i INTRODUCTION

i Structure of the law

Argentina is a federal republic, with both federal and provincial levels of political organisation. While substantial provisions (such as civil and commercial law) are enacted by the Federal Congress and are applicable to the whole nation, rules of procedure are passed by the legislative branch of each province.2

Until 2015, arbitration proceedings were exclusively governed by the procedural codes of each jurisdiction. The National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure (NCCCP)3 governed arbitration proceedings seated in the city of Buenos Aires, and several provincial procedural codes contained similar provisions to that regulation.

In 2015, the National Civil and Commercial Code (NCCC)4 entered into force: since then, it regulates arbitration agreements whose provisions are applicable to all jurisdictions.

On 4 July 2018, Law No. 27,449 on International Commercial Arbitration (ICAL) was enacted. The ICAL mostly adopts the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (UNCITRAL Model Law), as amended in 2006, and regulates international commercial arbitration proceedings.

Thus, while at a domestic level arbitration proceedings are regulated by the NCCC (as a unique set of substantial rules applicable to all jurisdictions) and the procedural codes (for procedural matters) of each jurisdiction, international commercial arbitration proceedings are exclusively regulated by the ICAL.

Neither the NCCC nor the ICAL are applicable to disputes to which the state is a party. Hence, this matter is left to special laws, international treaties and conventions.

Finally, Argentina is a party to:

  1. the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NY Convention);5
  2. the 1965 Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between states and National of Other states;6
  3. the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration;7 and
  4. the 1979 Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards.8

ii The international commercial arbitration legal regime

One of the most recent and significant developments concerning international commercial arbitration in Argentina was the enactment of the ICAL on 4 July 2018, which follows the UNCITRAL Model Law with some minor differences (most of them of a non-substantial nature).

Scope of application

The ICAL regulates international commercial arbitration exclusively, without prejudice to any multilateral or bilateral treaty executed by Argentina.9 It applies when a city of Argentina is the seat of arbitration with the following exceptions:10 the obligation of the courts to refer a dispute to arbitration if there is an arbitration agreement, unless it is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed;11 interim measures;12 and the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.13

For an arbitration to be considered international, the ICAL adopts the general criteria set forth in Article 1(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law, although excluding its Item (c), according to which 'the parties have expressly agreed that the subject matter of the arbitration agreement relates to more than one country'.14

Accordingly, an arbitration is considered international under the ICAL when the parties to an arbitration agreement have, at the time of the execution of that agreement, their places of business in different states, or the place of arbitration or any place where a substantial part of the obligations of the commercial relationship is to be performed, or the place with which the subject matter of the dispute is most closely connected, is situated outside the state in which the parties have their places of business.15

The parties' autonomy restriction is explained by the need to adapt the ICAL to the NCCC's mandatory regulation on prorogatio fori, which states that the parties are authorised to extend jurisdiction on pecuniary and international matters to judges or arbitrators outside of Argentina, except for cases in which the Argentine courts have exclusive jurisdiction or when the extension of jurisdiction has been prohibited by law.16

Notwithstanding the latter restriction, the ICAL endorses a broad interpretation of the commercial nature of an arbitration, considering as commercial any relationship, contractual or not, completely or mostly governed by private law. It further states that, in cases of doubt, the commercial characterisation of the relationship should prevail.17

Arbitration agreements

Articles 14 to 20 of the ICAL regulate the formal aspects of arbitration agreements. Under these provisions, the arbitration agreement must be executed in writing,18 which includes cases when:

  1. it is made by an electronic communication between the parties;19
  2. it is contained in an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the agreement is alleged to by one party and not denied by the other;20 or
  3. it consists of a reference made in a contract to any document containing an arbitration clause, whenever the reference is such as to make that clause part of the contract.21

Arbitrability

Article 5 of the ICAL reproduces Article 1(5) of the UNCITRAL Model Law; thus, it refers the arbitrability provisions to those established under Argentine law.

Objective arbitrability

Articles 1649 and 1651 of the NCCC and Article 737 of the NCCCP state which matters can be submitted to arbitration.

