The judicial annulment of awards in Spain: A

4.2024 statistical study of 1.229 judgments

Joan Picó i Junoy

Universitat Pompeu Fabra
- Sumario
-
El estudio realiza un análisis estadístico de las 1.229 sentencias dictadas en
España -por los Tribunales Superiores de Justicia españoles en la última década
2022-2013- sobre la acción de anulación contra el laudo arbitral, y lo hace desde
la doble perspectiva de la eficacia y eficiencia de esta acción: (a) la eficacia,
examinando el índice de estimación de las acciones de anulación -y los motivos
por los que generalmente se estima dicha anulación-; y (b) la eficiencia,
verificando la duración de este procedimiento judicial de anulación de laudos
arbitrales. La conclusión alcanzada es altamente positiva a favor del arbitraje,
dada la baja tasa de estimación de las demandas de anulación y la celeridad del
procedimiento judicial a través del que se resuelven dichas demandas.

Abstract
-
The study performs a statistical analysis of the 1.229 judgments handed down in
Spain -by the Spanish High Courts of Justice in the last decade 2022-2013- on the
judicial annulment claim against the arbitration award, and does so from the dual
perspective of the effectiveness and efficiency of this claim: (a) effectiveness, by
examining the rate at which claims for annulment are upheld -and the grounds on
which such annulment is generally upheld; and (b) efficiency, verifying the
duration of this judicial procedure for the annulment of arbitration awards. The
conclusion reached is highly positive in favor of arbitration, given the low rate of
estimation of claims for annulment and the speed of the judicial procedure in
which such claims are examined.

Título: La anulación judicial de laudos en España: estudio estadístico de 1.229

sentencias
-
Palabras clave: Anulación de laudos, España, Tribunales Superiores de Justicia,
análisis estadístico
Keywords: Annulment of awards, Spain, High Courts of Justice, statistical
analysis
-
DOI: 10.31009/InDret.2024.i4.02

49
 Summary
-
4.2024 1. Introduction: five topics in Spanish arbitration
2. On the well-known exceptional nature of the action for annulment of the
Recepción
award
22/7/2024
3. Study of the area of judicial annulment claims against the arbitration
-
Aceptación award in Spain
4/10/2024 3.1. Duration of legal proceedings for the annulment of an award
- 3.2. Degree of judicial review of annulment action
3.3. Grounds for granting the action for annulment
4. Conclusions
5. Appendices
5.1. Judgements by year and Spanish Superior Court of Justice
5.2. Average duration of proceedings to set aside awards
5.3. Degree of judicial recognition of actions for annulment in Spanish
High Courts of Justice
5.4. Degree of judicial estimation of the annulment action by year
6. Bibliography

-
Este trabajo se publica con una licencia Creative Commons
Reconocimiento-No Comercial 4.0 Internacional

50
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

1. Introduction: five topics in Spanish arbitration

This study statistically analyses one of the great topics in Spanish arbitration. Specifically, that
which affects the effectiveness and efficiency of the judicial annulment of arbitration awards in
Spain. Briefly, arbitration is characterised by the following five main features:

First, is a method of conflict resolution that is constitutionally valid 1.

Second, it is subject only to the free will of the parties, both as to its initiation and conclusion,
and as to the manner in which its procedural course is determined2.

Third, the national procedural rules (LEC, LOPJ, etc.) are not directly applicable to it 3.

Fourth, the award terminating it is not subject to appeal before the courts4.

