{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-129818", "citation": "Res. 01184-2009 Sala Primera de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Rechazo de recurso de nulidad de laudo arbitral por imprecisión en las causales", "title_en": "Rejection of arbitral award annulment appeal for imprecision in grounds", "summary_es": "La Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia rechaza un recurso de nulidad contra un laudo arbitral. El recurrente alegó que el laudo contravenía normas de orden público, citando disposiciones sobre exoneraciones, creación del INCOPESCA, Ley de Pesca y un reglamento sobre combustible. Sin embargo, la Sala determina que el recurso carece de la motivación clara y precisa requerida, pues se limita a transcribir normas y afirmar su violación sin demostrar cómo esta causaría nulidad. En análisis de fondo, la Sala reitera que la causal de violación de normas imperativas o de orden público se refiere a materias indisponibles o excluidas del arbitraje por su naturaleza jurídica o por disposición legal, y ninguna de las normas citadas veda la verificación del contrato en cuestión ni regula su ejecución. Por tanto, se rechaza el motivo de disconformidad.", "summary_en": "The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejects an appeal for annulment of an arbitral award. The appellant argued that the award contravened public policy norms, citing provisions on tax exemptions, the creation of INCOPESCA, the Fisheries Law, and a fuel regulation. However, the Chamber finds that the appeal lacks the required clear and precise motivation, merely transcribing norms and asserting their violation without demonstrating how this would cause nullity. On the merits, the Chamber reiterates that the ground of violation of mandatory or public policy norms pertains to matters that are non-arbitrable due to their legal nature or by legislative provision, and none of the cited provisions prohibits the contract at issue or regulates its performance. Thus, the ground of challenge is dismissed.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Primera de la Corte", "date": "2009", "year": "2009", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "recurso de nulidad", "laudo arbitral", "orden público", "normas imperativas", "motivación clara y precisa", "Sala Primera de la Corte", "Ley de RAC artículo 65" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 5", "law": "Ley 7293" }, { "article": "Art. 45", "law": "Ley 7384" }, { "article": "Art. 123", "law": "Ley 8436" } ], "keywords_es": [ "recurso de nulidad", "laudo arbitral", "orden público", "normas imperativas", "motivación", "Sala Primera", "Corte Suprema de Justicia", "arbitraje", "impugnación", "nulidad" ], "keywords_en": [ "annulment appeal", "arbitral award", "public policy", "mandatory norms", "motivation", "First Chamber", "Supreme Court of Justice", "arbitration", "challenge", "nullity" ], "excerpt_es": "El recurrente afirma que el laudo se dictó contraviniendo los numerales 5 de la Ley no. 7293, que regula todas las exoneraciones vigentes; 45 de la no. 7384; 123 de la no. 8436, Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura; así como el Reglamento para la Regulación y control del uso eficiente del combustible a precio competitivo, acuerdo 570-2007, publicado en La Gaceta en febrero de 2008. Empero, no explica o brinda las razones, claras y precisas, de cómo se produjo ese quebranto. Se limita a transcribir esas disposiciones y afirmar su trasgresión. Omite señalar, de manera técnica, la forma en que su violación causa la nulidad del laudo. Se requiere la demostración de la manera en que el laudo incurre en nulidad al resolver el caso en contravención de esos preceptos. Lo anterior imposibilita el conocimiento del recurso y lleva a declarar que, en modo alguno, se produce quebranto a normas imperativas o de orden público.", "excerpt_en": "The appellant claims that the award was rendered in violation of Article 5 of Law No. 7293, which regulates all current exemptions; Article 45 of Law No. 7384; Article 123 of Law No. 8436, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law; as well as the Regulation for the Regulation and Control of Efficient Use of Fuel at Competitive Prices, Agreement 570-2007, published in La Gaceta in February 2008. However, he does not explain or provide clear and precise reasons as to how that breach occurred. He merely transcribes those provisions and asserts their violation. He fails to indicate, in a technical manner, how their violation causes the annulment of the award. It is required to demonstrate how the award incurs in nullity by deciding the case in contravention of those precepts. The foregoing makes it impossible to examine the appeal and leads to the declaration that, in no way, is there a violation of mandatory or public policy norms.