In accordance with the NCCCP, a dispute can be submitted to arbitration provided that it relates to a transactional matter. Further, the NCCCP provisions on arbitration agreements will be applicable to disputes in which no public policy is compromised.22

Further, pursuant to the NCCC, the following are non-arbitrable matters:

  1. disputes that refer to the civil status or capacity of persons;
  2. family affairs;
  3. disputes involving the rights of users and consumers;
  4. adhesion contracts; and
  5. labour relationships.
Subjective arbitrability

Regarding subjective arbitrability, the NCCC does not have any special regulation. Consequently, general civil law regulations will be applicable to determine the legal capacity needed to enter into an arbitration agreement.

Generally, any person is legally capable under the law to hold rights and to assert his or her rights on his or her behalf, except for the limitations that the law imposes or when a judicial decision imposes any incapacity.23 In particular, parties to an arbitration agreement must have reached – at least – the age of 18, and enjoy the full exercise of their civil rights.

Arbitration with the state

Concerning arbitration with the state, the NCCC expressly excludes the application of its provisions to disputes to which the state, local states or state entities are parties.24 Hence, the matter is left to special laws and the applicable international treaties and conventions.

Article 1 of the NCCCP authorises the prorogatio fori in favour of foreign arbitral tribunals or state courts exclusively on pecuniary international matters, regardless of whether the parties consented to jurisdiction before or after a dispute arose. In addition to those requirements, Argentine courts should not have exclusive jurisdiction over the matter at issue,25 and the extension of jurisdiction in the case shall not be prohibited by law.26

Fundamental principles

The ICAL follows the basic principles of international arbitration present in modern legislation and in the main regulations of the most well-recognised arbitration institutions, such as the Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle,27 parties' autonomy,28 separability of the arbitration clause and equality of arms.

Interim measures and preliminary orders

Articles 38 to 55 of the ICAL regulate the power of arbitral tribunals to order interim measures.29

The ICAL partially modifies Article 17.G of the UNCITRAL Model Law, establishing that the party requesting an interim measure or applying for a preliminary order shall be liable for any costs and damage caused by the measure or the order to any party if the arbitral tribunal later determines that, in said circumstances, the measure or the order should not have been requested (instead of granted).30

The ICAL also contains specific provisions on the recognition and enforcement of interim measures.31

The judicial court competent for the recognition and enforcement of interim measures is the court of appeals on commercial matters in the seat of the arbitration.

Recourse against an award

The ICAL sets forth a 30-day term to submit a request to set aside an award.32 This provision departs from Article 759 of the NPCCC and similar provisions contained in other provincial procedural codes, according to which annulment applications should be filed within five days as from the date of notification of the arbitral award.

Under the ICAL, an arbitration award can only be challenged before a judicial court by means of a set aside application.33 Article 99 of the ICAL reproduces the grounds for annulment established in Article 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

At domestic level, the NCCCP states that de jure arbitral awards may be appealed on the merits before a court of appeals,34 while amiable composition or ex aequo et bono awards can only be set aside through an annulment request filed before a lower court.35

Appeals on the merits against de jure awards may be validly waived by the parties if so agreed in the arbitration agreement or in any other agreement. Annulment (set aside) remedies are not waivable under Argentine law. Grounds for annulment are:

  1. essential procedural errors;
  2. an award rendered outwith the term established;
  3. an award that includes decisions on issues that were not submitted to the arbitrators; and
  4. the award is inconsistent and contains contradictory decisions.36

Grounds for annulment requests against an amiable composition or ex aequo et bono award are limited to those identified as (b) and (c).37

Further, Article 1656 of the NCCC provides that parties, through their arbitration agreement, cannot waive their right to challenge a final award when it contradicts the applicable law. However, in the past few years, the Federal Supreme Court of Justice and the lower courts have shed some light on this issue, stating that Article 1656 of the NCCC only refers to annulment remedies and not appeals, which may be validly waived by the parties.38

iiiStructure of the judicial courts

Due to the federal political organisation established in the Constitution, the judicial system in Argentina is divided into federal and provincial courts. Generally, both judicial systems have lower courts, courts of appeal and a supreme court. The Federal Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina is the highest judicial authority.

