Judicial interim measures should not improperly suspend arbitration.

A recently published isolated thesis holds that amparo relief may stay judicial measures that block the continuation of arbitration proceedings or prevent the issuance of an arbitral award.

The criterion establishes an important limit on judicial courts granting interim or precautionary measures where an arbitration clause exists: such measures must not nullify, replace, or paralyze the agreed arbitral mechanism, nor improperly prejudge the substantive issues submitted to arbitration. The thesis (Mexico City) is identified by the digital registry number 2032074 and is titled Arbitration. Judicial interim measures that paralyze its continuation or prevent the issuance of the award may be stayed through amparo proceedings.

The case arose from a commercial dispute related to a license agreement. The parties had agreed that their disputes would be resolved through arbitration. While the arbitration was pending, one of the parties sought interim relief before a civil court. The civil judge granted measures that, among other effects, compelled compliance with the license agreement, prohibited acts related to its termination, restricted the use of trademarks and commercial activities, and subsequently suspended the recognition or enforcement of a partial award, while also ordering the arbitral proceedings to be halted.

The affected party filed an indirect amparo suit and requested a definitive stay. The District Judge denied the request based on broad public policy grounds and the alleged inadmissibility of staying interim measures. On review, the Collegiate Circuit Court reversed that decision and granted the stay, holding that each interim measure had to be analyzed individually rather than collectively.

The thesis holds that a stay in amparo proceedings is available against interim judicial measures that prevent the continuation of arbitration or the issuance of an award, because arbitration is an institution linked to public policy, the constitutional right of access to justice, party autonomy, and the principle of minimal judicial intervention. Most significantly, the Collegiate Court did not regard arbitration as a purely private mechanism detached from the public interest. On the contrary, it held that arbitral proceedings form part of public policy insofar as they are alternative dispute resolution mechanisms recognized and protected under Article 17 of the Mexican Constitution.

Under this reasoning, an interim measure that paralyzes arbitration or prevents the issuance of an award does not preserve the subject matter of the dispute; rather, it may undermine public policy by nullifying the mechanism chosen by the parties to resolve their controversy.

What the Court Decided in the Specific Case

The Collegiate Court identified two principal issues.

First, several interim measures exceeded their instrumental nature because they did not merely preserve the status quo. Instead, they imposed affirmative and negative obligations, altered the preexisting legal relationship between the parties, and anticipated effects ordinarily reserved for a final decision on the merits. In practical terms, the interim relief did not merely preserve the status quo; it effectively imposed or reconstituted a contractual relationship whose validity was itself in dispute.

Second, the measures did not merely suspend the recognition or enforcement of the partial award; they also prevented the continuation of the arbitral proceedings and ordered the arbitrator to refrain from issuing a decision. According to the Court, those effects deprived the parties of their agreed arbitral mechanism. They directly affected public policy and the social interest in the effectiveness of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Court also emphasized that temporarily suspending a specific procedural act to avoid contradictory decisions or to preserve the subject matter of a dispute is fundamentally different from completely paralyzing arbitration. The latter may distort the protective function of interim relief and impair the constitutional right of access to justice in its dimension of ensuring the continuity of the agreed alternative dispute resolution mechanism.

The criterion is now part of a broader line of case law recognizing arbitration both as an expression of party autonomy and as a constitutionally relevant mechanism for access to justice. Accordingly, courts must distinguish between genuinely preservative interim measures and measures that, under the guise of interim protection, prematurely resolve the merits of the dispute or obstruct the agreed arbitral process.

Practical Impact

For companies that choose arbitration as their dispute resolution mechanism, this precedent reinforces the expectation that arbitral proceedings should not be blocked by judicial measures that exceed their legitimate interim purpose. Interim measures are designed to preserve rights, assets, evidence, or the subject matter of the dispute—not to compel performance of contested obligations, revive a disputed contractual relationship, or prevent arbitration from moving forward or the arbitral tribunal from rendering a decision. If a party obtains a judicial order halting the arbitration or preventing the issuance of an award, the affected party may seek amparo relief and request a stay of the challenged act.