Answer ... Yes – among other things, the court must verify that service of process was properly made in the initial proceedings. This is because due process is considered crucial.

Answer ... The court is not required to review the jurisdiction or competence of the court that issued the foreign judgment. However, in determining whether the judgment is res judicata, one of the factors that the court will review is whether the court that issued the judgment had jurisdiction. It is difficult to imagine that certification of res judicata would be issued by a body that was unsuitable to do so; although it cannot be excluded that problems may arise in this regard.

Answer ... In the case of judgments against the Ecuadorian state, the court is expressly required to do so under Article 104 of the General Organic Code of Processes (COGEP).

As discussed in questions 3.2 and 4.1, a judgment which is not a commercial matter may be reviewed to determine that it does not violate the Constitution or Ecuadorian law, or any applicable treaties.

Answer ... The court will not review the merits of the foreign judgment, except in the event of a violation of the Constitution, Ecuadorian law or applicable international treaties. In cases where it is necessary to review the conformity of the judgment with the Constitution, Ecuadorian law or applicable international treaties, the court will consider whether the decision adopted on the basis of the facts tried in that initial proceeding is in accordance with local regulations.

Answer ... This may be regarded as an argument of res judicata. Although this defence is not available under the requirements of Article 104, it may nonetheless reflect the reality – for example, where a plaintiff that loses a case in Ecuador decides to bring it to a foreign jurisdiction, where it obtains a favourable ruling. In such case the courts cannot refuse to hear the matter. Although there is no rule in this regard, the res judicata requirement could prove decisive in this situation.

Answer ... No.

Answer ... If only part of a judgment were presented for recognition in Ecuador, it is possible that the chamber might not fully understand the matter, so judgments should arguably be recognised in its entirety. The situation is different with regard to enforcement: at this stage, a party may request that only certain resolutions of the judgment be enforced.

Answer ... As outlined in question 3.4, no court filing or processing fees are payable.

With regard to interest and currency issues, these should be considered to fall within the merits of the case. If the judgment seeks payment of a monetary amount, it should indicate the currency in which this should be paid and whether interest is payable –automatic or legal.

With regard to interest, once the judgment has been recognised, the court will order that this be calculated by an expert (Article 371 of COGEP). Some argue that if the judgment does not provide for the payment of interest, the local court should order the payment of legal interest. However, in the authors’ view, this should be resisted, as it would mean that a local court which has no knowledge of the substantive matters in dispute is ordering the application of national regulations to a case that has not been resolved through the Ecuadorian justice system. Ultimately, the request for payment of interest is a power of the party requesting it, and not an imposition of the law.

As far as currency is concerned, as in Ecuador obligations are extinguished only in the currency indicated in a public law statute, the enforcement court may order the same expert to make similar calculations to convert the amount payable into the currency of legal tender in Ecuador.