There are no specialised judicial courts for arbitration matters. Regarding proceedings related to commercial arbitration, both local and federal courts have jurisdiction over their respective fields.

According to the ICAL, assistance in arbitral proceedings will be provided by lower courts, while decisions on annulment applications will be rendered by the court of appeals on commercial matters of the arbitration seat.39

iv Local institutions

The main local arbitral institutions are the General Arbitral Tribunal of the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange, the Centre for Mediation and Commercial Arbitration of the Argentine Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitral Chamber of the Buenos Aires Cereal Exchange and the Business Centre for Mediation and Arbitration (CEMA).

The General Arbitral Tribunal of the Buenos Aires Stock Exchange's Rules on Arbitration have been in force since 1993, and deal with both domestic and international arbitrations. The General Arbitral Tribunal is composed of three permanent arbitrators who are appointed by the board of the institution.40

The Centre for Mediation and Commercial Arbitration of the Argentine Chamber of Commerce offers both mediation and arbitration services, specialising in business matters. It provides a list of arbitrators who have significant expertise in both the business and arbitration field.41 However, parties can appoint arbitrators out of the list provided by the Centre.42

The Arbitral Chamber of the Buenos Aires Cereal Exchange provides conciliation, mediation and arbitration services with permanent arbitrators that solve disputes concerning the grain trade and other agricultural products.43

The CEMA was established in 1997 and provides both mediation and arbitration services.44 The CEMA adopted the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules (as revised in 2010).45 Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal shall be composed of three members (one designated by each party and the third by the two chosen arbitrators). Although the CEMA has its own list of arbitrators, the parties may appoint arbitrators out of it.

With respect to institutional arbitrations for international disputes, the most frequently used arbitral institution and rules are those of the International Chamber of Commerce.

v Arbitration statistics

There are no general statistics available on the number of arbitrations promoted in Argentina. Nevertheless, arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism has become more common in the past few decades and has been increasingly used in recent years as a mechanism of dispute settlement.

ii THE YEAR IN REVIEW

Following a year of significant changes and developments in the field of international arbitration (particularly through the enactment of the ICAL), during the past year there were some Argentine court decisions that are worth mentioning.

i Arbitration developments in local courts

Judicial review of arbitral awards

On 18 July 2019, the Court of Appeals on Commercial Matters seated in the city of Buenos Aires rendered a decision in the Pott case,46 in which it confirmed the restrictive criterion adopted by the referred court47 – as well as by the Federal Supreme Court48 – concerning the scope and extent of the judicial review of arbitral awards.

In this case, in which three defendants in an international arbitration proceeding challenged a partial award on jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals stated that annulment is limited to the specific grounds set forth under the applicable law and must not be treated as an appeal, in equivalent terms as those used by the Federal Supreme Court of Justice in two relevant precedents from 2017 and 2018.49

The decision of the Court of Appeals is particularly relevant because it ratifies the restrictive interpretation that must be made in assessing the admissibility of a request for annulment, and the fact that the courts cannot review the merits of a dispute.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

On 24 September 2019, the Federal Supreme Court issued a relevant decision with respect to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Deutsche Rückversicherung AG case.50

After obtaining a favourable award against Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguro en liquidación (Caja Nacional) in an international arbitration proceeding seated in New York, Deutsche Rückversicherung AG requested a federal judge seated in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to recognise and enforce the award. Although the federal judge rejected the recognition and enforcement of the award considering that it was contrary to the Argentinian public order, since it did not comply with the consolidation of public debts regime established by Laws. No. 23.892 and No. 25.565, the Federal Court of Appeals in Civil and Commercial Matters revoked that decision and granted the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award.

To reach such decision, the Court of Appeals considered that even when the award was contrary to the consolidation of the public debts regime and, therefore, to the Argentine public order, this did not prevent the granting of the recognition and enforcement of an award subject to its adaptation to the referred consolidation regime, in accordance with Articles III and V of the NY Convention.