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Appeal dismissed", "label_es": "Recurso rechazado", "summary_en": "The First Chamber dismisses the annulment appeal of the arbitral award due to lack of clear and precise motivation, and because the cited norms did not constitute matters excluded from arbitration on public policy grounds.", "summary_es": "La Sala Primera rechaza el recurso de nulidad del laudo arbitral por falta de motivación clara y precisa, y porque las normas invocadas no constituían materia excluida del arbitraje por orden público." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VI", "quote_en": "It is essential that the grounds invoked to support the annulment be clearly and precisely reasoned; furthermore, in those where it is required, the norms alleged to have been violated must be indicated.", "quote_es": "Es imprescindible que las causales invocadas para sustentar la nulidad estén motivadas en forma clara y precisa, además, en aquéllas donde así se imponga, deben indicarse cuáles son las normas alegadas como conculcadas." }, { "context": "Considerando VI", "quote_en": "The appellant claims that the award was rendered in violation of Article 5 of Law No. 7293, ... However, he does not explain or provide clear and precise reasons as to how that breach occurred. He merely transcribes those provisions and asserts their violation.", "quote_es": "El recurrente afirma que el laudo se dictó contraviniendo los numerales 5 de la Ley no. 7293, ... Empero, no explica o brinda las razones, claras y precisas, de cómo se produjo ese quebranto. Se limita a transcribir esas disposiciones y afirmar su trasgresión." }, { "context": "Considerando VII", "quote_en": "The legal concept of public policy is indeterminate, flexible, dynamic, and difficult to define. However, it may be understood as the set of inspiring principles of a legal system reflecting the essential values of a society at a given time.", "quote_es": "El concepto jurídico de orden público es indeterminado, flexible, dinámico y de difícil definición. No obstante, puede entenderse como el conjunto de principios inspiradores de un ordenamiento jurídico reflejo de los valores esenciales de una sociedad en un momento dado." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-32135", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7293 Art. 5" }, { "target_id": "norm-25929", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 7384 Art. 45" }, { "target_id": "norm-54688", "kind": "concept_anchor", "label": "Ley 8436 Art. 123" } ], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-129818", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-25929", "norm_num": "7384", "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del INCOPESCA", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "16/03/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-32135", "norm_num": "7293", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "31/03/1992" }, { "doc_id": "norm-54688", "norm_num": "8436", "norm_name": "Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "01/03/2005" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“VI.- En\r\ntorno a lo relacionado en\r\nel considerando anterior, debe\r\nindicarse que, si bien el recurso\r\nde nulidad no está sujeto a formalidad alguna, debe cumplir\r\ncon ciertas exigencias mínimas. Al respecto, en la sentencia número 346 de las 11 horas 5 minutos del 18 de junio del 2003,\r\nesta Sala, en lo de interés, señaló: “XVII.- ... amén de lo preceptuado por la Ley de RAC en su artículo 65, al señalar que el recurso no estará sujeto a formalidad alguna, salvo la indicación de la\r\ncausa de nulidad en la que se funda, precisamente,\r\nen atención de esto último y, en aras de asegurar una debida\r\ncomprensión de los motivos invocados por la parte recurrente,\r\nlo cual conlleva una protección al derecho de defensa y, en general,\r\nel del debido proceso, sí es pertinente\r\npedir un mínimo de exigencias razonables, no sólo para facilitar\r\nsu estudio por la parte contraria,\r\nsino su resolución\r\npor parte de este Tribunal. En tal\r\nsentido, es imprescindible que las causales invocadas\r\npara sustentar la nulidad estén motivadas\r\nen forma clara y precisa, además, en aquéllas donde así se imponga,\r\ndeben indicarse cuáles son las normas alegadas como conculcadas. … ” En igual sentido, pueden consultarse, entre otros, los fallos\r\nnúmeros 718 de las 15 horas 20 minutos del 27 de septiembre de 2006, 602 de las 9 horas 50 minutos del 17 de agosto de 2007 y 180 de las 8 horas 40 minutos del 13 de marzo de 2008. El presente cargo padece de imprecisión. El recurrente\r\nafirma que el laudo se dictó contraviniendo los numerales 5 de la\r\n Ley no. 7293, que\r\nregula todas las exoneraciones vigentes; 45 de la no. 7384; 123 de la no. 8436, Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura; así como el Reglamento para la\r\n Regulación y control del uso eficiente del combustible a precio competitivo, acuerdo 570-2007, publicado