新聞資訊 首頁>新聞資訊>法律資訊

《國際仲裁簡訊》2019年10月號International Arbitration Newsletter Oct. 2019

作者:中倫文德   丨  時間:2019.11.01   丨  瀏覽:267





《國際仲裁簡訊》201910月號


International Arbitration Newsletter October 2019

 



《最高人民法院關于內地與香港特別行政區法院就仲裁程序相互協助保全的安排》生效后首個內地法院成功財產保全案例

 

2019年108日,上海海事法院受理了一起香港仲裁程序中的當事人申請財產保全案件并于當日依法裁定準許。這是自《最高人民法院關于內地與香港特別行政區法院就仲裁程序相互協助保全的安排》(“《仲裁保全安排》”)于101日生效以來,內地法院受理并批準的首起香港仲裁程序中的財產保全案件。

 

2018年5月,申請人香港某海運公司與被申請人上海某公司就航次租船糾紛達成《和解協議》,約定由被申請人支付18萬美元。然而,被申請人遲遲未能按照約定支付款項,申請人根據《和解協議》中約定的仲裁條款于2019716日向香港國際仲裁中心(“HKIAC”)提起仲裁。2019102日,HKIAC開具轉遞函提供給申請人以直接提交上海海事法院,要求查封、扣押、凍結被申請人賬戶和其他財產。

 

10月8日,上海海事法院在收到全套保全申請材料和轉遞函原件后,依據《仲裁保全安排》和《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》等相關法律規定予以立案受理,依法組成合議庭進行審查后裁定予以準許作出民事裁定書,批準了財產保全申請。本案是《仲裁保全安排》的成功首次適用,也充分體現了《仲裁保全安排》在內地和香港司法協助方面的重大意義。

 

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.

 



新加坡國際仲裁中心和北京仲裁委員會/北京國際仲裁中心簽訂合作備忘錄

 

2019年1015日,新加坡國際仲裁中心(“新仲”)宣布其與北京仲裁委員會/北京國際仲裁中心(“北仲”)簽署了旨在推廣國際仲裁作為解決跨境爭議優選方式的合作備忘錄(“《備忘錄》”)。

 

根據《備忘錄》,新仲和北仲將共同推廣國際仲裁,為商業社會提供更好的服務。雙方還將在中國和新加坡聯合舉辦國際仲裁會議、研討會、研習班,并將邀請各自仲裁界主要人士出席在北京舉辦的新仲活動或者在新加坡舉辦的北仲活動。雙方亦同意,可應一方請求在適當的時候互相推薦仲裁員,并可應一方請求為對方人員提供培訓項目。

 

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,孫楊和FINA之間的CAS仲裁聽證會將于20191115日舉行

 

國際體育仲裁院(“CAS”)將在20191115日聽取世界反興奮劑機構(“WADA”)所提起的,針對中國游泳運動員孫楊和國際游泳聯合會(“FINA”)關于FINA興奮劑檢查小組于201913日發布的決定的上訴。在該決定中,孫楊被裁定在賽后興奮劑控制中未違反反興奮劑規則。

 

應各方要求,此次聽證會將向公眾開放,全部或部分聽證會將會被直播在CAS網站上。只有通過正式程序正確注冊的人員才能進入聽證室。這將是CAS歷史上第二次公開舉行聽證會。第一次公開聽證會的舉行也與游泳運動爭議有關,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,仲裁條款的效力也不受影響

 

相關法條:

《中華人民共和國仲裁法》第16條第1款規定:“仲裁協議包括合同中訂立的仲裁條款和以其他書面方式在糾紛發生前或者糾紛發生后達成的請求仲裁的協議。”

 

《中華人民共和國仲裁法》第19條第1款規定:“仲裁協議獨立存在,合同的變更、解除、終止或者無效,不影響仲裁協議的效力。”

 

《中華人民共和國仲裁法》第20條第1款規定:“當事人對仲裁協議的效力有異議的,可以請求仲裁委員會作出決定或者請求人民法院作出裁定。一方請求仲裁委員會作出決定,另一方請求人民法院作出裁定的,由人民法院裁定。”