Caja Nacional (a state-owned company under liquidation proceedings) appealed such decision before the Federal Supreme Court of Justice alleging, among other circumstances, that the arbitral award could not be recognised or enforced since it was contrary to the Argentine public order. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected Caja Nacional's appeal, stating that the existence of any of the grounds set forth in Article V of the NY Convention to refuse the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award was not proved. In addition, the Supreme Court expressed that in this kind of proceeding, judges cannot review the merits of a dispute or modify a foreign award, since they only have limited jurisdiction to decide about its recognition and enforcement.

Separability of the arbitration clause principle

On 30 August 2019, the Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters seated in Buenos Aires rendered a decision in the Abre SRL case,51 reaffirming a relevant interpretation of the separability of the arbitration clause principle.

The claimant filed a lawsuit against Telecom Personal SA (Telecom) seeking damages for an alleged breach of a contract executed by the parties, stating that several contractual clauses – including the arbitration agreement – were null and void since they were imposed by Telecom, which had abused its dominant position. In its statement of defence, Telecom opposed the lack of jurisdiction of the judicial courts by invoking the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. In response to such defence, the claimant insisted that the arbitration clause was null and void, since it was imposed by Telecom in an adhesion contract, and disputes related to this kind of agreement were excluded from arbitration according to Article 1651 of the NCCC.52

In its decision, the Court of Appeals confirmed the lower court's finding (which had admitted the defence opposed by Telecom) and, thus, referred the parties to arbitration. The Court expressly based its decision on the separability of the arbitration clause principle, highlighting that, although the claimant questioned the validity of several contractual clauses, the Court had to evaluate only the validity of the arbitration agreement, since it was independent from the underlying contract between the parties. According to the Court of Appeals, the factual circumstances of the case showed that claimant knew of the existence of the arbitration agreement before the execution of the contract with Telecom, and therefore could not allege that it was imposed by Telecom in an abuse of its dominant position. For this reason, the Court concluded that the arbitration agreement was valid and, therefore, that the parties had to submit their dispute to arbitration.

Interim measures

On 12 July 2019, the Federal Court of Appeals in Administrative Matters rendered a relevant decision regarding a provisional measure requested by the Argentine state in relation to the enforcement of an arbitral award.53

Papel del Tucumán SA (PTSA), a bankrupt company, obtained a favourable award against the state in an international arbitration administrated by the ICC Court, in which the Argentine Republic was condemned to pay around US$67 million plus interest. The state filed an application to have the award set aside before the federal court, and requested an interim measure to prevent the execution of the award until a decision on its application to set aside was rendered.

The Court of Appeals admitted the interim measure requested by the Argentine Republic, stating that there was an imminent and actual risk of prejudice against the public interest since the judge in charge of the PTSA's bankruptcy proceedings ordered the state to pay the amount established in the arbitral award and such amount revealed the relevance of the dispute between the parties. The Court of Appeals also stated that, in light of the factual circumstances of the case, it seemed that the Argentine Republic did not express validly its consent to arbitration.

This decision has been criticised for its negative impact on arbitrations with the state, as well as for the basis on which it relied for the admission of the interim measure requested by the Argentine Republic.

Arbitrability

Regarding arbitrability issues, in the previously cited Abre SRL and Vanger SRL cases,54 the Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters seated in Buenos Aires confirmed the validity of the arbitration clause contained in adhesion contracts, even though Article 1651 of the NCCC expressly forbids arbitration in disputes related to this kind of agreement.

As explained before, in Abre SRL the Court of Appeals decided to declare the lack of jurisdiction of the judicial courts to hear the case by confirming the validity of the arbitration clause included in the contract executed by the parties, despite the fact that it was an adhesion contract since the claimant knew about the arbitration agreement before the execution of the contract and could not allege that Telecom had imposed it by abusing its dominant position.

In Vanger SRL, the Court of Appeals rendered a similar decision, declaring that the prohibition set forth in Article 1651 of the NCCC was intended to prevent any possible abuse of bargaining power, protecting the adherent party, but that it does not apply to adhesion contracts executed between parties of equal or similar bargaining power.

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeals stated that both companies were specialised in the same activities and endowed with sufficient importance, concluding that the arbitration agreement was valid even if it was part of an adhesion contract.

