Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Buenos Aires, [handwritten] June 4, 2013 Having reviewed the record: In the case Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation re: Preventive Measures. WHEREAS: (1) Chevron Argentina S.R.L., Ingeniero Roberto Pri S.R.L., CDC Aps, and CDHC Aps have filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgment entered by the Recess Division of the Court of Civil Appeals, which, affirming the trial courts judgment, ordered the execution of several preventive measures against the assets of those companies ordered by the deputy president of the Provincial Court of Sucumbos, Republic of Ecuador. The Ecuadorian court asked the Argentine courts to comply with the order under the terms of the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures (CIDIP-II).
The appeal was admitted in part, regarding the interpretation and application to the case of Article 5 of the Convention, and it was denied regarding the complaints based on the arbitrary-judgment doctrine. Concerning this last aspect, the defendants filed a petition for review of denied appeal with the Court.
(2) The case involves a dispute about the interpretation of certain clauses in an international cooperation treaty on procedural mattersCIDIP-IIand the judgment runs counter to the law in those clauses that appellants have cited. So the petition complies with Article 14(3) of Law 48 (Decisions: 118:127; 276: 327, and 319:2411).
-1-
Further, although decisions accepting or rejecting preventive measures are not final judgments, this Court has found that, under Article 14, first paragraph, Law 48, such decisions are equivalent to final judgments when the right invoked can only be protected in that particular opportunity, as in this case, since the exclusive aim of CIDIP-II is cooperation regarding preventive measures. Moreover, that equivalence is justified when a harm is caused that is difficult or impossible to redress subsequently, as in this case, considering the financial importance of the ordered attachment.
In order to properly address appellants complaints, the Court must rule on both the extraordinary appeal admitted by the lower court and the direct appeal filed by defendants in connection with the remaining arguments against the appealed judgment.
(3) Under the system created by the Convention, the courts of each of the States Parties has a duty to execute the preventive measures decreed by judges of another State Party (Article 2), with the important exception that the former may refuse to do so when the measures are manifestly contrary to its public policy (Article 12).
(4) This Court has held on numerous occasions that the principle of procedural due process (Article 18 of the Constitution) is part of Argentine international public policy, not only in criminal proceedings (Decisions: 328: 3193), but also in proceedings
-2-
A. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation on Preventive Measures
that involve property rights (Decisions: 319: 2411). In this last decision, the Court held that this principle must be followed not only in any court proceeding conducted in Argentine jurisdiction, but also in any proceeding that concludes with a judgment or decision entered by a foreign judicial authority that has extraterritorial effects in the Republic of Argentina (Decisions: 319:2411, conclusion five).
(5) As explained by the Attorney General and as appears in the letter rogatory issued by the Ecuadorian court, this case involves preventive measures ordered in an enforcement proceeding of a judgment entered in Ecuador under which Chevron Corporation was ordered to pay US$ 19,021,552,000 (page 1-1(back)). In that proceeding, the court also decided that the effects of the judgment extended to Chevron Corporations subsidiaries, specifically the defendants in this case, Chevron Argentina S.R.L. and Ingeniero Roberto Pri, and the owners of their shares (page 201 et seq.).
Likewise, it is undisputed that the appellant companies were not parties to the case against Chevron Corporation and that they are different legal entities, whose assets the court decided to combine for purposes of enforcing the award. In fact, as arises from the grounds of the decision issued by the judge of the State of origin, that court ordered the preventive measures against the companies incorporated in Argentina and the owners of their shares based on the
-3-
theory of piercing the corporate veil and disregard for separate legal personality, a point that, according to the judge, is not subject to debate, since that issue has already been decided (page 201).
(6) Under our law, the decision to pierce the corporate veil is an exceptional one, and it can only be made under certain conditions established by law (Article 54 of Companies Act No. 19550). Moreover, since legal personality is a corporate right that protects not only the companys assets but also the legitimate interests of those who have contracted with it, this exceptional order cannot be enforced without first conducting an adversarial proceeding, either principal or collateral, that effectively provides the parties an opportunity to make their case.
(7) Therefore, in the case at hand, the above-cited precedent applies (Decisions: 319:2411), and this Court concludes that the Ecuadorian courts decisionto impose preventive measures on the property of the defendant companies, based on a decision to pierce the corporate veil without first holding a hearing on the matterdeprived those companies of this right, violating the principles of Argentine international public policy (Articles 17 and 18 of the Constitution), a circumstance that prevents execution of the letter rogatory.
