新闻资讯 首页>新闻资讯>法律资讯

《国际仲裁简讯》2019年7月号 International Arbitration Newsletter July 2019

作者:中伦文德   丨  时间:2019.07.26   丨  浏览:650


《国际仲裁简讯》2019年7月号

International Arbitration Newsletter July 2019



国际商会(“ICC”)预计将于今年九月上旬发布《2020年国际贸易术语解释通则》(“《通则》”),《通则》将于2020年1月1日起生效。为便于世界各地的用户理解,将《通则》翻译成27种语言的工作已在准备之中。


国际商会还将同步推出Incoterms®2020移动应用程序(IOS和Android版本),以便用户能更轻松地获取《通则》的相关信息,包括新闻动态、活动信息和培训机会等内容。该应用程序还为用户提供了联系权威专家的功能,为面临紧急国际贸易术语解释通则问题的企业提供实时建议。另外,该应用程序中的一些功能还能离线使用,包括离线查看《通则》的电子版本,以便用户及时获得指导。


ICC Will Release the Incoterms®2020 in September


The International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) is expected to release the Incoterms®2020 early in September this year, with the new terms taking effect from the 1st of January 2020. In order to help users around the world understand the rules, preparations are under way to translate Incoterms® 2020 into 27 languages.


ICC will launch a dedicated Incoterms®2020 mobile application (IOS and android) to make it easier for users to access basic information on general rules, as well as providing a platform for other content including news updates, event information and training opportunities. The application also provides users with the ability to contact verified experts, providing real-time advice for enterprises facing pressing Incoterms®2020 issues. In addition, ICC has made several of the application’s features available offline, including a digital version of Incoterms®2020 to facilitate timely guidance.




相关法条:

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十七条规定:“对依法设立的仲裁机构的裁决,一方当事人不履行的,对方当事人可以向有管辖权的人民法院申请执行。受申请的人民法院应当执行。被申请人提出证据证明仲裁裁决有下列情形之一的,经人民法院组成合议庭审查核实,裁定不予执行:(一)当事人在合同中没有订有仲裁条款或者事后没有达成书面仲裁协议的;(二)裁决的事项不属于仲裁协议的范围或者仲裁机构无权仲裁的;(三)仲裁庭的组成或者仲裁的程序违反法定程序的;(四)裁决所根据的证据是伪造的;(五)对方当事人向仲裁机构隐瞒了足以影响公正裁决的证据的;(六)仲裁员在仲裁该案时有贪污受贿,徇私舞弊,枉法裁决行为的。人民法院认定执行该裁决违背社会公共利益的,裁定不予执行。裁定书应当送达双方当事人和仲裁机构。仲裁裁决被人民法院裁定不予执行的,当事人可以根据双方达成的书面仲裁协议重新申请仲裁,也可以向人民法院起诉。”


《最高人民法院关于仲裁司法审查案件报核问题的有关规定》第三条规定:“本规定第二条第二款规定的非涉外涉港澳台仲裁司法审查案件,高级人民法院经审查拟同意中级人民法院或者专门人民法院认定仲裁协议无效,不予执行或者撤销我国内地仲裁机构的仲裁裁决,在下列情形下,应当向最高人民法院报核,待最高人民法院审核后,方可依最高人民法院的审核意见作出裁定:(一)仲裁司法审查案件当事人住所地跨省级行政区域;(二)以违背社会公共利益为由不予执行或者撤销我国内地仲裁机构的仲裁裁决。”


阿克苏顺隆物资有限责任公司与阿克苏地区通程房地产开发有限公司买卖合同纠纷一案[(2018)最高法执监177号],阿克苏顺隆物资有限责任公司不服新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院(“新疆高院”)作出的不予执行仲裁裁决的决定,向最高人民法院申诉。该案的争议焦点是,地方高院未经最高人民法院报核,是否能以违背社会公共利益为由不予执行我国内地仲裁机构的仲裁裁决。


法院观点:

地方各级法院对于非涉外涉港澳台仲裁司法审查案件,如果要以违背社会公共利益为由不予执行或者撤销我国内地仲裁机构的仲裁裁决应当向最高人民法院报核,待最高人民法院审核后,方可依最高人民法院的审核意见作出裁定。而本案中,新疆高院在作出不予执行的裁定前并未向最高人民法院报核,故不符合上述程序要求。


综上,最高人民法院撤销了新疆高院作出的不予执行的裁定。


Supreme People’s Court:

