《国际仲裁简讯》2021年1月号 International Arbitration Newsletter Jan. 2021
中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会发布2020年工作总结和2021年工作计划
中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（以下简称贸仲委）于2021年1月29日发布了2020年工作总结和2021年工作计划。
报告指出，2020年，贸仲委受理案件3615件，同比增长8.5%，争议金额1121.3亿元，再破千亿大关。其中案件争议类型呈现多样化，共有21种类型，股权投资、股权转让、金融创新型及各类服务合同争议等新类型案件呈现增长态势。2021年贸仲委将围绕“十四五”规划和二〇三五远景目标，面对我国发展重要战略机遇期，把握机遇，科学谋划，努力开创贸仲委仲裁工作新局面，推进中国仲裁事业高质量发展！
Release of the Work Summary for 2020 and Work Plan for 2021 by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission
The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the CIETAC) released its 2020 work summary and 2021 work plan on January 29, 2021.
The report pointed out that in 2020, the CIETAC accepted 3615 cases, a year-on-year growth of 8.5%, and the disputed amount totaled 112.13 billion yuan, which exceeded 100 billion. The types of disputes over the cases are diversified, with 21 types in total, and new types of cases involving equity investment, equity transfer, financial innovation and disputes over service contracts are increasing. In 2021, CIETAC will focus on the “14th Five-Year Plan” and the long-term goal of 2035, face the important period of strategic opportunities for China’s development, seize the opportunities, make scientific plans, and strive to create a new situation in the CIETAC arbitration work and promote the high quality development of arbitration in China.
■□■□
西安仲裁委员会作出首例适用《民法典》的
仲裁裁决
2021年1月4日，西安仲裁委员会对一起建设工程施工合同纠纷作出裁决。这是民法典实施之后，西安市适用民法典作出裁决的仲裁案件第一例。
该案申请人某运输有限公司与被申请人某交通工程有限公司因工程款支付问题产生纠纷。申请人依据双方合同中约定的仲裁条款，向西安仲裁委员会提出仲裁申请。该案审理过程中，双方试图进行和解，但未能成功。2021年1月4日，仲裁庭在充分开展庭审调查的基础上，经合议,依据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第二条、第七条及《中华人民共和国民法典》第七条、第五百零九条第一款作出仲裁裁决。
该起仲裁案件的裁决，标志着西安仲裁工作正式进入“民法典时代”。
Xi’an Arbitration Commission made the first arbitration award which applying the Civil Code
On January 4, the Xi’an Arbitration Commission made an award on a construction contract dispute. This is the first arbitration case which applies the Civil Code in Xi’an after the Civil Code was implemented.
In this case, a transportation company (the applicant) and a transportation engineering company (the respondent) had a dispute over the payment of the project. The applicant submitted an arbitration application to the Xi’an Arbitration Commission in accordance with the arbitration clause agreed in the contract between the parties. During the trial of the case, the two parties tried to settle but failed. On January 4, 2021, on the basis of sufficient investigation in the hearing, and after deliberation the arbitral tribunal made an arbitration award in accordance with Articles 2 and 7 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China and Articles 7 and 509 (1) of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China.
The arbitration award of this case marked the formal entry of Xi’an arbitration into the “Civil Code Era”.
■□■□
苏州国际商事法庭：审结首例承认和执行外国
仲裁裁决案
2021年1月4日，苏州国际商事法庭依法公开听证审查两起由乌克兰企业提起的申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷案。这是该法庭成立以来，作出的首例承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的裁定。
“本案审查过程中，仲裁庭关于仲裁程序的通知是否有效送达，成为争议焦点。”本案承办法官杨恩乾表示，“被申请人一方提出的抗辩理由是，申请人的材料在送达过程中存在一定的瑕疵。合议庭经过合议，认为送达信息能够直接对应被申请人的地址，而且所有仲裁材料都得到了签收，所以合议庭认为送达是有效的。”
这两案中的一方主体系外国公司，且乌克兰为“一带一路”沿线国家，案件处理充分体现了对中外当事人合法权益的平等保护，也展现了苏州国际商事法庭优化市场化法治化国际化营商环境的司法态度。
Suzhou International Commercial Court:
Conclusion of the first case of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards
On January 4, the Suzhou International Commercial Court held a public hearing in accordance with the law to review two disputes over applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards filed by Ukrainian companies and ruled in favor of the applicants. This is the first ruling made by the court to recognize and enforce foreign arbitration awards since its establishment.
“During the review of this case, whether the notice of the arbitral tribunal on the arbitration procedure was effectively served has become the focus of the dispute.” Yang Enqian, the judge of the case, said, “The Respondent’s defense was that there were certain flaws in the Claimant’s materials during the service process. After the collegial panel, it was believed that the information served could directly correspond to the address of the Respondent and all the arbitration materials had been signed and received. Therefore, it was deemed that the service was effective.”
