The Plenary of the Spanish Constitutional Court (“<span class="news-text_medium">TC</span>”) has upheld an amparo appeal brought by Tempus against a 2023 judgment of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (“<span class="news-text_medium">TSJ</span>”). The TSJ had partially annulled an arbitral award on the ground it lacked adequate reasoning.
The dispute arose under a joint venture agreement between Tempus and Looping Webs, SL (“<span class="news-text_medium">Looping</span>”). Tempus terminated the agreement unilaterally, after which Looping commenced arbitration before the International Court of Arbitration of Madrid (“<span class="news-text_medium">CIAM</span>”).
The tribunal held Tempus liable for breach and awarded damages. It dismissed Looping’s claim for loss of profits, however, on the basis that the alleged losses were speculative and insufficiently connected to the breach.
Looping challenged the award before the TSJ. The TSJ partially annulled it, finding the tribunal’s treatment of the loss-of-profits claim amounted to merely apparent reasoning (motivación aparente), because the award did not refer to the expert evidence on which it had relied.
The TSJ also criticised the tribunal’s refusal to order a joint expert meeting and its failure to rehear expert testimony after the presiding arbitrator was replaced. It concluded these matters infringed upon procedural public policy. The TSJ subsequently dismissed a nullity application (incidente de nulidad de actuaciones) brought against its judgment in 2024.
The TC overturned both the TSJ judgment and the later order and declared the previously annulled part of the award valid. It held the award contained the minimum core of rational decision-making (núcleo mínimo de racionalidad decisoria), connecting its factual findings, legal criteria and conclusions.
The Court emphasised Article 37.4 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Spanish Arbitration Act 2003</span> does not require arbitrators to evaluate or refer expressly to every item of evidence. Judicial review is confined to confirming reasons exist; it does not extend to assessing the depth or persuasiveness of those reasons.
The TC further held the TSJ should not have addressed the alleged procedural irregularities. Looping had not raised them during the arbitration and had therefore waived its right to rely on those grounds under Article 6 of the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Spanish Arbitration Act 2003</span>. Accordingly, the TSJ had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review of arbitral awards.
This is a rare instance in which the TC has itself declared an award valid, rather than remitting the matter for reconsideration. The decision restores the award’s full effectiveness without further judicial proceedings and reconfirms that Spanish courts cannot revisit an award’s reasoning or the tribunal’s evaluation of the evidence.
<span class="news-text_medium">Case:</span> Spanish Constitutional Court, Amparo appeal 1460-2024, 23 June 2026 (Spanish language).