The Local High Court Shall Apply for Approval Before Refusing to Enforce the Arbitration Award on Grounds of Conflict with Social and Public Interest



Relevant Provision:

Article 237 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, “In the case of an arbitral award of an arbitration institution established pursuant to the law, where one party does not perform, the counterparty may apply to a People’s Court which has jurisdiction for enforcement. The People’s Court which accepts the application shall carry out enforcement. Where the respondent presents evidence to prove that the arbitral award falls under any of the following circumstances, upon examination and verification by the collegiate formed by the People’s Court, a ruling on non-enforcement shall be made: (1) The parties concerned have not included an arbitration clause in the contract or have not entered into a written arbitration agreement subsequently; (2) The arbitration matter does not fall under the scope of the arbitration agreement or the arbitration institution has no right to carry out arbitration; (3) The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitration procedures is/are in violation of statutory procedures; (4) The evidence on which the arbitral award is based is forged; (5) The counterparty has concealed evidence which has an impact on making a fair arbitral award from the arbitration institution; or (6) The arbitrators have committed bribery or favouritism or perverted the law in making the arbitral award when carrying out arbitration of the case. Where the People’s Court rules that enforcement of the arbitral award is against the public interest, a ruling of non-enforcement shall be made.”


Article 3 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Issues relating to the Reporting and Review of Cases Involving Judicial Review of Arbitration provides, “For a non-foreign-related case involving judicial review of arbitration or a case not involving Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan Region as provided for in Paragraph 2, Article 2 hereof, if the high people’s court intends to agree with the intermediate people’s court or the specialized people’s court on the proposed ruling of the invalidity of an arbitral agreement, or not to enforce or to set aside an arbitral award issued by a domestic arbitration institution, under the following circumstances, it shall report to the Supreme People’s Court for review; and the final ruling shall be rendered based on the review opinions given by the Supreme People’s Court. (1) The domiciles of the parties to the case involving judicial review of arbitration are in different provincial administrative regions; (2) Not to enforce or to set aside the arbitral award issued by a domestic arbitration institution on ground of in conflict with social and public interests.”


With respect to the contract dispute between Aksu Shunlong Materials Co., Ltd. and Aksu Regional Transit Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (2018) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Jian No.177, Aksu Shunlong Materials Co., Ltd. has filed a complaint with the Supreme People’s Court against the decision of the High Court Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region (“Xinjiang High Court”) not to enforce the arbitration award. The key issue was whether the local high court may, on grounds of in conflict with social and public interest, refuse to enforce or set aside an arbitration award of the arbitration institution in the mainland of China without the approval of the Supreme People’s Court.


Court’s View:

The Supreme People’s Court set aside the Xinjiang High Court’s decision of not to enforce the arbitral award for the following reasons:


For a non-foreign-related case involving judicial review of arbitration or a case not involving Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan Region, if the high people’s court intends to refuse enforcement or to set aside an arbitral award issued by an arbitration institution in the mainland of China, it shall report to the Supreme People’s Court for approval, and the final ruling shall be rendered based on the opinions given by the Supreme People’s Court. In this case, Xinjiang High Court failed to report to the Supreme People’s Court for approval before refusing to enforce the arbitration award on grounds of conflict with social and public interests, therefore not in line with the correct legal procedure.





2019年7月2日,海牙国际私法会议第22届外交大会闭幕式在海牙和平宫举行,这标志着《承认与执行外国民商事判决公约》(“《公约》”)谈判的最终完成。其中,大会副主席、中国代表团团长、驻荷兰大使徐宏及中国代表团成员,各国与会代表约200人出席闭幕仪式,并签署会议最后文件。


《公约》是首个全面确立民商事判决国际流通统一规则的国际文书,系统规定了承认和执行外国民商事判决的范围和条件等。《公约》的通过将为包括国际贸易、跨境商业在内的国际民商事活动提供更优质、高效、低成本的司法保障,对国际民商事领域司法合作影响深远。


总的来说,《公约》的主要体例与《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(即《纽约公约》)相似,共有四章32条。其要求缔约国(被请求国)法院在除了特定明确排除的情形之外,原则上互相承认和执行其他缔约国(原审国)法院作出的民商事判决,以减少跨境诉讼成本,提升各缔约国之间司法体系的便利性。《公约》的主要内容如下:


