How the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules and Recent STJ Case Law Change Enforcement and Interim Relief in Brazil

The enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil entered a new phase on 1 June 2026, when the revised ICC Arbitration Rules took effect alongside a series of consequential decisions from the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) that have clarified, and in some respects tightened, the procedural requirements for recognition and enforcement of both domestic and foreign awards. For in-house counsel, arbitration practitioners and general counsel managing disputes that touch Brazilian assets, counterparties or seats, these twin developments demand an immediate review of enforcement strategy, interim-relief tactics and arbitration clause drafting.

This guide maps the ICC Rules 2026 changes onto Brazilian procedural practice, distils the latest STJ guidance on award presentation, and provides step-by-step checklists to preserve enforceability at every stage of the arbitration lifecycle.

Executive Summary and Practical Takeaways

Three developments converge in mid-2026 to reshape the enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil:

• ICC Rules 2026 in force. The revised Rules, effective 1 June 2026, introduce an ex parte emergency-relief procedure, new highly-expedited tracks for lower-value disputes, and reinforced case-management powers, all of which accelerate award finalisation and expand the range of conservatory measures available before and during the arbitration.
• STJ guidance on award presentation. Mid-2026 STJ rulings have reinforced the court’s approach to when an award is formally “presented” for recognition and enforcement, narrowing procedural objections and providing clearer documentary requirements under Article 35 of the Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law 9.307/1996).
• Tactical recalibration required. The practical effect of these changes is that counsel must now coordinate ICC procedural options (emergency arbitrator, expedited tracks) with Brazilian court relief more deliberately, and must ensure that the evidentiary package for award presentation satisfies both the New York Convention and current STJ expectations.

Industry observers expect the combined effect will be a shorter timeline from arbitration commencement to enforceable award in Brazil, provided counsel prepare the documentation correctly from the outset. The five-step counsel checklist below provides the immediate action items.

1. Audit existing arbitration clauses against ICC Rules 2026 requirements (seat, language, interim-relief reservation).
2. Identify whether the dispute qualifies for an expedited or highly-expedited track and assess the impact on enforcement timing.
3. Map asset locations in Brazil early and decide whether to seek tribunal-ordered conservatory measures, Brazilian court interim relief, or both.
4. Prepare the award-presentation bundle (certified copy, sworn translation, arbitration agreement, proof of tribunal constitution) in parallel with arbitration proceedings.
5. Monitor STJ docket developments to ensure compliance with the latest procedural requirements for recognition and enforcement in Brazil.

Background: The Enforcement Framework in Brazil

Domestic Awards vs. Foreign Awards

Brazilian law draws a clear distinction between domestic and foreign arbitral awards, and the distinction determines which court has jurisdiction over enforcement. Domestic awards, those rendered by tribunals seated in Brazil, are treated as enforceable judicial titles under Article 31 of Law 9.307/1996, meaning they can be executed directly before a competent state or federal court without prior judicial confirmation. Foreign awards, those rendered by tribunals seated outside Brazil, require a separate recognition (homologação) proceeding before the STJ, as mandated by Article 35 of the same statute and consistent with Brazil’s obligations under the 1958 New York Convention, to which Brazil has been a party since 2002.

Relevant Law: Brazilian Arbitration Act, New York Convention, and CPC Interplay

The legislative architecture governing enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil rests on three pillars. First, Law 9. 307/1996 (the Brazilian Arbitration Act) establishes the enforceability of arbitral awards, the grounds for annulment (Article 32), and the procedure for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards (Articles 34–40). Second, the New York Convention provides the international framework for recognition of foreign awards and limits the grounds on which enforcement can be refused. Third, the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, Law 13. 105/2015) supplies the procedural mechanics for execution proceedings and for interim relief that courts may grant in aid of arbitration.

Together, these instruments create a regime that is broadly pro-enforcement, but one that requires careful compliance with documentary and procedural formalities, a reality that the STJ’s recent decisions have underscored.

ICC Arbitration Rules 2026: What Practitioners in Brazil Need to Know

Rule Changes That Affect Interim Relief

The ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 represent the most significant revision to the ICC’s procedural framework in recent years, and several changes have direct implications for enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil and for interim-measures strategy. The most impactful innovation is the introduction of a formal ex parte emergency-relief procedure. Under the revised Rules, a party may now apply for emergency measures without prior notice to the opposing party where giving notice would risk rendering the measure ineffective, for example, where there is a credible risk of asset dissipation. The emergency arbitrator’s decision takes the form of an order rather than an award, and is binding on the parties until modified by the tribunal once constituted.