 

《最高人民法院關于適用<中華人民共和國仲裁法>若干問題的解釋》第10條第2款規定:“當事人在訂立合同時就爭議達成仲裁協議的,合同未成立不影響仲裁協議的效力。”

 

關于申請人運裕有限公司與被申請人深圳市中苑城商業投資控股有限公司之間的申請確認仲裁協議效力一案([2019]最高法民特1)的主要爭議焦點為如合同未成立,仲裁條款是否成立。

 

法院觀點:

(1) 當事人以合同未成立為由要求確認仲裁條款不成立的,屬于申請確認仲裁協議效力案件,人民法院應予立案審查;

(2) 當事雙方已就仲裁條款達成一致,且之前從未對此有過爭議,因此案涉仲裁條款已經成立。

(3) 根據《最高人民法院關于適用<中華人民共和國仲裁法>若干問題的解釋》第10條第2款之規定,合同未成立的不影響仲裁條款的效力。

 

綜上,法院裁定駁回申請人的申請。

 

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.

 



金華市中級人民法院:

駁回申請人就客觀上執行不能的仲裁裁決提出的執行申請

 

相關法條:

《中華人民共和國民事訴訟法》第238條第1款規定:“對公證機關依法賦予強制執行效力的債權文書,一方當事人不履行的,對方當事人可以向有管轄權的人民法院申請執行,受申請的人民法院應當執行。”

 

《承認及執行外國仲裁裁決公約》第4條第1款規定:“申請承認及執行之一的,為取得前條所稱之承認及執行,應于申請時提交:(甲)原裁決之正本或其正式副本,(乙)第二條所稱協定之原本或其正式副本。”

 

關于申請人俄羅斯季節有限公司(“季節公司”)與被申請人永康市特凡進出口有限公司(“特凡進出口公司”)之間的申請承認和執行俄羅斯聯邦工商會國際商事仲裁院(“俄羅斯仲裁院”)作出的35/2014號仲裁裁決一案的主要爭議焦點為申請人就因被申請人已注銷而客觀執行不能的原仲裁裁決的執行申請是否應予駁回。

 

法院觀點:

(1) 特凡進出口公司是涉案合同及仲裁裁決的當事人,特凡進出口公司在仲裁裁決作出后發生的經營變動不影響對仲裁裁決的司法審查;

(2) 特凡進出口公司與季節公司簽訂的合同有仲裁條款的約定,此系雙方當事人的真實意思表示,對雙方當事人都具有約束力。特凡進出口公司已得到指定仲裁員和進行仲裁程序的適當通知,其應對拒收或無法送達承擔不利法律后果;

(3) 涉案仲裁裁決不存在《承認及執行外國仲裁裁決公約》規定的拒絕承認的情形,應予以承認,但鑒于特凡進出口公司已經注銷,客觀上執行不能,故對季節公司的執行申請不予準許。

 

綜上,法院裁定駁回申請人的申請。

 

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.

 


本簡訊由《中倫文德國際業務委員會》編制,僅供參考。

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


編委:林威 鄧澍焙 段慶喜 王鶯 李宇明 

郭泠泠 黃立剛 劉灝 牛琦

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

Lingling GUO  Derek HUANG  Hao Liu  Qi Niu


刊載信息均來源于公開渠道。

All Information published in this Newsletter is from open source.

如您有任何建議或需了解更多信息,請同我們聯系.

If you have any suggestion or need more information, please con


ZLWD International Business Committee    

October 2019

中国象棋下载安装手机版免费下载 排列五开奖结果查询 陕西十一选五预测号码 南粤26选5开奖结果 北京快3一定牛和值 甘肃11选5遗漏top 中国福利彩票怎么查是否中奖 锅业股份股票行情 天津福彩快乐十分开奖结果 湖北11选五遗漏前三直一定牛 河北20选5复式对照表