 This work is part of the recognised, consolidated and funded research Group «Challenges of Procedural Law»
(2021SGR00991) of the AGAUR, and of the R&D Project «New Technological Challenges in Evidence Law»
(PID2020-115304GB-C21) of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. The author would like to thank
Professor Carlos de Miranda Vázquez for his help in carrying out this study and for his wise observations, which
have undoubtedly enriched the final result of the work.
Abbreviations: art. article; EC: Spanish Constitution; HCJ: High Court of Justice; LA: Spanish Arbitration Act;
LEC: Spanish Civil Procedure Act; LGDCU: General Law for the Defence of Consumers and Users in Spain;
UNCITRAL ML: UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration; LOPJ: Organic Law of the
Judiciary; S: judgement; SS: judgements; STC: judgement of the Spanish Constitutional Court; STS: judgement of
the Spanish Supreme Court; SHCJ: judgement of the High Court of Justice; and TC: Spanish Constitutional Court;
TS: Spanish Supreme Court.
1
In general, on the constitutionality of arbitration, FERRERES COMELLA, The Constitution of Arbitration, Cambridge
University Press, 2021, is fundamental. And with regard to arbitration in the Spanish case, STC 174/1995, of 23
November, is very categorical when it states that: «[...] the arbitration institution is compatible with the
Constitution [...] without doubt, it is, and we have recognised this in Rulings 43/1988, 233/1988 and 288/1993».
And, from this perspective, the TC consistently repeats that arbitration is a «jurisdictional equivalent» to state
judicial proceedings. The aforementioned STC 174/1995, of 23 November, considers «arbitration to be a
jurisdictional equivalent, by means of which the parties can obtain the same objectives as with civil jurisdiction
(that is, by obtaining a decision that puts an end to the conflict with all the effects of res judicata)». Subsequently,
it has been clarified that this equating of arbitration as a jurisdictional equivalent «must be understood only in
reference to the equivalence of its effects in terms of res judicata and enforceability» (SSTC 79/2022, of 27 June;
and 50/2022, of 4 April).
2
In this sense, the aforementioned STC 174/1995 stresses the idea that: «arbitration is a means for the resolution
of conflicts based on the autonomy of the will of the parties, implying a renunciation of state jurisdiction by the
arbitrator or arbitrators»; and STC 176/1996 insists that arbitration is a «heteronomous means of settling disputes
which is based on the autonomy of the will». Consequently, the basis of arbitration must be sought in the right to
freedom of art. 10 EC. Thus, STC 79/2022, of 27 June, emphasises that the basis of arbitration «is none other than
the autonomy of will ex art. 10.1 CE».
3
In this order of ideas, for example, the SHCJ of Madrid 77/2021 of December 10th is very clear when it states:
«Regardless of even the international nature of the arbitration followed, it is clear that subjection to the precepts
and institutions of our Civil Procedure Act cannot be claimed, as then, evidently, this would over complicate the
arbitration procedure, making it an authentic exercise contra natura, denaturing the flexibility inherent to this
channel and submitting to procedural rigidity which, precisely, is one of the aspects that tries to be oriented in
the alternative mode of dispute resolution in which arbitration (whether domestic or international) consists.»
4
By mandate of art. 43 LA, according to which: «The award has the effect of res judicata and only an action for
annulment may be brought against it».

51
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

Fifth, a legal action for annulment can only be brought against such an award in a very
exceptional manner5. And, in order to ensure the maximum effectiveness of the arbitration, such
action should not succeed.

As I indicated earlier, our study is going to focus on the fifth topic, on the analysis of the degree
of efficiency and effectiveness of the judicial claims for annulment of awards. And we will do so
by examining all the judgments handed down in award annulment proceedings by the Spanish
SHCJs in the decade 2013-20226, namely 1.229 judgments7.

The final objective of the study is to statistically verify the reality of the judicial proceedings for
the annulment of awards in Spain from the perspective of their duration and effectiveness.

2. On the well-known exceptional nature of the action for annulment of

the award

The action for annulment of the award is legally and jurisprudentially configured as an
exceptional mechanism of judicial control to guarantee solely and exclusively that the
arbitration procedure complies with the provisions of its rules and respects the essential
inalienable principles guaranteed constitutionally or admitted internationally. This
exceptionality translates into: (a) the impossibility for the court to review the establishment of
the proven facts and the application of substantive law in this action, so that it cannot, in any
case, be considered a second instance of judgment8; and (b) the limited nature of the legal
grounds for such an action, which must therefore be interpreted restrictively.

From the legal perspective, both at the international and domestic level, we find this restrictive
regulation of the action for annulment of the award:

a) At the international level, art. 34 UNCITRAL ML provides for the so-called «Application
for setting aside recourse against arbitral award» in a very exceptional manner, with a
very short expiry period (three months) and only on the grounds specifically provided
for in the aforementioned rule. And recently, the «Ibero-American Model Law on
Commercial Arbitration», approved on 18 May 2023 by the General Assembly of the
Ibero-American Institute of Procedural Law, also provides for the so-called «setting
aside recourse against the award» in art. 50, which can only be based on the grounds set
out in art. 52.

5
Only on the grounds specified in art. 41 LA, i.e. to denounce defects in the valid constitution of the arbitration
tribunal, fundamental defects in the conduct of the arbitration proceedings (infringement of the principles of
equality, defence and contradiction) or infringement of constitutional public order.
6
Since 2011 (with the reform of the LA by Law 11/2011 of May 20th), the HCJs have had sole authority to rule on
actions for annulment of awards rendered in their area of jurisdiction (art. 8.5 LA).
7
The High Courts that handed down the most rulings were those of Madrid, with 536; Galicia, with 127; Andalusia,
with 113; Catalonia, with 112; and the Basque Country, with 75. The judgments have been obtained from two legal
databases: CENDOJ and ARANZADI-LA LEY. All judgments of these High Courts corresond to their civil and
criminal chambers.
8
SSTC 79/2022, of 27 June; 50/2022, of 4 April; 65/2021, of 15 March; 55/2021, of 15 March; 17/2021, of 15
February; and 46/2020, of 15 June, and, similarly, cf. SSTC 76/2012, of 16 April; 65/2009, of 9 March; and 9/2005,
of 17 January.

52
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

b) And at the Spanish domestic level, art. 40 LA establishes «Judicial annulment claim
against the arbitration award: an action for annulment may be brought against a final
award under the terms provided for in this title»; and the following article establishes
the grounds for annulment of the award (which coincide with those established in the
aforementioned art. 34 UNCITRAL ML).

