《国际仲裁简讯》2024年10月号 International Arbitration Newsletter Oct. 2024

10月14日，第二届横琴粤澳深度合作区仲裁调解周（以下简称“横琴仲裁调解周”）在琴澳国际法务集聚区开幕。活动中正式发布了《珠海国际仲裁院建设国际一流仲裁机构行动方案》，明确了珠海国际仲裁院未来两年发展规划，全力建设国际一流仲裁机构，打造横琴粤澳深度合作区的涉外法律服务品牌。

横琴仲裁调解周是由珠海国际仲裁院（横琴国际仲裁中心）、珠海市法学会、横琴国际商事调解中心等机构联合主办的琴澳法治品牌活动，旨在推动健全多元化纠纷解决机制，促进社会各界关注仲裁和调解发展，运用仲裁、调解国际化属性助力琴澳、大湾区在法治层面实现软联通，丰富大湾区“一国两制”新内容。

本次横琴仲裁调解周涵盖高端学术论坛和沙龙、讲座论坛、研讨会、模拟仲裁庭、网络直播课以及座谈推广等多种活动，内容兼具法学深度和应用广度，进一步深化琴澳两地合作，加强推广仲裁和调解机制，共同推动在法律服务，尤其是在多元化纠纷解决机制方面的融通和交流。

On October 14, the Second Hengqin Guangdong-Macao Deep Cooperation Zone Arbitration and Mediation Week (hereinafter referred to as "Hengqin Arbitration and Mediation Week") was inaugurated at the Qinao International Legal Services Cluster. During the event, the "Action Plan for Building an International First-Class Arbitration Institution at the Zhuhai International Arbitration Center" was officially released, outlining the development plan for the Zhuhai International Arbitration Center over the next two years, with the aim of establishing an internationally renowned arbitration institution and creating a foreign-related legal service brand for the Hengqin Guangdong-Macao Deep Cooperation Zone.

The Hengqin Arbitration and Mediation Week is a legal branding event co-hosted by the Zhuhai International Arbitration Center (Hengqin International Arbitration Center), the Zhuhai Law Society, and the Hengqin International Commercial Mediation Center. It aims to promote the establishment of a diversified dispute resolution mechanism, enhance social attention to the development of arbitration and mediation, and leverage the international characteristics of arbitration and mediation to facilitate legal connectivity between Hengqin, Macao, and the Greater Bay Area, enriching the new content of "one country, two systems" in the Greater Bay Area.

This Hengqin Arbitration and Mediation Week includes a variety of activities such as high-end academic forums and salons, lecture forums, seminars, mock arbitration courts, online live courses, and promotional discussions. The content combines deep legal insights with broad practical applications, further deepening cooperation between Hengqin and Macao, strengthening the promotion of arbitration and mediation mechanisms, and jointly advancing integration and communication in legal services, especially in the area of diversified dispute resolution mechanisms.

2024年10月25日，环太平洋律师协会（IPBA）2024年仲裁日活动在深圳举行，由深圳国际仲裁院（又名华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会、粤港澳大湾区国际仲裁中心，英文简称“SCIA”）和环太平洋律师协会（IPBA）在深圳前海国际仲裁大厦（SCIA Tower）共同主办。

本次大会以“科技创新与产业巨变下的仲裁”（Arbitration in the Face of Tech Innovation and a Changing Landscape）为主题，邀请来自日本、韩国、新加坡、中国内地及香港等12个国家和地区的专业人士进行致辞和主题研讨。来自中国、新加坡、日本、韩国、美国、俄罗斯、西班牙、瑞士、澳大利亚、阿联酋和印度等30多个国家的近150名国际仲裁专家、资深仲裁员、国际知名律师事务所律师、知名高校学者参加了本次大会。

圆桌讨论环节，与会嘉宾围绕“快速创新时代的仲裁”“技术仲裁的常见问题”“知识产权在科技仲裁中的应用”“投资合资和并购后的仲裁事项”“投资仲裁在亚太的创新发展”等五个主题，发表了专业意见，进行了深入探讨。

On October 25, 2024, the Inter-Pacific Bar Association (IPBA) held its 2024 Arbitration Day event in Shenzhen, co-hosted by the Shenzhen International Arbitration Center (also known as the South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area International Arbitration Center, abbreviated as "SCIA") and the IPBA at the SCIA Tower in Qianhai, Shenzhen.

