What about the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in Ecuador? An analysis in occasion of the parties’ submissions in Pañaturi c. Petroecuador
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18272/rea.i15.3793Keywords:
Applicable law, Arbitration agreement, Law of the seat, Law of the contract, Validation principle, Arbitral legal orderAbstract
The issue of the law applicable to the arbitration agreement in Ecuador is examined in the occasion of the Pañaturi v. Petroecuador case. The discussion considers different jurisdictional approaches before interpreting Article 5 of the Ecuadorian Arbitration and Mediation Law. It concludes that the law applicable to the arbitration agreement is the law applicable to the main contract, even if the parties have not expressly chosen that law. This conclusion is based on three main points: (i) Article V of the New York Convention does not establish a specific conflict rule for determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement (ii) the application of the law of the contract best reflects the expectations of the parties; and (iii) the scope of the receptum arbitri implies that the law of the seat applies to the procedural aspects of the arbitration, even if the law of the contract applies to the arbitration agreement.
Downloads
References
Arbitraje CCI No. 17146, Laudo Final, en ICC Dispute Resolution Bulletin No. 114, 2015.
Arbitraje Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, CCI No. 9987, Laudo Parcial.
Arbitration Act del Reino Unido, 1996.
Codificación del Código Civil, RO Sup. 46, 24/06/2005, Art 1454.
Código de Procedimiento Civil Francés, 2011.
Comisión de las Naciones Unidas para el Derecho Mercantil Internacional (CNUDMI), Ley Modelo de la CNUDMI Sobre Arbitraje Comercial Internacional (1985) con enmiendas hasta el 2006 (Ley Modelo CNUDMI), Artículos (Arts.) 1, 5-9 y 34.
Convención Sobre el Reconocimiento y la Ejecución de las Sentencias Arbitrales Extranjeras (1958) (Convención de Nueva York), Art. V(1)(a) de la Convención de Nueva York.
Corte Constitucional del Ecuador, Sentencia No. 1737-16-EP/21, 21/07/2021, ¶40.
Corte de Apelaciones de París, Decisión del caso: Kout Food Group Company c. Kabab-Ji Sal Company, directorio general No. RG 17/22943 y Portalis No. 35L7-V-B7B-B4VAV, 23/07/2020.
Corte de Apelaciones de París, Decisión del caso: New Euro. Corporate Advisory Ltd v. Innova 5/LP-ès Qualités de Liquidateur de la Société Twelve Hornbeams Sarl, Rev. Arb. 847, 18/12/2018.
Corte Suprema del Reino Unido, Decisión del caso: Kabab-Ji SAL (Lebanon) (Appellant) c Kout Food Group (Kuwait) (Respondent) [2021] UKSC 48, 01/07/2021.
Corte Suprema del Reino Unido, Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. (Respondent) v OOO Insurance Company Chubb (Appellant) [2020] EWCA Civ 574, 09/10/2020 (Enka c. Chubb), ¶ 7-12.
D. HASHER, “The Review of Arbitral Awards by Domestic Courts – France”, en E. GAILLARD (ed.), The Review of International Arbitral Awards, IAI Series on International Arbitration, No. 6., Juris, 2010.
Decreto Legislativo No. 1071, Decreto Legislativo que norma el arbitraje, 01/09/2008, Perú.
E. CARMIGNIANI Y C. CEPEDA, “Implementación (parcial) en Ecuador de principios de la Ley Modelo CNUDMI, sobre arbitraje comercial. Retrospectiva histórica y necesidades”, Revista Ecuatoriana de Arbitraje, No. 8, 2016.
F. SOLIMENE, “The Doctrines of Kompetenz-Kopmetenz and Separability and their Contribution to the Development of International Commercial Arbitration”, en M. O’REILLY (Ed.), Arbitration: The International Journal of Arbitration, Mediation and Dispute Management, Vol. 80 CIArb, 2014.
G. BORN, International Commercial Arbitration, 3ra. Ed., Kluwer, 2024, Seccion S 4.04. [A] (1) (b) (iv).
L. KIFFER, “National Report for France (2020 through 2021)”, en L. BOSMAN (ed.), ICCA International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, Kluwer Law International; ICCA & Kluwer Law International, Suplemento No. 114, 2020.
Law Commission del Reino Unido, Review of the Arbiration Act 1996: Final report and Bill, 2023 <https://cloud-platform-e218f50a4812967ba1215eaecede923f.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/30/2023/09/Arbitration-final-report-with-cover.pdf> (28/08/2024).
Ley de Arbitraje de Suecia (Swedish Arbitration Act), 1999, <https://sccarbitrationinstitute.se/sites/default/files/2022-11/the-swedish-arbitration-act_1march2019_eng-2.pdf>, 25/08/2024.
Ley de Arbitraje y Mediación (LAM), Artículo (Art.) 5, RO No. 417, 14/12/2006.
M. OROZCO, “Petroecuador Pierde arbitraje por más de USD 60 millones contra Pañaturi”, Primicias, Economía, 30/08/2022, <https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/economia/arbitraje-millonario-petroecuador-sinopec/> (28/08/2024).
Primera Sala de lo Civil de la Cour de Cassation francesa, Decisión en el caso: Kout Food Group abab-Ji SAL c. Kebab-Ji SAL, Arrêt N. 679 FS-B, Pourvoi N. K 20-20.260, 28/09/2022.
Restatement of the U.S. Law of International Commercial and Investor-State Arbitration, 2023.
Servicios Integrados Pañaturi S.A. c. Empresa Pública de Hidrocarburos del Ecuador EP, Arbitraje ad-hoc), Laudo, 21 de febrero de 2022 (Pañaturi c. Petroecuador).
Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (PILA), 2021.