And this exceptional nature is consistently reiterated by the case law of the TC: «such control
has a very limited content and does not allow a review of the merits of the matter decided by the
arbitrator, nor should it be considered as a second instance, able to be based exclusively on the
grounds set forth in the law, and none of them - not even those relating to public order - can be
interpreted in such a way as to subvert this limitation.»

Finally, at this point we must emphasise the existence of two common elements in arbitration
legislation around the world: (a) the provision of a brief (quick) judicial procedure in which to
debate the possible annulment of the award; and (b) its processing before a court at the highest
jurisdictional level of the country. Both circumstances are present in Spain: (a) the «oral trial»,
which is the judicial procedure in which the annulment of the award is discussed (art. 42 LA) 9;
and (b) the court competent to rule on this judicial request is the High Court of Justice of the
Autonomous Community where the award was made (art. 8.5 LA)10.

3. Study of the area of judicial annulment claims against the arbitration

award in Spain

This study will analyse two parameters of the effectiveness of the annulment of the award: (a)
the average duration of the annulment proceedings - in relation to the time legally provided for;
and (b) the degree of judicial recognition of the annulment action - as well as the most frequent
grounds for the recognition of the annulment of the award.

3.1. Duration of legal proceedings for the annulment of an award

As indicated above, the claim for annulment of an award is dealt with by the simplest ordinary
procedure provided for in Spanish law, namely the oral trial, with some minor particularities (art.
42 LA).

The average duration, in general, of oral trials in Spain, according to statistics provided by the
General Council of the Judiciary, was 8.9 months in 2022 (and 9.6 months in both 2021 and
2020) 11. And the average duration of oral proceedings involving an application to set aside an
award was 3.4 months in 2022, 5 months in 2021 and 6 months in 202012.

Two conclusions can be drawn from this statistical data: (a) the duration of oral proceedings to
resolve an application for annulment of an award is significantly shorter than the average

9
This is the shortest and quickest Spanish civil judicial procedure.
10
There are 17 HCJs, as Spain is territorially divided into 17 Autonomous Communities.
11
Source: Memoria del Consejo General del Poder Judicial de 2023 (corresponding to the year 2022), p. 461 [cfr
https://www.poderjudicial.es/cgpj/es/Poder-Judicial/Consejo-General-del-Poder-Judicial/Actividad-del-
CGPJ/Memorias/Memoria-anual-2023--correspondiente-al-ejercicio-2022-]. Accessed on: 11-04-2024.
12
See Appendix 5.2 for overall data.

53
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

duration of oral proceedings in any Spanish court (this is undoubtedly due to two factors: firstly,
that this procedure is resolved by a court with few judicial powers, which means that it has more
time than the rest of the state courts, which are more overloaded with work, and secondly, that
in ordinary oral proceedings, on most occasions, there is a hearing for the taking of evidence, a
hearing that normally does not take place in oral proceedings to annul awards because the only
evidence is usually documentary evidence); and (b) in three years it has been possible to reduce
the duration of oral proceedings to annul awards by almost half.

Years Oral proceedings Oral proceedings

(declaratory) (for annulment of an award)
2022 8.9 months 3.4 months
2021 9.6 months 5 months
2020 9.6 months 6 months
Table 1 (prepared by the author)

If we analyse the average duration of award annulment proceedings in the period 2022-2013, we
observe that those with the longest durations are the High Court of Madrid (258 days) and the
High Court of Catalonia—based in Barcelona—(256 days); and those with the shortest durations
are the High Court of La Rioja (93 days) and the High Court of Extremadura (96 days) 13. This is
due to the fact that the HCJs of Madrid and Catalonia hear substantially more applications for
annulment of awards than the other two HCJs14.

HCJ Duration (2022)

HCJ of Madrid 258 days
HCJ of Catalonia 256 days
HCJ of Extremadura 96 days
HCJ of La Rioja 93 days
Table 2 (prepared by the author)

3.2. Degree of judicial review of annulment action

Of the 1.229 rulings handed down by all the Spanish High Courts analysed in this study, 301
upheld the claim and declared the award null and void, which represents 24.5% of the rulings15.
By year, we note a favourable trend towards the dismissal of actions to set aside awards in the
last four years (in 2019, 64.8% of applications filed; in 2020, 71.6%; in 2021, 82%; and in 2022,
83.5%) 16.

Years
2022 2021 2020 2019
Judgments 97 121 74 91
Dismissal 81 99 53 59
(83.5 %) (82 %) (71.6 %) (64.8 %)

13
See Appendix 5.2 for overall data.
14
The number of judgments on annulment of awards in the HCJ of Madrid was 536 and in the HCJ of Catalonia
112, while the HCJ of Extremadura and La Rioja handed down only 11 and 3 judgments respectively.
15
See Appendix 5.3 for overall data.
16
See Appendix 5.4 for overall data.

