Chile

Although Chile does not rely on a single comprehensive regulation regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments, it has signed several bilateral and regional instruments which — when in force and applicable to the specific dispute — will set special rules for this matter. It should also be considered that Chile is a member of the Convention of 5 October 1961 Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents (the “Apostille Convention”), which streamlines the authentication of foreign public documents such as certified copies of judgments. Chile is also a member of the ICSID Convention for investment arbitration awards, but that instrument governs arbitral awards and not court judgments.

What are the main international treaties or conventions that apply?

The main applicable international treaties are the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, known as the New York Convention, the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration, known as the Panama Convention and the Code of Private International Law, known as the Bustamante Code.

What legal principles apply if there is no applicable international treaty or convention?

If there is no applicable treaty, Chilean law applies the reciprocity rule, which means the Supreme Court will enforce foreign judgments only if the country of origin also recognises and enforces Chilean judgments. Otherwise the Supreme Court will refuse to enforce its judgments. If the reciprocity rule cannot be applied, because there are no previous rulings, the Supreme Court will authorise the enforcement of the judgment if:

• it does not contain anything contrary to Chilean law (however, procedural laws shall not be taken into consideration);
• it does not conflict with national jurisdiction;
• the action has been duly served upon the party against whom the judgment is invoked (however, said party may prove that, for other reasons, it was prevented from asserting its defences); and
• it is enforceable in accordance with the laws of the country in which the judgment has been pronounced.

The exequatur will be refused if the case falls within areas of exclusive Chilean jurisdiction; for example, rights in rem over immovables located in Chile or status matters that Chilean law reserves to its courts.

Proper service and due process in the foreign proceeding are core conditions for recognition. The Supreme Court expects proof that the defendant was duly served upon and had a real opportunity to present a defence. The court considers the method of service under the foreign forum’s law (lex locus regit actum), the time allowed to respond and the overall regularity of the proceedings. Recognition is typically denied if service was defective or if a default judgment was entered without minimum procedural safeguards. Although service under international instruments or letters rogatory can be persuasive evidence, Chile does not require that specific cross‑border methods be used if the foreign forum’s lawful service, in the circumstances, did not infringe the right to be heard.

There is no specific limitation period to request exequatur of a foreign judgment. However, once the judgment is recognised, the subsequent enforcement is subject to Chilean limitation rules applicable to executive actions. Regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments, there is debate about the precise computation point; whether it should be anchored to enforceability in the state of origin or the exequatur. Parties should assess this carefully and act promptly to mitigate any risks regarding the statute of limitations.

The foreign judgment must be final or otherwise enforceable in the rendering jurisdiction, which is commonly proven by an enforceability certificate issued by the foreign court. The applicant should also demonstrate that the judgment does not conflict with an earlier Chilean decision between the same parties and claim, and that no Chilean proceeding predating the foreign case is pending on the same matter. Public order is a residual but important defence: Chilean courts will refuse recognition if the judgment grossly contravenes fundamental principles or basic justice standards. Fraud on the law is another ground that can support refusal when the foreign path appears designed to evade Chile’s exclusive jurisdiction or mandatory protections. Defences may also be raised regarding authenticity and integrity of the documents, the adequacy of translations when required, and the standing of the parties seeking or resisting recognition.

Foreign arbitration awards are recognised and enforced in Chile under Law 19.971 on International Commercial Arbitration, which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The statutory and conventional regime is pro‑recognition. Chilean courts do not review the merits of the dispute. They confine themselves to verifying limited grounds for refusal that mirror the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law.

At the request of the party against whom the award is invoked, the following grounds may be raised:

• the incapacity of a party or the invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
• lack of proper notice of the arbitration or inability to present its case;
• that the award decided matters which were not submitted to arbitration or exceeded the tribunal’s mandate, in which case the unaffected and separable portion may be recognised;
• that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing such agreement, with the law of the seat; and
• that the award is not yet binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the place of the seat.

The court may also refuse recognition ex officio if the subject matter is non‑arbitrable under Chilean law or if recognition would violate Chilean public order.

For investment awards under the ICSID Convention, enforcement follows the special ICSID system, which removes ordinary refusal grounds and channels execution as if the award were a final judgment of the domestic courts.

In cases where the ICSID Convention is not applicable, the rules governing the exequatur shall apply to arbitral awards. In such cases, their authenticity and validity shall be evidenced by the Apostille Convention or another form of certification issued by a competent authority in the state of origin.