For counsel with assets to protect in Brazil, this procedural development creates a new tactical layer. An ex parte emergency order from an ICC emergency arbitrator may need to be paired with a parallel application to a Brazilian court under the CPC’s tutela provisória framework in order to be enforceable against third parties (such as banks holding the respondent’s assets). The ICC Rules 2026 expressly preserve a party’s right to seek interim measures from national courts, which means the two avenues, tribunal-ordered and court-ordered, are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Expedited and Highly-Expedited Tracks

The revised Rules introduce a two-tier fast-track structure. The expedited procedure now applies automatically to disputes below a specified monetary threshold (unless the parties opt out), while a new highly-expedited track is available for even lower-value cases. Both tracks compress deadlines for submissions, limit the scope of document production, and prescribe shorter time limits for rendering the final award. The practical effect for parties seeking to enforce foreign awards in Brazil is that awards will, in many cases, be finalised months earlier than under the prior Rules, reducing the period during which assets may be moved or restructured, and shortening the gap between the arbitration and the STJ recognition proceeding.

Disclosure, Conflict and Arbitrator Appointment Mechanics

The ICC Rules 2026 strengthen arbitrator disclosure obligations and introduce more structured conflict-checking procedures. For enforcement in Brazil, this matters because one of the enumerated grounds for refusing recognition under Article 38(II) of Law 9.307/1996 is that the party against whom the award is invoked was not properly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator. Compliance with the enhanced disclosure and appointment mechanics under the 2026 Rules reduces the risk of a procedural objection being sustained at the STJ recognition stage.

Recent STJ Case Law: Doctrinal and Practical Implications for Enforcement of Arbitral Awards in Brazil

Overview of Leading STJ Decisions

The STJ has delivered a series of decisions in the first half of 2026 that refine the court’s approach to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. While the STJ has consistently maintained a pro-enforcement posture in line with the New York Convention, recent rulings have tightened the procedural requirements for award presentation and have addressed recurring tactical manoeuvres by parties resisting enforcement.

The court’s recent jurisprudence has clarified three critical points. First, the STJ has confirmed that the recognition proceeding under Article 35 of Law 9. 307/1996 is a sui generis procedure, not an ordinary action, and that the court’s review is limited to the formal requirements and the exhaustive grounds for refusal enumerated in Article 38. Second, the court has addressed the question of what constitutes proper “presentation” of the award, reinforcing that the applicant must submit a complete documentary package at the outset rather than supplementing the file piecemeal.

Third, the STJ has confirmed that a pending annulment action at the seat of arbitration does not, in itself, justify suspending the recognition proceeding in Brazil, a position that aligns with the dominant international approach and that significantly limits dilatory tactics.

How the STJ Treats Award Presentation

Under Article 37 of Law 9.307/1996, a party seeking recognition of a foreign award must present: (a) the original award or a certified copy; (b) the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy; and (c) a sworn translation of both documents into Portuguese. The STJ’s recent decisions have reinforced that the court will not admit a recognition petition that fails to include any of these documents at the time of filing. Where the filing is incomplete, the court has returned petitions to the applicant with a direction to re-file once the package is complete, a practice that can add months to the enforcement timeline.

Early indications suggest that the STJ is also paying closer attention to the quality of sworn translations. In several recent decisions, the court has noted discrepancies between translations and original-language awards that caused delays. The practical lesson is straightforward: counsel should engage qualified sworn translators (tradutores juramentados) early and should have the translation reviewed by local counsel before filing the recognition petition.

Annulment Attempts and Enforcement Proceedings

One of the most significant aspects of recent STJ jurisprudence concerns the interaction between annulment proceedings at the seat and recognition proceedings in Brazil. The STJ has reaffirmed that Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention gives the recognising court discretion, not an obligation, to refuse enforcement where the award has been set aside or suspended at the seat. In practice, the STJ has consistently declined to stay recognition proceedings merely because an annulment application is pending abroad. The court will only consider the outcome of the annulment proceeding if a final and binding decision has been rendered.

This approach prevents the party resisting enforcement from using tactical annulment applications to delay recognition and enforcement in Brazil indefinitely, and it underscores the importance of proceeding promptly with the recognition petition.

Interim Measures Strategy in Brazil: Tribunal vs. Courts

When to Seek Tribunal-Ordered Conservatory Measures Under ICC Rules 2026

The ICC Rules 2026 provide two primary avenues for obtaining interim measures from the tribunal. First, once the tribunal is constituted, a party may request conservatory and interim measures under the Rules, including orders for the preservation of evidence, the maintenance of the status quo, or the provision of security. Second, before the tribunal is constituted, a party may apply for emergency measures from an emergency arbitrator, now including ex parte applications. Tribunal-ordered measures are appropriate where the opposing party’s assets are located outside Brazil (removing the need for Brazilian court involvement), where the measure concerns the conduct of the arbitration itself, or where the parties’ agreement explicitly provides for tribunal-ordered relief as the first resort.