54
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

Upholding 16 22 21 32
(16.5 %) (18%) (28.4 %) (35.2 %)
Table 3 (prepared by the author)

And of the five most important High Courts in Spain, in terms of the volume of judgments they
have handed down, the one with the highest number of upheld judgments is Galicia (with 36.2%
of its judgments), followed by Madrid (with 26.5%), Andalusia (with 23.9%), Catalonia (with 17%)
and, finally, the Basque Country (with only 14.7%)17.

Specifically, these are the data obtained by HCJs in the period 2022-201318.

Judgments
HCJ
Dismissal Upholding
A (113) 86 (76.1 %) 27 (23.9 %)
Ar (12) 9 (75 %) 3 (25 %)
C (112) 93 (83%) 19 (17%)
Can (33) 26 (78.8 %) 7(21.2 %)
Cant (2) 1 (50 %) 1 (50 %)
CL (22) 5 (81.5 %) 27 (18.5 %)
CLM (23) 3 (88.5 %) 23 (11.5 %)
CV (56) 47 (83.9 %) 9 (16.1 %)
E (11) 7 (63.6 %) 4 (36.4 %)
G (127) 81 (63.8 %) 46 (36.2 %)
IB (19) 16 (84.2 %) 3 (15.8 %)
LR (3) 2 (66.7 %) 1 (33.3 %)
M (536) 394 (73.5 %) 142 (26.5 %)
N (11) 8 (72.7 %) 3 (27.3 %)
PA (21) 13 (61.9 %) 8 (38.1 %)
PV (75) 64 (85.3 %) 11 (14.7 %)
RM (45) 36 (80 %) 9 (20 %)
Table 4 (prepared by the author)

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of this action, we will take as a comparative element the
degree to which the action for the judicial annulment of final judgements (known in Spain as the
«review of final judgements») has been upheld19, as both serve to attack the res judicata of the
final decision (award or judgement) and are decided by courts that are the pinnacles of the
Spanish judicial organisational system 20- 21. Continuing with the previous criterion, if we take the

17
The first was the HCJ of Castilla La Mancha, as only 11.5% of its rulings upheld claims for annulment of awards.
18
Abbreviations in the following table: A: Andalucía; Ar: Aragón; Can: Canarias; Cant: Cantabria; C: Cataluña;
CL: Castilla y León; CLM: Castilla La Mancha; CV: Comunitat Valenciana; E: Extremadura; G: Galicia; IB: Illes
Balears; LR: La Rioja; M: Madrid; N: Navarra; PA: Principado de Asturias; PV: País Vasco; and RM: Región de
Murcia.
19
Regulated in arts. 509 to 516 LEC.
20
The courts competent to rule on the action for annulment of final judgments may be the TS or the HCJ (art. 509
LEC).
21
In addition, and with respect to judgments, in Spain there are two other extraordinary judicial remedies for
denouncing vices or defects similar to those foreseen for the annulment of the award: (a) the «action for rescission

55
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

last four years as a reference, we come to the conclusion that relatively fewer awards are annulled
than final judgments, which reaffirms the effectiveness of arbitration. Specifically, the data are
as follows:

Dismissal 2022 2021 2020 2019

judgements
Annulment of 97 121 74 91
awards (83.5%) (82 %) (71.6 %) (64.8 %)
Review of final 2522 1923 924 2025
judgments (56 %) (78.9 %) (33.3 %) (40 %)
Table 5 (prepared by the author)

3.3. Grounds for granting the action for annulment

It should be made clear that we are not going to refer here to the grounds most frequently invoked
in applications for annulment of awards (since it is impossible to know them), but to the specific
grounds on which the courts base their decisions to uphold such applications.

These grounds are those that appear exhaustively in art. 41.1 LA and, in general terms, coincide
with those of art. 34 UNCITRAL ML.

The statistics are clear: out of the upheld judgments, the most frequently used reason is breach
of public policy (art. 41.1.f LA), with 47.99%, far ahead of the rest. This is followed, by a
considerable distance, by the non-existence or invalidity of the agreement (art. 41.1.a LA) with
17.95%, deficiencies in the procedural acts of communication (art. 41.1.b LA) with 16.85%, the
decision on matters not subject to arbitration (art. 41.1.e LA) with 8.42%. Very discreetly present
are the reasons relating to the appointment of the arbitrator or the conduct of the proceedings
contrary to what was agreed (art. 41.1.d LA) with 5.13% and the arbitrators exceeding the scope
of the decision entrusted to them (art. 41.1.c LA) with 3.66%.