en La Gaceta\r\nen febrero de 2008. Empero,\r\nno explica o brinda las razones, claras y precisas, de cómo se produjo ese quebranto. Se limita a transcribir\r\nesas disposiciones y afirmar su trasgresión. \r\nOmite señalar, de manera técnica, la forma en que su violación\r\ncausa la nulidad del\r\nlaudo. Se requiere\r\nla demostración de la manera\r\nen que el laudo incurre en nulidad al resolver el caso en contravención de esos preceptos. Lo anterior imposibilita\r\nel conocimiento del recurso y lleva a declarar que, en modo alguno, se produce quebranto a normas imperativas o de orden público. En relación, puede consultarse, mutatis\r\nmutandis, la sentencia de esta\r\nSala 76-F de las 11 horas 50 minutos del 30 de enero de 2008. Ergo, débese rechazar el motivo de disconformidad.\n\r\n\r\n\nVII.- Sin perjuicio\r\nde lo anterior, y a mayor abundamiento de razones, es menester\r\nindicar que, tocante a la violación de normas de orden público en el dictado de los laudos, esta\r\nSala ha manifestado: “V. \r\nNovedoso dentro del medio\r\nes la causal de fallar el laudo contra normas imperativas o de orden público. El concepto\r\njurídico de orden público es indeterminado,\r\nflexible, dinámico y de difícil\r\ndefinición. No obstante,\r\npuede entenderse como\r\nel conjunto de principios inspiradores de un ordenamiento jurídico reflejo de los valores esenciales\r\nde una sociedad en un momento dado. Existen varias clases\r\nde orden público. \r\nLa clasificación más importante distingue entre orden público interno\r\ny orden público internacional. El primero puede dar lugar\r\na la anulación del laudo. \r\nOtra clasificación importante sería la relativa al orden público material, orden público procesal y orden público constitucional. \r\nDentro del proceso arbitral\r\nse prevé la nulidad del laudo infractor del orden público, y en tal caso,\r\nla causal podría ser alegada\r\npor la parte, pudiendo originar una nulidad total del laudo. \r\nEsta causal podría interpretarse de dos maneras: por un lado,\r\nla violación al orden público sólo se produciría cuando se sometan a arbitraje materias excluidas, por su propia\r\nnaturaleza jurídica de derechos indisponibles, pero por otra\r\nparte, también podría interpretarse, admitiendo la impugnación de laudos en base a fundamentos excluidos por el legislador.” (Sentencia 76 de\r\nlas 15 horas del\r\n19 de enero de 2001. En igual\r\nsentido, pueden consultarse, entre otras, las números\r\n685-F-05 de las 15 horas 15\r\nminutos del 22 de septiembre\r\ndel 2005 y 361 de las 9 horas\r\n15 minutos del 18 de mayo de 2007). Las razones invocadas\r\nen el presente motivo de disconformidad no se enmarcan en\r\nla previsión de esa causal. \r\nNinguna de las disposiciones alegadas por el recurrente veda la posibilidad\r\nde verificar un contrato como\r\nel objeto de análisis en el\r\nsub arbitrio; tampoco regulan su ejecución. \r\nPor demás, la propia parte demandada reconoce y acepta su validez, pues\r\nno alegó su nulidad. En este sentido, no se está frente a materia\r\nexcluida por su naturaleza jurídica;\r\no por disposición del legislador.”", "body_en_text": "“VI.- Regarding the matters set forth in the preceding recital, it must be noted that, although the motion for annulment (recurso de nulidad) is not subject to any formality, it must meet certain minimum requirements. In this regard, in judgment number 346 of 11 hours 5 minutes of June 18, 2003, this Chamber, with respect to the matter of interest, stated: “XVII.- ... besides what is prescribed by the RAC Law in its article 65, when stating that the motion will not be subject to any formality, except indicating the ground for annulment on which it is based, precisely, in consideration of this latter point and, in order to ensure a proper understanding of the reasons invoked by the moving party (parte recurrente), which entails protection of the right of defense and, in general, due process, it is indeed pertinent to request a minimum of reasonable requirements, not only to facilitate its study by the opposing party, but its resolution by this Court. In that sense, it is essential that the grounds invoked to support the annulment are stated clearly and precisely, and furthermore, where required, the norms claimed to have been violated must be indicated. … ” In the same vein, see, among others, rulings numbers 718 of 15 hours 20 minutes of September 27, 2006, 602 of 9 hours 50 minutes of August 17, 2007, and 180 of 8 hours 40 minutes of March 13, 2008. The present complaint suffers from imprecision. The appellant (recurrente) affirms that the award (laudo) was issued contravening articles 5 of Law no. 7293, which regulates all current exemptions; 45 of no. 7384; 123 of no. 8436, Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura; as well as the Reglamento para la Regulación y control del uso eficiente del combustible a precio competitivo, agreement 570-2007, published