《国际仲裁简讯》2024年11月号 International Arbitration Newsletter Nov. 2024

2024年11月4日，《中华人民共和国仲裁法（修订草案）》提请全国人大常委会会议首次审议，拟增设“仲裁地”制度，完善仲裁司法管辖规则。

仲裁地作为当事人解决纠纷约定选择的某个国家或者地区，是确定仲裁程序适用法、证据规则、仲裁裁决的国籍及司法管辖法院的重要依据。草案规定，当事人可以书面约定仲裁地，作为仲裁程序的适用法及司法管辖法院的确定依据。鼓励涉外仲裁当事人选择中华人民共和国的仲裁委员会、约定中华人民共和国作为仲裁地进行仲裁。

草案明确，支持仲裁委员会到中华人民共和国境外设立业务机构，开展仲裁活动。根据经济社会发展和改革开放需要，可以允许境外仲裁机构在国务院批准设立的自由贸易试验区内依照国家有关规定设立业务机构，开展涉外仲裁活动。

草案还就提高仲裁公信力，完善仲裁委员会内部治理及管理制度，提高仲裁委员会、仲裁员的透明度，拓宽仲裁员聘任渠道，规范仲裁员选聘管理，完善监督管理制度等作出规定。

On November 4, 2024, the "Draft Amendment to the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China" was submitted for its first review by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The proposed amendment includes the establishment of a "place of arbitration" system and aims to improve the rules governing judicial jurisdiction in arbitration.

The "place of arbitration," as selected by the parties to resolve a dispute, refers to a specific country or region. It serves as an important basis for determining the applicable law for arbitration proceedings, the rules of evidence, the nationality of the arbitral award, and the competent judicial jurisdiction. According to the draft, parties may agree in writing on the place of arbitration, which will serve as the basis for determining the applicable law and the competent court for judicial jurisdiction. The draft encourages international arbitration parties to select a Chinese arbitration commission and agree on the People's Republic of China as the place of arbitration.

The draft also clarifies that it supports arbitration commissions establishing business offices outside the People's Republic of China to conduct arbitration activities. In response to economic and social development needs and the requirements of reform and opening-up, it may allow foreign arbitration institutions to establish business offices within pilot free trade zones approved by the State Council to engage in international arbitration activities in accordance with national regulations.

Additionally, the draft outlines provisions to enhance the credibility of arbitration, improve the internal governance and management systems of arbitration commissions, increase transparency of arbitration commissions and arbitrators, broaden the channels for the appointment of arbitrators, regulate the selection and management of arbitrators, and refine the supervision and management systems.

11月12日，第六届中国—东盟法治论坛（以下简称“论坛”）在重庆举办。中国—东盟法治论坛是重庆市围绕共建“一带一路”、西部陆海新通道建设等重大战略部署，为推进涉外法治建设、沟通东盟国家法律法学及实务界而设立。本届论坛以“促进中国—东盟法治交流合作”为主题，来自中国、文莱、柬埔寨、印度尼西亚、老挝、马来西亚、缅甸、新加坡、泰国、越南、尼泊尔等11个国家的代表出席。

论坛发布了《服务中国—东盟法治交流合作倡议》。论坛宣读了东盟国家立法和司法部门贺信，发布了“服务中国—东盟自贸区法治典型案例”、《东盟国家法治化营商环境报告》，设置了“习近平法治思想国际研讨会”和“西部陆海新通道法商融合发展论坛”、“中国—东盟法学院院长论坛”、“西部陆海新通道国际商事仲裁论坛”、“中国—东盟跨境犯罪治理论坛”、“中国—东盟法学青年论坛”等五个分论坛。

On November 12, the 6th China-ASEAN Rule of Law Forum (hereinafter referred to as the "Forum") was held in Chongqing. The Forum was established by the city of Chongqing to promote the development of foreign-related rule of law and foster communication between the legal and judicial communities of ASEAN countries, in line with major strategic initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the construction of the New Western Land-Sea Corridor. The Forum, themed "Promoting China-ASEAN Rule of Law Exchange and Cooperation," was was attended by representatives from 11 countries, including China, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam and Nepal.

The Forum released the "Initiative on Serving China-ASEAN Rule of Law Exchanges and Cooperation". The forum read out congratulatory letters from the legislatures and judiciaries of ASEAN countries, released "Typical Cases of Rule of Law in Serving China-ASEAN FTA" and "Report on the Business Environment of ASEAN Countries under the Rule of Law", and set up "Xi Jinping's Rule of Law Thought International Seminar" and "Western Land and Sea New Corridor Law and Business Integration Development Forumr", "China-ASEAN Law School Deans Forum", "Western Land and Sea New Corridor International Commercial Arbitration Forum", "China-ASEAN Cross-Border Crime Governance Forum", "China-ASEAN Law Youth Forum" and other five sub-forums.

