The article was first published by ICLG.
The recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards present a significant particularity as compared with the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, relating to the jurisdiction of different Spanish courts in each type of proceeding. This has a direct and decisive impact on the logistics, timing and procedural strategy for enforcing a foreign arbitral award as opposed to a foreign judgment.
Pursuant to Article 52.1 of Law 29/2015 of 30 July 2015 on international legal cooperation on civil matters (“Legal Cooperation Act”), jurisdiction to hear applications for exequatur of foreign court judgments lies with the First Instance Courts or Commercial Courts of the domicile of the party against whom recognition or enforcement is sought, or of the person to whom the effects of the foreign judgment relate. Likewise, Article 545 of Law 1/2000, of 7 January, on the Civil Procedure Act (“Civil Procedure Act”), jointly read with Article 50 of the Legal Cooperation Act, confers on those same First Instance Courts or Commercial Courts jurisdiction to enforce such foreign judgments.
By contrast, jurisdiction for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards is vested in the Regional High Courts of Justice of the domicile or place of residence of the party against whom recognition is sought, or of the domicile or place of residence of the person to whom the effects of the award relate (Article 8.6 of the Spanish Arbitration Act 60/2003, of 23 December). Enforcement of such foreign awards, once recognised, falls within the jurisdiction of the First Instance Courts, in accordance with Articles 8.5 of the Spanish Arbitration Act and 545.2 of the Civil Procedure Act.
As is apparent, a single, unified jurisdictional regime governs the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, both of which fall within the competence of the First Instance Courts, whereas foreign arbitral awards are subject to a dual regime: recognition by the Regional High Courts of Justice and enforcement by the First Instance Courts.
In a recent case of the Madrid Court of Appeal dated 27 March 2026 (1), the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award rendered in an ICC arbitration was sought before the First Instance Courts of Madrid, following an application for recognition of the award before the competent High Court of Justice of Madrid. In the enforcement proceedings, the enforcing party requested that admission of the application for enforcement be stayed pending the exequatur of the award being granted.
The enforcing party’s argument rested on Article 54.1 of the Legal Cooperation Act, which permits the combined filing, in a single writ, of both the exequatur claim and the enforcement application. The First Instance Court refused the enforcement of the foreign award, reasoning that “there is no rule that allows the claimant’s request to stay admission of the application for enforcement” and that Article 50.1 of the Legal Cooperation Act provides that “foreign court decisions which are enforceable in the State of origin shall be enforceable in Spain once exequatur has been obtained”. The enforcing party appealed, invoking the pro actione principle and alleging an unduly restrictive interpretation by the Court of First Instance of Article 54.1 of the Legal Cooperation Act. It relied on the express provision permitting joinder of the exequatur claim and the enforcement application which, in the case of foreign arbitral awards – given that they must be determined by different courts – should, in its view, be implemented by staying enforcement until the award has been recognised.
The Madrid Court of Appeal dismissed the award creditors’ attempt to combine the exequatur and enforcement proceedings of the foreign award by seeking a prior stay of the admission of the enforcement application by the First Instance Court until the High Court of Justice had ruled on recognition. It held that the joinder of exequatur and enforcement actions under Article 54.1 of the Legal Cooperation Act is only possible precisely because both fall within the unified jurisdiction of the First Instance Court. As no such unified subject matter jurisdiction exists in relation to foreign awards, the Court considered that it is not permissible to admit for processing the enforcement application of the award and immediately thereafter order a stay of the proceedings until the exequatur decision is rendered, because “until the foreign award obtains exequatur, there is no enforceable title capable of being enforced”.
The Madrid Court of Appeal considered that, until exequatur is granted, the enforcement application is devoid of subject matter (a contingent or conditional claim, subject to an uncertain condition precedent) and accordingly refused to commence enforcement. It concluded that this refusal does not infringe the award creditors’ right of access to justice, since their right to enforce the foreign award arises only once exequatur has been granted, and not before. The Court of Appeal also dismissed the appellants’ argument concerning delays in the commencement of enforcement, reiterating that no enforcement action lies in respect of a foreign award until it has been recognised.