Through these decisions, the Court of Appeals confirmed the criterion adopted in 2018 in the Servicios Santamaria case,55 which was clearly favourable to arbitration.

ii Investor–state disputes

Argentina ratified the 1965 Washington Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States on 19 October 1994, which entered into force in Argentina on 18 November 1994. Argentina has also approved more than 60 bilateral investment treaties (BITs).

On the basis of the publicly available information, during 2019 eight investment arbitrations brought against Argentina were pending and two were initiated. Seven of them were administrated by ICSID while only one was brought before the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) under the UNCITRAL Rules.56

The BITs invoked in these recent cases were the Argentina–United States BIT (three cases), the Argentina–United Kingdom BIT, the Argentina–Italy BIT, the Argentina–Spain BIT, the Argentina–Netherlands BIT and the Argentina–Austria BIT.

iii OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

During the past year, the Federal Supreme Court of Justice and the Court of Appeals rendered important decisions related to international arbitration. Although the majority of those decisions were favourable to arbitration in line with international trends, there are some exceptions – such as the decision rendered in PTSA – which showed that some concerns are still present, particularly when the state is a party to an arbitration.

Nevertheless, the above-mentioned decisions concerning the interpretation of the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards, in addition to the dismissal of claims to prevent the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards and the interpretation (favourable to arbitration) of the non-arbitrable matters as established in Article 1651 of the NCCC, confirm the general favourable view of arbitration as a dispute resolution method.


Footnotes

1 Federico Campolieti is a partner and Santiago L Peña is a senior associate at Bomchil.

2 See Articles 5, 75, Subsections 12, 121 and 123 of the Argentine Constitution.

3 The National Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, enacted through Law No. 17,454 of 19 September 1967, was amended, inter alia, by Law No. 22,434 of 16 March 1981 and Law No. 25,488 of 22 November 2001.

4 The National Civil and Commercial Code, enacted by Law No. 26,994.

5 Approved by Law No. 23,619 of 28 September 1988.

6 Approved by Law No. 24,353 of 28 July 1994.

7 Approved by Law No. 24,322 of 11 May 1994.

8 Approved by Law No. 22,921 of 21 September 1983.

9 Article 1 of the ICAL.

10 See Article 2 of the ICAL.

11 Title II, Chapter 2 of the ICAL.

12 Title II, Chapter 3 and Title V, Chapter 4 and 5 of the ICAL.

13 Title IX, Chapter 1 and 2 of the ICAL.

14 See Article 3(c) of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

15 See Article 3 of the ICAL.

16 See Article 2605 of the NCCC. Article 1 of the NCCCP has a similar provision.

17 See Article 6 of the ICAL.

18 See Article 15 of the ICAL.

19 See Article 16 of the ICAL.

20 See Article 17 of the ICAL.

21 See Article 18 of the ICAL.

22 Under Argentine law, public policy is currently considered to be a synonym of mandatory rules and principles whose application cannot be waived by the parties.

23 See Articles 22 to 27 of the NCCC.

24 See Article 1651 of the NCCC.

25 See Articles 2609 and 2635 of the NCCC, and the Federal Supreme Court of Justice, 8 August 2007, Techint Compañía Técnica Internacional SACE e I c Empresa Nuclear Argentina de Centrales Eléctricas en liquidación y Nucleoeléctrica Argentina SA.

26 Article 2598 of the NCCC.

27 Title IV, Chapter 1 of the ICAL.

28 As per the UNCITRAL Model Law, the ICAL is based on the parties' autonomy. By virtue of this principle, the parties may determine the nature and extent of the disputes to be submitted to arbitration, the number and procedure for the appointment of the arbitrators, and the language and place of arbitration, among other relevant aspects of the arbitration proceedings.

