Informe jurídico sobre la Resolución N° 8 del Expediente N° 00232-2013-0
Loading...
Date
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Abstract
El presente informe jurídico tiene por objeto analizar la Resolución N° 8 emitida
por la Primera Sala Civil con Subespecialidad Comercial de la Corte Superior de
Justicia de Lima a través de la cual resuelve el recurso de anulación interpuesto
por el Proyecto Especial de Infraestructura de Transporte Nacional – PROVIAS
NACIONAL contra el laudo arbitral que se pronuncia sobre las controversias
surgidas con OBRASCON HUARTE LAIN S.A. SUCURSAL DEL PERÚ.
En este sentido, nos avocaremos a analizar si corresponde o no declarar fundada
la demanda de anulación por supuestos defectos de motivación en la decisión
que resuelve la pretensión referida a la Ampliación de Plazo N° 27, concluyendo
que aquella sí se encuentra motivada.
Asimismo, en el informe se llega a la conclusión de que la causal que debe
invocarse para solicitar la anulación de un laudo arbitral por defectos de
motivación, es aquella prevista en el literal c) del numeral 1 del artículo 63 de la
Ley de Arbitraje, referida a que las actuaciones arbitrales no se ajustaron al
acuerdo de las partes
Por último, se concluye que el estándar de motivación que debe cumplir un laudo
arbitral es distinto al estándar de motivación de las resoluciones judiciales
desarrollado por el Tribunal Constitucional.
This legal report seeks to analyze Resolution No. 8 issued by the First Civil Chamber with Commercial Subspecialty of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, through which it resolves the annulment appeal filed by the National Transport Infrastructure Special Project – PROVIAS NACIONAL against the arbitration award that rules on the disputes arising with OBRASCON HUARTE LAIN S.A. SUCURSAL DEL PERÚ. In this regard, we will focus on analyzing whether or not it is appropriate to declare the annulment claim founded due to alleged defects in the reasoning of the decision that resolves the claim related to Extension of Deadline No. 27, concluding that such decision is indeed properly reasoned. Furthermore, the report concludes that the grounds for requesting the annulment of an arbitral award due to defects in the reasoning are those set out in item c) of numeral 1 of Article 63 of the Arbitration Law, which refers to the fact that the arbitral proceedings did not conform to the agreement of the parties. Lastly, it is concluded that the standard of reasoning that an arbitral award must meet is different from the reasoning standard for judicial resolutions established by the Constitutional Court.
This legal report seeks to analyze Resolution No. 8 issued by the First Civil Chamber with Commercial Subspecialty of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, through which it resolves the annulment appeal filed by the National Transport Infrastructure Special Project – PROVIAS NACIONAL against the arbitration award that rules on the disputes arising with OBRASCON HUARTE LAIN S.A. SUCURSAL DEL PERÚ. In this regard, we will focus on analyzing whether or not it is appropriate to declare the annulment claim founded due to alleged defects in the reasoning of the decision that resolves the claim related to Extension of Deadline No. 27, concluding that such decision is indeed properly reasoned. Furthermore, the report concludes that the grounds for requesting the annulment of an arbitral award due to defects in the reasoning are those set out in item c) of numeral 1 of Article 63 of the Arbitration Law, which refers to the fact that the arbitral proceedings did not conform to the agreement of the parties. Lastly, it is concluded that the standard of reasoning that an arbitral award must meet is different from the reasoning standard for judicial resolutions established by the Constitutional Court.