2024年11月12日，由中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（以下简称“贸仲”）与亚洲国际仲裁中心联合主办的“友谊固若长城：国际商事仲裁与争议解决论坛”（GREAT WALL OF ALLIANCE: FORUM ON INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AND DISPUTE RESOLUTION）在马来西亚吉隆坡成功举行。

本次论坛共设“绿色丝绸之路：挑战的应对与解决” “数字丝绸之路：互联未来下的争议解决” “海事丝绸之路：预防和解决争议的策略” “经济丝绸之路：贸易、投资和制造产业中的争议解决”四个小组讨论环节。二十位来自中国内地、中国香港、马来西亚的仲裁员、律师、公司法务、学者和商界代表就热点话题发表真知灼见。

On November 12, 2024, the "Great Wall of Alliance: Forum on International Commercial Arbitration and Dispute Resolution," co-organized by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Asian International Arbitration Centre (AIAC), was successfully held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The forum featured four panel discussions: "The Green Silk Road: Responding to and Resolving Challenges," "The Digital Silk Road: Dispute Resolution in an Interconnected Future," "The Maritime Silk Road: Strategies for Preventing and Resolving Disputes," and "The Economic Silk Road: Dispute Resolution in Trade, Investment, and Manufacturing Industries." Twenty arbitrators, lawyers, in-house counsels, scholars, and business representatives from China (including Hong Kong), and Malaysia shared their insights on hot topics.

法律依据：

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》

第十六条

仲裁协议包括合同中订立的仲裁条款和以其他书面方式在纠纷发生前或者纠纷发生后达成的请求仲裁的协议。仲裁协议应当具有下列内容：（一）请求仲裁的意思表示；（二）仲裁事项；（三）选定的仲裁委员会

第十七条

有下列情形之一的，仲裁协议无效：（一）约定的仲裁事项超出法律规定的仲裁范围的；（二）无民事行为能力人订立的仲裁协议；（三）一方采取胁迫手段，迫使对方订立仲裁协议的。

案情简介：

新疆某新能源科技有限公司（以下简称“新能源公司”）与新疆某汽车销售服务有限公司（以下简称“汽车销售公司”）于2023年12月26日签订《政府采购买卖合同》，约定新能源公司从汽车销售公司采购97辆熊猫MINI汽车，共计450万元。合同中约定，新能源公司应在提车后按约支付部分款项。然而，新能源公司未能按时支付尾款，仅支付了130万元，剩余款项为320万元。

为了解决该问题，双方于2024年5月15日签订了《还款协议》。该协议约定，新能源公司将在约定的时间内分批支付剩余款项，并在《还款协议》中规定，若出现争议，可向乌鲁木齐仲裁委员会阿克苏分会申请仲裁。

新能源公司请求法院确认《还款协议》中的仲裁条款无效。新能源公司认为，双方在《政府采购买卖合同》中约定了争议通过法院诉讼解决，而在《还款协议》中又约定仲裁，存在“或裁或诉”的约定，导致该仲裁条款无效。新能源公司进一步主张，《还款协议》属于政府采购合同引发的争议，属于行政争议，应由行政机关处理，不应通过仲裁解决。

汽车销售公司则主张，《还款协议》是双方自愿签署的独立协议，且该协议明确约定了仲裁条款，并未违反法律规定；新能源公司未按约支付尾款，因此依据《还款协议》的仲裁条款向乌鲁木齐仲裁委员会阿克苏分会提出仲裁申请；该仲裁条款符合仲裁法相关规定，应当有效，请求法院驳回新能源公司的申请。

法院观点：

法院认为，《还款协议》为新能源公司与汽车销售公司针对未付款项签订的独立协议，虽其内容与《政府采购买卖合同》相关联，但协议内容完整且独立，约定了双方应遵循的付款条款。协议中明确规定了争议解决方式，且此约定为双方当事人的真实意思表示，并未出现“或裁或诉”的情形。法院认为，《还款协议》与《政府采购买卖合同》系独立的协议，仲裁条款的设定为双方自愿决定，符合《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第四条和第十六条关于仲裁协议成立的相关要求，仲裁条款应当有效。

关于新能源公司主张的仲裁事项超出仲裁范围的意见，法院认为，《还款协议》争议属于民事合同纠纷，且涉及双方平等民事主体之间的财产权益问题，并未涉及应由行政机关处理的行政争议。根据《仲裁法》第三条的规定，平等主体的合同纠纷可以通过仲裁解决，因此该仲裁条款并未超出仲裁法规定的范围。

综上所述，法院认为新能源公司提出的仲裁条款无效的理由没有事实和法律依据，裁定驳回新能源公司的申请。

Legal Basis:

"Arbitration Law of the People’s Republic of China"
Article 16.