In the two cases, one party is the main system of foreign companies, and Ukraine is a country along the “Belt and Road”. The handling of the case fully reflects the equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese and foreign parties, It also shows the judicial attitude of Suzhou International Commercial Court to optimize the market-oriented legal international business environment.
■□■□
最高法：支持在海南自贸港建设国际商事纠纷
解决中心
2021年1月15日，最高人民法院举行新闻发布会，发布《关于人民法院为海南自由贸易港建设提供司法服务和保障的意见》（以下简称《意见》），提出要推动海南建设国际商事纠纷解决中心。最高人民法院副院长陶凯元通报了《意见》的起草背景、重大意义、主要内容和创新亮点。
我们相信，《意见》的发布能够为海南自由贸易港的建设贡献司法的智慧与力量。同时也期待，海南能够尽快启动国际商事纠纷解决中心建设工作，加快推进国际商事纠纷解决机制建设，为我国争创国际竞争新优势提供有力保障。
Supreme People’s Court:
Supporting the Building of an international commercial dispute resolution center in Hainan Free Trade Port
On January 15, the Supreme People’s Court held a press conference and issued the “Opinions on the People’s Court Providing Judicial Services and Guarantees for the Building of Hainan Free Trade Port” (hereinafter referred to as Opinions), proposed to promote the establishment of an international commercial dispute resolution center in Hainan. Tao Kaiyuan, vice president of the Supreme People’s Court, notified the drafting background, significance, main content and innovation highlights of the Opinions.
We believe that the release of the Opinions can contribute judicial wisdom and strength to the building of Hainan Free Trade Port. At the same time, it is also expected that Hainan can start the building of an international commercial dispute resolution center as soon as possible, accelerate the building of the international commercial dispute resolution mechanism, and provide a strong guarantee for new advantages in international competition.
■□■□
上海海事法院：准许香港仲裁程序中当事人提出的财产保全申请
相关法条：
《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》
第一百条第一款：人民法院对于可能因当事人一方的行为或者其他原因，使判决难以执行或者造成当事人其他损害的案件，根据对方当事人的申请，可以裁定对其财产进行保全、责令其作出一定行为或者禁止其作出一定行为；当事人没有提出申请的，人民法院在必要时也可以裁定采取保全措施。
第一百零二条：保全限于请求的范围，或者与本案有关的财物。
第一百零三条第一款：财产保全采取查封、扣押、冻结或者法律规定的其他方法。人民法院保全财产后，应当立即通知被保全财产的人。
《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》（以下简称《仲裁保全安排》）：
第三条第一款及第二款：香港仲裁程序的当事人，在仲裁裁决作出前，可以参照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》《中华人民共和国仲裁法》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。
当事人在有关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转递其申请。
第八条第二款：经审查，当事人的保全申请符合被请求方法律规定的，被请求方法院应当作出保全裁定或者命令等。
案情：
2018年5月，申请人思源海运与被申请人上海樽文签订航次租船合同，约定由申请人作为出租人将M.V“WANTONG STAR”轮出租给被申请人，将一批煤炭从印度尼西亚运输到上海。后被申请人无故取消租约，造成了申请人重大损失。申请人于2018年11月30日按照租约约定提起仲裁，在仲裁期间，双方达成了和解，并于2019年5月10日签订和解协议，约定由被申请人在和解协议签订后30日内向申请人支付和解款项180000美元，以使争议得到解决。在和解协议第13条中双方约定：“因本协议产生的所有争议，双方同意提交香港国际仲裁中心（HKIAC）按照当时有效的仲裁规则进行仲裁。”
和解协议达成后，被申请人未按约定在2019年6月9日前支付和解款项，申请人因此于2019年7月16日向香港国际仲裁中心提起仲裁并获受理。申请人为确保其权利得以实现，于2019年10月2日向上海海事法院转递仲裁程序中的保全申请，申请冻结被申请人的银行存款268600美元或者查封、扣押、冻结被申请人的其他等值财产。2019年10月8日，上海海事法院收到了香港国际仲裁中心转递函和相关申请材料，中国人民财产保险股份有限公司上海市分公司提供了担保。本案【(2019)沪72财保298号】的核心争议为：是否准许香港仲裁程序中的财产保全申请？
法院观点：
上海海事法院经审理认为，申请人思源海运系香港仲裁程序的当事人，在仲裁裁决作出前，依据《仲裁保全安排》的相关规定提出的财产保全申请，符合法律规定，故裁定冻结被申请人上海樽文实业有限公司的银行存款268600美元或查封、扣押、冻结被申请人其他等值财产。
Shanghai Maritime Court approved the application for property preservation made by parties in Hong Kong arbitration proceedings
Relevant Provisions:
Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China:
Paragraph 1 of Article 100: For cases in which the action of a party to the lawsuit or any other reason causes difficulty in enforcement of a judgment or causes other harm to the litigants, a People's Court may, pursuant to an application by a counterparty litigant, rule on preservation of its property or order the counterparty to undertake certain acts or prohibit the counterparty to undertake certain acts; where the litigants do not make an application, a People's Court may rule that preservation measures be adopted where necessary.
