《国际仲裁简讯》2024年6月号 International Arbitration Newsletter June 2024

《海南自由贸易港国际商事仲裁发展若干规定》（以下简称《规定》）已由海南省第七届人民代表大会常务委员会第十一次会议通过，6月5日公布，自7月1日起施行。

《规定》的出台是为了促进海南自由贸易港国际商事仲裁事业发展，提高仲裁公信力，创新多元商事纠纷解决机制，推进服务海南自由贸易港、面向太平洋和印度洋的国际商事仲裁中心建设。《规定》采用“小切口”立法方式，不分章节，共二十七条，在坚持仲裁基本制度前提下，运用海南自由贸易港法规制定权，结合海南实际，积极对接国际仲裁通行规则，推动仲裁对外开放，优化仲裁发展环境，着力提高海南自贸港仲裁的公信力、影响力和国际竞争力。重点突出以下六点内容：

一、明确支持国际商事仲裁发展措施

二、提升仲裁对外开放和国际化水平

三、开展临时仲裁活动

四、允许当事人从仲裁员名册外选择仲裁员

五、充分发挥仲裁协会行业自律作用

六、加强司法监督与保障

The "Provisions on the Development of International Commercial Arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port" (hereinafter referred to as the "Provisions") were passed by the Eleventh Session of the Standing Committee of the Seventh People's Congress of Hainan Province and were announced on June 5. They will come into effect on July 1.

The introduction of the "Provisions" aims to promote the development of international commercial arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port, enhance the credibility of arbitration, innovate diversified commercial dispute resolution mechanisms, and advance the construction of an international commercial arbitration center serving the Hainan Free Trade Port, and oriented towards the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The "Provisions" adopt a "small incision" legislative approach, without dividing chapters, consisting of twenty-seven articles. On the premise of adhering to the basic system of arbitration, they utilize the legislative power of Hainan Free Trade Port, integrate with the actual situation of Hainan, actively align with international arbitration practices, promote the opening up of arbitration, optimize the development environment of arbitration, and focus on enhancing the credibility, influence, and international competitiveness of arbitration in Hainan Free Trade Port. The key points highlight the following six aspects:

1. Clarifying measures to support the development of international commercial arbitration.

2. Enhancing the level of openness and internationalization of arbitration.

3. Conducting temporary arbitration activities.

4. Allowing parties to select arbitrators from outside the roster of arbitrators.

5. Fully leveraging the self-discipline role of the arbitration association.

Strengthening judicial supervision and protection.

2024年5月15日至16日，由北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心（以下称“北仲”）与世界仲裁最新动态组织（World Arbitration Update LLC）共同主办的世界仲裁最新动态大会2024（World Arbitration Update 2024，“WAU 2024”）中国站在北仲成功召开，并同步进行了线上全球直播。

本次大会从国际仲裁法律框架的适应与改进、各类主体在仲裁中的角色与挑战、仲裁在不同领域的应用场景、仲裁成本与效率等角度，设计了八项议题，分别为：中国仲裁的新发展、中国对《纽约公约》的保留及对国际商事仲裁承认与执行时公共政策等例外情况考量、 “一带一路”倡议在国际仲裁中的地位和前景、 仲裁机构的效率管理与最新实践、国有企业作为投资仲裁的投资者和申请人、 亚太地区可再生能源项目发展与仲裁作为相关商事争端解决的方式、 中国参与“投资者—国家争端解决”（ISDS）机制、第三方资助在中国诉讼和仲裁中的发展。

From May 15 to 16, 2024, the World Arbitration Update 2024 (WAU 2024), co-hosted by the Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Center (hereinafter referred to as "BAC") and World Arbitration Update LLC, was successfully held at the BAC and broadcast globally online.

