汇业评论|Five Takeaways from Arrangement between Mainland and HKSAR

文 | 潘志成 合伙人 汇业律师事务所

内地与香港仲裁程序相互协助保全安排五要点

Five Takeaways from The Arrangement ConcerningMutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of ArbitralProceedings between Mainland and HKSAR

2019年10月1日，由内地最高人民法院与香港特别行政区律政司签署的《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》（法释[2019]14号，以下简称“《协助保全安排》”）已正式生效。2019年10月8日国庆长假后的第一个工作日，全国首例香港仲裁在内地法院的保全申请向上海海事法院递交。

On October 1, 2019, The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered interimMeasures in Aid of Arbitral Procedures between the Mainland and Hong Kong SpecialAdministrative Region (FS [2019] No. 14, hereinafter referred to as “TheArrangement”) signed by the Supreme People’s Court of the Mainland and theDepartment of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region hasofficially come into force. On October 8, 2019, the first working day after theNational Day holiday in Mainland China, the first application for interimmeasures in aid of arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong was submitted to ShanghaiMaritime Court.

对于这部法律文件从事国际商事仲裁业务的律师以及可能涉及国际商事仲裁的法务人士应当给予高度重视。该文件虽不能彻底改变诉讼和仲裁在国际商事争议解决中地位与平衡，但对于内地及香港国际商事仲裁实务而言具有一定突破性意义，会对国际商事争议解决机构的选择以及对仲裁条款的安排产生一系列影响。为此笔者建议可以从以下五个要点了解《协助保全安排》。

The Arrangement is noteworthy to lawyers whopractice in the field of international commercial arbitration and in-housecounsels who might be involved into international commercial arbitration.Although this document may not completely tilt the balance between courtlitigation and arbitration as two optional dispute resolution forms forinternational commercial disputes, it does have great impact on internationalcommercial arbitration practice between the Mainland and Hong Kong, and may havepotential influence over the selection of dispute resolution forms and thedrafting of the arbitration clause. The followings are the five takeaways fromthis Arrangement:

要点一：国际商事仲裁缺乏临时禁令措施跨境执行的制度安排

Takeaway1: International commercial arbitrationlacks institutional arrangement for cross-border enforcement of interimmeasures

国际商事争议解决在选择争议解决机构时，一般都会考虑法院诉讼与仲裁之间各自的优势和劣势，并根据比较结果加以选择。相比较于法院诉讼，仲裁在国际商事争议解决方面存在一系列优势，例如《纽约公约》的成员国之间可以通过《纽约公约》实现仲裁裁决的承认与执行，通过选择仲裁员可以增加裁决者的专业性，仲裁机构、仲裁地、仲裁语言、仲裁规则的可选择性增加了程序上的灵活性，以及仲裁的保密性等等。

When selecting dispute resolution forms forinternational commercial disputes, the parties would consider the respectiveadvantages and disadvantages of both court litigation and arbitration, and makeselection according to this comparison result. Compared with court litigation,arbitration has a number of advantages. For instance, among members of the NewYork Convention, they could recognize and enforce the arbitral awards accordingto this Convention, guarantee the expertise of the adjudicator by selectingarbitrators, increase procedural flexibility, as well as the confidentiality ofarbitration by choosing arbitral center, place of arbitration, arbitrationlanguage and arbitration rule.

然而与法院诉讼程序相比，仲裁也存在一些劣势，例如缺乏对裁决再次审查的上诉机制、难以处理多方主体之间非单一合同纠纷等等。而在仲裁的劣势当中，最常被提及的一大劣势就是仲裁缺乏具有强制力的程序保障措施或临时禁令措施，无法向法院诉讼那样进行强制传唤、强制调查取证或证据出示，也无法进行财产保全、证据保全、行为保全。如果仲裁申请人需要相应的临时措施保障其权益，仲裁机构自身并无法实施相应措施。即便根据《联合国国际贸易法委员会仲裁示范法》第17条、以及根据上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会等仲裁机构的仲裁规则，仲裁机构可以做出临时措施的决定，但这些决定最终也只能依靠法院对仲裁机构的配合来执行。