in La Gaceta in February 2008. However, he does not explain or provide clear and precise reasons for how that infringement occurred. He limits himself to transcribing those provisions and affirming their violation. He fails to indicate, in a technical manner, how their violation causes the nullity of the award. A demonstration is required of how the award incurs nullity by resolving the case in contravention of those precepts. The foregoing makes it impossible to examine the motion and leads to declaring that no infringement of mandatory or public policy rules whatsoever is produced. In relation, see, mutatis mutandis, the judgment of this Chamber 76-F of 11 hours 50 minutes of January 30, 2008. Therefore, the ground of disagreement must be rejected.\n\nVII.- Notwithstanding the foregoing, and for the sake of further reasoning, it is necessary to note that, concerning the violation of public policy rules (normas de orden público) in the issuance of awards, this Chamber has stated: “V. Novel in the field is the ground of the award ruling against mandatory or public policy rules. The legal concept of public policy is indeterminate, flexible, dynamic, and difficult to define. Nonetheless, it can be understood as the set of inspiring principles of a legal system reflecting the essential values of a society at a given moment. There are several classes of public policy. The most important classification distinguishes between domestic public policy and international public policy. The former can give rise to the annulment of the award. Another important classification would be that relating to substantive public policy, procedural public policy, and constitutional public policy. Within the arbitration process, the nullity of the award that violates public policy is foreseen, and in such a case, the ground could be invoked by the party, potentially causing a total nullity of the award. This ground could be interpreted in two ways: on the one hand, the violation of public policy would only occur when matters excluded, by their own legal nature of inalienable rights, are submitted to arbitration, but on the other hand, it could also be interpreted, admitting the challenge of awards based on grounds excluded by the legislator.” (Judgment 76 of 15 hours of January 19, 2001. In the same sense, see, among others, numbers 685-F-05 of 15 hours 15 minutes of September 22, 2005, and 361 of 9 hours 15 minutes of May 18, 2007). The reasons invoked in the present ground of disagreement do not fall within the scope of that ground. None of the provisions invoked by the appellant prohibits the possibility of verifying a contract such as the one being analyzed in the sub examine arbitration; nor do they regulate its execution. Furthermore, the defendant party (parte demandada) itself recognizes and accepts its validity, since it did not allege its nullity. In this sense, the matter is not one excluded by its legal nature or by provision of the legislator.”\n\n8436, the Fisheries and Aquaculture Law (Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura); as well as the Regulation for the Regulation and Control of the Efficient Use of Fuel at a Competitive Price, Agreement 570-2007, published in La Gaceta in February 2008. However, it does not explain or provide the clear and precise reasons as to how that violation occurred. It limits itself to transcribing those provisions and asserting their transgression. It omits indicating, in a technical manner, the way in which their violation causes the nullity of the award (laudo). The demonstration of the manner in which the award incurs nullity by resolving the case in contravention of those precepts is required. The foregoing makes it impossible to hear the appeal (recurso) and leads to a declaration that, in no way, is there a violation of imperative norms or public policy (orden público). In relation, the judgment of this Chamber 76-F of 11 hours 50 minutes of January 30, 2008, may be consulted, mutatis mutandis. Ergo, the ground of objection must be rejected.\n\n**VII.-** Notwithstanding the foregoing, and for greater abundance of reasons, it is necessary to indicate that, regarding the violation of public policy norms in the issuance of awards, this Chamber has stated: “**V.