《国际仲裁简讯》2024年8月号 International Arbitration Newsletter August

2024年7月30日，《上海仲裁协会临时仲裁规则》经上海仲裁协会第二届理事会第五次会议通过，并于8月1日发布。

为推进上海面向全球的亚太仲裁中心建设，营造市场化、法治化、国际化一流营商环境，上海仲裁协会积极推进仲裁机制创新实践，根据上海仲裁发展需要，参考国际通行惯例，制定临时仲裁规则，供当事人约定适用。

该规则共五章58条。第一章总则，共10条，明确了临时仲裁的基本原则以及临时仲裁协议、仲裁地、指定机构等具有临时仲裁特征的条款，并对送达和期限、仲裁语言、保密等临时仲裁的主要方面作出了原则性规定；第二章仲裁程序，分为仲裁程序的开始、仲裁庭的组成、审理三节，共27条；第三章裁决（含决定），共6条，明确了裁决的期限以及仲裁庭作出裁决和决定的类别，并对适用法律、裁决书解释和更正程序、补充裁决进行了说明；第四章快速程序，共6条，明确了适用快速程序的案件范围，对快速程序中被申请人的答复期限、临时仲裁庭组成方式和期限、审理方式、裁决期限作了特别规定；第五章其他事项，共9条，主要包括仲裁费用、案卷保存、免责原则、解释主体和本规则生效时间等内容，并就具有第三方资助因素的仲裁案件作出规定；附录提供了临时仲裁条款范例和仲裁员声明书范例。

On July 30, 2024, the "Shanghai Arbitration Association Interim Arbitration Rules" were approved at the fifth meeting of the second council of the Shanghai Arbitration Association and released on August 1.

To promote the establishment of a globally-oriented Asia-Pacific arbitration center in Shanghai and create a top-notch business environment characterized by marketization, legal compliance, and internationalization, the Shanghai Arbitration Association has actively advanced innovative practices in arbitration mechanisms. These rules were formulated based on the development needs of arbitration in Shanghai, with reference to international conventions, to be optionally applied by parties involved.

The rules consist of five chapters and 58 articles. Chapter One, General Provisions, contains 10 articles that clarify the basic principles of interim arbitration and features specific to interim arbitration, such as the interim arbitration agreement, place of arbitration, and designated institution. It also sets forth general provisions on service and time limits, arbitration language, confidentiality, and other key aspects of interim arbitration. Chapter Two, Arbitration Procedure, is divided into three sections: Commencement of Arbitration, Constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, and Hearing, comprising 27 articles in total. Chapter Three, Awards (including decisions), has 6 articles that specify the time limits for awards, the categories of awards and decisions made by the tribunal, and provide explanations on applicable law, interpretation and correction of awards, and supplementary awards. Chapter Four, Expedited Procedures, consists of 6 articles, specifying the scope of cases applicable to expedited procedures and making special provisions on the respondent’s reply period, the constitution and time limits of the interim tribunal, the hearing method, and the award time limits in expedited procedures. Chapter Five, Miscellaneous Provisions, has 9 articles, mainly covering arbitration fees, case file preservation, exemption principles, interpretation authority, and the effective date of the rules. It also includes provisions on arbitration cases involving third-party funding. The appendices provide samples of interim arbitration clauses and arbitrator declaration forms.

中国云南省红河哈尼族彝族自治州中级人民法院近日发布了一份《民事裁定书》，承认并执行了比什凯克国际商事与能源仲裁法院（即中亚国际仲裁法院，CACIA）的仲裁裁决。本案涉及的仲裁裁决是中国香港某公司与中国云南自由贸易试验区红河片区某公司之间的争议，双方根据合同约定争议解决条款选择向CACIA申请仲裁，申请人请求中国法院承认和执行在CACIA作出的裁决。中国与吉尔吉斯共和国均为《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（以下简称“纽约公约”）的缔约国。根据纽约公约和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》，申请人有权向中国法院申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决。申请人提交的材料经过法定公证或认证，符合纽约公约第4条的规定。经审查，该仲裁裁决不存在纽约公约第5条规定的不予承认和执行的情形，且不违反中国加入公约时的保留性声明和条款，因此应予以承认和执行。

