《联合国关于调解所产生的国际和解协议公约》在新加坡开放签署

《联合国关于调解所产生的国际和解协议公约》（“《新加坡公约》”）于2019年8月7日在新加坡开放签署，新加坡总理李显龙出席公约签署仪式并发表演讲，联合国秘书长古特雷斯通过视频发表讲话。目前包括我国在内的公约签署国已达46个，多达70多个国家的800多名代表参加了此次活动。

 

《联合国关于调解所产生的国际和解协议公约》是一部调解领域的国际和解协议，于2018年12月20日在第73届联合国大会上通过。其确立了关于援用和解协议的权利以及执行和解协议的统一法律框架。

Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation holds Signing Ceremony

The Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (commonly known as the Singapore Convention on Mediation) held its signing ceremony in Singapore On August 7,2019. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong attended the signing ceremony and delivered a speech, while the UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, delivered a speech via video. At present, there are 46 signatories including China, and more than 800 representatives from more than 70 countries participated in the event.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation is an international settlement agreement in the field of mediation, which was adopted at the 73rd UN General Assembly on the 20th of December 2018. It establishes a unified legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements and the implementation of settlement agreements.

HKIAC规定免收特定临时仲裁费用

2018年11月1日，香港国际仲裁中心（“HKIAC”）已对《仲裁（委任仲裁员及调解员和决定仲裁员人数）规则》（“《规则》”）进行了修订。该修订主要为在特定的香港临时仲裁中允许HKIAC免收费用。修订后的《规则》已于2019年8月1日起实施。

自1997年起，HKIAC一直是香港仲裁的法定指定机构，并且可以在当事人做出请求后决定仲裁人数或指定仲裁员或调解员。修订后的《规则》允许HKIAC在行使《规则》下的任何职权时免收8000港币的费用。

Temporary Arbitration Fees have been Exempted by HKIAC Rules

The Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre ("HKIAC") has revised the Arbitration Rules for Appointment of Arbitrators and Mediators and the Number of Arbitrators on November 1, 2018. The amendment, which has been implemented since August 1,2019, mainly allows HKIAC to exempt charges in certain temporary arbitrations in Hong Kong.

Since 1997, HKIAC has been the statutory designated body for arbitration in Hong Kong and can decide the number of arbitrators or appoint arbitrators or mediators upon request. The revised Rules allow HKIAC to waive HK$8,000 for exercising any of its functions under the Rules.

澳门立法会即将通过的新仲裁法案

根据国家对粤港澳大湾区的定位，澳门将被打造成为一个葡萄牙语国家和地区投资争议解决中心。为了实现这一目标，最近澳门立法会正在加紧相关立法，并且在着手修订现行的《仲裁法》。

相比现行的仲裁法，新版仲裁法的修改体现在以下方面：仲裁庭有权对其管辖范围内的案件做出裁决，包括对仲裁协议的存在或有效性提出的任何异议，而无需诉诸法院；仲裁庭将有权发布旨在保持最终裁决效率的紧急措施和初步命令；仲裁裁决不得上诉，但是当事人有权要求司法法院在三个月内根据有限的理由撤销仲裁裁决，但这些理由均不允许对裁决进行全面审查。

New Arbitration Act to be passed by the Macau Legislative Council

According to the country's policy, the Greater Bay Area will be built into a Portuguese-speaking country and regional investment dispute resolution center. In order to achieve this goal, the Macau Legislative Council is currently stepping up the relevant legislation and is working on amending the current Arbitration Law.

Compared with the current arbitration law, the amendments to the new Arbitration Law will now allow the arbitral tribunal the power to rule on cases within its jurisdiction, including any objections to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, without referring to the court; and the arbitral tribunal will now have the power to issue urgent measures and preliminary orders designed to maintain the enforcement of the final ruling; and arbitral awards will not be appealed, but the parties have the right to request the judicial court to cancel the arbitral award for a limited period within three months, but these reasons do not allow for a full review of the decision.

北京第四中级人民法院：申请人主张“北京市人仲裁委”属于仲裁机构约定不明，被法院驳回

相关法条：

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第十八条规定：“仲裁协议对仲裁事项或者仲裁委员会没有约定或者约定不明确的，当事人可以补充协议；达不成补充协议的，仲裁协议无效。”

《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》第三条规定：“仲裁协议约定的仲裁机构名称不准确，但能够确定具体的仲裁机构的，应当认定选定了仲裁机构。”

申请人金鸡药业股份有限公司与被申请人中信信诚资产管理有限公司的关于仲裁条款效力一案的主要争议焦点为：申请人与被申请人签订的《股权收益权转让与回购合同》约定争议由“北京市人仲裁委”解决，上述约定无法确认明确的仲裁机构，是否属于“约定不明，依法应认定仲裁条款无效”的情形。

