新闻资讯 首页>新闻资讯>法律资讯

《国际仲裁简讯》2019年10月号International Arbitration Newsletter Oct. 2019

作者:中伦文德   丨  时间:2019.11.01   丨  浏览:437





《国际仲裁简讯》201910月号


International Arbitration Newsletter October 2019

 



《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排》生效后首个内地法院成功财产保全案例

 

2019年108日,上海海事法院受理了一起香港仲裁程序中的当事人申请财产保全案件并于当日依法裁定准许。这是自《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区法院就仲裁程序相互协助保全的安排》(“《仲裁保全安排》”)于101日生效以来,内地法院受理并批准的首起香港仲裁程序中的财产保全案件。

 

2018年5月,申请人香港某海运公司与被申请人上海某公司就航次租船纠纷达成《和解协议》,约定由被申请人支付18万美元。然而,被申请人迟迟未能按照约定支付款项,申请人根据《和解协议》中约定的仲裁条款于2019716日向香港国际仲裁中心(“HKIAC”)提起仲裁。2019102日,HKIAC开具转递函提供给申请人以直接提交上海海事法院,要求查封、扣押、冻结被申请人账户和其他财产。

 

10月8日,上海海事法院在收到全套保全申请材料和转递函原件后,依据《仲裁保全安排》和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》等相关法律规定予以立案受理,依法组成合议庭进行审查后裁定予以准许作出民事裁定书,批准了财产保全申请。本案是《仲裁保全安排》的成功首次适用,也充分体现了《仲裁保全安排》在内地和香港司法协助方面的重大意义。

 

First Successful Case of Property Preservation Since the Arrangement of Mutual Assistance between the Mainland Courts and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Takes Effect

 

On 8 October 2019, the Shanghai Maritime Court granted an application for preservatory interim measures for an arbitration seated in Hong Kong. This marked the first successful application under the Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Arrangement) since it came into force on 1 October 2019.

 

In May 2018, the Applicant, a Hong Kong shipping company reached a settlement agreement with the Respondent, a company in Shanghai for a dispute between the two parties. The settlement agreement stipulated that the dispute would be settled by a payment of USD 180,000 to the Applicant. However, the Respondent defaulted and the Applicant commenced the arbitral proceeding with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre(the “HKIAC) as per the arbitration clause contained in the settlement agreement on 16 July 2019. On 2 October 2019, HKIAC promptly issued to the Applicant a letter of transmission which the Applicant would forward to the Shanghai Maritime Court for seizure, sequestration and freezing of the Respondents account and other property.

 

On 8 October upon receiving the application materials and the letter of transmission, the Shanghai Maritime Court docketed the case according to the Arrangement and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China and other relevant laws, and quickly formed a collegiate panel which reviewed and granted the application for preservatory measures on the same day. This case was the first application of the Arrangement, which proves the significance of the Arrangement in boosting the judicial cooperation between Mainland China and Hong Kong SAR.

 



新加坡国际仲裁中心和北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心签订合作备忘录

 

2019年1015日,新加坡国际仲裁中心(“新仲”)宣布其与北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心(“北仲”)签署了旨在推广国际仲裁作为解决跨境争议优选方式的合作备忘录(“《备忘录》”)。

 

根据《备忘录》,新仲和北仲将共同推广国际仲裁,为商业社会提供更好的服务。双方还将在中国和新加坡联合举办国际仲裁会议、研讨会、研习班,并将邀请各自仲裁界主要人士出席在北京举办的新仲活动或者在新加坡举办的北仲活动。双方亦同意,可应一方请求在适当的时候互相推荐仲裁员,并可应一方请求为对方人员提供培训项目。

 

Memorandum of Co-operation Executed between the Singapore International Arbitration Center and the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center

 

On 15 October 2019, the Singapore International Arbitration Center (the “SIAC) was pleased to announce that it had reached and signed a memorandum of co-operation (the Memorandum) with the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (the BIAC) to promote international arbitration as a preferable solution for cross-border disputes.

 

According to the Memorandum, the SIAC and BIAC will jointly promote international arbitration and provide better legal services for the commercial community. Also, they will jointly organize international arbitration conferences, seminars and workshops in China and Singapore, and invite key individuals from their respective arbitration circles to attend SIAC events held in Beijing or BIAC events held in Singapore. It was also agreed that the two arbitration organizations will recommend arbitrators to each other if appropriate and provide according training programs for one another upon request.