上述民事裁定书作出并生效标志着CACIA的仲裁裁决在中国境内首次得到承认与执行。该裁定体现了中国法院对国际仲裁裁决的充分尊重，是中国法院善意履行国际条约义务的生动实践，彰显了中国司法体系与国际仲裁机制的有效对接。对推动CACIA与中国内地自由贸易试验区和相关仲裁机构的合作，促进中亚地区与中国内地和香港的经贸合作以及国际贸易秩序维护等均具有十分重要意义。

The Intermediate People's Court of Honghe Hani and Yi Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan Province, China, recently issued a civil ruling recognizing and enforcing an arbitration award from the Bishkek International Court of Commercial Arbitration and Energy (also known as the Central Asian International Arbitration Court, or CACIA). This case involved an arbitral award in the context of a dispute between a company in Hong Kong, China, and a company in the Honghe Area of the Yunnan Pilot Free Trade Zone, China, in which the parties had opted to apply for arbitration at the CACIA in accordance with the dispute resolution clause of the contract, and the applicant had requested that the Chinese courts recognise and enforce the award made at the CACIA. Both China and the Kyrgyz Republic are signatories to the "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards" (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention"). According to the Convention and the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, the applicants are entitled to seek recognition and enforcement of the award in Chinese courts. The materials submitted by the applicants were duly notarized or certified, meeting the requirements of Article 4 of the Convention. After examination, it was determined that the arbitration award did not fall under the circumstances listed in Article 5 of the Convention that would preclude recognition and enforcement, nor did it violate China’s reservations and clauses upon joining the Convention. Therefore, the award should be recognized and enforced.

The issuance and effective enforcement of this civil ruling mark the first time that a CACIA arbitration award has been recognized and enforced in China. This decision reflects the Chinese courts' full respect for international arbitration awards and demonstrates China’s good faith compliance with international treaty obligations. It also highlights the effective integration of China’s judicial system with international arbitration mechanisms. This development is of great significance for promoting cooperation between CACIA and Free Trade Zones and related arbitration institutions in China, enhancing economic and trade cooperation between the Central Asia region and China and Hong Kong, and supporting the maintenance of international trade order.

8月21日，国际商事仲裁中心（北京）实体平台运维主体—北京国际争议解决发展中心（以下简称“发展中心”）正式成立。依据国际商事仲裁中心建设任务部署及新修订《章程》，发展中心将承担起全面支持保障国际商事仲裁中心建设的重要职能。

发展中心是由北京仲裁委员会发起成立的民办非企业法人，业务主管单位为北京市司法局。其主要职能为支持保障“北京仲裁行业集聚发展、在京仲裁机构协作发展、国际商事仲裁创新发展”。

2024年4月，北京依法治市委员会印发《国际商事仲裁中心（北京）建设实施方案》，明确发展中心为国际商事仲裁中心实体平台的运维主体，未来将助力国际商事仲裁中心“五大功能”（交往合作功能、资源聚合功能、仲裁推广功能、共享服务功能、人才智库功能）的落地实践。

下一步，发展中心将依托实体平台全力打造“北京仲裁国际会客厅”“国际共享庭审中心”“全链条商事争议解决机制”“涉外法律服务人才实训基地”四大品牌，服务国际商事仲裁中心建设，引领中国仲裁事业高质量发展。

On August 21, the Beijing International Dispute Resolution Development Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Development Center"), the operational entity for the International Commercial Arbitration Center (Beijing), was officially established. According to the deployment of tasks for building the International Commercial Arbitration Center and the newly revised Charter, the Development Center will play a crucial role in fully supporting and ensuring the construction of the International Commercial Arbitration Center.

The Development Center, initiated by the Beijing Arbitration Commission, is a private non-enterprise legal entity under the supervision of the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Justice. Its main functions are to support and ensure the "concentrated development of the arbitration industry in Beijing, collaborative development of arbitration institutions based in Beijing, and the innovative development of international commercial arbitration."

In April 2024, the Beijing Rule of Law Committee issued the "Implementation Plan for the Construction of the International Commercial Arbitration Center (Beijing)," designating the Development Center as the operational entity for the Center’s platform. The Development Center will support the implementation of the Center's "Five Major Functions": facilitating exchanges and cooperation, aggregating resources, promoting arbitration, providing shared services, and developing a talent think tank. Moving forward, the Development Center will leverage the operational platform to establish four major brands: the "Beijing Arbitration International Reception Room," the "International Shared Hearing Center," a "Full-Chain Commercial Dispute Resolution Mechanism," and a "Foreign Legal Services Talent Training Base." These initiatives will serve the construction of the International Commercial Arbitration Center and lead the high-quality development of arbitration in China.