1. 在适用范围上,《公约》仅适用于民商事事项,不适用于税收、关税及其他行政事项。此外,《公约》列举了被排除在公约调整范围外的17项事项,包括自然人的权利能力和法律能力、遗嘱与继承、客运与货运、隐私、反垄断及竞争(特定情形除外)等。


2. 《公约》在原则上无实体审查。这一点在《公约》的第4条被明确规定。严格限制实体审查是几乎所有承认和执行生效的民商事法律文书或仲裁裁决相关的国际公约或双边条约的通行规则,其主要目的在于避免对于实体事实和法律问题的重复裁量和矛盾裁判,减少判决被拒绝承认执行的可能性。尽管如此,《公约》对被请求国法院的实体裁量权限仍保留了一定空间,允许其为适用《公约》之目的进行有限的实体审查,例如在依据第7条判断判决是否存在违反被请求国的公共政策时,被请求国法院便可以对案件进行实体审查。


3. 在管辖权的规定上,《公约》的第5条列举了可被承认与执行判决的管辖权基础,第6条明确了对不动产物权的专属管辖,同时,第7条还规定了可以拒绝承认执行的情形。其中,申请执行的案件只要满足第5条13项条件中的任何一项,相关的判决就可以获得承认与执行。该条款实际上是原审国法院从原始案件的管辖权角度来确定执行依据,因而被称为“间接管辖依据”。这一规定符合国际司法的实践,能够避免当事人可以挑选法院等问题,进而达到各方通过稳定的诉讼机制解决争议的目的。


4. 《公约》第7条规定了可以拒绝承认和执行的情形,成为该公约最为重要的组成部分。其中规定的情形包括:(1)送达程序问题;(2)判决通过欺诈获得;(3)违反被请求国的公共政策;(4)根据约定或指定,判决作出国的法院对争议无管辖权;(5)被请求国就相同主体的争议存在冲突的判决;和(6)其他成员国就相同主体的相同争议存在先行的判决。此外,该条还规定,“如果相同当事人关于相同标的的诉讼在被请求国法院正在进行中,在下述情形下,可以拒绝或者延迟承认或执行:(一)被请求国法院先于原审法院受理案件;且(二)争议和被请求国有紧密的联系”。《公约》采用了“可以”拒绝,而非“应当”拒绝的措辞,这样的设置实际是通过扩大被请求国法院的裁量权来达到使更多外国判决获得执行的效果。另外,从拒绝承认与执行的理由来看,《公约》采取了较为克制的立场,仅从程序瑕疵、公共政策、管辖权等角度进行效力否认理由的设置,这样可将拒绝理由限制在一定的范围内,更有利于判决的承认与执行。


5. 《公约》第10条规定了损害赔偿,即若原审国法院判决所确定的损害赔偿,并非赔偿一方当事人所受之实际损失或损害,则被请求国法院在此范围内可以对该判决拒绝承认和执行。该条款或许是为了平衡英美法系与大陆法系国家关于损害赔偿标准的不同,调节由于该等立法和司法理念差异而带来的阻却公约缔约的因素,进而吸引更多国家加入《公约》。


6. 关于申请执行的文书的要求,《公约》第12条规定了申请执行人必须向被申请法院出示的文书。但是,《公约》未规定如果未能按照该要求提供文书的相应后果。根据以往处理跨境判决执行事宜的相关经验,在该等文书欠缺的情况下,承认和执行申请很可能不被被请求国法院受理或者最终支持。


“Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” was Adopted at the Hague Conference on Private International Law


On July 2, 2019, the closing ceremony of the 22nd Diplomatic Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law was held at the Peace Palace in the Hague, marking the final conclusion of negotiations on the “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” (the “Convention”). Among them, Xu Hong, Vice President of the conference, head of the Chinese delegation and ambassador to the Netherlands, as well as members of the Chinese delegation and about 200 participants from various countries attended the closing ceremony and signed the final document of the conference.


The Convention is the first international instrument to comprehensively establish uniform rules for the international circulation of civil and commercial matters, and systematically stipulates the scope and conditions for the recognition and implementation of foreign civil and commercial matters. The adoption of the Convention will provide more high-quality, efficient and low-cost judicial guarantee for international civil and commercial activities, including international trade and cross-border commerce, and have a far-reaching impact on international civil and commercial judicial cooperation.