Reason for estimation Number of judgments

Art. 41.1.a LA 49 (17.95 %)
Art. 41.1.b LA 46 (16.85 %)
Art. 41.1.c LA 10 (3.66 %)
Art. 41.1.d LA 14 (5.13 %)
Art. 41.1.e LA 23 (8.42 %)

of a final judgment at the request of the defendant» (arts. 501 to 505 LEC); and (b) the «appeal in cassation» to
denounce procedural infringements provided that there is «interest in the case for the court to hear the case» (art.
477.2 LEC). However, it is impossible to analyse the degree to which the claim (in the first case) or the appeal (in
the second) is upheld, since the claim for rescission of a final judgment at the request of the defaulting party is
brought before the same court that handed down the judgment in absentia, and there is no statistical data on the
number of this type of claim; and with regard to appeals in cassation, the official statistics do not differentiate
between when the appeal is based on infringement of substantive or procedural rules, so it is very difficult to know
how many appeals are successful only on the grounds of infringement of procedural rules.
22
24 from the TS and 1 from the HCJ of Catalonia.
23
All from the TS.
24
8 of the TS and 1 of the HCJ of Galicia.
25
19 of the TS and 1 of the HCS of Catalonia.

56
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

Art. 41.1.f LA 131 (47.99 %)

Table 6 (prepared by the author)

We will now highlight the main assumptions that make up each of the grounds for estimation:

a) The first ground (art. 41.1.a LA) is: «That the arbitration agreement does not exist or is
invalid.» Obviously, an award based on a non-existent or invalid arbitration agreement
renders it null and void. The casuistry is very diverse, and here we find cases of invalidity
of said agreement for being drafted «in excessively small print, which makes it difficult
to read, and in an unintelligible and rambling manner»26, or for not including the
signature of the arbitrator or the arbitrator's representative, or the signature of the party
to the agreement is lacking27 or is forged28. The arbitration clause must be «patent,
perceptible, clear and conclusive», although it is not essential for it to be explicit, as it
can be deduced from unequivocal and conclusive acts, otherwise in dubio pro
Iurisdictione29. Similarly, the submission to arbitration may be made by reference, i.e. in
documents which do not contain the arbitration agreement but which are closely related
to others in which the AC does appear30, or refer in their interpretation to another
document containing the arbitration clause31. The problem of submission to arbitration
in «adhesion» contracts arises here. Is it possible? It is not in the realm of consumer
contracts, and thus the arbitration clause is considered unfair, unless it is in favour of
consumer arbitration (arts. 10, 57.4, 80, and 90.1 LGDCU; and 9.2 LA). And between
entrepreneurs or competitors, the arbitration clause could also be considered unfair if
there is evidence of a «significant imbalance imposed between the parties», and an
«abuse of a dominant position», that is to say, one that violates the principle of equality
between the parties32.

b) The second ground (art. 41.1.b LA) is: «That the arbitrator has not been duly notified of
the appointment or of the arbitral proceedings, or has not been able, for any other
reason, to assert his rights.» Logically, for the arbitration to be valid, it is essential that
the parties have been duly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator 33.

c) The third ground (art. 41.1.c LA) is: «That the arbitrators have ruled on issues not
submitted to their decision». Normally, Spanish courts tend to examine this problem as
the last of the grounds, on the basis that the award infringes «public policy», since the
arbitrator's exceeding of his powers means that his award is incoherent.

d) The fourth ground (art. 41.1.d LA) is: «That the appointment of the arbitrators or the
arbitration procedure has not been in accordance with the agreement between the

26
SHCJ of Madrid 18/2020, of 30 June.
27
SHCJ of Catalonia 25/2022, of 13 May; or SHCJ of Madrid 18/2020 of 30 June.
28
SHCJ of Madrid 26/2020, of 10 November.
29
SHCJs of Madrid 28/2019, of 12 September and 75/2016, of 13 December.
30
SHCJ of Catalonia 9/2014, of 6 February.
31
SHCJ of Catalonia C 41/2012, of 28 June.
32
SHCJs of Madrid 29/2019, of 12 September, 50/2016, of 28 June, 47/2014, of 16 July, 42/2014, of 25 June and
22/2014, of 29 April; or SHCJ of Catalonia 69/2012, of 19 November.
33
As well as substitution of the same (SHCJ of Madrid 20/2020, of 2 October).

57
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

parties, unless such agreement was contrary to a mandatory rule of this Law, or, in the
absence of such agreement, that they have not been in accordance with this Law.» The
arbitration procedure or the procedure for appointing the arbitrator is not subject to any
restrictions and can be very simple, as long as the principles of equality and
contradiction are respected34. The number of arbitrators is fundamental in the
functioning of arbitration, as it must always be an «odd number» by mandate of art. 12.1
LA, so that the award is null and void if, taking advantage of the non-appearance of one
arbitrator, the other two arbitrators make the ruling35, and is also null and void if
rendered by four arbitrators or another even number (despite the will of the parties or
the rules of the arbitral tribunal)36.

e) The fifth ground (art. 41.1.e LA) is: «That the arbitrators have ruled on matters not
subject to arbitration.» And, in this regard, art. 2 LA establishes that the matters subject
to arbitration are all those «freely disposable according to law».37 Consequently, if the
award rules beyond this sphere of competence, it will be null and void.

f) And, finally, the sixth ground (art. 41.1.f LA), and the one most frequently used by the
courts to annul awards is: «That the award is contrary to public policy.» The «public
order» is an indeterminate legal concept in which case law includes, in addition to the
fundamental rights of the EC, the «set of essential principles and rules that inspire the
political, social and economic organisation» of Spain38. The most frequent cases of
breach of public policy are: violation of the due independence or impartiality of the
arbitrator39; breach of the principle of equality between the parties40; the complete lack