法律依据：

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》

第三百零四条

在中华人民共和国领域外作出的发生法律效力的仲裁裁决，需要人民法院承认和执行的，当事人可以直接向被执行人住所地或者其财产所在地的中级人民法院申请。被执行人住所地或者其财产不在中华人民共和国领域内的，当事人可以向申请人住所地或者与裁决的纠纷有适当联系的地点的中级人民法院申请。人民法院应当依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约，或者按照互惠原则办理。

案情简介：

T公司为阿拉伯联合酋长国公司，宁夏B公司为中国公司。双方签订了编号为BYPxxx的《低硫石油焦合同》（以下简称“合同”），合同第20条约定，在履行协议过程中若产生争议，应友好协商解决，若无法通过协商解决，则依据《国际商会调解与仲裁规则》由三名仲裁员最终裁决，仲裁地点为中国北京，仲裁语言为英语。由于双方发生纠纷，T公司依据合同第20条向国际商会仲裁院申请仲裁。2021年11月9日，仲裁庭在北京作出26041／PTA／XZG号裁决书（以下简称“仲裁裁决”），裁决B公司应向T公司支付105,000欧元及逾期付款违约金、律师费9,000欧元、并承担仲裁费23,000美元。然而，B公司未履行该裁决。T公司遂向石嘴山市中级人民法院（以下简称“法院”）申请承认和执行该仲裁裁决。2024年2月18日，T公司变更了其申请内容，即撤回申请承认该仲裁裁决，变更为请求法院依法执行仲裁裁决中的给付内容。

B公司抗辩称，T公司未依法提交承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的必备文件，特别是缺少经我国驻外使领馆认证或我国公证机关公证的裁决书中文译本。此外，B公司指出仲裁程序存在多处违法行为，包括仲裁庭未遵守合同中关于三名仲裁员的约定，仅由一名仲裁员审理；仲裁文书仅通过电子邮件送达，剥夺了B公司的答辩权。B公司进一步辩称，其已履行了与T公司达成的退款协议，而合同未能履行的责任并不在于B公司，而是由于T公司的迟延付款和检验导致。B公司认为，仲裁裁决违背了公平原则，应不予承认和执行。

法院观点：

法院认为，案涉仲裁裁决由国际商会仲裁院在中国北京作出，属外国仲裁机构在我国境内作出的裁决。根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百九十条规定，被申请人B公司不履行该裁决的，申请人T公司可直接向B公司住所地或财产所在地的中级人民法院申请执行，不适用于承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的程序范围。申请人在审查过程中变更请求，撤回对承认仲裁裁决的申请，改为执行裁决中的具体给付内容，因此本案不应作为承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案件进行审查，应终结审查程序，法院建议申请人根据裁决内容向执行局直接提起执行申请。

综上，依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百五十七条第一款第十一项、第二百九十条、第三百零四条之规定，石嘴山市中级人民法院裁定终结本案审查。

Legal Basis:

"Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"

Article 304

Where an arbitral award made outside the People's Republic of China which has come into legal effect requires recognition and enforcement by a people's court, a litigant may apply directly to the intermediate people's court at the domicile of the person subject to enforcement or the location of its properties. Where the domicile of the person subject to enforcement or the properties are not located in the People's Republic of China, the litigant may apply to the intermediate people's court at the domicile of the applicant or the location which has an appropriate connection with the ruling of the dispute. The people's court shall handle the matter pursuant to the international treaty concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or under the principle of reciprocity.

Case Description：

T Company, a company from the United Arab Emirates, and Ningxia B Company, a Chinese company, entered into a "Low Sulfur Petroleum Coke Contract" numbered BYPxxx (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"). Article 20 of the contract stipulated that any disputes arising during the performance of the agreement should be resolved amicably. If amicable resolution fails, the dispute should be finally resolved by three arbitrators under the "ICC Mediation and Arbitration Rules," with Beijing, China, as the seat of arbitration and English as the language of arbitration. A dispute arose between the parties, and T Company applied for arbitration with the ICC Court of Arbitration under Article 20 of the contract. On November 9, 2021, the tribunal rendered award No. 26041/PTA/XZG (hereinafter referred to as the "Arbitration Award") in Beijing, ordering B Company to pay T Company €105,000, plus interest for late payment, legal fees of €9,000, and arbitration fees of $23,000. However, B Company did not comply with the Arbitration Award. T Company then applied to the Shizuishan Intermediate People's Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Court") for recognition and enforcement of the Arbitration Award. On February 18, 2024, T Company amended its application, namely, it withdrew its application for recognition of the Arbitration Award and changed it to an application for the court to enforce the payment element of the Arbitration Award according to law.

