俄罗斯仲裁中心推出中文官方网站
 

为打破语言沟通障碍、便利中国人士更好地了解俄罗斯法律，吸引中方客户，俄罗斯仲裁中心特别推出中文版本的官方网站（网址为：
https://bit.ly2IQD5nc），并发布了中文版的仲裁规则及推荐仲裁条款等资料。该中文网站提供了全面、专业、丰富的信息，并将会为中方提供中俄法律互相交流的良好平台。

The Russian Arbitration Center Launches a Chinese Official Website

In order to break the barrier of language communication, facilitating Chinese people to better understand Russian laws and attracting Chinese customers, the Russian Arbitration Center has specially launched a Chinese version of their official website (Website Address: https://bit.ly2IQD5nc). The Chinese version also contains the arbitration rules, recommended arbitration clauses and other materials in Chinese. The Chinese website provides comprehensive, professional and rich information and will establish a good platform for the legal exchanges between China and Russia.

国际商会发布2018年国际仲裁院数据

根据国际商会（ICC）发布的2018年国际仲裁院（International Court of Arbitration）案件处理数据统计，2018年秘书处新登记案件842件，创下ICC新纪录。这一数字略低于2016年提交的966起案件，其中包括135起由集体纠纷引发的相关小额索赔案件。截至2018年底，国际仲裁法院受理未决案件1603件，自1923年成立以来登记在册案件24180件。
 

在2018年提交案件的2282个当事人中，46%是原告，54%是被告。三分之一的案件涉及多个当事人（33%），其中多数案件涉及数名被告（57%），26%的案件涉及数名原告，17%的案件涉及数名原告和被告。绝大多数案件涉及3至5个当事方（占多方案件的85%），而有些案件涉及多达15个当事方。
 

案件涉及广泛的领域分为20多个类别（农业、营养、商业服务、化工、塑料、橡胶、建筑和工程、国防和安全、教育、文化、能源、环保、融资和保险、一般贸易和分销、医疗、制药和身体保健、工业设备和服务、休闲和娱乐、媒体和出版、金属和原材料、包装、处理和仓库、公共机构和组织、电信、专业技术、纺织品、服装、运输）。

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Released 2018 Statistics of International Court of Arbitration

In 2018, 842 new cases were registered with the Secretariat, thus setting a new record for ICC. The figure is slightly lower than the 966 cases filed in 2016, which included 135 related small- claim cases arising from a collective dispute. At the end of 2018, 1,603 pending cases were being administered by the Court and 24,180 cases had been registered since the Court was established in 1923.
 

Out of the 2,282 parties involved in cases filed in 2018, 46% were claimants and 54% respondents. A third of the cases involved multiple parties (33%), with several respondents in the majority of cases (57%), several claimants in 26% of the cases, and several claimants and respondents in 17% of the cases. The vast majority of cases involved three to five parties (85% of multiparty cases), while some cases involved as many as 15 parties.
 

The cases filed cover a wide range of sectors divided in more than 20 categories (agribusiness, alimentation, business services, chemicals, plastic and rubber, construction and engineering, defence and security, education and culture, energy, environmental protection, financing and insurance, general trade and distribution, health, pharmaceuticals and body care, industrial equipment and services, leisure and entertainment, media and publishing, metals and raw materials, packaging, handling and warehouses, public institutions and organizations, telecommunications, specialized technologies, textiles, clothing, transportation).

香港高等法院：被列入“失信被执行人名单”的仲裁当事人应当提供担保

相关法条：

《纽约公约》（“《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》”）第五条规定：“一、裁决仅在受裁决援用的一方当事人向申请承认及执行地的主管机关提出证据证明有下列情形之一时，才可以根据该当事人的请求拒绝承认和执行：（戊）裁决对当事人尚无拘束力，或裁决已经由作出裁决的国家或据其法律作出裁决的国家的有权机关撤销或者停止执行。”
 

《纽约公约》第六条规定：“如果已经向第五条第一项（戊）款提到的主管机关申请撤销或停止执行，受理援引裁决案件的机关如果认为适当时可以延期作出关于执行裁决的决定，可以根据请求执行裁决的当事人的申请，命令对方当事人提供适当的担保。”
 

Weili Su and Flash Bright Power Limited v Shengkang Fei and Others [2019 ]HKCFI 1257 一案的核心争议焦点是请求撤销仲裁裁决的当事人是否应当提供担保。围绕这一核心争议，原、被告双方仲裁协议的有效性，被告未能在仲裁中阐述自己的主张是否构成撤销仲裁裁决的有力依据，两个问题也成为本案的争议焦点。
 

法院观点：

（1） 本案被告是协议仲裁条款的当事人，双方之间存在有效的仲裁协议。
（2） 不支持原告在仲裁过程中被剥夺了陈述权的主张。原告歪曲了事实，并以此为借口来支持自己撤销仲裁裁决的主张，本院对此不予认可。另外，事实或法律上的错误并不能导致仲裁裁决的撤销。
（3） 本院在考虑是否要求仲裁申请人提供担保时，会重点考虑仲裁裁决执行的难度。尽管原告主张“在香港是否有资产会是一个参考因素”，但并不能作为唯一的或决定性因素。在本案中，第一原告的个人资信存在严重问题，已被我国最高人民法院列入“失信被执行人名单”中，第二原告存在境外涉诉的情况，并有转移资产的嫌疑，或将导致仲裁执行的困难。
综上，法院命令裁决撤销请求人必须提供诉讼担保。

Hong Kong High Court: The Arbitration Party Listed in the “Discredited Person Subject to Enforcement in China” Shall Provide Guarantee

Relevant Provision:

Article V of Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”) provides, “1. Recognition and enforcement of the award may be refused, at the request of the party against whom it is invoked, only if that party furnishes to the competent authority where the recognition and enforcement is sought, proof that: (e) The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, that award was made.”
 