34
SHCJ of Catalonia 29/2020, of 13 October.
35
SHCJ of Madrid 23/2019, of 28 June.
36
SHCJs of Madrid 36/2020 of 23 December, 25/2019 of 2 July, 9/2019 of 11 March, 8/2019 of 8 March and 1/2019
of 2 January.
37
However, when the arbitration is international and one of the parties is a state (or a company, organisation or
enterprise controlled by a state), it cannot invoke the prerogatives of its own law to avoid the obligations arising
from the arbitration agreement (art. 2.2 LA).
38
SSTC 17/2021 of 15 February and 46/2020 of 15 June; SHCJs of Catalonia 17/2020 of 9 June, 2/2019 of 14 January
and 96/2016 of 28 November; or SHCJs of Madrid 32/2020 of 15 December and 26/2016 of 1 March.
39
SHCJs of Madrid 49/2020, 16 September; 28/2019, of 12 September; 6/2019, of 18 February; 5/2019, of 15
February; and 76/2016, of 13 December; and SHCJs of Catalonia 36/2020, of 4 November; 32/2020, of 20 October;
38/2019, of 23 May; 50/2014, of 14 July; 78/2012, of 13 December; 69/2012, of 19 November; or 29/2012, of 10
May.
40
SHCJs of Madrid 29/2019 of 12 September, 6/2019 of 18 February, 52/2016 of 5 July and 47/2014 of 16 June.

58
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

of motivation41-42 or coherence of the award43; the indefensibility of one of the parties;44

and the infringement of the right to the use of evidence appropriate to their defence 45.

4. Conclusions

The rate of judicial annulment of awards, which has been decreasing in recent years, is low: a
mere 16.5% of the claims filed is not a high figure compared to, for example, annulments of final
court judgments (review action), which have a rate of 44%, i.e. almost three times as many
annulments. As a result, arbitration is still much more effective than state courts, as its decisions
are less frequently overturned than those of state courts. Even so, it would be a positive
development for arbitration if the rate of annulment of awards were to continue to fall (as it
seems to be looking at the evolution of annulments in the last four years: from 2018 to 2022).

Moreover, the procedure for annulment of awards is efficient as, in practice, it is fast-tracked:
161 days is very little time if we take into account that (a) the judgment is delivered by a court at
the highest jurisdictional level in Spain (a High Court of Justice) and (b) it takes almost one third
of the time it takes to obtain the annulment of final court judgments.

5. Appendices

5.1. Judgments by year and Spanish Superior Court of Justice

YEAR A AR C CAN CANT CL

2022 5 3 17 7 0 0
2021 12 1 11 4 0 6
2020 12 0 10 2 0 1
2019 3 2 5 2 0 4
2018 12 0 9 1 0 3
2017 10 2 8 6 0 3
2016 17 2 12 3 0 3
2015 13 0 12 3 0 4
2014 17 1 15 1 0 0
2013 12 1 13 4 2 3
TOTAL 113 12 112 33 2 27

41
STC 17/2021, of 15 February; SHCJs of Madrid 4/2020, of 8 January; 52/2016, of 5 July; 46/2016, of 2 June; 4/2014,
of 7 February; and SHCJ of Catalonia 50/2014, of 14 July.
42
Consequently, it is not possible to allege: (1) the erroneous application of the substantive law, (2) the greater or
lesser correctness of the award, or (3) the correct or incorrect interpretation of the legal rules (STC 17/2021, of 15
February; SHCJs of Catalonia 32/2020, of 20 October; 38/2019, of 23 May; 9/2019, of 11 February; 6/2019, of 18
February; and SHCJs of Madrid 6/2020, of 4 February; 4/2020, of 8 January; 30/2019, of 12 September; 29/2019, of
12 September; 27/2019, of 19 July).
43
SHCJ of Catalonia 6/2022, of 31 January; and SHCJs of Madrid 29/2020, of 19 November; 48/2016, of 15 June and
15/2016, of 9 February.
44
SHCJs of Madrid 12/2020 of 3 March, 18/2014 of 1 April, 10/2014 of 24 February and 7/2014 of 17 February.
45
When the undue inadmissibility of evidence absolutely fundamental to accrediting the disputed fact, and of
«decisive influence» for the award, is alleged and reasoned (SHCJs of Catalonia 17/2020, of 9 June; 64/2019, of 17
December; 37/2014, of 22 May; and SHCJs of Madrid 77/2016, of 20 December; 25/2016, of 1 March; 15/2016, of 9
February; 33/2014, of 3 June and 30/2014, of 22 May).