Moreover, since this issue has been closed to further debate, since it has already been decided and is res judicata, it is unnecessary to consider
-4-
A. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation on Preventive Measures
whether to apply Article 5, first paragraph, of the Conventionwhich submits the decision of third-party claims or objections filed by parties affected by the measures to the jurisdiction of the judge who issued the letter rogatoryto this case.
Therefore, consistent with the opinion of the Attorney General of Argentina, the Court grants the petition, rules in favor of the extraordinary appeal, and vacates the appealed judgment. With costs. Return the deposit on page 3 bis. Notify the parties and, when appropriate, remit the record. [Signature] Ricardo Luis Lorenzetti [Signature] Helena I. Highton de Nolasco [Signature] Carlos S. Fayt (Dissenting opinion) [Signature] Enrique S. Petracchi [Signature] Juan Carlos Maqueda [Signature] E. Ral Zaffaroni [Signature] Carmen M. Argibay
-5-
-6-
A. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation on Preventive Measures
WHEREAS:
(1) The companies Chevron Argentina S.R.L., Ingeniero Roberto Pri S.R.L., CDC Aps and CDHC Aps filed an extraordinary appeal against the judgment issued by the recess division of the Court of Civil Appeals on January 29, 2013, which affirmed the trial courts judgment and ordered several preventive measures on the companies assets. The appeal was granted in part, regarding the interpretation of article 5 of the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures (CIDIP), and denied regarding the alleged arbitrariness of the judgment, in response to which the companies filed a petition for review of denied appeal with the Court.
(2) The appealed judgment executed preventive measures requestedthrough a letter rogatoryby the deputy president of the Provincial Court of Sucumbos, Republic of Ecuador, within the framework of the above Convention on international judicial cooperation.
(3) Among other complaints against the appealed judgment, appellants argued that the preventive measures against them were ordered in a case brought against Chevron Corporation, to which they were not parties, because, they said, they are separate legal entities from the oil company sued in Ecuador, but the judgment issued against
-7-
that company was extended to them by application of the theory of piercing the corporate veil, an issue that, the Ecuadorian judge said on page 201, has already been decided.
(4) This Court has repeatedly ruled that decisions associated with preventive measureswhether they order, modify, or revoke themare not final decisions for the purpose of granting the appeal governed by art. 14 of Law 48 (Decisions: 310:681; 313:116; 327:5068, and 329:440, among others).
(5) In this case, there are no grounds justifying deviation from the decisions mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
(6) This is so because, as the Court has held . . . the Court is responsible within its jurisdictionfor applying the international treaties by which the country is bound. . . , since otherwise, the nation would be liable to the international community (Decisions: 318:514, Giroldi).
(7) The States Parties to the Inter-American Convention on Execution of Preventive Measures established that their judicial authorities will apply the preventive measures . . . decreed by a judge or court of another State Party competent in the international sphere, and whose purpose is: . . .
(b) To execute measures necessary to guarantee the security of property, such as the preventive attachment
-8-
A. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation on Preventive Measures
of immovable and movable property, the registration of the suit or the administration and seizure of businesses (art. 2).
In this regard, when defining preventive measures, art. 1 of the Convention shows how broad the commitment undertaken is, since it extends to procedures or measures whose purpose is to guarantee the findings or effects of a pending or future proceeding concerning the security of persons, property, or of obligations to give, to do or not do a specific thing in civil, commercial or labor matters, or in criminal trials in which civil damages are sought.
Consistent with the breadth of the commitment undertaken by the States Parties to the Convention, the Convention establishes that: When an attachment or any other preventive measure involving property has been executed, the person affected by this measure may plead his third-party claim or pertinent objections before the judge to whom the letter rogatory was addressed, for the sole purpose of having that claim communicated to the judge of origin when the letter rogatory is returned to him. The objection shall be heard by the judge of the principal proceedings, in conformity with his law (art. 5, emphasis added).
The Convention allows the State of destination to refuse to enforce the measures only when: the party affected justifies the absolute lack of grounds for the measure (or when) . . . the judge of the State of execution may lift such measure in accordance with his own law (art. 4), and when the measures . . . are manifestly contrary to its public policy (art. 12).