B Company argued that T Company failed to submit the necessary documents required for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award, specifically the Chinese translation of the award certified by a Chinese consulate or embassy abroad or notarized by a Chinese notary public. Additionally, B Company pointed out multiple violations in the arbitration procedure, including the tribunal’s failure to adhere to the contractual agreement of having three arbitrators, as the case was heard by only one arbitrator; and that the arbitration documents were served solely via email, depriving B Company of its right to a defense. B Company further contended that it had fulfilled the refund agreement reached with T Company, and that the failure to perform the contract was not B Company’s responsibility but rather due to T Company’s delayed payment and inspection issues. B Company argued that the arbitration award violated the principle of fairness and should not be recognized or enforced.

Court's View:

The Court held that the Arbitration Award in question was issued by the ICC in Beijing, China, and constitutes an award rendered by a foreign arbitration institution within China. According to Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if the respondent B Company does not comply with the award, the applicant T Company may directly apply to the intermediate people's court in the location of B Company’s domicile or where its property is located for enforcement, without resorting to the procedures for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards. During the review process, the applicant modified its request, withdrew the application for recognition of the Arbitration Award, and instead sought enforcement of the specific relief awarded. Therefore, the case should not be reviewed as one for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitration award, and the review process should be terminated. The court advised the applicant to directly file an enforcement application with the Enforcement Bureau in accordance with the contents of the award.

In conclusion, pursuant to the provisions of article 157, paragraph 1, subparagraph 11, article 290 and article 304 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Shizuishan Intermediate People's Court ruled to terminate the review of the case.

案情简介：

Sanum公司是一家在澳门设立的博彩业公司，与老挝的ST集团、Mr. Sithat Xaysoulivong及ST Vegas公司（以下简称“ST集团等”）签订了一系列合作建设和运营老虎机游戏厅及赌场的协议。2016年8月，新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）裁定ST集团等违反合同约定，需赔偿Sanum公司2亿美元及利息和仲裁费用。Sanum公司向新加坡高等法院申请执行该仲裁裁决，但ST集团等要求法院拒绝执行，新加坡高等法院认为依据双方协议，仲裁地应为澳门而非新加坡，判决裁定不予执行该裁决，新加坡上诉法院维持了高等法院的判决，但ST集团等并未申请撤销案涉SIAC的裁决。

重要的是，老挝法院通过一审、上诉法院及最高法院的判决程序已经处理过Sanum公司与ST集团等之间的相关纠纷，并作出了终审判决。2012年和2016年，老挝法院分别对涉及合资协议和主协议的争议作出判决，终结了双方的法律关系，并对相关财产和投资许可作出了具体安排。2019年12月，Sanum公司在澳门向国际商会仲裁院（ICC）提交调解申请，2020年1月双方开始仲裁程序，2023年10月，仲裁庭作出25100/PTA/XZG号裁决，裁决ST集团等需赔偿Sanum公司1.7亿美元及利息和仲裁费用。Sanum公司依据老挝2010年经济纠纷解决法第52条、2012年民事诉讼法第363、364条和《纽约公约》，向老挝法院申请承认该仲裁裁决。

ST集团等不同意该申请，理由包括：1. 双方纠纷已由老挝法院处理完毕；2. SIAC仲裁庭作出的裁决被老挝法院认为违反宪法和法律；3. ICC仲裁庭在澳门的裁决违背老挝法院已作出的终审判决；4. 25100/PTA/XZG号裁决违反和平和公共秩序、老挝宪法和法律，是对老挝法院终审判决的重复裁决。

法院观点：

法院认为，Sanum公司与ST集团等之间的纠纷已由老挝法院通过一审、上诉法院及最高法院的判决程序作出终审判决。Sanum公司参与了三级法院的审理过程，且未对老挝法院的管辖权提出异议。此外，Sanum公司曾于2017年向老挝法院申请承认2016年8月SIAC仲裁庭作出的裁决，但该申请未获支持。ICC在澳门作出的25100/PTA/XZG号裁决，基于老挝法院已审理并终审的案件内容和证据作出，违反了老挝2012年民事诉讼法第185条第2款的规定，即在法院已作出终审判决的情况下，再次进行仲裁属于程序违法。此外，双方在2007年5月签订的主协议中约定，如一方不服老挝法院的调解和判决结果，可以向国际争端解决机构申请再次调解或仲裁，该约定违反了老挝2012年民事诉讼法第10条第3款关于合同目的应当合法的规定，因而应属无效。根据老挝2018年经济纠纷解决法第16条第2款，纠纷应当经过法院审理或作出终审判决，未经法院审理的仲裁无效。老挝2015年宪法第98条规定，所有组织和公民应当尊重法院的终审判决，并严格执行判决。