59
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

YEAR CLM CV E G IB LR
2022 3 0 3 0 2 0
2021 5 1 1 8 1 0
2020 2 2 2 7 1 0
2019 4 3 2 12 3 1
2018 1 0 0 9 0 0
2017 0 15 0 5 3 2
2016 6 7 1 13 3 0
2015 1 11 0 38 1 0
2014 1 13 1 24 2 0
2013 3 4 1 11 3 0
TOTAL 26 56 11 127 19 3

YEAR M N PA PV RM TOTAL
2022 40 0 5 9 3 97
2021 64 0 1 5 1 121
2020 22 2 1 6 5 75
2019 33 2 1 8 6 91
2018 36 0 5 4 4 84
2017 56 1 3 9 2 125
2016 57 1 1 8 8 142
2015 77 1 1 10 3 175
2014 66 2 3 9 8 163
2013 85 2 0 7 5 156
TOTAL 536 11 21 75 45 1229

5.2. Average duration of proceedings to set aside awards

YEAR A AR C CAN CANT CL

2022 121 228 208 210 0 0
2021 189 210 233 190 0 124
2020 238 0 365 165 0 147
2019 116 178 185 404 0 142
2018 122 0 193 124 0 140
2017 155 254 263 130 0 107
2016 137 148 313 184 0 164
2015 131 0 236 106 0 119
2014 158 131 279 231 0 0
2013 152 161 280 206 155 114
TOTAL 152 174 256 195 155 106

60
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

YEAR CLM CV E G IB LR
2022 187 0 116 0 95 0
2021 167 87 104 242 268 0
2020 199 236 177 273 283 0
2019 224 248 198 204 126 0
2018 234 0 0 274 0 98
2017 0 140 0 204 115 0
2016 158 173 176 186 187 91
2015 94 145 0 173 196 0
2014 90 166 101 204 160 0
2013 195 180 90 216 109 0
TOTAL 179 138 96 198 154 93

YEAR M N PA PV RM AVERAGE
2022 186 0 107 104 179 102
2021 311 0 128 112 179 150
2020 327 103 115 135 317 181
2019 251 144 174 157 277 178
2018 227 0 136 114 219 111
2017 190 53 119 142 237 124
2016 216 143 42 119 168 153
2015 264 193 221 138 195 130
2014 300 122 220 196 204 151
2013 303 399 0 109 161 166
TOTAL 258 116 126 133 206 161

5.3. Degree of judicial recognition of actions for annulment in Spanish High Courts of
Justice

YEAR A AR C CAN CANT CL

NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES
2022 3 2 2 1 13 4 6 1 0 0 0 0
2021 10 2 1 0 10 1 4 0 0 0 3 3
2020 10 2 0 0 9 1 2 0 0 0 1 0
2019 3 0 1 1 2 3 2 0 0 0 2 2
2018 8 4 0 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 3 0
2017 10 0 1 1 7 1 4 2 0 0 3 0
2016 15 2 2 0 11 1 2 1 0 0 3 0
2015 6 7 0 0 11 1 2 1 0 0 4 0
2014 12 5 1 0 13 2 0 1 0 0 0 0
2013 9 3 1 0 9 4 3 1 1 1 3 1
TOTAL 86 27 9 3 93 19 26 7 1 1 22 5

61
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

YEAR CLM CV E G IB LR
NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES
2022 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
2021 5 0 1 0 0 1 6 2 1 0 0 0
2020 1 1 2 0 1 1 6 1 1 0 0 0
2019 3 1 3 0 2 0 7 5 3 0 1 0
2018 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 15 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 1 1
2016 6 0 6 1 0 1 9 4 1 2 0 0
2015 1 0 7 4 0 0 13 25 1 0 0 0
2014 1 0 10 3 0 1 19 5 2 0 0 0
2013 2 1 3 1 1 0 7 4 3 0 0 0
TOTAL 23 3 47 9 7 4 81 46 16 3 2 1

YEAR M N PA PV RM
NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES
2022 36 4 0 0 4 1 9 0 1 2
2021 53 11 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 0
2020 10 12 1 1 0 0 6 0 3 2
2019 18 15 2 0 0 1 6 2 4 2
2018 26 10 0 0 2 3 4 0 3 1
2017 31 25 1 0 2 1 8 1 2 0
2016 40 17 1 0 1 1 6 2 6 2
2015 54 23 0 1 1 0 6 4 3 0
2014 53 13 1 1 3 0 9 0 8 0
2013 73 12 2 0 0 0 6 1 5 0
TOTAL 394 142 8 3 13 8 64 11 36 9

5.4. Degree of judicial estimation of the annulment action by year

2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013
Judgments 97 121 74 91 84 125 143 175 163 156
Dismissal 81 99 53 59 65 93 109 109 132 128
(83,5 %) (82 %) (71,6 %) (64,8 %) (77,4 %) (74,4 %) (76,2 %) (62,3 %) (81 %) (82 %)

Upholding 16 22 21 32 19 32 34 66 31 28
(16,5 %) (18%) (28,4 %) (35,2 %) (22,6 %) (25,6 %) (23,8 %) (37,7 %) (19 %) (18 %)

6. Bibliography

For the consultation of studies about the judicial annulment of awards in Spain see:

ÁLVAREZ SÁNCHEZ DE MOVELLÁN, Pedro, La anulación del laudo arbitral: el proceso arbitral y su
impugnación, Comares, Granada, 1996.