The conference featured eight topics designed to address various aspects of international arbitration, including the adaptation and improvement of the international arbitration legal framework, the roles and challenges of various entities in arbitration, the application scenarios of arbitration in different fields, and arbitration costs and efficiency. The topics were:

1. New Developments in Chinese Arbitration

2. China's Reservations to the New York Convention and Considerations of Public Policy Exceptions in the Recognition and Enforcement of International Commercial Arbitration

3. The Status and Prospects of the Belt and Road Initiative in International Arbitration

4. Efficiency Management and Latest Practices of Arbitration Institutions

5. State-Owned Enterprises as Investors and Claimants in Investment Arbitration

6. Development of Renewable Energy Projects in the Asia-Pacific Region and Arbitration as a Means of Resolving Related Commercial Disputes

7. China's Participation in the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Mechanism

8. The Development of Third-Party Funding in Chinese Litigation and Arbitration

2024年5月30日，中亚国际仲裁法院（CACIA）受理的涉外仲裁案件首次在厦门自贸片区海丝国际法商融合服务基地开庭审理。庭审在厦门自贸片区海丝国际法商融合服务基地共享仲裁庭进行，通过在线庭审系统采用“线上+线下”模式完成，从而使厦门自贸片区国际仲裁示范庭与吉尔吉斯斯坦比什凯克CACIA总部仲裁庭实现“无缝”对接。

本次庭审的顺利进行，不仅为境外仲裁机构选择厦门自贸片区作为庭审目的地积累了实操经验，也标志着海丝中央法务区倾力打造的国际商事争议优选地“中国—中亚”正式连通，对有效推动厦门自贸片区与中亚的涉外仲裁合作，以及厦门自贸片区与中亚地区经贸往来等，均将起到较大促进作用。

On May 30, 2024, the Central Asian International Arbitration Court (CACIA) held its first foreign-related arbitration case trial at the Maritime Silk Road International Law and Business Integration Service Base in the Xiamen Free Trade Zone. The trial was conducted at the shared arbitration courtroom in the Xiamen Free Trade Zone using a hybrid "online + offline" model via an online trial system. This allowed for seamless connection between the international arbitration demonstration court in the Xiamen Free Trade Zone and the arbitration court at the CACIA headquarters in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

The successful completion of this trial not only provided practical experience for foreign arbitration institutions choosing the Xiamen Free Trade Zone as a trial destination but also marked the official connection of the "China-Central Asia" preferred location for international commercial disputes, meticulously crafted by the Maritime Silk Road Central Legal District. This is expected to significantly promote foreign-related arbitration cooperation between the Xiamen Free Trade Zone and Central Asia, as well as boost economic and trade exchanges between the Xiamen Free Trade Zone and the Central Asian region.

法律依据：

《中华人民共和国仲裁法》

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。

《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》

第二百四十七条 

当事人就已经提起诉讼的事项在诉讼过程中或者裁判生效后再次起诉，同时符合下列条件的，构成重复起诉：（一）后诉与前诉的当事人相同；（二）后诉与前诉的诉讼标的相同；（三）后诉与前诉的诉讼请求相同，或者后诉的诉讼请求实质上否定前诉裁判结果。当事人重复起诉的，裁定不予受理；已经受理的，裁定驳回起诉，但法律、司法解释另有规定的除外。

案情简介：

A公司与B公司因建设工程施工合同发生纠纷。A公司于2020年10月27日依据双方签订的《建设工程施工合同》向嘉兴仲裁委（以下简称“仲裁委”）提起仲裁申请，要求B公司支付拖欠的工程款2948万元及逾期付款违约金391.9327万元。仲裁委于2020年11月12日受理，并于2022年3月8日作出（2020）嘉仲字第805号仲裁裁决（以下简称“805号裁决”），认定双方合同无效，确认B公司已自愿支付的5700万元工程款为实际结算价格，驳回A公司的仲裁请求。2023年2月，B公司再次向仲裁委提起仲裁申请，要求A公司返还超额支付的工程款及利息损失共1100余万元，并返还垫付的费用和违约金共480余万元。仲裁委于2024年3月15日作出（2023）嘉仲字第18号仲裁裁决（以下简称“18号裁决”），部分支持了B公司的请求。