-9-
(8) In this regard, it does not appear that the preventive measures requested in the letter rogatory are manifestly contrary to our legal system, considering that the procedural rules that govern the subject expressly establish: Preventive measures shall be ordered and executed without an adversarial hearing. No interlocutory motion filed by the party affected by the measure may stop execution (art. 198 of the Argentine Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure).
Further support for this conclusion comes from the fact that both the convention on international judicial cooperation and our domestic legal system precisely distinguish between the characteristics of the debate that may be raised regarding these kinds of measures and those that may be raised when ordering enforcement of the judgment.
The Convention is clear in this regard, ordering: The execution of preventive measures by a judge or court of the State of destination shall not entail any commitment to recognize and execute the foreign judgment that may have been rendered in the proceeding concerned (art. 6).
Along the same lines, art. 517 of the Argentine Civil and Commercial Code of Procedure, among other requirements for enforcing a foreign judgment, requires: that the judgment does not affect the principles of Argentine public policy (paragraph 4), and that the defendant against whom the judgment is to be enforced has been summoned in person and that his right to be heard has been guaranteed (paragraph 2). Based on the
-10-
A. 253 XLIX A. 238 XLIX PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DENIED APPEAL Aguinda Salazar, Maria v. Chevron Corporation on Preventive Measures
the characteristics of a preventive-measure proceeding, this last requirement need not be met to order such a measure.
Therefore, considering the opinion of the Attorney General of Argentina, the extraordinary appeal, as well as the separate petition for review of denied appeal, is denied, with costs. The deposit on page 3 bis of the direct presentation is declared lost. Proceed to close and file the case. Notify the parties and returned the record in the principal case to the lower court.
-11-
Extraordinary appeal filed by Chevron Argentina S.R.L., represented by Francisco Javier Romano; and by Ingeniero Norberto Pri S.R.L., represented by Julio Csar Rivera, assisted by Osvaldo Alfredo Gozaini, Ricardo Augusto Nissen, and Len Carlos Arslanian. Service answered by Mara Aguinda Salazar et al., represented by Martn Beretervide, assisted by Carlos Mara Rotman, Rodolfo A. Ramrez, and Enrique Bruchou. Court of origin: Court of Civil Appeals, Recess Division. Court that preceded: Court of Civil Appeals, First Division.
-12-
Corporation
si
, Buenos Aires,
Vistos ration los autos: "Aguinda Salazar,
Mara
O
han
cl Chevron Corpo-
si
medidas
precautorias".
Considerando: l) Que las firmas ro Roberto curso feria Pri Chevron Argentina Aps S.R.L., Ingeniere-
y CDHC
interpuesto por
extraordinario de la Cmara
la sentencia
dictada
la sala de que, al
de Apelaciones dispuso
confirmar versas
la de primera
instancia, contra
de dipor el Relos
medidas
precautorias de y
subrogante Ecuador
la Corte
Sucumbos, a
cuyo
cumplimiento
solicitado
tribunales ricana
argentinos
en los trminos
Interame-
de Medidas
niente
a la interpretacin
la Convencin en la doctrina
y fue rechazado de la
fundados relacin
arbitrariedad la demandada
aspecto,
present
el correspondien-
de queja por ante el Tribunal. 2) Que en el pleito ha sido controvertida la inteliinterha sido de 14,
gencia
de diversas en materia
de un tratado -CIDIP-II-
de cooperacin
y la sentencia ha fundado
al derecho el recurso
previsiones 276:327
y 319:2411).
-1-
Por lugar
otra
parte,
si bien
las
resoluciones
que
hacen
o rechazan
medidas
cautelares
definiti-
ser equiparadas
solo
ser protegido
objeto esa
en materia
equiparacin o imposible
se justifica reparacin
cuando
se irroga
de dificil
posterior,
en el caso dispuesto.
en atencin
a la trascendencia
econmica
tratamiento conjunta
de los agravios
hace
necesaconcela de-
el recurso
directa de los
argumentos
dirigidos
el fallo apelado. 3) Que el sistema creado por la Convencin de cada uno establece Estados
que dar de
tienen
los
de los
medidas
cautelares con la
jueces
aclaracin
hacerlo
cuando
manifiestamente
en diversas (art.
adjetivo pblico
Nacional)
orden
sobre derechos
-2-
A.
A.
253.
238.
XLIX.
XLIX.