However, compared with court proceedings,arbitration also has some disadvantages, such as the lack of an appeal mechanismfor re-examining the arbitral award, and the difficulty of handling non-singlecontract disputes between multiple parties. Among the disadvantages ofarbitration, the most frequently mentioned disadvantage to arbitration is thelack of any coercive procedural supporting measure or interim measures, and itis impossible for an arbitral center to compel discovery, attendance of witnesslike in court proceedings, let alone property preservation, evidencepreservation, or behavior preservation. If a party to arbitral proceedingsneeds interim measures to protect its rights, despite that based upon Article17 of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration or the arbitration rules of some arbitralcenter such as the SIETAC, an arbitral center dose have power to grant interimmeasures, an arbitral center can not enforce such coercive measures, and theparty eventually needs to rely on national courts to cooperate and enforce suchinterim measures.

在不涉及跨境的国内仲裁案件中，根据我国《仲裁法》第二十八条和第四十六条规定，当事人可以提出财产保全或证据保全申请，并由仲裁机构依据《民事诉讼法》相关规定向财产所在地法院或证据所在地法院提交保全申请。但是对于涉及跨境的国际商事仲裁，我国内地法院在根据《纽约公约》承认与执行外国的国际商事仲裁时，通常将可承认的仲裁裁决理解为境外仲裁机构的生效裁决，而保全措施等临时禁令措施往往不被视为具有终局效力的裁决，因此难以获得法院的承认和执行。

In domestic arbitration cases that do not involvecross-border enforcement, a party to arbitral proceedings may apply for property preservation or evidence preservation based upon Articles 28 and 46 of The Arbitration Law of China, and the arbitral center shall forward such application to the court where theproperty or evidence is situated based upon relevant provisions of The Civil Procedural Law.However, for international commercial arbitration with cross-border enforcement factor involved, when a domestic court recognizes and enforces foreign internationalcommercial arbitral award under the New York Convention, such recognizable arbitralaward usually would be interpreted as an effective and binding award issued byforeign arbitral center, while the interim measures such as temporary injunctive measures usually would not be treated as final awards, so it is difficult to obtain recognition and enforcement by courts.

要点二：内地与香港的跨境执行不适用《纽约公约》

Takeaway 2: New York Convention will not beapplicable to the cross-border enforcement between the Mainland and HKSAR

如果具体到内地与香港两地跨境商事争议解决而言，又不单单存在《纽约公约》条文是否涵盖临时禁令措施的问题，更大的问题是内地与香港的跨境执行就不能适用《纽约公约》。根据中国加入《纽约公约》时所声明的保留，仅对另一缔约国领土内作出的仲裁裁决予以承认和执行，而在我国恢复对香港行使主权之后，香港已不再属于另一缔约国的领土，因此内地与香港的跨境执行问题不再适用《纽约公约》。

In particular, regarding the cross-bordercommercial disputes between the Mainland and HKSAR, whether the provisions ofthe New York Convention could cover interim measures is not the only trouble,an even bigger trouble is that the New York Convention does not apply tocross-border enforcement between the Mainland and HKSAR. According to thereservations declared by China when it acceded to the New York Convention, onlythe arbitral awards made in the territory of another sovereign state arerecognized and enforced, and after the restoration of sovereignty over HongKong, Hong Kong no longer belongs to the territory of another sovereign state.Therefore, the issue of cross-border enforcement between the Mainland and HKSARis no longer subject to the New York Convention.

对于内地和香港的跨境商业仲裁，双方是通过《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（法释[2000]3号）、《最高人民法院关于香港仲裁裁决在内地执行的有关问题的通知》（法[2009]415号）等司法协助文件来相互之间认可和执行仲裁裁决。但是在前述文件中，也没有明确规定对于仲裁机构作出的临时禁令措施法院应如何处理。

For cross-border commercial arbitration between theMainland and HKSAR, the two sides recognize and enforce arbitral award througha series of mutual assistance legal documents, such as The Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between theMainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FS [2000] No.3) and The Notice of Relevant Issues ConcerningEnforcing Hong Kong Arbitral Award in the Mainland (F [2009] No. 415).However, even within the aforementioned legal documents, there is no provisionexplicitly provides how a court should deal with the interim measures rendered byan arbitral center.