There are no court fees for exequatur or award recognition, and there are no stamp duties of a sufficient magnitude that should alter strategic decisions. The material costs arise from legal representation, translations by certified professionals, document authentication through apostille or legalisation, and service or notification charges. For complex matters, costs also include receivers’ fees and specialist valuations during enforcement.

However, exequatur for foreign court judgments can take several months and, in more complex or contested cases, more than a year. The duration turns on the completeness of the documentary record, the scope and seriousness of objections, and workload at the Supreme Court. Recognition of foreign arbitration awards is often shorter because the grounds for opposition are tightly cabined by Law 19.971 and the New York Convention. After recognition, the ensuing civil execution adds time, especially if the debtor raises incidents or contests seizures, or third parties file interventions.

The Supreme Court is competent to decide exequatur for foreign court judgments. After exequatur, civil enforcement proceeds before the court of the debtor’s domicile or where assets are located. For foreign arbitration awards, recognition and enforcement are pursued before Chilean courts with functional competence designated by Law 19.971, which assigns matters to the ordinary judiciary according to the law’s allocation rules. In practice, enforcement will be channelled through ordinary courts that can order and supervise execution measures consistent with the award.

The Supreme Court’s exequatur decision is the terminal recognition determination for foreign judgments, and internal avenues to challenge it are narrow. Parties may seek clarification, rectification or correction on formal points, but there can be no material revision against a Supreme Court’s ruling. 

Chilean law does not provide broad discovery actions as some other jurisdictions do. Nevertheless, creditors can request preparatory measures and targeted orders within the executive proceeding to identify seizable assets. Furthermore, common practice includes obtaining information from public registries, such as the Real Estate Registry managed by the Real Estate Register (Conservador de Bienes Raíces), the Motor Vehicles Registry, and corporate records or registrar systems to identify shareholdings or partnership interests.

Non-compliance with court orders can lead to fines, coercive measures and in grave cases, arrest, reflecting the judiciary’s statutory powers to ensure compliance with enforcement directives.

Chilean law regulates preventive measures that can help preserve assets before the legal action is presented, as long as the legal requirements are met. To ensure the outcome of the action, the plaintiff may request one or more of the following measures: seizure of the property that is the subject of the claim, the appointment of one or more auditors, the retention of specific assets and/or the prohibition of entering into acts or contracts relating to specific assets. The seizure must be imposed on assets located within Chile, because, as a general rule, Chilean courts cannot issue orders with direct extraterritorial effect.

Bank accounts

Bank accounts may be seized upon the court’s notification of the bank, with the purpose of applying those funds toward payment once the enforcement stage is completed. Identifying the relevant banks may require preparatory measures or information obtained from transactional counterparties.

Shares

Shares and partnership interests can be seized by the court’s notification of the issuer or registrar; the lien is recorded and liquidation follows statutory and corporate rules, respecting pre‑emptive rights where applicable.

Debts due to the judgment debtor from third parties

Receivables can be seized, and third‑party debtors can be ordered to pay the court or the creditor; non-compliance exposes the third party to liability.

Real estate

The court can order the registration of prohibitions and seizures in the Real Estate Registry; the property is appraised and auctioned publicly, with sale proceeds applied according to statutory priority.

Movable property

Court‑appointed officers can seize movable property or designate custodians and conduct public auctions after valuation.

As a general rule, Chile enforces against assets legally owned or registered in the debtor’s name. The executive process does not allow bypassing legal title based solely on allegations of beneficial ownership. To reach assets concealed or diverted from the debtor’s patrimony, creditors must pursue separate declaratory actions, including the revocatory or Pauline action to unwind fraudulent transfers, claims of simulation to disregard sham arrangements, or corporate veil piercing in cases of abuse of legal personality. These routes require judicial declarations on the merits before assets can be treated as belonging to the debtor for enforcement purposes.

When assets are jointly owned, Chilean courts can seize the debtor’s undivided interest or quota in the common property. Enforcement then proceeds according to condominium rules, which may lead to liquidation of the debtor’s share or, where feasible, partition processes to separate interests before sale. In family property contexts, the embargability depends on the matrimonial property regime and the nature of the debt. The court ensures that the rights of the non‑debtor co‑owner are respected and that the debtor’s attachable share is correctly determined, which can necessitate ancillary proceedings to clarify proportions and to resolve objections raised by co‑owners.