DE HECHO
el Chevron
Corporation
si
contenido patrimonial (Fallos: 319:2411). En este ltimo pronunciamiento seal que a dicho principio "debe conformarse no slo todo procedimiento jurisdiccional que se lleve a cabo en jurisdiccin argentina, sino tambin todo procedimiento que se concluya en la sentencia o resolucin dictada por autoridad judicial extranjera con efectos extraterritoriales en la Repblica Argentina
H
(Fallos: 319:2411, considerando 5). 5) Que, tal como lo pone de resalto la seora Procu-
dispuestas en el procedimiento de ejecucin de una sentencia dictada en Ecuador por el cual se conden a la firma Chevron Corporation a pagar la suma de U$S 19.021.552.000 (fs. 1/1
vta.). En dicho proceso se decidi tambin que los efectos del fallo se extendian a las sociedades subsidiarias de Chevron Corporation, en particular a las aqui demandadas Chevron Argentina SRL e Ingeniero Roberto Pri, y los titulares de sus cuotas sociales (fs. 201 y sgtes.)
Est fuera de controversia, asimismo, que las socie-
dades apelantes no han tenido participacin en el pleito seguido contra Chevron Corporation y que son personas jurdicas distintas cuyos patrimonios se ha decidido unificar con el de esa firma a los efectos de ejecutar la indemnizacin. En efecto, segn puede leerse en los fundamentos de la resolucin dictada por el juez del Estado requirente, las medidas cautelares contra las sociedades constituidas en la Repblica Argentina y los titulares de sus cuotas sociales fueron tomadas sobre la base de la
-3-
teoria
societario sobre
pues
y desestimacin dice
de
la personalidad
trado, no
el cual,
"tal
el magisse encuen-
es procedente
contender,
decisin
tiene
ciertas de
condiciones
establecidas Asimismo,
por en que
Sociedades
19.550).
juridica
de la sociedad atiende
intereses
con ella,
excepcional por
ser puesto o
en prctica incidental,
principal
posibilidad
consiguiente, en el que ya
resulta citado
seguido
Fallos:
para de
concluir imponer
la decisin
Ecuador
medidas en
cautelares razn de
los
sociedades
demandadas,
haberse
decretado,
audiencia
previa,
la inoponibilidad
de su personalidad
juridica, que
de este derecho,
con afectacin
de principios
el orden pblico
internacional
argentino
(arts. 17 y 18
de la Constitucin miento
Nacional),
circunstancia
cerrado
la cuestin
carcter
a toda
de cosa
controversia,
dado
que
ha
resuelta
con
juzgada,
se
torna
innecesario
ingresar
a la
consideracin
sobre
-4-
RECURSO DE HECHO
Aguinda medidas Salazar, Maria precautorias.
el
Chevron
Corporation
sI
la pertinencia
de aplicar
a este
caso el arto
5, primer
prra-
a la jurisdiccin tercerias
del juez
sobre
u oposiciones
planteadas
afectadas con
de conformidad
General
a la queja,
procedente
extraordinario costas.
y se deja
sin efecde
to la sentencia
apelada.
Reintgrese
oportunamente,
devulvanse
DI51-//ENRIQUE S. PETRACCHI
E. RAUL ZAFFARONI
-5-
"
, , ,\
,"
-6-
Aguinda medidas
el
Chevron
Corporation
sI
-//-DENCIA
DOCTOR
DON CARLOS
S. FAYT
de la Cmara
de Apelaciones
el 29 de y dispu-
enero de 2013, que confirm so la traba las empresas CDC de diversas Chevron Aps
y
medidas
Argentina Aps,
Ingeniero recurso
S. R. L.,
CDHC
interpusieron
concedido,
en lo concerniente
5 de
la Convencin
Interamericana
el Cumplimiento
de Medidas
Cautelares
(CIDIP) y denegado
de dicho pronunciamiento,
la correspondiente
impugnada
dio
a curso carta
a la traba por
cautelares,
solicitada de la
-mediante Corte
rogatoriade
presidente
subrogante
Provincial
Sucumbos, convencin
Repblica
dentro
del marco
de la citada
de cooperacin 3 0) tencia
impugnada,
adujeron,
cautelares dirigido
Corporation segn la
no tuvieron de
expusieron, corporacin
trata
personas en
petrolera
demandada
se les haba
extendido
la sentencia
dictada
-7-
contra
miento
aquella
del velo
empresa
por aplicacin
cuestin
de la teoria
que, manifest
societario"
do ecuatoriano
encuentra
es reiterada
jurisprudencia
relacionadas
modifiquen o
con medidas
revoquen no
cautelares,
constituyen
ya fuere que
sentencia de-
finitiva por
regulado y
el arto
327:5068
329:440,
entre otros)
SO)
Que, no se
observan del
en el
presente
caso,
motivos al
que justifiquen
el apartamiento
criterio
jurisprudencial anterior.
