Mexico is a party to multiple international treaties on the enforcement of foreign judgments, such as:

• The Hague Choice of Courts Convention of 2005;
• The Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards;
• The Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments;
• The Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory;
• The Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Convention on Letters Rogatory;
• The Inter-American Convention in the Taking of Evidence Abroad;
• The Additional Protocol to the Inter-American Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad;
• The Convention between the United Mexican States and the United Kingdom of Spain on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Judgments and Arbitral Awards in Civil and Commercial Matters;
• The Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalization for Foreign Public Documents; and
• The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.

Domestic civil legislation has been adapted to recognize the enforcement of foreign judgments in Mexico. The civil legislation establishes the procedure and requirements for the enforcement of foreign judgments through the Federal Code of Civil Procedure (FCCP) and the Commercial Code (CC) (note: on July 7, 2023, the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure (NCCFP) was enacted, which will replace the FCCP no later than April 1, 2027).

The FCCP and the CC provide that foreign judgments, private arbitral awards of a non-commercial nature and judicial decisions are enforced through an enforcement procedure. Enforcement takes place through an ancillary proceeding in which the Mexican courts limit their analysis of the foreign judgment to its authenticity and whether it is enforceable under Mexican law.

Regarding to the future application of the NCCFP, it is important to highlight that this Code establishes that the procedure for the recognition of foreign judgments shall be governed by the provisions established in the applicable international instruments and in the NCCFP itself. This aims to harmonize the recognition of foreign judgments in Mexico.

Mexico has made reservations and/or interpretative statements on some of the international treaties mentioned in the answer to question 1, but the ones that are considered more relevant are those made in respect of:

• The Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards:

• Reservation on Article 1: limiting its application to punitive judgments involving property in one of the States Parties.
• Interpretative declaration on Article 2 (d): This condition shall be considered fulfilled when the jurisdiction of the judge or tribunal has been established in accordance with the rules recognized in the Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments, excluding all matters referred to in Article 6 of that instrument.
• Interpretative declaration on Article 3: Confirmation and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards require their transmission by means of letters rogatory containing the summons required for the Parties to appear before the judge receiving the letters rogatory.
• Interpretative declaration on Article 6: The judge receiving letters rogatory is competent in all procedures to guarantee the execution of judgments, including, inter alia, procedures concerning attachments, depositaries, third-party interventions, and adjudication in auction.

• The Inter-American Convention on Jurisdiction in the International Sphere for the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments:

• Interpretative declaration on Article 11: This instrument shall be applied to determine the validity of jurisdiction in the international sphere referred to in Article 2 (d) of the Inter-American Convention on Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, without prejudice to Mexico’s prerogative to apply this Convention independently.

Yes, foreign judgments can be enforced even in the absence of a convention, treaty or other agreement. The current law does not prohibit this, and the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice has addressed this issue in a non-binding but guiding precedent (see digital registry: 176451). The justices considered that the expressions ‘rules recognized in the international sphere’ or ‘in international law’, used in Article 1347-A, Section III of the CC and Article 571, Section III of the FCCP, do not imply that there must be an international treaty signed between Mexico and the country of origin of the judgment for it to be recognized and enforced, since the interpretation of such phrases includes much more than international treaties. Furthermore, Articles 564 and 566 of the FCCP establish express rules for the recognition of the jurisdiction of foreign judicial authorities in the context of exequatur proceedings, this confirms that the existence of international treaties is not essential in this respect, since there are rules that regulate the competency of the court of origin.

To enforce a foreign judgment in Mexico, Article 571 of the FCCP and Article 1347-A of the CC establish the following requirements:

• The formalities established in the international treaties on mutual legal assistance to which Mexico is a party must be complied with;
• It must not have been issued as a result of an action in rem;
• The judicial authority issuing the decision must have jurisdiction and must evaluate the matter in accordance with the rules of international law that are compatible with national legislation;
• The defendant must have been personally summoned;
• The decision must have the status of res judicata in the country in which it was rendered (or, alternatively, there must be no ordinary appeal available against it);
• The act from where the requirements arise must not be the subject of a lawsuit pending between the same parties before Mexican courts, and in which the Mexican court has taken preventive action (or at least the letter rogatory for the summons has been processed and delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the authorities of the state where the summons is to be served);
• The obligation to be performed must not be contrary to public policy in Mexico; and
• The documentation must be properly authenticated.