When to Go to Brazilian Courts: Emergency Relief, Freezing Orders, Asset Preservation

Brazilian courts retain full authority to grant interim measures in aid of arbitration under the CPC, regardless of whether the arbitration is seated in Brazil or abroad. This jurisdiction is preserved by Article 22-A of Law 9.307/1996 (added by the 2015 reform) and is expressly acknowledged by the ICC Rules 2026. In practice, parties should seek relief from Brazilian courts when the measure requires enforcement against a third party in Brazil (such as a bank or registry), when the opposing party’s assets are located in Brazil and rapid freezing is needed, or when an ex parte application to a Brazilian court offers a faster path to enforcement than an emergency arbitrator appointment.

The CPC provides two main vehicles: tutela de urgência (Articles 300–302) and tutela de evidência (Article 311). For arbitration-related applications, tutela de urgência is the most common route. The applicant must demonstrate the probability of the right (probabilidade do direito) and the risk of irreparable harm or of the result being rendered ineffective (perigo de dano ou risco ao resultado útil do processo). Brazilian courts have consistently granted freezing orders and asset-preservation measures in support of both domestic and international arbitrations, provided these requirements are met.

Tactical Checklist and Timeline

1. Pre-arbitration (day 1–7). Conduct asset tracing in Brazil; identify bank accounts, real property and corporate interests held by the opposing party.
2. Day 1–3. If urgency demands, file an ex parte application for tutela de urgência before a competent Brazilian court, attaching the arbitration agreement and evidence of asset-dissipation risk.
3. Day 1–5. Simultaneously, if the ICC arbitration has not yet commenced, file a Request for Arbitration and an application for emergency measures with the ICC Secretariat.
4. Day 5–15. Obtain the Brazilian court order and serve it on relevant third parties (banks, registries). Monitor compliance and report to the emergency arbitrator or tribunal once constituted.
5. Post-tribunal constitution. Request the tribunal to confirm, modify or replace the court-ordered measures with a tribunal order, ensuring consistency between the two regimes.
6. Award stage. Once the final award is rendered, proceed to enforcement (domestic) or recognition (foreign) as appropriate, using the evidentiary checklist below.

Enforcement of Interim Measures

Tribunal-ordered interim measures are enforceable between the parties but may require a Brazilian court order for enforcement against third parties. Court-ordered interim measures are directly enforceable through the Brazilian judicial system, including through penalties for non-compliance (astreintes).

Award Presentation and Recognition: Procedural Steps and Evidentiary Checklist

What Documents Courts Expect

The recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in Brazil requires the submission of a precisely assembled documentary package to the STJ. Article 37 of Law 9.307/1996 sets out the core requirements, which mirror the New York Convention’s Article IV. In practice, the STJ expects the following documents, all of which must be submitted at the time of filing the recognition petition:

• Original award or certified copy. The award must be duly authenticated. If the original is not available, a certified copy issued by the arbitral institution (in ICC cases, the ICC Secretariat) is accepted.
• Original arbitration agreement or certified copy. This includes the arbitration clause in the underlying contract, any subsequent submission agreements, and any amendments to the clause.
• Sworn translation into Portuguese. Both the award and the arbitration agreement must be translated by a sworn translator (tradutor juramentado) registered with a Brazilian commercial board (Junta Comercial). Unofficial or uncertified translations will be rejected.
• Proof of tribunal constitution. While not expressly required by statute, STJ practice indicates that the court expects evidence showing that the tribunal was properly constituted and that the respondent was duly notified of the arbitrator appointment and of all proceedings, consistent with Article 38(III) of Law 9.307/1996.

How to Present an Award to Avoid STJ Delays

The most common cause of delay in STJ recognition proceedings is an incomplete or defective filing. Based on the court’s recent guidance, practitioners should take the following steps to minimise delay when seeking to enforce a foreign award in Brazil:

• Assemble the full documentary package before filing. Do not plan to supplement the record after the petition is submitted.
• Ensure sworn translations are prepared by a registered tradutor juramentado and reviewed for accuracy by local Brazilian counsel.
• Include a cover petition (petição inicial) that specifically identifies the statutory basis for recognition (Articles 34–37 of Law 9.307/1996) and addresses, proactively, any potential grounds for refusal under Article 38.
• If the award is in a language other than English, French or Spanish, consider providing a dual translation (original language to English or Spanish, and then to Portuguese) to reduce translation-related objections.

Common Defects That Lead to Refusal

Refusal of recognition remains rare, but the following defects are most frequently raised: incomplete or inaccurate translations; failure to demonstrate that the respondent received proper notice of the arbitration proceedings; and submission of an award that has been suspended or set aside by a final decision at the seat. Notably, public-policy objections under Article 39(II) of Law 9.307/1996 have been construed narrowly by the STJ, consistent with the pro-enforcement bias of the New York Convention.