In general, the Convention is similar to the “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards”, also known as the “New York Convention”, and has four chapters and 32 articles. In principle, it requires member state parties (requested state) to recognize and enforce civil and commercial judgments rendered by courts of other states parties (state of origin), except in cases of specific and express exclusion. This is done with the objective to reduce cross-border litigation costs and improve the convenience of the judicial system between states parties. The main contents of the Convention are as follows:


1. It only applies to civil and commercial matters, which does not include tax, tariff and other administrative matters. In addition, the Convention lists 17 matters that are excluded from the scope of the Convention, including the rights and legal capacity of natural persons, wills and inheritance, passenger and freight transport, privacy, antitrust and competition (except in certain circumstances).


2. The Convention has no substantive review in principle. This is clearly stated in Article 4 of the Convention. The strict restriction of entity censorship is a common rule of almost all international conventions or bilateral treaties in relation to civil and commercial legal documents or arbitration awards that recognize and enforce this. Its main purpose is to avoid repeated discretion and contradictory judgment on the substantive facts and legal issues, and reduce the possibility of refusal to recognize and implement the judgment. Nevertheless, the Convention provides the courts of requested state limited discretion of substantive review for the purposes of applying the Convention. For example, under Article 7, the court of the requested state may conduct a substantive review of the case in determining whether the decision violates the public policy of the state.


3. In terms of jurisdiction, Article 5 of the Convention provides the basis of jurisdiction for recognition and enforcement of judgments. Article 6 specifies the exclusive jurisdiction over the real right of real-estate. As long as the case meets any of the 13 conditions in Article 5, the relevant judgment can be recognized and enforced. The clause actually determines the basis for enforcement from the perspective of the national court on the jurisdiction of the original case, which is why it is called “Indirect Grounds of Jurisdiction”. This provision is in line with the practice of international justice, and assists in avoiding the possibility that parties can select the courts, with the aim that disputes will be settled using a stable litigation mechanism.


4. Article 7 of the Convention, which provides for conditions under which recognition and enforcement may be refused, constitutes the most important component of the Convention. The circumstances specified therein include: (1) the procedural issues concerning service of documents; (2) judgments obtained by fraud; (3) conflicts with public policy of the requested state; (4) as agreed or appointed, the court of the country making the judgment shall have no jurisdiction over the dispute; (5) the judgment of the requested state in conflict with the dispute of the same subject; And (6) previous judgements by other member states over the same dispute. In addition, the article also stipulates that “Recognition or enforcement may be postponed or refused if proceedings between the same parties on the same subject matter are pending before a court of the requested State, where – (a) the courts of the requested State shall accept the case before the Court of First Instance; and (b) there is a close connection between the dispute and the requested State.”. The Convention uses the phrase “may” rather than “shall” to reject, which in effect increases the discretion of the courts of the executing country to achieve greater enforcement of foreign judgements. In addition, from judging the reasons for refusing to recognize and implement, the Convention seems to take a relatively restrained position and only sets the reasons for denying effectiveness from the perspective of procedural defects, public policies and jurisdiction, which could limit the reasons for refusing to a certain extent and is more conducive to the recognition and implementation of the judgment.


5. Article 10 of the Convention provides for liquidated damages, if the damages are determined by a foreign court in the state of origin, including exemplary or punitive damages, and do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered, the court in the requested state may, within this scope, refuse to recognize and enforce the judgment. This article may hope to balance the difference of liquidated damages standards between Anglo-American law system and Continental law system countries, adjusting the factors that hinder the contracting of the Convention caused by the differences in legislative and judicial concepts, and thus attract more countries to join the Convention.


6. With regard to the requirements when making an application for enforcement, Article 12 of the Convention stipulates the documents that the applicant for enforcement must present to the court applied for. However, the Convention does not provide for the corresponding consequences if the documents is not provided as requested. Based on previous experience in handling cross-border judgment enforcement, in the absence of such documents, the application for recognition and enforcement is more likely to be rejected and fail to receive the support of the court.


本简讯由《中伦文德国际业务委员会》编制,仅供参考。

This Newsletter is produced by ZLWD International Business Committee and for your reference only.


编委:林威 鄧澍焙 段庆喜 王莺

 李宇明 郭泠泠 黃立剛

Editorial Board: 

Wei LIN  Simon TANG  Philip DUAN  Ellen WANG  Yuming LI  Lingling GUO  Derek HUANG  

刊载信息均来源于公开渠道。

All Information published in this Newsletter is from open source.


如您有任何建议或需了解更多信息,请同我们联系.

If you have any suggestion or need more information, please contact us.