en el considerando conforme
6') Que ello es as porque el Tribunal cin~ a l "... le corresponde los tratados -en
la medida
aplicar
a que
vinculado ... ya que lo contrario la Nacin "Giroldi") 7') Que ricana que sus sobre el los Estados frente
responsabilidad
a la comunidad
internacional"
(Fallos: 318:514,
Parte
de la Convencin Cautelares
Cumplimiento
de Medidas
darn por
cumplimiento
medidas otro
jueces
o tribunales
Estado
competentes
en la esfera
internacional,
de los bienes,
como embargos
y secues-
-8-
Aguinda medidas
el Chevron
Corporation
51
tras
preventivos
de bienes
inmuebles
y muebles,
inscripcin
de
demanda
e intervencin el arto
de empresas"
l de la Convencin
a qu debe das
entenderse, pone
compromiso que
asumido tienda
comprende
procedimiento
o medio
a garantizar en cuanto
o efectos
de un proceso
actual
o futuro
de los bienes
hacer
de naturaleza en cuanto
civil,
comercial, civil".
procesos
a la reparacin
correlativo firmantes
a la amplitud
de la convencin, embargo o
se hubiere
trabado
cualquier afectada
cautelar
en materia
de bienes,
la persona
ante el juez al cual se le libro el exla terceria sea comunicada u oposicin al juez pertinente con
o carta
el nico volvrsele
objeto
de origen
al de-
se sustanciar
lo principal,
(art. 5, nfasis
internacional por
restringe, el Estado
nicamente, requerido a
en que:
justifique juez
la medida levantar
que) ... el
podr
medida
de acuerdo
su propia
4) Y cuando
contrarias
orden pblico"
-9-
no se advierte
en la rogatoria
que la traba
resulte las
de
"maninormas
fiestamente
ordenamiento,
cuando
que
rigen
en
la materia
expresamente
disponen
que:
precautorias
se decretarn incidente
y cumplirn planteado
sin audien-
Ningn
podr
detener
su cumplimiento" de la Nacin) .
civil y Comercial
se robustece cooperacin
que como
la Convencin
ordenamiento
de
judicial
con
interno
distinguen
carac-
tersticas
de la discusin
respecto
de este de dis-
en oportunidad
la ejecucin Es clara
aspecto por
cuando
dispojurisy
ne: "El cumplimiento diccional ejecutar ceso." requerido la sentencia (art. 6')
el rgano
compromiso de
reconocer
que se dictare
en el mismo pro-
concordante de la Nacin,
pueda
Propala
extranjera
"que
no afecte
(inc. 4) y "que
ejecutar
la sentencia
hubiese
sido personalmente
citada
garantizado
su defensa"
este lti-
-10-
.~.
A. A.
253. 238.
XLIX. XLIX.
RECURSO
Aguinda medidas
DE HECHO
Salazar, Mara precautorias.
el Chevron
Corporation
si
mo,
que,
de
acuerdo
con
los
rasgos
distintivos
de
un
proceso
cautelar,
Declrase directa
perdido
el depsito
y, oportunamente,
el expediente
procdase principal
devulvase
CARtas
.;
-11-
Recurso extraordinario interpuesto por Chevron Argentina S.R.L, representada por el Dr. Francisco Javier Romano; y por Ingeniero Norberto Pri S.R.L, representada por el Dr. Julio Csar Rivera, con el patrocinio letrado de los Dres. Osvaldo Alfredo Gozani, Ricardo Augusto Nissen y Len Carlos Arslanian. Traslado contestado por Mara Aguinda Salazar y otros, Dr. Martn Beretervide, con el patrocinio de los Dres. Rodolfo A. Ramrez y Enrique Bruchou. Tribunal de origen: Cmara Nacional de Apelaciones representados Carlos Mara por el Rotman,
con anterioridad:
Cmara Nacional
"
-12-