29 Articles 40 and 41 of the ICAL.

30 Article 55 of the ICAL.

31 Title V, Chapter 4 of the ICAL.

32 Article 100 of the ICAL.

33 Article 98 of the ICAL.

34 Article 758 of the NCCCP.

35 Article 771 of the NCCCP.

36 Article 760 and 761 of the NCCCP.

37 Article 771 of the NCCCP.

38 See the Federal Supreme Court of Justice, 5 September 2017, Ricardo Agustín López, Marcelo Gustavo Daelli, Juan Manuel Flo Díaz, Jorge Zorzópulos c/ Gemabiotech SA s/ organismos externos, Fallos, 340:1226 and 6 November 2018, EN – Procuración del Tesoro Nacional c/ (nulidad del laudo del 20–III–09) s/ recurso directo, Expediente Nº CAF 12732/2009/CS1; the Court of Appeals on Commercial Matters, Sala D, 20 March 2018, Emaco SA c/ Finesterre SA s/ Organismos externos; id., Pan American Energy LLC (Sucursal Argentina) c/ Metrogas SA (Chile) s/ Organismos externos, Thomson Reuters Online: AR/JUR/99210/2017; id., Sala E, 22 December 2015, Olam Argentina SA c/ Cubero, Alberto Martín y otros s/ Recurso de queja.

39 Article 13 of the ICAL.

42 The Centre has two sets of rules for arbitration proceedings (2005 and 2017 versions), which are available in Spanish and English (an official translation is available in the Centre's website).

45 The appointing authority is the President of the Executive Committee of the CEMA.

46 Court of Appeals on Commercial Matters, 18 July 2019, Pott, Alfredo Carlos c/ Patagonia Financial Holdings LLC y otros s/ recurso de queja.

47 See Court of Appeals on Commercial Matters, 11 July 2013, Seven Group SA c. ADT Security Services SA s/ nulidad de laudo arbitral; id., 12 April 2016, Amarilla Automotores SA c. BMW Argentina SA s/ recurso de queja; id., 12 April 2017, Díaz, Rubén H c/Techint Cía. Técnica Internacional SACEI s/Recurso de Queja; id., 19 December 2017, Pan American Energy LLC (Sucursal Argentina) c. Metrogas SA (Chile); id., 20 March 2018, Emaco SA c/Finisterre SA s/Organismos Externos.

48 See Federal Supreme Court, 17 November 1994, Color SA c/ Max Factor Sucursal Argentina s/laudo arbitral s/pedido de nulidad de laudo; id., 24 August 2005, Pestarino de Alfani, Mónica Amalia c/ Urbaser Argentina SA; id., 5 September 2017, Ricardo Agustín López, Marcelo Gustavo Daelli, Juan Manuel Flo Díaz, Jorge Zorzópulos el Gemabiotech SA si organismos externos; id., 6 November 2018, EN - Procuración del Tesoro Nacional c/(nulidad del laudo del 20-111-09) s/ recurso directo.

49 The relevant precedents in which the Federal Supreme Court of Justice adopted the restrictive criterion in the judicial review of arbitral awards are the Ricardo López y otros c/ Gemabiotech SA s/ organismos externos case (decided on 5 September 2017) and the EN – Procuración del Tesoro Nacional c/ (nulidad del laudo del 20–III–09) s/ recurso directo case (decided on 6 November 2018).

50 Federal Supreme Court, 24 September 2019, Deutsche Rückversicherung AG c/ Caja Nacional de Ahorro y Seguro en liquidac. y otros s/ proceso de ejecución.

51 Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters, 30 August 2019, Abre SRL c/ Telecom Personal SA s/ ordinario.

52 Article 1651 of the NCCC establishes a detailed list of non-arbitrable matters, some of them similar to those excluded from arbitration in comparative legislation. According to this disposition, the following matters cannot be submitted to arbitration: matters referring to the civil status or capacity of persons; family matters; disputes related to the rights of users and consumers; disputes related to adhesion contracts, whatever their purpose could be; and disputes related to labour relations.

53 Federal Court of Appeals in Administrative Matters, 12 July 2019, EN-Procuración del Tesoro de la Nación c/.s/Recurso Directo de Organismo Externo.

54 Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters, 6 June 2019, Vanger SRL c/ Minera Don Nicolás SA s/ ordinario.

55 Court of Appeals in Commercial Matters, 24 May 2018, Servicios Santamaría SA c/ Energía de Argentina SA s/ ordinario.

56 ICSID cases No. ARB/17/17; ARB/15/39; ARB/14/32; ARB/03/27; ARB/02/17, ARB/19/25; and ARB/19/11; and PCA case No. 2010-9.