A公司在2023年2月8日向嘉兴市中级人民法院（以下简称“法院”）提起诉讼，认为仲裁委在没有新证据和事实补充的情况下，违法受理本案并推翻了805号裁决，违反《中华人民共和国仲裁法》和《嘉兴市仲裁委员会仲裁规则》的相关规定。A公司主张，本案重复仲裁，严重损害其合法权益，请求撤销18号裁决。B公司则辩称，两案不属于同一纠纷，805号裁决并未对工程款结算作实质认定，18号裁决处理的是合同无效后的法律后果，请求法院驳回A公司的申请。

法院观点：

法院认为，重复仲裁应属于人民法院撤裁案件的审查范围，参考《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》第二百四十七条，重复起诉需满足后诉与前诉的当事人相同、诉讼标的相同、诉讼请求相同或后诉的诉讼请求实质上否定前诉裁判结果。

本案中，虽然前案805号仲裁案与后案18号仲裁案当事人相同，但仲裁标的与仲裁请求并不相同，且后案18号仲裁请求并未否定前案裁判结果。前案805号仲裁中，A公司基于双方有效的建设工程施工合同主张工程款请求权，后案18号仲裁中，B公司基于建设工程施工合同无效主张返还超额支付的工程款，两案请求权依据不同。前案805号仲裁认定合同无效，但未对工程是否由A公司全部施工及B公司是否超额支付工程款进行实质审查。后案18号仲裁根据实际超额支付工程款的基本事实，裁决返还超额支付的工程款，两案依据基本事实和请求不同，且后案裁决并未推翻前案的基本事实和裁决结果。因此，嘉兴仲裁委受理并裁决B公司提起的本案，不属于违反“一裁终局”的情形，不构成重复仲裁，并不违反《仲裁法》及《仲裁规则》规定，申请人A公司以此为由申请撤销仲裁裁决，本院不予采纳。

综上，嘉兴中级人民法院认为A公司申请撤销仲裁裁决的理由不能成立。依照《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第六十条规定，裁定驳回A公司的申请。

Legal Basis:

"The Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China"

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.

"Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 247 

Where a party files a lawsuit again concerning a matter under a filed lawsuit in the process of the lawsuit or after a judgment takes effect, and the following conditions are met, such lawsuit shall constitute a repeated lawsuit:

1. the parties to the latter lawsuit and those to the former lawsuit are the same;

2. the subject matter of the latter lawsuit and that of the former lawsuit is the same; and

3. claims of the latter lawsuit and those of the former lawsuit are the same or claims of the latter lawsuit essentially deny the judgment results of the former lawsuit.

Where a party files a lawsuit repeatedly, the people's court shall not accept the lawsuit; where the people's court has accepted the lawsuit, it shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit, unless otherwise stipulated by laws and judicial interpretations.

Case Description：

Company A and Company B had a dispute over a construction contract. On October 27, 2020, Company A filed an arbitration application with the Jiaxing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Commission"), based on the construction contract signed by both parties, requesting Company B to pay the overdue construction fee of 29.48 million yuan and a late payment penalty of 3.919327 million yuan. The Arbitration Commission accepted the case on November 12, 2020, and on March 8, 2022, issued the (2020) Jia Arbitration No. 805 award (hereinafter referred to as the "805 Award"), declaring the contract between both parties invalid, confirming the 57 million yuan paid voluntarily by Company B as the actual settlement amount, and rejecting Company A's arbitration request.

In February 2023, Company B filed another arbitration application with the Arbitration Commission, requesting Company A to return the excess payment of construction fees and interest losses totaling more than 11 million yuan, as well as the reimbursement of advanced expenses and a penalty totaling more than 4.8 million yuan. On March 15, 2024, the Jiaxing Arbitration Commission issued the (2023) Jia Arbitration No. 18 award (hereinafter referred to as the "18 Award"), partially supporting Company B's request.