The conference, themed "Arbitration in the Face of Tech Innovation and a Changing Landscape," featured speeches and discussions from professionals representing 12 countries and regions, including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China, and Hong Kong. Nearly 150 international arbitration experts, senior arbitrators, renowned lawyers from international law firms, and distinguished scholars from over 30 countries, including China, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, the United States, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Australia, the UAE, and India, participated in the event.

During the roundtable discussion, attendees explored five key topics: "Arbitration in the Age of Rapid Innovation," "Common Issues in Technology Arbitration," "The Application of Intellectual Property in Tech Arbitration," "Arbitration Matters Post-Investment Joint Ventures and Mergers," and "Innovative Developments in Investment Arbitration in the Asia-Pacific." Participants provided professional insights and engaged in in-depth discussions.

近日，根据北京仲裁委员会（以下简称“北仲”）报道，在北仲受理的一起技术开发与服务纠纷国际仲裁案件中，仲裁庭根据申请人提出的临时措施申请作出了临时措施决定，并获得北京市第四中级人民法院保全裁定与实际执行，成为全国首例由仲裁庭作出临时措施决定并由法院裁定保全并实际执行的仲裁案件。

国际仲裁中的临时措施（Interim measure），是指为保障仲裁程序的顺利进行和仲裁裁决的有效执行，由仲裁庭或者法院根据一方当事人的申请，对对方当事人的财产、证据、行为等采取的临时性强制性措施。《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》规定，仲裁庭可以依据当事人的申请，作出临时措施决定，并由法院进行执行。该规定是国际通行的做法，也是世界银行营商环境评估关注的重要指标之一。

作为全国首例由仲裁庭作出临时措施决定并由法院实际执行的仲裁案件，该案件充分彰显了北京法院打造友好型司法环境的主动担当，有力推动了本市仲裁制度与国际先进、通行的仲裁制度及理念的相互接轨。 

Recently, according to a report of Beijing Arbitration Commission (hereinafter referred to as "BAC"), in an international arbitration case concerning a technology development and service dispute accepted by the BAC, the arbitration tribunal issued an interim measures decision based on the applicant's request. This decision was upheld and executed by the Fourth Intermediate People's Court of Beijing, marking the first instance in China where an interim measures decision made by an arbitration tribunal has been enforced by a court.

In international arbitration, interim measures refer to temporary mandatory actions taken by the arbitration tribunal or a court to safeguard the smooth progress of the arbitration proceedings and the effective enforcement of the arbitration award. These measures can involve actions against the property, evidence, or conduct of the opposing party based on a party's application. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration provides that the arbitration tribunal may issue interim measures based on the parties' requests, which can then be enforced by the court. This practice is widely accepted internationally and is an important indicator in the World Bank's assessments of business environments.

As the first case in the country where an arbitration tribunal's interim measures decision has been practically enforced by a court, this case highlights the proactive commitment of Beijing's judiciary to create a friendly judicial environment. It significantly promotes the alignment of the city's arbitration system with advanced international arbitration systems and concepts.

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。

案情简介：

2024年4月7日，申请人王俊翔与渭南市长江装饰建筑工程有限公司（以下简称“长江公司”）联合向法院申请撤销渭南仲裁委员会于2024年2月23日作出的【2022】渭仲字第91号裁决（以下简称“仲裁裁决”）。申请的主要理由是王俊翔与被申请人王俊杰之间并不存在有效的仲裁协议。

申请人主张，仲裁裁决错误地认定王俊翔与王俊杰签订的《合作协议》是其履行长江公司职务的行为，实际上，该协议是王俊翔与王俊杰之间的个人合伙协议，不能视为长江公司与王俊杰之间的合约。依据该协议的仲裁条款，仅能约束长江公司与王俊杰，而与王俊翔个人无关，王俊翔与王俊杰之间并未形成仲裁协议。

此外，申请人还指出仲裁裁决超出了仲裁协议的范围。王俊翔强调，《合作协议》中关于争议解决的条款仅涉及协议履行过程中的纠纷，仲裁裁决却涉及王俊翔与长江公司之间的债务问题，这不在仲裁协议的约定范围内。同时，王俊杰在仲裁过程中隐瞒了重要证据，未能提供足够的银行流水以证明其对王俊翔的款项转入情况，且仲裁程序的违法性使得仲裁裁决无效。