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.

An arbitration agreement shall include the following:

(1) the expression of an application for arbitration;

(2) items for arbitration;

(3) the chosen arbitration commission.

Article 17

An arbitration agreement shall be deemed invalid in any of the following circumstances:

(1) items provided for arbitration exceed the legally regulated scope of arbitration;

(2) the arbitration agreement has been concluded by persons without civil capacity or with limited civil capacity;

(3) one party has forced conclusion of the arbitration agreement through coercive means.

Case Description：

A New Energy Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "New Energy Company") and an Automobile Sales and Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Automobile Sales Company") signed a "Government Procurement Contract" on December 26, 2023. Under the contract, New Energy Company agreed to purchase 97 Panda MINI cars from Automobile Sales Company, totaling 4.5 million yuan. The contract stipulated that New Energy Company would pay part of the amount after receiving the vehicles. However, New Energy Company failed to pay the remaining balance on time, paying only 1.3 million yuan, with a balance of 3.2 million yuan.

To resolve the issue, the two parties signed a "Repayment Agreement" on May 15, 2024. This agreement stipulated that New Energy Company would pay the remaining balance in installments within a specified period and included a clause stating that, in case of disputes, arbitration could be applied to the Urumqi Arbitration Commission's Aksu Branch.

New Energy Company requested the court to declare the arbitration clause in the "Repayment Agreement" invalid. The company argued that the "Government Procurement Contract" specified dispute resolution through court litigation, while the "Repayment Agreement" provided for arbitration, creating a "choice between arbitration or litigation," which made the arbitration clause invalid. Furthermore, New Energy Company argued that the dispute arising from the "Repayment Agreement" was related to government procurement and should be considered an administrative dispute, which should be handled by administrative agencies rather than through arbitration.

Automobile Sales Company argued that the "Repayment Agreement" was an independent contract voluntarily signed by both parties, and it clearly stipulated the arbitration clause, which was not in violation of any legal provisions. The company contended that, since New Energy Company failed to pay the remaining balance as agreed, it filed for arbitration with the Urumqi Arbitration Commission's Aksu Branch in accordance with the arbitration clause in the "Repayment Agreement." Automobile Sales Company argued that the arbitration clause complied with the relevant provisions of the Arbitration Law and should be valid, requesting the court to reject New Energy Company's application.

Court's View:

The court held that the "Repayment Agreement" was an independent agreement between New Energy Company and Automobile Sales Company regarding the unpaid balance. Although the agreement was related to the "Government Procurement Contract," the contents were complete and independent, specifying the payment terms. The agreement clearly stated the dispute resolution method, and this provision reflected the true intention of both parties without creating a "choice between arbitration or litigation" situation. The court ruled that the "Repayment Agreement" was separate from the "Government Procurement Contract" and that the establishment of the arbitration clause was a voluntary decision by both parties. It complied with the relevant provisions of Article 4 and Article 16 of the Arbitration Law regarding the formation of arbitration agreements, and the arbitration clause should be valid.

Regarding New Energy Company's argument that the arbitration subject matter exceeded the scope of arbitration, the court found that the dispute under the "Repayment Agreement" was a civil contract dispute involving the property rights of two equal civil subjects, and did not involve an administrative dispute that should be handled by administrative agencies. According to Article 3 of the Arbitration Law, contract disputes between equal subjects can be resolved through arbitration, so the arbitration clause did not exceed the scope defined by the Arbitration Law.

In conclusion, the court found that New Energy Company's argument that the arbitration clause was invalid had no factual or legal basis and ruled to reject New Energy Company's application.

案情简介：

2020年6月3日，乍得共和国政府（以下简称“乍得政府”）与中国香港公司N-Soft Ltd（以下简称“N-Soft公司”）签署了一份和解协议，约定乍得政府在财政允许的情况下支付2500万欧元赔偿金，并终止之前签订的2017年合同。该和解协议得到了恩贾梅纳大审法院批准，并于2021年6月2日送达乍得政府，且乍得政府未提出上诉。

为了确保协议履行，N-Soft公司向OHADA司法与仲裁共同法院申请仲裁。2022年5月23日，仲裁庭裁定乍得政府需支付赔偿金及附加利息和费用，总额包括48,000,000非洲法郎和36,952.80欧元，且自裁决通知后30日起按乍得法定利率计算利息。由于乍得政府未能按期支付赔偿金，N-Soft公司于2022年7月申请法国法院强制执行该仲裁裁决，并申请对乍得政府位于巴黎16区的一处房产设立临时司法抵押作为担保。