Practical Enforcement Playbook for Counsel

The following ten-step enforcement strategy for Brazil arbitration covers the full lifecycle from pre-arbitration planning to execution of a confirmed award:

1. Pre-dispute: draft the arbitration clause. Ensure the clause designates a seat, specifies the ICC Rules, identifies the language and number of arbitrators, and expressly reserves the right to seek interim relief from national courts.
2. Dispute crystallises: conduct asset tracing. Identify the opposing party’s assets in Brazil (real property registries, commercial boards, central bank databases) to inform interim-relief strategy.
3. Commence arbitration. File the Request for Arbitration with the ICC Secretariat. If urgency exists, simultaneously apply for emergency arbitrator relief.
4. Seek interim measures. If assets in Brazil are at risk, file for tutela de urgência before a competent Brazilian court in parallel with the ICC application.
5. Coordinate tribunal and court measures. Once the tribunal is constituted, ensure tribunal orders and court orders are consistent and do not conflict.
6. Preserve the enforcement record. Maintain a complete procedural file: appointment letters, all notifications, procedural orders, hearing transcripts and evidence submissions.
7. Obtain the award. Upon notification of the final award, request a certified copy from the ICC Secretariat immediately.
8. Prepare the presentation bundle. Commission sworn translations, assemble all required documents, and prepare the cover petition with Brazilian counsel.
9. File for recognition (foreign awards) or execution (domestic awards). For foreign awards, file the recognition petition with the STJ. For domestic awards, proceed directly to the competent state or federal court for execution.
10. Execute the award. Once recognition is granted (or upon filing for domestic awards), initiate execution proceedings, including attachment of assets, bank account freezes and property seizures as applicable.

Model Arbitration Clause, Post-ICC Rules 2026

The following model language reflects key considerations after the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026:

“All disputes arising out of or in connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce in effect at the date of commencement of the arbitration, by [one/three] arbitrator(s) appointed in accordance with the said Rules. The seat of the arbitration shall be [City, Country]. The language of the arbitration shall be [English/Portuguese]. Nothing in this clause shall prevent either party from seeking interim or conservatory measures from any competent judicial authority, and any such application shall not be deemed incompatible with, or a waiver of, this arbitration agreement.”

The final sentence, expressly reserving the right to seek court-ordered interim relief, is critical for enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil, as it removes any argument that a party waived access to Brazilian courts by agreeing to arbitration.

Risks, Special Situations and Sanctions Exposure

Awards Against State Entities, Sanctioned Parties and Insolvency

Enforcing awards against Brazilian state entities (federal, state or municipal) raises additional challenges. While Brazilian law does not exempt state entities from arbitration, execution against public assets is subject to the precatório system, a constitutional payment queue that can significantly delay actual recovery. Counsel should consider whether the state entity holds commercial (non-public) assets that may be attached outside the precatório regime.

Where the award debtor is subject to international sanctions, counsel must assess whether enforcement proceedings could expose the enforcing party or its counsel to sanctions liability. Brazilian sanctions enforcement has become more active in recent years, and coordination with compliance teams is essential.

In insolvency situations, enforcement of the award may be affected by Brazilian insolvency proceedings (judicial recovery or bankruptcy under Law 11.101/2005). An arbitral award against a debtor in judicial recovery will be treated as a claim in the proceeding and will be subject to the recovery plan, unless the award relates to a debt that is excluded from the stay.

Conclusion: Recommended Immediate Actions

The convergence of the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 and the STJ’s sharpened approach to recognition and enforcement creates both opportunity and risk for parties operating in or against Brazil. Counsel should take five immediate steps to maximise the enforceability of arbitral awards in Brazil:

1. Review and update all arbitration clauses to reflect ICC Rules 2026 requirements and to preserve the right to seek interim relief from Brazilian courts.
2. Conduct early asset tracing for any counterparty with Brazilian connections.
3. Engage Brazilian local counsel at the outset of any arbitration where enforcement in Brazil is anticipated.
4. Begin preparing the award-presentation bundle (translations, certifications, procedural record) during the arbitration, not after the award is rendered.
5. Monitor STJ jurisprudence for further developments on recognition procedure and grounds for refusal, and adjust enforcement strategy accordingly.

For disputes counsel and GCs, the enforcement of arbitral awards in Brazil remains broadly favourable, but only for those who plan ahead, comply with procedural formalities and coordinate tribunal and court strategies effectively. The Global Law Experts lawyer directory provides access to qualified arbitration counsel in Brazil who can assist with enforcement planning and execution.

Sources

1. International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), 2026 Arbitration Rules
2. Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), Official Decisions
3. Brazilian Arbitration Act (Law No. 9.307/1996), Official Text (Planalto)
4. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), UNCITRAL
5. LexML, Brazilian Legislative and Judicial Repository
6. Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV), Arbitration Research
7. Columbia Law, ARIA (Academic Commentary on International Arbitration)