On February 8, 2023, Company A filed a lawsuit with the Jiaxing Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Court"), arguing that the arbitration tribunal accepted the case and overturned the 805 Award without new evidence or supplementary facts, violating the relevant provisions of the "Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Jiaxing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules." Company A claimed that this case constituted repeated arbitration, severely infringing on its legitimate rights, and requested the annulment of the 18 Award. Company B argued that the two cases did not pertain to the same dispute, that the 805 Award did not substantively determine the settlement of the construction fees, and that the 18 Award dealt with the legal consequences after the contract was declared invalid, requesting the court to dismiss Company A's application.

Court's View:

According to Article 58 of the "Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China," Company A claimed that the dispute between the parties had already been resolved by the (2020) Jia Arbitration No. 805 award, and Company B's subsequent arbitration application and the resulting award constituted repeated arbitration, violating the provisions of the Arbitration Law.

The court held that repeated arbitration should fall within the scope of the court's review of cases requesting the annulment of arbitration awards. Referring to Article 247 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China," repeated litigation requires that the parties of the subsequent lawsuit are the same as those of the prior lawsuit, the subject matter of the lawsuit is the same, the litigation requests are the same, or the litigation requests of the subsequent lawsuit essentially negate the judgment of the prior lawsuit.

In this case, although the parties in the previous 805 arbitration case and the subsequent 18 arbitration case were the same, the subject matter and arbitration requests were not the same, and the arbitration requests of the subsequent case did not negate the judgment of the previous case. In the 805 arbitration case, Company A's claim for construction fees was based on the effective construction contract between the parties, while in the 18 arbitration case, Company B's claim for the return of overpaid construction fees was based on the invalidity of the construction contract. The basis for the claims in the two cases was different. The 805 arbitration case declared the contract invalid but did not substantively review whether Company A completed all the construction work and whether Company B overpaid the construction fees. The 18 arbitration case, based on the basic facts of overpayment, ruled for the return of the overpaid construction fees. Therefore, the Jiaxing Arbitration Commission's acceptance and ruling of Company B's case did not violate the principle of "one final arbitration" and did not constitute repeated arbitration, nor did it violate the provisions of the Arbitration Law and the Arbitration Rules. Therefore, Company A's application to annul the arbitration award on this basis is not accepted by the court.

In conclusion, the Jiaxing Intermediate People's Court found that Company A's reasons for requesting the annulment of the arbitration award were unfounded. In accordance with Article 60 of the "Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China," the court ruled to dismiss Company A's application.

案情简介：

申请人Momoco是一家在英国注册成立的公司，依据英格兰和威尔士的法律正式注册和成立。被申请人GFE是一家南非公司，依据南非共和国的法律正式注册和成立。2011年至2014年期间，双方签订多份销售合同，申请人根据合同向被申请人供应线材，但被申请人未能支付约定的货款。

根据销售合同中的争议解决条款，双方尝试友好协商未果后，申请人于2017年11月10日将争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（CIETAC）仲裁。2018年5月15日，CIETAC向双方送达了仲裁通知等相关文件。仲裁庭于2019年1月15日开庭审理，2020年6月12日作出仲裁裁决，要求被申请人支付所欠款项及相关费用，并承担仲裁费用。

被申请人拒不执行上述仲裁裁决，申请人遂向南非高等法院（以下简称“法院”）申请承认和执行CIETAC裁决。被申请人以公共政策为由抗辩，称申请人涉嫌逃税，支付款项将违反《2017年英国刑事财务法》和《犯罪所得法》（Proceeds of Crime Act，以下简称“POCA”），因此，被申请人要求申请人证明没有逃税行为，并且支付款项不会导致其因共谋参与逃税行为而受到法律诉讼。