** Novel within the field is the ground for the award deciding against imperative norms or public policy. The legal concept of public policy is indeterminate, flexible, dynamic, and of difficult definition. Nonetheless, it can be understood as the set of inspiring principles of a legal system reflecting the essential values of a society at a given moment. There are various classes of public policy. The most important classification distinguishes between internal public policy and international public policy. The former may give rise to the annulment of the award. Another important classification would be that relating to substantive public policy, procedural public policy, and constitutional public policy. Within the arbitration process, the nullity of the award infringing public policy is provided for, and in such case, the ground could be alleged by the party, potentially originating a total nullity of the award. This ground could be interpreted in two ways: on one hand, the violation of public policy would only occur when matters excluded, due to their own legal nature of inalienable rights, are submitted to arbitration, but on the other hand, it could also be interpreted as admitting the challenge of awards based on grounds excluded by the legislator.” (Judgment 76 of 15 hours of January 19, 2001. In the same vein, among others, numbers 685-F-05 of 15 hours 15 minutes of September 22, 2005, and 361 of 9 hours 15 minutes of May 18, 2007, may be consulted). The reasons invoked in the present ground of objection do not fall within the provision of that ground. None of the provisions alleged by the appellant (recurrente) prohibits the possibility of executing a contract such as the one under analysis in the sub-arbitration proceedings; nor do they regulate its execution. Moreover, the respondent party itself recognizes and accepts its validity, as it did not allege its nullity. In this sense, it is not a matter excluded by its legal nature; or by provision of the legislator.”\n\n8436, Fishing and Aquaculture Law (Ley de Pesca y Acuicultura); as well as the Regulation for the Regulation and Control of the Efficient Use of Fuel at a Competitive Price (Reglamento para la Regulación y control del uso eficiente del combustible a precio competitivo), agreement 570-2007, published in La Gaceta in February 2008. However, it does not explain or provide clear and precise reasons as to how that violation occurred. It merely transcribes those provisions and asserts their transgression. It omits indicating, in a technical manner, the way in which their violation causes the nullity of the award. The demonstration is required of the manner in which the award incurs nullity by resolving the case in contravention of those precepts. The foregoing makes it impossible to hear the appeal (recurso) and leads to a declaration that, in no way, is there a violation of imperative norms or public policy (orden público). In this regard, one may consult, mutatis mutandis, the judgment of this Chamber (Sala) 76-F of 11 hours 50 minutes of January 30, 2008. Ergo, the ground of disagreement must be rejected.\n\n**VII.-** Without prejudice to the foregoing, and for greater abundance of reasons, it is necessary to indicate that, regarding the violation of public policy (orden público) norms in the rendering of awards, this Chamber (Sala) has stated: “**V.** Novel within the field is the ground of the award deciding against imperative norms or public policy (orden público). The legal concept of public policy (orden público) is indeterminate, flexible, dynamic, and difficult to define. Nevertheless, it can be understood as the set of guiding principles of a legal system reflecting the essential values of a society at a given moment. There are several classes of public policy (orden público). The most important classification distinguishes between internal public policy (orden público interno) and international public policy (orden público internacional). The former can give rise to the annulment of the award. Another important classification would be that relating to substantive public policy (orden público material), procedural public policy (orden público procesal), and constitutional public policy (orden público constitucional). Within the arbitral process, the nullity of the award infringing public policy (orden público) is provided for, and in such case, the ground could be alleged by the party, potentially giving rise to a total nullity of the award. This ground could be interpreted in two ways: on the one hand, the violation of public policy (orden público) would only occur when matters excluded, by their own legal nature as inalienable rights, are submitted to arbitration, but on the other hand, it could also be interpreted as admitting the challenge of awards based on grounds excluded by the legislator.” (Judgment (Sentencia) 76 of 15 hours of January 19, 2001. In the same vein, one may consult, among others, numbers 685-F-05 of 15 hours 15 minutes of September 22, 2005 and 361 of 9 hours 15 minutes of May 18, 2007). The reasons invoked in the present ground of disagreement do not fit within the scope of that ground. None of the provisions alleged by the appellant (recurrente) prohibits the possibility of executing a contract like the one under analysis in the sub-arbitration; nor do they regulate its execution. Furthermore, the respondent (parte demandada) itself recognizes and accepts its validity, since it did not allege its nullity. In this sense, we are not facing a matter excluded by its legal nature; or by provision of the legislator.”" }