然而，乍得政府主张该房产属于外交财产，依法享有外交豁免权，因此提出异议，要求撤销该临时司法抵押，并主张外交豁免。法国巴黎法院在2023年7月25日撤销了临时司法抵押授权。N-Soft公司不服该决定，向巴黎上诉法院提起上诉，并请求确认该临时司法抵押的合法性，乍得政府则要求确认该抵押无效并继续主张外交豁免。

法院观点：

巴黎上诉法院认为，根据法国民事执行法典第L.111-1条的规定，外国国家的财产只有在未用于外交目的或明确用于商业用途时，才能被用于担保。本案中，乍得政府提供了法国外交部的正式确认信，证明涉案房产已被指定为乍得驻法国大使官邸，并作为外交财产。法院指出，外交财产的豁免权并不取决于实际用途，而是基于该财产的官方指定用途。因此，法院认定该房产享有外交豁免权，撤销了N-Soft公司对该财产设立的临时司法抵押。

N-Soft公司提供证据，试图推翻乍得政府的外交豁免主张，包括房产税单未标明外交豁免、现场检查未发现财产用于外交用途等。然而，法院认为这些证据不足以否定法国外交部的正式确认，且根据《维也纳外交关系公约》第30条，外交豁免适用于外交官的私人住所，并享有与使馆办公场所相同的不可侵犯性和保护权。法院强调，法国外交部的正式确认具有优先法律效力，N-Soft公司未能提供足够证据反驳。因此，法院驳回了N-Soft公司关于临时司法抵押合法性的上诉请求，并维持了乍得政府财产的外交豁免。

最终，法院裁定N-Soft公司承担乍得政府的诉讼费用，支付8000欧元的费用补偿，并承担上诉的所有费用。

Case Description：

On June 3, 2020, the Government of the Republic of Chad (hereinafter "Chad Government") and the Hong Kong company N-Soft Ltd (hereinafter "N-Soft") signed a settlement agreement, under which the Chad Government agreed to pay 25 million euros in compensation, subject to financial availability, and terminate a previous contract signed in 2017. The settlement agreement was approved by the N'Djamena High Court and was delivered to the Chad Government on June 2, 2021, with no appeal filed by the Chad Government.

To ensure the execution of the agreement, N-Soft applied for arbitration with the OHADA Common Court of Justice and Arbitration. On May 23, 2022, the arbitral tribunal ruled that the Chad Government was required to pay compensation, plus additional interest and costs, totaling 48,000,000 CFA francs and 36,952.80 euros, with interest calculated at Chad’s statutory rate starting 30 days after the award was notified. Since the Chad Government failed to pay the compensation on time, N-Soft applied to French courts in July 2022 for enforcement of the arbitration award and requested the imposition of a provisional judicial lien on a property owned by the Chad Government located in the 16th arrondissement of Paris.

However, the Chad Government claimed that the property was diplomatic property and thus immune from enforcement under international law. The Chad Government objected and sought to have the provisional judicial lien removed, invoking diplomatic immunity. On July 25, 2023, the Paris Court of First Instance annulled the provisional judicial lien. N-Soft appealed this decision to the Paris Court of Appeal, requesting confirmation of the legality of the provisional judicial lien, while the Chad Government sought confirmation that the lien was invalid and continued to assert diplomatic immunity.

Court's View：

The Paris Court of Appeal ruled that under Article L.111-1 of the French Civil Enforcement Code, the property of a foreign state can only be used as security if it is not used for diplomatic purposes or explicitly used for commercial purposes. In this case, the Chad Government provided a formal confirmation letter from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, certifying that the property in question had been designated as the official residence of the Chad Ambassador in France and was considered diplomatic property. The court emphasized that the immunity of diplomatic property is not dependent on its actual use, but rather on its official designation for diplomatic purposes. Therefore, the court determined that the property was entitled to diplomatic immunity and annulled the provisional judicial lien imposed by N-Soft.

N-Soft provided evidence attempting to challenge the Chad Government's claim of diplomatic immunity, including the fact that the property tax bill did not indicate diplomatic immunity, and a site inspection revealed no evidence of the property being used for diplomatic purposes. However, the court found these arguments insufficient to rebut the formal confirmation issued by the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Moreover, under Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic immunity extends to the private residences of diplomats, providing the same inviolability and protection as the embassy premises. The court emphasized that the formal confirmation from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs carried superior legal weight, and N-Soft failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter this.

As a result, the court rejected N-Soft’s appeal regarding the legality of the provisional judicial lien and upheld the diplomatic immunity of the Chad Government's property.

In summary, the court ruled that N-Soft would bear the legal costs of the Chad Government, ordering N-Soft to pay 8,000 euros in cost compensation and cover all costs associated with the appeal.