisit the merits of the decision or a sort of appeal instance. Therefore, national judges are not allowed to deliberate or correct any matters related to the merits of the decision or the positions taken by the arbitrators on the issues brought to their attention.

To support its arguments, the Court mentioned the role of international organizations such as UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and leading arbitral institutions such as ICC, LCIA, AAA, and CIAC in harmonizing legislation and providing a stable framework for arbitration. These efforts were recognized by the Paraguayan legislation, which adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, unifying its annulment grounds to those recognized internationally.

Regarding UNIDROIT’s work, the Appellate Court recalled that UNIDROIT was created under the auspices of the League of Nations with the objective of promoting the harmonization and unification of private international law in line with the period’s increasing liberalization of commerce and process of​ economic integration. As to the UNIDROIT Principles, it highlighted that they are widely used in the today's trade, even when they do not serve as a source of inspiration for States’ hard law.

As to the merits of the dispute, the Court of Appeal concluded that none of the grounds contemplated in Art. 40 of the Paraguayan Arbitration Law were met and rejected the request for annulment of the award.

Fulltext

}}

Source

}}