综上，老挝法院裁定25100/PTA/XZG号裁决违反了老挝宪法和2012年民事诉讼法等法律规定，决定不予承认该裁决。

Case Description：

Sanum Company, a gambling company established in Macau, entered into a series of agreements with Laos's ST Group, Mr. Sithat Xaysoulivong, and ST Vegas Company (hereinafter referred to as "ST Group and others") for the joint construction and operation of slot machine game rooms and casinos. In August 2016, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) ruled that ST Group and others, had breached the contract and awarded Sanum Company $200 million in compensation, along with interest and arbitration costs. Sanum applied to the High Court of Singapore for enforcement of the arbitral award, but ST Group and others asked the court to refuse enforcement, and the High Court of Singapore held that the place of arbitration should be Macau, not Singapore, in accordance with the agreement between the parties and ruled that the award should not be enforced, and the Court of Appeal of Singapore upheld the High Court's judgement, although the Lao parties did not apply for the setting aside of the award of the SIAC in the case in question.

Importantly, the Lao courts have already dealt with relevant disputes between Sanum and the ST Group and others through the judgement procedures of the first instance, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, with final judgements, and in 2012 and 2016, the Lao courts issued judgements in disputes relating to the joint venture agreement and the master agreement, respectively, which ended the legal relationship between the parties and made specific arrangements for the relevant property and investment licences. The Singapore Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision. In December 2019, Sanum Company submitted a mediation application to the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) in Macau, and in January 2020, the parties commenced arbitration proceedings. In October 2023, the tribunal issued award No. 25100/PTA/XZG, ordering ST Group and others, to compensate Sanum Company $170 million, along with interest and arbitration fees. Sanum Company applied to the Lao court for recognition of the award under Article 52 of the 2010 Law on Economic Dispute Resolution, Articles 363 and 364 of the 2012 Civil Procedure Law, and the New York Convention.

ST Group and others, opposed the application, citing the following reasons: 1. The disputes between the parties had already been fully adjudicated by the Lao courts.; 2. The SIAC award was deemed by the Lao courts to be in violation of the Constitution and laws; 3. The ICC arbitration award in Macau contradicted the final judgment already rendered by the Lao courts; 4. The award No. 25100/PTA/XZG violated peace and public order, the Lao Constitution, and laws, and was a duplicative judgment of the Lao courts' final ruling.

Court's View：

The court held that the disputes between Sanum Company and ST Group and others had been finally adjudicated by the Lao courts through the judgement procedures of the first instance, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Sanum Company had participated in the proceedings of all three court levels without objecting to the jurisdiction of the Lao courts. Additionally, Sanum Company had previously applied to the Lao court in 2017 for recognition of the August 2016 SIAC award, but that application was not supported. The ICC award No. 25100/PTA/XZG, issued in Macau SAR, was based on the contents and evidence of the case that had already been tried and finally adjudicated by the Lao courts, thus violating Article 185(2) of the 2012 Lao Civil Procedure Law, which prohibits re-arbitration after a final court judgment has been rendered, deeming it a procedural violation. Furthermore, the main agreement signed by the parties in May 2007 stipulated that if either party was dissatisfied with the Lao court's mediation and judgment, it could seek further mediation or arbitration from an international dispute resolution body. This clause was found to violate Article 10(3) of the 2012 Lao Civil Procedure Law, which requires the object of a contract to be lawful, and thus it was deemed invalid. According to Article 16(2) of the 2018 Lao Economic Dispute Resolution Law, disputes must be tried or finally judged by the courts, and arbitration without court review is invalid. Article 98 of the 2015 Lao Constitution mandates that all organizations and citizens must respect final court judgments and strictly enforce them.

In conclusion, the Lao court ruled that award No. 25100/PTA/XZG violated the Lao Constitution and the 2012 Civil Procedure Law, among other legal provisions, and could not be recognized.