在此背景下，仲裁在国际商事争议解决可能需要的程序保障措施和临时禁令措施方面，相比较于法院诉讼，无疑存在短板。这一点也会影响国际商事争议案件中当事人对解决机构的选择。

Against this background, the lack of coerciveprocess supporting measures and interim measures becomes a noticeableshortcomings of arbitration in international commercial dispute resolution. Ifthe nature of a potential dispute might need such coercive measures, theparties probably would prefer court litigation to arbitration.

要点三：《协助保全安排》对临时禁令措施跨境执行的突破

Takeaway 3: The Arrangement makes a breakthrough incross-border enforcement of interim measures

2019年10月1日生效的《协助保全安排》，恰恰我国内地最高法院和香港律政司针对以上仲裁在临时救济措施方面的短板所进行的修补。

The Arrangement which has come into force on October 1 2019 could betreated as an action taken by the Supreme Court of China and the Department ofJustice of Hong Kong to fix the shortcomings of arbitration in term ofcross-border enforcement.

根据《协助保全安排》第三条规定，香港仲裁程序的当事人，在仲裁裁决作出前，可以参照我国内地《民事诉讼法》、《仲裁法》以及相关司法解释的规定，向被申请人住所地、财产所在地或者证据所在地的内地中级人民法院申请保全。被申请人住所地、财产所在地或者证据所在地在不同人民法院辖区的，应当选择向其中一个人民法院提出申请，不得分别向两个或者两个以上人民法院提出申请。

According to Article 3 of the Arrangement, a party to arbitral proceedingsin Hong Kong may, before the arbitral award is made, by reference to theprovisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C., the Arbitration Law of theP.R.C. and relevant judicial interpretations, make an application for interimmeasures to the Intermediate People’s Court of the place of residence of theparty against whom the application is made (“respondent”) or the place  wherethe property or evidence is situated. If the place of residence of therespondent or the place where the property or evidence is situated falls withinthe jurisdiction of different people’s courts, the applicant shall make anapplication to any one of those people’s courts, but shall not make separateapplications to two or more people’s courts.

同时该条规定，香港仲裁程序的当事人可以在申请仲裁之前向内地法院申请保全，也可以在申请仲裁之后向内地法院申请保全。如果当事人在有关仲裁机构或者常设办事处受理仲裁申请后提出保全申请的，应当由该机构或者常设办事处向内地法院转递其申请；而如果当事人在有关仲裁机构或者常设办事处受理仲裁申请前提出保全申请，内地人民法院采取保全措施后三十日内未收到有关机构或者常设办事处提交的已受理仲裁案件的证明函件的，内地人民法院应当解除保全。

Based upon the same Article, a party to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kongmay make application for interim measures either before or after application for arbitration to the corresponding mainland people’s court. Where anapplication for interim measures is made after the relevant institution orpermanent office has accepted the arbitration case, the party’s applicationshall be passed on to the mainland people’s court by the said institution orpermanent office. Where a party makes an application for interim measure beforethe relevant institution or permanent office has accepted the arbitration case,but the people’s court of the Mainland has not received a letter from the saidinstitution or permanent office certifying its acceptance of the arbitrationcase within 30 days after the interim measures is taken, the people’s court ofthe Mainland shall discharge the interim measure.

《协助保全安排》第四条明确了香港仲裁程序当事人向内地法院申请保全所需提交的文件，具体包括保全申请书、仲裁协议、身份证明材料、仲裁申请及受理证明文件等，同时该条规定身份证明材料需办理公证认证，所有文件如是外文均需提交中文译本。《协助保全安排》第五条进一步明确了保全申请书必须具备的内容。

Article 4 of the Arrangement clarifies the documents and materials to besubmitted by a party to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong when applying forinterim measures, including the application for interim measures, the arbitrationagreement, documents of identity, the request for arbitration and theacceptance certificate, etc. The documents of identity need to be certified. Alldocuments must be submitted with Chinese translation if they are in foreignlanguages. Article 5 of the Arrangement sets out the contents to be specifiedwithin the application for interim measure.