Article VI of the New York Convention provides, “If an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to a competent authority referred to in article V (1) (e), the authority before which the award is sought to be relied upon may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the enforcement of the award and may also, on the application of the party claiming enforcement of the award, order the other party to give suitable security.”
 

In Weili Su and Flash Bright Power Limited v Shengkang Fei and Others [2019] HKCFI 1257, the core issue of this case was whether the party requesting for setting aside the arbitration award should provide security. Center to this core dispute, was the validity of the arbitration agreement between the parties, and whether the defendant failed to explain in the arbitration if his claim constituted a strong reason for setting aside the arbitration award.
 

Court’s View:

The Court ordered that the claimants must provide litigation security for the following reasons:
a) The defendant is a party to the arbitration clause of the Agreement, and there is an arbitration agreement between the two parties.
b) The claim that the plaintiff was deprived of his right to plead his case shall not be supported. The court did not recognize the plaintiff's claim that he had distorted the facts and used it as an excuse to support his request for setting aside the Award. In addition, a factual or legal error cannot lead to the setting aside of the Award.
c) The ease or difficulty of the enforcement of the Award should be put first when considering whether to require the applicant to provide security. Although the plaintiff’s claims that there are assets in Hong Kong will be a reference factor, it is not the only or decisive factor. In this case, there are serious problems with the personal credit of the first plaintiff, whom has been listed in the “Discredited Person Subject to Enforcement” by the Supreme People's Court of China. The second plaintiff is involved in overseas litigations and suspected of transferring assets, which may lead to difficulties in the execution of arbitration.

北京第四中级人民法院：仲裁机构作出的撤案决定应属法院撤销仲裁裁决的审查范围

相关法条：

《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>的解释》第551条规定：“人民法院审理涉及香港、澳门特别行政区和台湾地区的民事诉讼案件，可以参照适用涉外民事诉讼程序的特别规定。”
 

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第70条规定：“当事人提出证据证明涉外仲裁裁决有民事诉讼法第二百五十八条[即《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2017年修正）第274条]第一款规定的情形之一的，经人民法院组成合议庭审查核实，裁定撤销。”
 

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（2017年修正）第274条规定：“对中华人民共和国涉外仲裁机构作出的裁决，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；……”
 

申请人创凯（香港）有限公司与被申请人中国石化集团中原石油勘探局有限公司的申请撤销仲裁裁决一案的主要争议焦点为：（1）中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会作出的“0786号决定”（该“决定”中包含撤销与申请人有关的另一仲裁案件的决定）是否属于撤销仲裁的司法审查范围；（2）在“0786号决定”属于法院撤销仲裁司法审查范围时，该撤销理由是否符合被撤销仲裁裁决的法律规定。
 

法院观点：

（1） 仲裁决定与仲裁裁决具有相同的效力，均属于当事人可依据《仲裁法》之规定申请撤销仲裁裁决的范围。
（2） 法院仅可根据《中华人民共和国诉讼法》（2017年修订）第274条第一款“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”撤销涉外仲裁裁决。
综上，申请人基于对涉外仲裁裁决的实体处理内容有异议而申请撤销“0786号决定”理由不能成立，法院裁定驳回申请人的申请。

Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court: The Decision to Set Aside the Case Made by the Arbitration Organization Shall Fall within the Scope of Judicial Review of the Setting Aside of Arbitration Award by the Court

Relevant Provision:

Article 551 of the Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court on Application of the “Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, “A People’s Court trying a civil lawsuit, which involves Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macao Special Administrative Region or Chinese Taiwan, may refer to the special provisions on procedures for foreign-related civil lawsuits.”
 

Article 70 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China provides, “A people’s court shall, after examination and verification by its collegiate bench, rule to set aside an award if a party to the case provides evidence proving that the arbitration award involves one of the circumstances prescribed in Clause 1, Article 258 of the Civil Procedure Law [Article 274 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China (2017 version)].”
 

Article 274 of the Civil Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China (2017 version) provides, “For an arbitral award made by a foreign-related arbitration organization of the People's Republic of China, 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 that the assertion is true, the People's Court shall rule on non-enforcement: (1) The parties concerned have not included an arbitration clause in the contract or reached a written arbitration agreement subsequently;…”
 

With respect to the dispute between Chuangkai (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. and Sinopec Group Zhongyuan Petroleum Exploration Co., Ltd., the key issues were (1) whether the “Decision 0786" (which contains the decision to set aside another arbitration case related to the applicant) made by China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission falls within the scope of judicial review for setting aside the arbitration; (2) where “Decision 0786” falls within the scope of judicial review for setting aside the arbitration by the court, whether the reason for which the arbitration award was set aside conforms to the provisions to set aside an arbitration award.
 

Court’s View:

The Court dismissed the applicant's application for the following reasons:
a) The decision made by the arbitration tribunal has the same effect as the arbitration award, which shall fall within the scope of the party to apply for setting aside the arbitration award according to the provisions of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China.
b) The court may only set aside a foreign-related arbitral award in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 274 of the Law of the People's Republic of China (Revised in 2017), i.e. “The parties concerned have not included an arbitration clause in the contract or reached a written arbitration agreement subsequently”.

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.