Arbitraje europeouna crítica a la sentencia del Tribunal Constitucional 65/2021, de 15 de marzo

  1. Gómez Jene, Miguel 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revue:
Cuadernos de derecho transnacional

ISSN: 1989-4570

Année de publication: 2021

Volumen: 13

Número: 2

Pages: 745-753

Type: Article

DOI: 10.20318/CDT.2021.6290 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Cuadernos de derecho transnacional

Objectifs de Développement Durable

Résumé

The judgment of the Constitutional Court (CC) granted constitutional protection and annulled a judgment of the High Court of Madrid by virtue of which an arbitral award was annulled. The award, although rendered in equity, arose from a European arbitration, insofar as mandatory EU law was the applicable law to the merits. This circumstance is crucial, since under the CJEU’s Eco Swiss and Achmea judgments, the scrutiny to be exercised by the court hearing the annulment of the award is particularly intense: in the words of the CJEU, the judge must “examine” the application of mandatory EU law. Far from taking into account this case law - applicable to the case - the CC dissociates itself with an interpretation that is difficult to reconcile with the case law of the CJEU. From this perspective, it is worth asking whether the Constitutional Court itself has violated the right of the defendant to due process (art. 24.2 EC), insofar as it has not ruled in accordance with the established system of sources.

Références bibliographiques

  • C. Esplugues Mota, “Artículo 34”, en: S. Barona Vilar (Coor.), Comentarios a la Ley de Arbitraje, 2ª Ed., Madrid, Civitas, 2011, p. 1372.
  • I. Iancu, “Addressing corruption in international arbitration: a look at the Alstom and Bariven cases”, en, C. González- Bueno (Ed.), 40 under 40 International Arbitration (2021), Madrid, Dykinson, 2021, pp. 305-317.
  • J. Cadarso Palau, “Artículo 41”, en J. González Soria (Coor.), Comentarios a la nueva Ley de Arbitraje, Aranzadi, Cizur Menor, 2011, p. 593.
  • La Ley Mediación y Arbitraje, Abril 2021, Núm. 6, dedicado íntegramente a comentar estas sentencias
  • M. Gómez Jene, Arbitraje comercial internacional, Madrid, Civitas, 2018, pp. 331-333;
  • S. Sánchez Lorenzo, “Anulación parcial de laudo en equidad contrario al orden público por falta de motivación: la mal entendida equivalencia jurisdiccional (STC 65/2021, de 15 de marzo)”, La Ley Mediación y Arbitraje, Junio 2021, Núm. 7.
La source de données: Dialnet