 



WADA,孙杨和FINA之间的CAS仲裁听证会将于20191115日举行

 

国际体育仲裁院(“CAS”)将在20191115日听取世界反兴奋剂机构(“WADA”)所提起的,针对中国游泳运动员孙杨和国际游泳联合会(“FINA”)关于FINA兴奋剂检查小组于201913日发布的决定的上诉。在该决定中,孙杨被裁定在赛后兴奋剂控制中未违反反兴奋剂规则。

 

应各方要求,此次听证会将向公众开放,全部或部分听证会将会被直播在CAS网站上。只有通过正式程序正确注册的人员才能进入听证室。这将是CAS历史上第二次公开举行听证会。第一次公开听证会的举行也与游泳运动争议有关,即1999Michelle Smith De BruinFINA案。

 

The Hearing in the CAS Arbitration Procedure between WADA, Sun Yang and FINA to be Held in Public on November 15, 2019

 

The Court of Arbitration for Sport (the “CAS) will hear the appeal filed by the World Anti-Doping Agency (the WADA) against the Chinese swimmer Sun Yang and the Fédération Internationale de Natation (the FINA) on Friday, 15 November 2019. The appeal was brought to CAS after a decision issued by the FINA Doping Panel on 3 January 2019 where Sun Yang was found not to have violated any anti-doping rules.

 

At the parties’ request, and with the agreement of all parties, the hearing will be open to the public. It is intended to be live streamed on the CAS website. Further information regarding registration will follow in due course. Only the persons correctly registered via the official procedure will be permitted at the hearing. This will only be the second time in the history of CAS that a hearing is held in public. The first public hearing, which took place in 1999, was also related to the sport of swimming, in the case of Michelle Smith De Bruin v. FINA.

 


最高人民法院:

即使合同未成立,仲裁条款的效力也不受影响

 

相关法条:

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第16条第1款规定:“仲裁协议包括合同中订立的仲裁条款和以其他书面方式在纠纷发生前或者纠纷发生后达成的请求仲裁的协议。”

 

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第19条第1款规定:“仲裁协议独立存在,合同的变更、解除、终止或者无效,不影响仲裁协议的效力。”

 

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第20条第1款规定:“当事人对仲裁协议的效力有异议的,可以请求仲裁委员会作出决定或者请求人民法院作出裁定。一方请求仲裁委员会作出决定,另一方请求人民法院作出裁定的,由人民法院裁定。”

 

《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第10条第2款规定:“当事人在订立合同时就争议达成仲裁协议的,合同未成立不影响仲裁协议的效力。”

 

关于申请人运裕有限公司与被申请人深圳市中苑城商业投资控股有限公司之间的申请确认仲裁协议效力一案([2019]最高法民特1)的主要争议焦点为如合同未成立,仲裁条款是否成立。

 

法院观点:

(1) 当事人以合同未成立为由要求确认仲裁条款不成立的,属于申请确认仲裁协议效力案件,人民法院应予立案审查;

(2) 当事双方已就仲裁条款达成一致,且之前从未对此有过争议,因此案涉仲裁条款已经成立。

(3) 根据《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第10条第2款之规定,合同未成立的不影响仲裁条款的效力。

 

综上,法院裁定驳回申请人的申请。

 

The Supreme Court of the Peoples Republic of China:

The Validity of an Arbitration Clause Shall Remain Unaffected Even if the Contract Is Not Formed

 

Relevant Provision:

Paragraph 1 of Article 16 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, An arbitration agreement shall include arbitral clauses stipulated in the contract and other written agreements which request arbitration to be made prior to or following the occurrence of a dispute.

 

Paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, An arbitration agreement shall exist independently and its validity shall not be affected by changes, dissolution, termination or invalidity of the contract.

 

Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, Where the parties concerned have a differing opinion upon the validity of an arbitration agreement, a request may be made for an award to be made by the arbitration commission or a judgment made by the Peoples Court. Where one party requests an award to be made by the arbitration commission and the other party requests a judgment from the Peoples Court, it shall be judged by the Peoples Court. 

 

Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues relating to Application of the Arbitration Law of the Peoples Republic of China provides, Where the parties reach an arbitration agreement at the time when they conclude the contract, the validity of the arbitration agreement shall not be affected by whether the contract has taken effect.

 

In the case of Yun Yu Co., Ltd. v Shenzhen Zhongyuancheng Commercial Investment Holding Co., Ltd. When determining the validity of an arbitration agreement, the core issue was whether the arbitration clause was valid if the contract was not formed.

