icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
Cerrar buscador
icon
Volver a News
NOTICIA

Gómez-Acebo & Pombo participates in the 4th edition of Global Arbitration Review on international arbitration

icon 6 de October, 2025

Gómez-Acebo & Pombo contributed exclusively for Portugal to the 4th edition of the prestigious publication Global Arbitration Review: Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards.

The team composed of Filipa Cotta, Ricardo Campos, Rita Espírito Santo and Gonçalo Jardim analysed fundamental issues in international arbitration, such as:

-The grounds for setting aside arbitral awards.
-Recognition and enforcement procedures.
-The impact of court decisions on international arbitration practice.

Abogado mencionado

Filipa Cotta – Partner

Ricardo Campos – Partner

Ver todos los abogadosicon
Ver menos abogadosicon
Tipología

Press mention

Áreas y sectores

Litigation and Arbitration

More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo

News icon Publications icon
icon
icon
icon
icon
Competition Blog
Challenging and Enforcing Arbitration Awards in Portugal – GAR Know-How Guide
Desafiar e executar sentenças arbitrais em Portugal – Guia GAR Know-How
icon 17 Jul, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
On the exclusion of “financial instruments” from consumer protection provisions for the purposes of applicable law
For the purposes of Article 6 of Rome I, the provisions of a contract defining the terms on which a professional receives or executes a CFD-related order are not covered by the exception provided for in Article 6(4)(d).
icon 03 Jul, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
Public policy considerations in the recognition of foreign arbitral awards settling consumer disputes
Judicial review may extend to the substantive invalidity of the arbitration agreement because it conflicts with mandatory domestic rules — as well as those of the European Union — on consumer protection and, consequently, the concept of public policy encompasses both procedural and substantive public policy.
icon 01 Jul, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
Limitation period, extinguishment period, ADR, time window, limitation period, extinguishment period, ADR (a)
Article 7 of Act 1/2025 contains two references to time limits which appear to set out two different rules regarding limitation periods. However, Article 7(3) is not a rule on limitation periods.
icon 26 Jun, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
An insurer may be sued by way of a direct action under Spanish law even if the law governing the insurance contract does not allow such an action
The Supreme Court clarifies the rules governing direct actions in international cases and the limits of the law governing insurance contracts
icon 18 Jun, 2026
icon icon
Competition Blog
Overview of Civil Litigation in Portugal – GAR Know-How Guide
Administrative modernisation, major infraestructure projects, defence and energy transition in the new cycle of Portuguese public law.
icon 11 Jun, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
A restructuring plan sanctioned in England and Wales that modifies debt subject to German law has no effect in Germany
Recognition of UK restructuring plans remains a contentious issue in the European Union. This decision by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court is controversial, but it raises questions about the consequences of the application of the rule in Gibbs by the courts of England and Wales in this context.
icon 26 Feb, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
Application of Austrian law to liability in tort of directors of Maltese company offering online games of chance in Austria
The CJEU clarifies two important issues regarding the application of the Rome II Regulation: the scope of the exception relating to corporate matters and the determination of the place of damage in the case of games of chance offered via the internet from one Member State in another Member State without the licence required in the latter Member State.
icon 10 Feb, 2026
icon icon
PUBLICACIÓN
Interruption of limitation period in respect of non-sued (eventually jointly and severally liable) co-debtors (Supreme Court Judgment no. 1496/2025 of 27 October 2025)
The Supreme Court holds that mere knowledge that the limitation period has been interrupted in relation to another eventual joint and several co-debtor is equivalent to interruption. This doctrine will not be justified in most cases.
icon 17 Dec, 2025
icon icon