Article 102: Preservation shall be limited to the scope of the request or the properties related to the case.
Paragraph 1 of Article 103: Preservation of properties shall adopt seizure, confiscation, freezing or any other method stipulated by the law. Upon preservation of properties, the People's Court shall forthwith notify the party whose properties are being preserved.
Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court on Mutual Assistance and Preservation in Arbitration Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region （hereinafter referred to as Arrangement for Arbitration Preservation）:
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3: The parties to the Hong Kong arbitration proceedings may, before an arbitral award is made, apply for preservation to the intermediate people’s court of the mainland at the domicile of the respondent, the place where the property is located, or the place where the evidence is located, by reference to the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China and the relevant judicial interpretations. Where the place of domicile of the party against whom the application is filed, the place where the property or the place where the evidence is located falls within the jurisdictions of different people’s courts, the party against whom the application is filed shall choose to file the application with one people’s court, rather than two or more people’s courts.
Where a party files an application for property preservation after the relevant institution or permanent office has accepted the arbitration application, the application shall be forwarded by the institution or permanent office.
Paragraph 2 of Article 8: Where, upon examination, the preservation application of the party concerned complies with the legal provisions of the requested party, the court of the requested party shall render a preservation ruling or order, etc.
Case Description:
In May 2018, the Claimant Siyuan Shipping signed a voyage charter contract with the Respondent Shanghai Zunwen, stipulating that the Claimant, as the owner, would charter the MV “WANTONG STAR” to the Respondent and transport a batch of coal from Indonesia to Shanghai. Later, the Respondent cancelled the charterparty without reason, from which the Claimant suffered heavy losses. The Claimant initiated arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause contained in charterparty on November 30, 2018. During the arbitration, the two parties signed a settlement agreement on May 10, 2019. It is agreed that the Respondent should pay USD 180000 to the Claimant within 30 days after the execution of the settlement agreement. In Article 13 of the settlement agreement, both parties agreed that all disputes arising from this agreement shall be submitted to the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC) for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration rules in effect at the time of applying for arbitration.
After the settlement agreement was reached, the Respondent failed to pay the settlement amount before June 9, 2019 as agreed, and the Claimant therefore filed an arbitration application with the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center on July 16, 2019 and was accepted. In order to ensure the realization of its rights, the Claimant forwarded the application for preservation in the arbitration procedure to the Shanghai Maritime Court on October 2, 2019, applying for freezing the Respondent’s bank account in the sum of USD 268,600 or other equivalents of the Respondent’s property. On October 8, 2019, the Shanghai Maritime Court received a letter from the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center and related application materials. The Shanghai Branch of the People’s Insurance Company of China provided guarantee for Claimant’s application of preservation . The core dispute in this case [(2019) Hu 72 Cai Bao No. 298] is: Should the court approve an application for property preservation in Hong Kong arbitration proceedings?
Court’s View:
The Shanghai Maritime Court held that the Claimant, Siyuan Shipping, was a party to the Hong Kong arbitration procedure. Before the arbitration award was issued, the application for property preservation filed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Arrangement for Arbitration Preservation complied with the provisions of the law. Therefore, the court ruled to approve the Claimant’s application.