根据《协助保全安排》第八条规定，受理香港仲裁程序当事人的保全申请后，内地法院可以要求申请人提供担保。如果当事人的保全申请符合我国内地法律规定，内地法院应当作出保全裁定。《协助保全安排》并未明确规定内地法院作出保全裁定的时限，仅规定内地法院应尽快审查保全申请。

According to Article 8 of the Arrangement, after accepting the applicationfor interim measures by a party to the arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong, a People’s court of the Mainland may require the applicant to provide security.After examination and being satisfied that the party’s application for interimmeasure is in accordance with the law of the requested place, the court of therequested place shall make a decision or order for interim measure. TheArrangement does not clearly specify the time limit for a Mainland court tomake a decision or order. It only provides that a requested court shall examinethe application for interim measure expeditiously.

至此，香港仲裁程序的当事人有了一个相对明确的申请保全措施的制度安排。这一制度安排在一定程度上弥补了仲裁在国际商事争议解决程序措施和临时禁令措施方面的劣势，从而减少了当事人在选择国际商事仲裁时的顾虑。同时考虑到《纽约公约》尚没有这样的制度安排，在《协助保全安排》生效后，香港本地仲裁机构及仲裁业在与没有类似制度安排的境外仲裁机构相比较，将获得一大竞争优势。

To sum up, the parties to the arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong have arelatively clear institutional arrangement for applying for preservationmeasures. This institutional arrangement has to some extent compensated the disadvantages of arbitration in international commercial dispute resolution procedures and temporary injunction measures, thereby reducing the concerns ofparties in the choice of international commercial arbitration. At the sametime, considering that there is no such institutional arrangement in the NewYork Convention, after the Arrangement cames into effect, the local arbitrationinstitutions and the arbitration industry in Hong Kong will gain a competitiveadvantage when compared with overseas arbitration institutions that have nosimilar institutional arrangements.

要点四：并非所有香港当地仲裁均可在内地申请保全

Takeaway 4: Not every arbitration in HKSAR could applyfor assistance of interim measures in Mainland China 

《协助保全安排》生效后，并非所有香港当地的仲裁均可在我国内地申请保全。能够适用《协助保全安排》向内地法院申请保全的仲裁，应当为仲裁地在香港，并由香港特区政府向内地最高法院所提交仲裁机构或其常设办事处管理的仲裁。这就意味着在香港当地大量存在的临时仲裁、非前述名单内仲裁机构所管理的仲裁，将无法通过《协助保全安排》申请内地法院采取保全措施。

Even after the Arrangement becoming effect, notevery arbitration in Hong Kong could apply for assistance of interim measuresin Mainland China. Arbitration which is eligible to the Arrangement should havethe place of arbitration in HKSAR, and the arbitration institution or itspermanent office should be within the list submitted by HKSAR to the MainlandSupreme Court. This means that a large number of ad hoc arbitrations in HongKong and arbitrations administered by arbitration institutions not included withinthe above list will not be able to apply for interim measures from Mainlandcourts through the Arrangement.

尽管如此，根据前述《最高人民法院关于香港仲裁裁决在内地执行的有关问题的通知》（法[2009]415号），香港当地的临时仲裁、名单之外仲裁机构管理的仲裁，只要不存在不予认可的情形，其生效裁决仍可通过《最高人民法院关于内地与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》（法释[2000]3号）申请内地法院执行。

Nevertheless, in accordance with the aforementioned The Notice of Relevant Issues Concerning Enforcing Hong Kong Arbitral Award in the Mainland (F [2009] No. 415), thefinal arbitral award issued by ad hoc arbitrations in Hong Kong or arbitrationsadministered by arbitration institutions outside the list, could still beenforced by the courts in Mainland China, through The Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between theMainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FS [2000] No.3), as long as there is no unenforceable issue.

要点五：并非所有类型禁令措施均可向内地法院申请执行

Takeaway 5: Not every type of interim measurescould be granted by Courts in Mainland China 

能够通过《协助保全安排》向内地法院申请的措施类型，仅为内地法律所规定的财产保全、证据保全和行为保全三种类型。而境外法院通常可以做出的具有强制力的诉讼程序保障措施，例如强制证据出示等强制令措施，无法通过《协助保全安排》向内地法院申请。

There are only three types of interim measures thatcould be applied for with the Mainland courts through the Arrangement, namelyproperty preservation, evidence preservation and behavior preservation, whichare also stipulated by the relevant laws in Mainland China. The coercive proceduralsupporting measures that foreign courts could make, such as compel discovery,can not be applied for with the Mainland courts through the Arrangement.

作者往期文章推荐：