法院观点：

（1） 仲裁协议（仲裁条款）系合同当事人约定将争议提交仲裁解决的意思表示，本案双方均有将纠纷提交仲裁机构进行仲裁的意思表示；

（2） 在司法实践中，确实存在当事人对仲裁机构的名称不甚了解，导致约定的内容不准确，申请人认为协议约定实为“北京市仲裁委”，此解释具有合理性。

（3） 当事人约定的“北京市仲裁委”、“北京市人仲裁委”，结合将仲裁地点设置在北京的仲裁机构的实际情况，仅北京仲裁委员会与约定的仲裁机构在表述上相似，其余仲裁机构与约定的仲裁机构在表述上均有较大的区别。

综上，法院裁定驳回申请人的申请。

Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court : The Applicant Claimed that the Agreement of the Arbitration Institution Was Unknown and was Rejected by the Court

Relevant Provision:

Article 18 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China provides, “Where an arbitration agreement has not specified or has not specified clearly items for arbitration or the choice of an arbitration commission, the parties concerned may conclude a supplementary agreement. If a supplementary agreement cannot be reached, the arbitration agreement shall be void.”

Article 3 of the Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Issues relating to Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China provides, “Where the name of the arbitration agency provided in the arbitration agreement is inaccurate but is nevertheless identifiable, the arbitration agency shall be deemed to have been selected.”

In Jinji Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v CITIC Xincheng Asset Management Co., Ltd., the core issue of this case was whether it is a situation where “the agreement with a term of “Beijing Municipal Ren Arbitration Commission” is unclear and the arbitration clause should be invalid according to law”.

Court’s View:

The Court dismissed the applicant's application for the following reasons:

a) The arbitration agreement (arbitration clause) is the intention of the parties to the contract to submit the dispute to arbitration for settlement. Both parties in this case have the intention to submit the dispute to the arbitration institution for arbitration;

b) In judicial practice, there is indeed a party who does not have a good understanding of the name of the arbitration institution, resulting in inaccurate content of the agreement. The applicant believes that the agreement is actually “Beijing Municipal Arbitration Commission” and this interpretation is reasonable;

c) The “Beijing Municipal Arbitration Commission” and the “Beijing Municipal Ren Arbitration Commission” agreed by the parties, combined with the situation that among all the arbitration institutions that set in Beijing, only the Beijing Arbitration Commission is similar to the agreed arbitration institution.

新加坡高等法院：仲裁协议应当适用新加坡法，新加坡国际仲裁法庭具有管辖权

相关法条：

《国际商会仲裁规则》第18条第1款规定：“仲裁地由仲裁院确定，但当事人另有约定者除外。”

《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》第20条规定：“(1)当事人可以自由约定仲裁的地点。未达成此种约定的，由仲裁庭考虑到案件的情况，包括当事人的便利，确定仲裁地点。(2)虽有本条第(1)款的规定，为在仲裁庭成员间进行磋商，为听取证人、专家或当事人的意见，或者为检查货物、其他财产或文件，除非当事人另有约定，仲裁庭可以在其认为适当的任何地点会晤。”

案号为 [2019] SGHC 142的申请人BNA与被申请人BNB的仲裁管辖权争议一案的主要争议焦点为：申请人与被申请人签订协议，约定协议所涉争议应当由新加坡国际仲裁中心在上海进行仲裁。申请人认为依据中华人民共和国法律规定，该仲裁协议无效，因此涉案争议应当由中华人民共和国境内的法院进行管辖。被申请人认为应当依据新加坡法律认定仲裁协议有效。

法院观点：

（1） 双方当事人未明确约定协议的法律适用。

（2） 结合双方对仲裁协议的框架性设计、以及对新加坡国际仲裁中心规则的引用，可以确定双方一致同意所涉争议适用新加坡法律。

（3） 双方对于上海而非中华人民共和国的约定，也可以证明双方并无适用中华人民共和国法律的合意。

综上，新加坡高等法院认定仲裁协议适用新加坡法律并且新加坡国际仲裁中心具有管辖权。

Singapore High Court: SIAC Has the Jurisdiction Over the Arbitration Agreement and the Governing Law of the Arbitration Agreement is Singapore Law

Relevant Provision:

Article 18(1) of the Rules of Arbitration of the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) provides, “The place of the arbitration shall be fixed by the Court, unless agreed upon by the parties.”

Article 20 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides, “(1) The parties are free to agree on the place of arbitration. Failing such agreement, the place of arbitration shall be determined by the arbitral tribunal having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the convenience of the parties. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of this article, the arbitral tribunal may, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, meet at any place it considers appropriate for consultation among its members, for hearing witnesses, experts or the parties, or for inspection of goods, other property or documents.”