被申请人王俊杰则辩称，仲裁委员会对本案有管辖权，王俊翔在整个仲裁过程中未对仲裁协议的有效性提出异议，且参与了仲裁人员的选定和审理。因此，王俊杰认为申请人撤销仲裁裁决的理由不成立。。

法院观点：

法院认为，本案的核心在于仲裁协议的有效性和仲裁程序的合法性。依据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》，仲裁协议的存在是仲裁委员会进行裁决的前提条件。法院首先审查了王俊翔与王俊杰之间签订的《合作协议》，确认该协议的签订主体为自然人王俊翔，并非长江公司。协议内容明确显示，王俊翔以个人名义与王俊杰签订该协议，且没有任何条款表明长江公司作为一方。因此，王俊翔签署的《合作协议》不构成职务行为，其仲裁条款对长江公司并不产生法律效力。

其次，法院指出，仲裁管辖权的确认必须依赖于书面仲裁协议的存在。王俊翔在整个仲裁过程中未对仲裁协议的效力提出异议，但这并不足以视为他同意仲裁管辖。王俊杰的仲裁请求缺乏明确性和具体性，且未能提供充分的证据支持其主张，这使得仲裁程序的合法性受到质疑。

此外，法院还认为王俊杰在仲裁过程中隐瞒了关键信息，未能及时提供必要的银行流水，导致仲裁庭无法全面、公正地审理案件。这一行为严重影响了仲裁裁决的公正性。

综上所述，法院依据《仲裁法》第五十八条第一款第（三）项的规定，裁定撤销渭南仲裁委员会【2022】渭仲字第91号裁决，认定该裁决存在“没有仲裁协议”的情形，并且仲裁程序严重违法，裁决结果不应生效。

Legal Basis:

"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..

Case Description：

On April 7, 2024, applicant Wang Junxiang and Weinan Yangtze Decoration and Construction Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Yangtze Company") jointly applied to the court to annul the Weinan Arbitration Commission's decision No. [2022] Wei Zhong Zi No. 91 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Award”) made on February 23, 2024. The main reason for the application was that there was no valid arbitration agreement between Wang Junxiang and the respondent Wang Junjie.

The applicant argued that the Arbitration Award incorrectly determined that the "Cooperation Agreement" signed between Wang Junxiang and Wang Junjie was an act performed in the course of Wang Junxiang's duties at Yangtze Company. In fact, the agreement was a personal partnership agreement between Wang Junxiang and Wang Junjie and should not be viewed as a contract between Yangtze Company and Wang Junjie. The arbitration clause based on that agreement could only bind Yangtze Company and Wang Junjie and had no bearing on Wang Junxiang personally; thus, there was no arbitration agreement formed between Wang Junxiang and Wang Junjie.

Additionally, the applicant pointed out that the Arbitration Award exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement. Wang Junxiang emphasized that the dispute resolution clause in the "Cooperation Agreement" only concerned disputes arising during the performance of the agreement, while the Arbitration Award involved debt issues between Wang Junxiang and Yangtze Company, which were outside the arbitration agreement's provisions. Furthermore, Wang Junjie concealed important evidence during the arbitration process and failed to provide sufficient bank statements to prove the transfer of funds to Wang Junxiang, making the arbitration process illegal and rendering the ruling invalid.

Respondent Wang Junjie contended that the arbitration commission had jurisdiction over the case, asserting that Wang Junxiang did not dispute the validity of the arbitration agreement throughout the arbitration process and participated in selecting arbitration personnel and proceedings. Therefore, Wang Junjie argued that the applicant's reasons for annulling the Arbitration Award were unfounded.

Court's View:

The court held that the core issue in this case was the validity of the arbitration agreement and the legality of the arbitration process. According to the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the existence of an arbitration agreement is a prerequisite for the arbitration commission to make a ruling. The court first examined the "Cooperation Agreement" signed between Wang Junxiang and Wang Junjie and confirmed that the signatory of the agreement was the individual Wang Junxiang, not Yangtze Company. The content of the agreement clearly indicated that Wang Junxiang signed it in his personal capacity, with no provisions indicating that Yangtze Company was a party. Thus, the "Cooperation Agreement" signed by Wang Junxiang did not constitute an act performed in the course of his duties, and its arbitration clause did not have legal effect on Yangtze Company.