It is important to note that while Article 1186 of the NCCFP, includes a new wording and order for the requirements that foreign judgments must comply with to be enforced, the essence of the requirements set forth in the FCCP remains the same.

In addition, Article 1189 of the NCCFP adds four scenarios (broadly mentioned before) under which a foreign judgment will not be enforced in Mexico:

• If it is not res iudicata;
• If it cannot produce any legal effect in the State where it was rendered;
• If it is contrary to the institutions and fundamental principles of Mexican public order or was rendered in violation of the law; and
• If the procedure that led to the judgment is incompatible with the principles of due process under Mexican law.

Money judgments are not the only type of judgments that can be enforced, in Mexico. However, Article 568 of the FCCP establishes that Mexican courts have exclusive jurisdiction in the following matters:

• Lands and waters located in the national territory, including the subsoil, airspace, territorial sea and continental shelf, whether they are in rem rights, rights derived from concessions of use, exploration, exploitation or utilization, or leasing of such assets;
• Resources of the exclusive economic zone or related to any of the sovereign rights over such zone, under the terms of the Federal Sea Act;
• Acts of authority or related to the internal regime of the State and of the agencies of the Federation and of the federal entities;
• Internal regime of Mexican embassies and consulates abroad and their official actions; and
• Where the applicable legislation so provides.

Therefore, foreign judgments (of any kind) relating to these matters will not be enforceable in Mexico. It must also be considered that Mexico made an express reservation to Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, which limits the application of this international treaty to criminal judgments involving property in one of the contracting states.

In addition, Article 569 of the FCCP establishes that the effects that the judgments may have on national territory shall be determined by national legislation, which is a further limitation.

Apart from the exceptions mentioned above, judgments containing other types of relief may be enforced.

As highlighted, the NCCFP introduces new principles on the matter of enforcement of foreign judgments, specifically on the type of judgment and its effects, these being that:

• While the NCCFP does not contain an article of the same nature as Article 568 of the FCCP, this should not be interpreted as if these matters can now be decided in a foreign judgment and enforced in Mexico, since those issues are considered Mexican public policy; and
• The effects of the enforceable judgment or award will now be those stated in the judgment or award, as Article 1181 of the NCCFP establishes, parting ways from the rule contained under Article 569 of the FCCP.

The procedure for enforcing foreign judgments according to the FCCP consists of two parts: (i) homologation and (ii) ancillary enforcement, which is described in the answer to question 6.

As mentioned above, the first part of the procedure consists of a homologation process, which essentially is a matter of formal requirements, thus the answer will be set out in the answer to question 7.

Regarding the ancillary enforcement proceeding:

1. The parties shall be personally summoned;
2. The parties may present their defenses and exercise their corresponding rights;
3. The parties may also offer the pertinent evidence (if applicable);
4. A hearing date for the presentation of evidence will be set afterwards (if applicable);
5. The judge will rule on the enforcement; and
6. If the enforcement is denied or authorized, this decision may be challenged by means of a motion to appeal (see the answer to question 18).

Issues pertaining to attachments, seizure of assets, appraisal, auction, and other matters concerning the liquidation and enforcement of a judgment delivered by a foreign court will be resolved by the court in charge of the enforcement process. The distribution of funds resulting from the auction will remain at the disposal of the foreign judge delivering the judgment.

A new possibility for enforcement has been introduced in Article 1187 of the NCCFP, which states that, where applicable, the Mexican judicial authority shall specify which parts of the enforcement procedure may be executed using special or different forms than those used in Mexico. The jurisdictional authority shall specify any additional or deleted procedural forms. The aforementioned will proceed as long as it does not contravene fundamental principles and institutions of public order, particularly those set out in the Mexican Constitution with regard to human rights. The foreign petitioner or interested party must include a description of the formalities they are requesting be applied to the execution of the international request or letter rogatory.

The request of the foreign court that issued the judgment must be accompanied by the following documents for the homologation provided for in Article 572 of the FCCP:

• An authenticated copy of the judgment;
• An authenticated or certified copy of proof that the essential procedural formalities have been complied with;
• A Spanish translation of all the authenticated documents; and
• Additionally, that the plaintiff must indicate an address for service of notice in the jurisdiction of the court before which it is requesting the enforcement of the foreign judgment.

Foreign judgments do not need to be legalized, since they are transmitted through official channels (Article 552 FCCP), but they need to be apostilled in order to comply with the authentication requisite (Article 571 FCCP). This has changed, since in Article 1165 of the NCCFP, it is established that if the rogatory letter or international request is being made through official channels, the documents do not need to be apostilled (this could be contrary to the ‘authenticity’ requisite set forth on Articles 1186 and 1188 of the NCCFP).

The foreign judgment procedure in Mexico is a summary procedure, and the time it takes to enforce a foreign judgment will ultimately depend on:

• The workload of the corresponding courts; and
• The collection rate and accumulated experience of the legal counsel handling the specific case.

The proceeding before a Mexican tribunal, including an appeal and if a constitutional remedy (amparo) is applied (see answer to question 18), could take up to 3 years.

This is possible, since there is no express prohibition in law. However, it will be decided on a case to case basis by the relevant judge. The same reasoning applies to the NCCFP.

There is no specific limitation period for enforcing foreign judgments. However, there are two possible approaches.

First, if enforcement is regarded as an effect of the judgment, Article 1159 of the Mexican Federal Civil Code (CiC) applicable considering Article 569 of the FCCP, stipulates that the general limitation period for exercising rights is 10 years (exceptions may apply). Alternatively, if enforcement of the judgment is viewed as an inherent right associated with the judgment itself, the statutes of limitations of the foreign applicable law shall be considered.

In light of Article 1181 of the NCCFP, the above interpretation may no longer be relevant as the effects will also now be those pertaining to the foreign judgment, eliminating the two possible interpretations and leaving just the one based on the foreign law statute of limitations.

A foreign judgment can be challenged, based on the following grounds (Article 571 of the FCCP):

• If the formalities established in the international treaties on mutual legal assistance to which Mexico are not complied with;
• If it was issued as a result of an action in rem:
• If the judicial authority issuing the decision does not have jurisdiction and if the matter is not in accordance with the rules of international law which are incompatible with national legislation;
• If the defendant was not personally summoned;
• If the decision is not res judicata in the country in which it was rendered;
• If the act that gave rise to the controversy is subject of a pending lawsuit between the same parties before Mexican courts, or in which the Mexican court has taken preventive action (or at least the letter rogatory for the summons has been processed and delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the authorities of the state where the summons is to be served);
• If the obligation to be performed is contrary to public policy in Mexico (for example, the matter set out as exclusive competency for Mexican tribunals in Article 568 of the FCCP); and
• If the documentation is not properly authenticated.

The NCCFP basically establishes the same grounds for the challenge of a foreign judgment within its Articles 1186 and 1189.

No, per Article 575 of the FCCP (replicated in Article 1190, Section VII, of the NCCFP), the judge or appeal courts are not permitted to reconsider the merits of the case and must only analyse whether the judgment is authentic and should be executed per Mexican law.

Yes, the competence of the presiding judge will be evaluated as a prerequisite for the enforceability of the judgment, in accordance with the provisions of Section III of Article 571 of the FCCP and Section III of Article 1186 of the NCCFP. For instance, Article 1186, Section IV, of the NCCFP stipulates that a Mexican judge must ascertain whether the parties to an agreement that selected a foreign forum had the capacity to enter into this agreement. Furthermore, Article 13, Section II of the CiC stipulates that the applicable law is determined by the status and capacity of individuals based on their domicile.

Yes, it is considered Mexican public policy that defendant is personally summoned to the process. This is done to ensure that their due process and ability to present their case rights are not hindered, as described in the answer to question 4. While there are no specific requirements, the summoning rules in the foreign country must align with the fundamental principles of Mexican law.

“Personally serving the defendant” shall be construed as providing the defendant with an opportunity to present their case and protect their due process rights, rather than offering them the chance to actively defend themselves in the proceedings. This allows for foreign judgments in default to be enforced.

While there are objective criteria that establish specific situations under which foreign judgments cannot be recognized, the last paragraph of Article 571 of the FCCP (similar to Article 1186 of the NCCFP) allows a judge to deny enforcement of a judgment if it is proven that the country from which the judgment originates does not reciprocate in similar cases, despite the fulfilment of the enforceability requirements.

Yes, as mentioned in the answer to question 4, judgments related to the following matters, or that are contrary to, cannot be enforced.  These include:

• The specific matter set out in Article 568 of the FCCP issues, such as: lands and water in the national territory and acts of Mexican authorities, etc.
• Judgments that are not punitive judgments involving property in one of the contracting states of the Inter-American Convention on the Extraterritorial Validity of Foreign Judgments and Arbitral Awards, per the reservation made by Mexico to Article 1 of the mentioned international treaty.
• If an effect of a judgment is barred by the national legislation, as established by Article 569 of the FCCP.

As highlighted, the NCCFP introduces new principles on the matter of enforcement of foreign judgments, since the effects of the enforceable judgment or awards will now be those stated in the judgment or award (Article 1181 of the NCCFP).

No, as mentioned in the answer to question 4, it is a requirement that judgments are res judicata.

Yes. Homologation and enforcement have no practical distinction in Mexico. Thus, both elements may be appealed, as envisioned under Article 574 of the FCCP (and Section V of Article 1190 of the NCCFP). Additionally, if the appeal decision is considered to be contrary to the Human Rights contained in the Mexican Constitution and International Treaties, a constitutional remedy (amparo) can be filed.

Yes. The FCCP does not prohibit a claim of interest, and the CiC allows it. In light of Article 560 of the FCCP, it is reasonable to conclude that interests can be claimed. In the case of civil controversies, a 9% annual interest may be claimed. For commercial disputes, a 6% annual interest applies.

Since the NCCFP changes the rules of the effects that the enforceable judgement or award may have on Mexican territory, this might be interpreted as a matter that depends on the laws of the country of origin of the judgment.

No, although Article 8 of the Monetary Act states that payment obligations in foreign currency contracted within or outside Mexico to be performed in Mexico shall be paid in pesos.

Yes, the possibility to recoup the costs of judicial proceedings is established as a general principle in Article 7 of the FCCP.

Article 1190, section IV, of the NCCFP states that the enforcement costs will be covered by the party against which the judgment is enforced (if applicable).

Yes, it is allowed. There are no restrictions on this, and responsibility will depend on the contract through which the funding was structured. However, litigation funding is not a common practice in Mexico.

The most significant developments in the enforcement process over the next five years are expected to be twofold.

The first element to consider is the gradual and independent application by the local and federal courts of the NCCFP (see answer to question 1). For example, Mexico City’s local courts will begin to apply the NCCFP as from December 1^st, 2024.

Therefore, local and federal courts might begin interpreting and applying differently the new NCCFP, setting a different criteria and standards in the country for its application. Until these interpretation discrepancies are resolved by higher courts, setting a uniform and mandatory criterion, there is a risk of divergent new interpretations.

The second element to be considered is that, as of the date of this article, it appears that the Mexican Federal Judicial branch will undergo a substantial reform. The exact extent and implications of this reform are still being discussed and no constitutional or legislation amendments have been issued. However, the current discussions indicate that the reform may have the effect of ushering in a new generation of judges to the Mexican Federal Judicial branch.

Yes, Mexico has signed and ratified this treaty.

No, Mexico has not signed nor ratified this treaty.