■□■□
河南省许昌市中级人民法院：未将更换首席后的组庭情况通知当事人，违反法定程序
相关法条：
《中华人民共和国仲裁法》
第三十三条：
仲裁庭组成后，仲裁委员会应当将仲裁庭的组成情况书面通知当事人。
第五十八条：
当事人提出证据证明裁决有下列情形之一的，可以向仲裁委员会所在地的中级人民法院申请撤销裁决:
（一）没有仲裁协议的；
（二）裁决的事项不属于仲裁协议的范围或者仲裁委员会无权仲裁的；
（三）仲裁庭的组成或者仲裁的程序违反法定程序的；
（四）裁决所根据的证据是伪造的；
（五）对方当事人隐瞒了足以影响公正裁决的证据的；
（六）仲裁员在仲裁该案时有索贿受贿，徇私舞弊，枉法裁决行为的。
人民法院经组成合议庭审查核实裁决有前款规定情形之一的，应当裁定撤销。
人民法院认定该裁决违背社会公共利益的，应当裁定撤销。
案情：
2019年9月19日，张会娟为申请人，以被申请人丁爱民、张玉娥为被申请人向许昌仲裁委员会申请双方房屋买卖合同纠纷的仲裁事宜。2019年10月11日，许昌仲裁委员会向张会娟送达受理仲裁申请书、许昌仲裁委员会仲裁规则、许昌仲裁委员会仲裁员名单、仲裁庭组成方式及仲裁员选定书。2019年12月20日，许昌仲裁委员会作出组庭指令，由许昌仲裁委员会主任指定彭胜利任首席仲裁员，申请人及被申请人各选定一名仲裁员。2020年1月16日，本案仲裁由仲裁员彭胜利任首席仲裁员、王鲁增、吕徐申任仲裁员进行了开庭审理，此后，首席仲裁员彭胜利申请回避裁决本案，2020年6月5日，许昌仲裁委员会另行指定王晓文为本案首席仲裁员。2020年8月14日，许昌仲裁委员会另行开庭审理本案。
本案【（2020）豫10民特11号】的核心争议为：仲裁机构未将更换首席后的仲裁庭的组成情况通知当事人，是否违反法定程序？
法院观点：
本案首席仲裁员的更换，许昌仲裁委员会应按照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第三十三条的规定，及时将仲裁庭组成情况书面通知当事人，但经查阅本院调取的仲裁审理卷宗档案，无书面通知双方当事人更换首席仲裁员后的仲裁庭组成情况的记录，仲裁审理程序不当。
河南省许昌市中级人民法院裁定如下：撤销许昌仲裁委员会许仲裁字（2020）第32号裁决。
The Intermediate People’s Court of Xuchang, Henan Province:
Failing to notify the parties concerned of the tribunal members after replacement of the presiding arbitrator is in violation of the statutory procedures
Relevant Provisions:
Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China
Article 33: Following the formation of the arbitrating tribunal, the arbitration commission shall notify the parties concerned in writing of the composition of the arbitration tribunal.
Article 58: Where the parties concerned can provide evidence disproving the arbitration award in any of the following circumstances, they may request a cancellation of the arbitration award by an intermediate People’s Court at the place where the arbitration commission is located:
(1) there was no arbitration agreement;
(2) items for arbitration were not within the scope of the arbitration agreement or were those upon which the arbitration commission had no right to arbitrate;
(3) the establishment of the arbitration tribunal or arbitration procedures are in contravention of legal proceedings;
(4) the evidence upon which the arbitration award is made was counterfeit;
(5) the other party has concealed evidence to the degree that fairness has been affected;
(6) arbitrators have accepted bribes, resorted to deception for personal gain or perverted the course of justice by the award.
Where the People’s Court has formed a collegiate bench and has examined and verified that the award was made under one of the aforesaid situations, it shall order the cancellation of the award.
Where the People’s Court decides that it should make a ruling to the effect that there has been a violation of the public interest, it shall order the cancellation of the award.
Case Description:
On September 19, 2019, Zhang Huijuan, as the Claimant, applied to the Xuchang Arbitration Commission for arbitration against Ding Aimin and Zhang Yue, as the Respondents in respect of the housing sales contract dispute. On October 11, 2019, the Xuchang Arbitration Commission served on Zhang Huijuan of the application for arbitration, the arbitration rules of the Xuchang Arbitration Commission, the list of arbitrators of the Xuchang Arbitration Commission, the composition method of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitrators designation letter. On December 20, 2019, the Xuchang Arbitration Commission issued an order of tribunal constitution, in which the chairman of the Xuchang Arbitration Commission appointed Peng Shengli as the presiding arbitrator, and required the Claimant and the Respondent to designate one arbitrator respectively. On January 16, 2020, the arbitrator Peng Shengli as the presiding arbitrator, and Wang Luzeng and Lu Xushen as arbitrators held a hearing. After the arbitration hearing of this case, the presiding arbitrator, Mr. Peng Shengli, applied to withdraw from adjudicating the case. On June 5, 2020, Xuchang Arbitration Commission appointed Wang Xiaowen as the presiding arbitrator. On August 14, 2020, Xuchang Arbitration Commission held another hearing of the case.
The key issue of this case [(2020) Yu 10 Min Te No.11] is: Does the arbitration institution violate legal procedures where it failed to notify the parties of the consititution of the arbitral tribunal after the replacement of the presiding arbitrator?
Court’s View:
For the replacement of the presiding arbitrator in this case, the Xuchang Arbitration Commission shall, in accordance with Article 33 of the Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China, promptly notify the parties in writing of the composition of the arbitral tribunal, but after reviewing the arbitration trial files and records obtained by this court, no such written notice was found. Therefore the arbitration proceedings are improper.
The Intermediate People’s Court of Xuchang, Henan Province ruled as follows: Revoke the Xu Zhong Cai Zi [2020] No.32 Award of Xuchang Arbitration Commission.
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
转瑜 宁宁
Editorial Board: Wei LIN Simon TANG Philip DUAN Ellen WANG Yuming LI Lingling GUO
Yu ZHUAN Ning NING
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.