In BNA v BNB [2019] SGHC 142, the core issue of this case was the arbitration jurisdiction dispute. The applicant and the respondent signed an agreement, of which the disputes should be arbitrated by the Singapore International Arbitration Center in Shanghai. The applicant believes that the arbitration agreement is invalid according to the laws of the People's Republic of China, so the dispute should be governed by the courts within the territory of the People's Republic of China. The respondent believed that the arbitration agreement should be valid in accordance with Singapore law.

Court’s View:

The Court thus held that the governing law of the arbitration agreement is Singapore law and held that the tribunal had jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute in question for the following reasons:

a) The Court was of the view that the choice of law clause only applied to the substantive aspect of the contract and did not amount to an express choice of law for the parties’ arbitration agreement;

b) In combination with the framework design of the arbitration agreement and the reference to the rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre, it can be determined that both parties agree that the dispute in question applies to Singapore law;

c) The Court was of the view of the parties’ arbitration agreement does not refer to the PRC, which is a law district, but to Shanghai, which is a city but not a law district. The Court thus held that even though there was strong indication of PRC law, it was displaced in favor of Singapore law.

新加坡国际商事法院：紧急情况下的独任仲裁符合规定，不予撤销

相关法条：

《新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则》第5.2条规定：“在一方当事人已依据第5.1条递交了申请，且主席在考虑各方当事人的观点以及案件的情况后决定仲裁程序应当适用“快速程序”的，仲裁程序应当按照如下规定进行：…… b.案件将由独任仲裁员审理，但主席另行决定的除外；……”

《新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则》第5.3条规定：“当事人如果同意依照本规则进行仲裁，当案件根据本第5条规定的‘快速程序’进行仲裁时，则第5.2条的规定应被视为当事人已经同意予以适用，即使其仲裁协议中有相反的约定。

案号为[2019] SGHC(I) 10 的申请人BXS与被申请人BXT的撤销仲裁裁决一案的主要争议焦点为：申请人认为其与BXT之间存在的仲裁裁决系由独任仲裁员所作，违反仲裁协议关于“争议应当由3人组成仲裁庭进行仲裁”的约定，故而无效，申请撤销。

法院观点：

（1） 依据新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则第5.2条的规定，仲裁庭主席可以指令某个仲裁依据快速程序由独任仲裁员进行仲裁；

（2） 依据新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则第5.3条的规定，当仲裁当事方认可第5.2条的适用时，即便仲裁协议中约定了争议应当交由3人仲裁庭处理，仍然可以在快速程序中进行独任仲裁；

（3） 争议仲裁在紧急情况下所作，虽然违反协议中关于仲裁庭组成形式的约定，仍然有效，不予撤销。

综上，法院裁定驳回申请人的申请。

Singapore International Commercial Court:  Arbitration with a Sole Arbitrator Under the Expedited Procedure did not Contravene the Parties’ Arbitration Agreement and Shall not be Revoked

Relevant Provision:

Rule 5.2 of the 2016 SIAC Rules provides, “Where a party has filed an application with the Registrar under Rule 5.1, and where the President determines, after considering the views of the parties, and having regard to the circumstances of the case, that the arbitral proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure, the following procedure shall apply: …b) the case shall be referred to a sole arbitrator, unless the President determines otherwise;…”

Rule 5.3 of the 2016 SIAC Rules provides, “By agreeing to arbitration under these Rules, the parties agree that, where arbitral proceedings are conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure under this Rule 5, the rules and procedures set forth in Rule 5.2 shall apply even in cases where the arbitration agreement contains contrary terms.”

In BXS v BXT [2019] SGHC(I) 10, the core issue of this case is that the applicant believes that the arbitral award BXT is made by a sole arbitrator, which is in violation of the arbitration agreement clause of arbitrating by three-member-tribunal. Therefore, it is invalid and the application shall be revoked.

Court’s View:

The Court dismissed the applicant's application for the following reasons:

a) The court was of the view that according to Rule 5.2 of the 2016 SIAC Rules, the SIAC President can direct an arbitration to use the Expedited Procedure under a sole arbitrator.

b) The court was of the view that according to Rule 5.3 of the 2016 SIAC Rules, where both parties agreed on Rule 5.2 of the 2016 SIAC, arbitration within the Expedited Procedure under a sole arbitrator was acceptable and valid even when the arbitration agreement contained clause of arbitrating by three-member-tribunal.

c) The court was of the view that the dispute arbitration was conducted in accordance with the Expedited Procedure, although it was in violation of the agreement on the form of the arbitral tribunal, it shall be valid and not be revoked.

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

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.