Secondly, the court pointed out that the confirmation of arbitration jurisdiction must rely on the existence of a written arbitration agreement. Wang Junxiang did not dispute the effectiveness of the arbitration agreement throughout the arbitration process, but this was not sufficient to assume his consent to the arbitration jurisdiction. Wang Junjie's arbitration request lacked clarity and specificity and failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claims, thereby raising questions about the legality of the arbitration process.

Moreover, the court noted that Wang Junjie concealed key information during the arbitration process and failed to timely provide necessary bank statements, preventing the arbitration tribunal from fully and fairly hearing the case. This conduct severely impacted the fairness of the arbitration ruling.

In conclusion, based on Article 58, Paragraph 1, Item (3) of the Arbitration Law, the court ruled to revoke the decision No. [2022] Weinan Arbitration Commission Case No. 91, determining that the decision was made under the circumstances of "no arbitration agreement" and that the arbitration procedure was seriously in violation of the law, thus the decision should not take effect.

案情简介：

2015年3月16日，申请人DIB与被申请人DIC签订了一份合同，约定被申请人向申请人提供一条每小时能够生产8000升糖果的生产线。根据合同第3条，申请人向被申请人支付了128,250,000新币。2020年3月27日，申请人终止了合同，理由是生产线存在多项缺陷，导致合同目的无法实现。

2020年9月21日，申请人在国际商会（ICC）提起仲裁，要求退还为购买该生产线所支付的价格，以及运费、海关税费、测试费等，所有费用合计171,661,109新币。

2023年6月2日，仲裁庭作出裁决，认为该生产线不符合“每小时生产8000升糖果”的要求。然而，申请人在收货后的三年内一直使用该生产线且未提出异议，表明申请人已接受该生产线，因此失去了索赔的权利。最终，被申请人DIC在本次仲裁中获胜。

现申请人DIB以违反自然正义为由，寻求撤销该裁决。申请人提出了四个理由：(a) 仲裁庭是否剥夺了申请人对未申诉问题作出合理回应的机会，即关于交付一条有缺陷的生产线是否足以使“对价完全失效”的主张无法成立（“对价失效违反”）；(b) 仲裁庭是否错误地认为如果认定申请人已接受生产线，申请人将放弃其“对价完全失效”的主张，从而未能考虑申请人的立场（“接受违反”）；(c) 仲裁庭是否剥夺了申请人对未申诉问题作出合理回应的机会，即关于R员工是否有权代表被申请人接受生产线的问题，以及仲裁庭是否在超出仲裁范围的问题上作出了错误裁定（“权限违反”）；(d) 仲裁庭是否未能关注提交的材料，或未能就申请人于2018年10月31日发出的信函中的论点和证据作出决定（“拒收通知违反”）。

法院观点：

法院认为，本案的关键在于仲裁庭在裁决过程中是否遵循了自然正义原则。根据一般法律原则，申请人需明确指出所违反的自然正义规则，以及这一违反如何与裁决的结果相关联。法院审查了申请人提出的四个理由，逐一进行评估，发现均不构成违反自然正义的情况。

首先，关于对价失效的主张，尽管仲裁庭认定被申请方违反了合同条款，但驳回了申请人的返还请求。法院指出，仲裁庭认为被申请方已经交付生产线并协助安装，因此申请人基于对价完全失效的主张不成立。法院认为，仲裁庭的推理符合双方的辩论内容，且申请人有充分机会对此进行回应，因此不构成不公正对待。

其次，关于接受违反的主张，申请人认为仲裁庭错误理解了其陈述。法院认为，仲裁庭已充分审查了申请人的不当得利主张，虽然可能存在误解，但这并不足以推翻裁决。仲裁庭的推理基于申请人已接受部分合同利益，因此排除了对价完全失效的主张。

第三，关于权限违反的主张，申请人认为仲裁庭未充分考虑工程师R的授权问题。法院认同被申请人的观点，认为仲裁庭的判断是基于申请人自行修改的事实，且未受到授权问题的影响。即便存在争议，仲裁庭的最终结论并未因这一讨论而受损。