62
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

CALDERÓN CUADRADO, Mª Pía, «La geometría en el diseño de la acción de anulación ¿una figura
por completar?», en ARIAS, David (ed.), Miguel Ángel Fernández-Ballesteros. Liber amicorum, T.I,
CEIA-La Ley, Madrid, 2024, pp. 373-425.

CAMPO CANDELAS, Jesús, La anulación del laudo por infracción del orden público, Thomson Reuters
Aranzadi, Madrid, 2019.

ESCANDÓN VALVIDARES, Eduardo, «El concepto de orden público como causa de nulidad del laudo
arbitral», La Ley. Mediación y arbitraje, núm. 12, 2022, pp. 1-14.

FERNÁNDEZ ROZAS, José Carlos, «Riesgos de la heterodoxia en el control judicial de los laudos
arbitrales», Diario La Ley, núm. 8537, 2015, pp. 1-16.

FERRERES COMELLA, Víctor, The Constitution of Arbitration, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 2021.

GONZÁLEZ GARCÍA, Jesús María, «Algunas consideraciones sobre el control jurisdiccional del laudo
arbitral y el orden público», en ARIAS, David (ed.), Miguel Ángel Fernández-Ballesteros. Liber
amicorum, T.I, CEIA-La Ley, Madrid, 2024, pp. 975-1008.

GONZÁLEZ MONTES, José Luis, «La acción de anulación del laudo en el proceso español de
arbitraje», en GONZÁLEZ MONTES, José Luis (ed.), Estudios sobre el arbitraje, Wolters Kluwer,
Madrid, 2008, pp. 223-282.

GONZÁLEZ MONTES, José Luis, El control judicial del arbitraje, La Ley, Madrid, 2008.

HINOJOSA SEGOVIA, Rafael, «Nuevas perspectivas de la acción de anulación de los laudos

arbitrales», La Ley:Mediación y Arbitraje, núm. 8, 2021, pp. 50-94.

HINOJOSA SEGOVIA, Rafael, El recurso de anulación contra los laudos arbitrales, Edersa, Madrid,
1991.

LORCA NAVARRETE, Antonio María, La anulación del laudo arbitral remedio subsidiario, Instituto
Vasco de Derecho Procesal, San Sebastián, 2022.

MATHEUS LÓPEZ, Carlos Alberto, El recurso de anulación del laudo arbitral en el arbitraje doméstico
e internacional, Instituto Vasco de Derecho Procesal, San Sebastián, 2022.

NADAL ARCE, Santiago, «Límites al “orden público”, como excusa para anular un arbitraje:
Sentencias del Tribunal Constitucional», Diario La Ley, núm. 10076, 2022, pp. 1-7.

ORMAZABAL SÁNCHEZ, Guillermo, «La revisión judicial sobre el fondo del laudo: ¿hasta qué punto
es lícito y conveniente llegar?», en CACHÓN CADENAS, Manuel y PÉREZ DAUDÍ, Vicente (eds.), El
enjuiciamiento civil y penal hoy, Atelier, Barcelona, 2019, pp. 157-178.

ORMAZABAL SÁNCHEZ, Guillermo, El control judicial sobre el fondo del laudo, Marcial Pons, 2017.

63
InDret 4.2024 Joan Picó i Junoy

ROCA MARTÍNEZ, José María, «La anulación del laudo: del control a la injerencia», en CALAZA LÓPEZ,
Sonia/ORDEÑANA GEZURAGA, Ixusko (eds.) Externalización de la Justicia civil, penal, contencioso-
administrativa y laboral, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2022, pp. 217-255.

SANCHO GARGALLO, Ignacio, «La acción de anulación del laudo y su alcance», en VÁZQUEZ ALBERT,
Daniel/TUSQUETS TRIAS DE BES, Francisco (eds.), El arbitraje: nueva regulación y práctica arbitral,
Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2013, pp. 209-224.

SENÉS MONTILLA, Carmen, La intervención judicial en el arbitraje, Thomson Reuters-Civitas,

Madrid, 2007, pp. 101-144.

SIGÜENZA LÓPEZ, Julio, «Acción de anulación del laudo y tutela de terceros», Revista General de
Derecho Procesal, núm. 58, 2022, pp. 1-23.

VALIÑO CES, Almudena, «La nulidad del laudo arbitral y la vulneración del orden público», Revista
General de Derecho Procesal, núm. 62, 2024, pp. 1-27.

VIRZI, Fabio, «Vulneración del orden público como causa de anulación del laudo arbitral», La Ley.
Mediación y arbitraje, núm. 16, 2023, pp. 1-7.

VIRZI, Fabio, «El orden público procesal y la nulidad de los laudos arbitrales», La Ley. Mediación y
arbitraje, núm. 9, 2021, pp. 1-9.

64