 

Courts View:

The court dismissed the claimant’s application for the following reasons:

 

a) If an interested party requests the confirmation of an arbitration agreement on the ground that the contract contained the arbitration clause was not formed, it shall be regarded as a case on the application for confirming the validity of the arbitration agreement, and the people’s court shall docket the case; 

 

b) The parties have reached agreement on the arbitration clause and have never raised any dispute over it, therefore the arbitration clause in this case had come into force. 

 

c) According to the paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Certain Issues relating to Application of the Arbitration Law of the Peoples Republic of China, the validity of the arbitration clause should remain unaffected even if the contract was not formed.

 



金华市中级人民法院:

驳回申请人就客观上执行不能的仲裁裁决提出的执行申请

 

相关法条:

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第238条第1款规定:“对公证机关依法赋予强制执行效力的债权文书,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。”

 

《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第4条第1款规定:“申请承认及执行之一的,为取得前条所称之承认及执行,应于申请时提交:(甲)原裁决之正本或其正式副本,(乙)第二条所称协定之原本或其正式副本。”

 

关于申请人俄罗斯季节有限公司(“季节公司”)与被申请人永康市特凡进出口有限公司(“特凡进出口公司”)之间的申请承认和执行俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商事仲裁院(“俄罗斯仲裁院”)作出的35/2014号仲裁裁决一案的主要争议焦点为申请人就因被申请人已注销而客观执行不能的原仲裁裁决的执行申请是否应予驳回。

 

法院观点:

(1) 特凡进出口公司是涉案合同及仲裁裁决的当事人,特凡进出口公司在仲裁裁决作出后发生的经营变动不影响对仲裁裁决的司法审查;

(2) 特凡进出口公司与季节公司签订的合同有仲裁条款的约定,此系双方当事人的真实意思表示,对双方当事人都具有约束力。特凡进出口公司已得到指定仲裁员和进行仲裁程序的适当通知,其应对拒收或无法送达承担不利法律后果;

(3) 涉案仲裁裁决不存在《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》规定的拒绝承认的情形,应予以承认,但鉴于特凡进出口公司已经注销,客观上执行不能,故对季节公司的执行申请不予准许。

 

综上,法院裁定驳回申请人的申请。

 

Jin Hua Intermediate 

People’s Court:

The Claimant’s Application for Enforcement of The Arbitration Award Which Is Objectively Unenforceable Has Been Dismissed

 

Relevant Provision:

Paragraph 1 of Article 238 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, Where one party concerned does not perform a debt instrument which has been vested with mandatory enforceability by a notary organisation pursuant to the law, the counterparty may apply to a competent Peoples Court for enforcement, the Peoples Court which accepts the application shall carry out enforcement. 

 

Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides, “To obtain the recognition and enforcement mentioned in the preceding article, the party applying for recognition and enforcement shall, at the time of the application, supply: (a) The duly authenticated original award or a duly certified copy thereof; (b) The original agreement referred to in article II or a duly certified copy thereof.

 

In the case of Russian Season Co., Ltd. (“Season Company)v Tefan Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Tefan Company) for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award No. 35/2014 made by the International Commercial Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation Industrial and Commercial Commission, the core issue was whether the claimants application to enforce the original arbitral award, which was objectively unenforceable due to the deregistration of the respondent, should be dismissed.

 

Courts View:

The court dismissed the claimant’s application for the following reasons:

 

a) Tefan Company is the litigant of the contract involved in this case and the arbitration award, and the changes in business after the arbitration award was made shall not affect the judicial review of the arbitration award; 

 

b) The contract concluded between Tefan Company and Season Company contained an arbitration clause, respresenting the true intention of both parties and therefore binding on both parties. Tefan Company had been duly notified of appointment of the arbitrators and arbitration proceedings, it should bear adverse legal consequences for such rejection or failure to serve;

 

c) The arbitral award involved in the case did not fall under the circumstances for refusal of recognition as prescribed by the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, therefore it should be recognized. However, in view of the fact that Tefan Company was diregistrated and the arbitraton award is objectively unenforceable, thus the enforcement application filed by Season Company should be dismissed.

 


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 刘灏 牛琦

Editorial Board: Wei LIN  Simon TANG  Philip DUAN  Ellen WANG  Yuming LI  

Lingling GUO  Derek HUANG  Hao Liu  Qi Niu


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 con


ZLWD International Business Committee    

October 2019