最后，关于拒收通知违反的主张，申请人认为仲裁庭未充分考虑其在2018年10月31日发送的缺陷通知。法院认为，仲裁庭实际上已经考虑了该通知，并判断申请人在2020年才提出拒绝，显然已失去拒绝权。因此，该通知的处理并未影响最终裁决结果。

综上所述，法院认为仲裁庭在作出裁决时并未违反申请人所提及的自然公正原则，裁定驳回申请人要求撤销裁决的请求。

Case Description：

On March 16, 2015, applicant DIB entered into a contract with respondent DIC, stipulating that the respondent would provide a production line capable of producing 8,000 liters of candy per hour. According to Article 3 of the contract, the applicant paid the respondent 128,250,000 Singapore Dollars. On March 27, 2020, the applicant terminated the contract, citing multiple defects in the production line that rendered the contract's purpose unachievable.

On September 21, 2020, the applicant initiated arbitration at the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), seeking a refund for the purchase price of the production line, along with shipping costs, customs duties, testing fees, and other expenses, totaling 171,661,109 Singapore Dollars.

On June 2, 2023, the arbitration tribunal ruled that the production line did not meet the requirement of "producing 8,000 liters of candy per hour." However, the applicant had used the production line for three years after receipt without raising any objections, indicating acceptance of the line, and thereby forfeiting the right to claim. Ultimately, respondent DIC won the arbitration.

The applicant DIB now seeks to annul the ruling on the grounds of a violation of natural justice. The applicant presented four arguments: (a) whether the tribunal deprived the applicant of the opportunity to respond reasonably to an unpleaded issue regarding whether the delivery of a defective production line was sufficient to invalidate the "consideration" claim (the "Failure of Consideration Breach"); (b) whether the tribunal mistakenly believed that if the applicant was deemed to have accepted the production line, they would abandon their "failure of consideration" claim, thus failing to consider the applicant's position (the "Acceptance Breach"); (c) whether the tribunal deprived the applicant of the opportunity to respond reasonably to an unpleaded issue regarding whether Engineer R had the authority to accept the production line on behalf of the respondent and whether the tribunal made an erroneous ruling beyond its jurisdiction (the "Jurisdiction Breach"); (d) whether the tribunal failed to pay attention to the submitted materials or failed to rule on the arguments and evidence presented in the applicant's letter dated October 31, 2018 (the "Notice of Refusal Breach").

Court's View：

The court found that the key issue in this case was whether the tribunal adhered to the principles of natural justice during its decision-making process. According to general legal principles, the applicant must clearly identify the natural justice rules that were violated and how this violation relates to the outcome of the ruling. The court reviewed the four arguments put forth by the applicant, assessing each in turn and finding none constituted a violation of natural justice.

First, regarding the claim of failure of consideration, although the tribunal found that the respondent breached contract terms, it dismissed the applicant's request for a refund. The court noted that the tribunal determined the respondent had delivered the production line and assisted with installation, and therefore, the applicant's claim based on complete failure of consideration was unfounded. The court concluded that the tribunal's reasoning aligned with the arguments presented by both parties, and the applicant had ample opportunity to respond, thus not constituting unfair treatment.

Second, concerning the acceptance breach claim, the applicant argued that the tribunal misinterpreted their statements. The court found that the tribunal had sufficiently reviewed the applicant's claims of unjust enrichment, and while there may have been a misunderstanding, this was not enough to overturn the ruling. The tribunal's reasoning was based on the premise that the applicant had accepted partial contractual benefits, thereby excluding the complete failure of consideration claim.

Third, on the jurisdiction breach claim, the applicant contended that the tribunal did not adequately consider the authority of Engineer R. The court sided with the respondent, stating that the tribunal's judgment was based on facts as modified by the applicant and was not influenced by the authority issue. Even if there were disputes, the tribunal's ultimate conclusion was not undermined by this discussion.

Lastly, regarding the notice of refusal breach claim, the applicant argued that the tribunal did not fully consider the defect notice sent on October 31, 2018. The court concluded that the tribunal had indeed considered this notice and determined that the applicant had only raised objections in 2020, clearly losing the right to refuse. Therefore, the handling of the notice did not affect the final ruling.

In summary, the court held that the tribunal did not violate the principles of natural justice as claimed by the applicant, and ruled to dismiss the applicant's request to annul the arbitration award.