法院观点：

法院认为，案涉仲裁属于国际仲裁，因双方当事人营业地点位于不同国家，且裁决在中华人民共和国作出，属外国仲裁裁决，应依照《纽约公约》进行审查。被申请人抗辩的实质为主张承认或执行CIETAC裁决违反公共政策，法院应拒绝执行以免违反反避税法，因公共政策要求公司向税务机关全面申报其交易。

根据被申请人提供的会计师报告，未发现申请人有逃税行为，仲裁庭也已审查并否定了“逃税”的抗辩，认为与争议无关。法院解释，POCA的宗旨是打击有组织犯罪、洗钱和犯罪团伙活动，不应适用于本案，且未有人证明主要交易协议为实施违法行为而达成。

法院认为，裁决不存在违法行为，未能证明存在此类行为或引发公共政策问题。执行仲裁裁决不构成POCA定义的非法活动。仲裁员权力来源于双方仲裁协议，税务问题与协议合法性及裁决本身无关，英国税务问题由英国当局处理，法院无权受理。

法院强调，承认仲裁裁决需遵守当事人自治原则，尊重仲裁决定，符合全球传统。被申请人抗辩系拖延执行，拒绝支付所购商品款项违反公共政策。

综上，南非高等法院裁定驳回被申请人的抗辩，支持申请人请求，裁定承认并执行中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会的仲裁裁决。

Case Description：

The applicant, Momoco, is a company registered and established under the laws of England and Wales. The respondent, GFE, is a South African company registered and established under the laws of the Republic of South Africa. Between 2011 and 2014, the parties entered into multiple sales contracts, under which the applicant supplied wire rods to the respondent. However, the respondent failed to pay the agreed purchase price.

According to the dispute resolution clause in the sales contracts, after unsuccessful attempts at amicable negotiations, the applicant submitted the dispute to the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) for arbitration on November 10, 2017. On May 15, 2018, CIETAC served the arbitration notice and related documents to both parties. The arbitration tribunal held a hearing on January 15, 2019, and issued an arbitration award on June 12, 2020, requiring the respondent to pay the outstanding amount and related costs, and to bear the arbitration fees.

The respondent refused to comply with the arbitration award, leading the applicant to apply to the South African High Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Court") for recognition and enforcement of the CIETAC award. The respondent argued against this, citing public policy, claiming that the applicant was involved in tax evasion and that payment would violate the UK's Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA). The respondent demanded that the applicant prove the absence of tax evasion and ensure that the payment would not lead to legal action for conspiracy to evade taxes.

Court's View：

The Court noted that the arbitration in question was international, given that the parties were based in different countries and the award was made in the People's Republic of China. Therefore, the award should be reviewed under the New York Convention. The respondent's main defense was that recognizing or enforcing the CIETAC award would violate public policy, arguing that compliance would contravene anti-tax evasion laws, as public policy requires companies to fully disclose their transactions to tax authorities.

According to the accountant's report provided by the respondent, there was no evidence of tax evasion by the applicant. The arbitration tribunal had also reviewed and dismissed the tax evasion defense, finding it irrelevant to the dispute. The Court explained that the purpose of POCA is to combat organized crime, money laundering, and criminal gang activities, which should not apply to this case. Furthermore, no one had proven that the primary transaction agreement was made to commit illegal acts.

The Court determined that there was no evidence of illegal activity or public policy issues in the arbitration award. Enforcing the arbitration award did not constitute illegal activity as defined by POCA. The arbitrators' authority stemmed from the arbitration agreement between the parties, and tax issues were unrelated to the legality of the agreement and the award itself. Tax matters in the UK were to be handled by UK authorities, and the Court had no jurisdiction over them.

The Court emphasized that recognizing arbitration awards must adhere to the principle of party autonomy and respect arbitration decisions, aligning with global traditions. The respondent's defense was seen as an attempt to delay enforcement, and refusal to pay for the purchased goods violated public policy.

In conclusion, the South African High Court dismissed the respondent's defense, granted the applicant's request, and ruled to recognize and enforce the arbitration award issued by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission.