则 1. 保护仲裁裁决效力批复施行之前, 中国贸仲上海国仲华南国仲已经受理但根据批复规定不应由其受理的案件, 当事人对管辖权没有提出异议, 但却在仲裁裁决作出后以仲

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "则 1. 保护仲裁裁决效力批复施行之前, 中国贸仲上海国仲华南国仲已经受理但根据批复规定不应由其受理的案件, 当事人对管辖权没有提出异议, 但却在仲裁裁决作出后以仲 "

妤赵
7 years ago
Views:

1 015 年 8 月 10 日争议解决法律热点问题最高人民法院发声贸仲及其原分会管辖权纷争得以解决 015 年 7 月 15 日, 最高人民法院 ( 下称最高院 ) 发布了关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复 ( 下称批复 ) 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 ( 下称中国贸仲 ) 上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 ( 原中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会, 同时使用上海国际仲裁中心的名称, 下称上海国仲 ) 华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 ( 原中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会, 同时使用深圳以及批复施行时间 (015 年 7 月 17 日 ) 为节点, 明确了分会条款的管辖权, 简述如下 : 仲裁条款约定时间管辖权归属争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会仲裁 013 年 4 月 8 日之前 013 年 4 月 8 日当日至 015 年 7 月 17 日之前 015 年 7 月 17 日当日及之后上海国仲中国贸仲 3 ( 例外情形 ) 中国贸仲国际仲裁院的名称, 下称华南国仲 ) 之间自 01 年以来有关分会仲裁条款 ( 即约定将争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会或者中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会仲裁的仲裁条款 ) 的管辖权纷争终于得以解决一批复确定的分会仲裁条款管辖权划分争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会仲裁 01 年 11 月 4 日之前 01 年 11 月 4 日当日至 015 年 7 月 17 日之前 015 年 7 月 17 日当日及之后华南国仲中国贸仲 ( 例外情形中国贸仲 3 ) 批复以上海国仲更名时间 (013 年 4 月 8 1 日 ) 华南国仲更名时间 (01 年 11 月 4 日 ), 二批复确定的分会仲裁条款纠纷司法裁判规 1 上海国仲更名时间以上海市司法局批准其更名时间为准, 参见上海市司法局行政审批决定书 ( 沪司仲登字 (013) 1 号 ), 访问地址为最后访问日期 015 年 8 月 5 日华南国仲更名时间以深圳国际仲裁院管理规定 ( 试行 ) ( 深圳市人民政府令第 45 号 ) 生效日为准, 该规定确认华南国仲更名 3 但申请人向上海国仲或华南国仲申请仲裁, 被申请人对仲裁机构的管辖权没有提出异议的, 但在仲裁裁决作出后又以仲裁机构无权仲裁为由申请撤销或者不予执行仲裁裁决的, 人民法院不予支持 1

称上海国仲 ) 华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 ( 原中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会, 同时使用深圳以及批复施行时间 (015 年 7 月 17 日 ) 为节点, 明确了分会条款的管辖权, 简述如下 : 仲裁条款约定时间管辖权归属争议提交中

2 则 1. 保护仲裁裁决效力批复施行之前, 中国贸仲上海国仲华南国仲已经受理但根据批复规定不应由其受理的案件, 当事人对管辖权没有提出异议, 但却在仲裁裁决作出后以仲裁机构无权仲裁为由申请撤销或者不予执行仲裁裁决的, 人民法院不予支持. 法院的最终管辖裁定权根据仲裁庭管辖权自决原则, 管辖权纠纷已由仲裁庭或仲裁机构确认后, 法院将不再受理相关争议 4 但批复确立了人民法院对于三家仲裁机构分会仲裁条款管辖权问题的最终管辖权 : 仲裁案件的申请人向仲裁机构申请仲裁的同时请求仲裁机构对案件的管辖权作出决定, 仲裁机构作出确认仲裁协议有效其对案件享有管辖权的决定后, 被申请人在仲裁庭首次开庭前向人民法院提起申请确认仲裁协议效力之诉的, 人民法院应予受理并作出裁定 3. 仲裁机构受理同一案件的先受理管辖权对于批复施行前, 仲裁机构受理了同一仲裁案件, 当事人在仲裁庭首次开庭前向人民法院申请确认仲裁协议效力的, 人民法院应根据上表处理 ; 当事人并未在仲裁庭首次开庭前向人民法院申请确认仲裁协议效力的, 先受理的仲裁机构对案件享有管辖权三简评正如批复开篇所云,01 年以来由于三家仲裁机构就分会仲裁条款管辖权问题的纷争, 致使一些仲裁案件的当事人对仲裁协议的效力仲裁机构的受案权限仲裁案件的管辖以及仲裁裁决的执行发生诸多争议, 造成实践中的不确定性并进而引发诸多司法审查案件最高院批复全面地考量了实践中可能产生的各种问题和情况, 比较圆满地解决了各仲裁机构之间的管辖权纷争, 为当事人申请和进行仲裁提供了较为明确的指引最高院的批复一经公布, 就得到仲裁界实务界的肯定, 认为批复既明确解决了实践中的不确定问题, 也在解决纠纷的同时兼顾了各仲裁机构的利益, 包括 : 确认中国贸仲在仲裁界的引领地位和公信力 ; 尊重并认可了原贸仲华南分会和贸仲上海分会独立后的地位和更名后的名称等基于上述分析, 批复做出后当事人应注意以下几点 :(1) 对于当事人于 015 年 7 月 17 日前签署的仲裁条款, 提交仲裁前, 应按照批复的规定根据不同的时间节点明确具体的仲裁机构 ;()015 年 7 月 17 日之后, 当事人选择仲裁机构时应使用各仲裁机构的准确名称, 即中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会或华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 ;(3) 当事人仍约定中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会或中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会作为仲裁机构的, 应向当事人说明中国贸仲对此类案件享有管辖权 ( 附 : 批复全文 ) 康乂律师电话 : 邮箱地址 :kangy@junhe.com 胡楠律师电话 : 邮箱地址 :hun@junhe.com 姜鑫律师电话 : 邮箱地址 :jiangx@junhe.com 蒋宣律师电话 : 邮箱地址 :jiangxuan@junhe.com 本文仅为分享信息之目的提供本文的任何内容均不构成君合律师事务所的任何法律意见或建议如您想获得更多讯息, 敬请关注君合官方网站或君合微信公众号君合法律评论 / 微信号 JUNHE_LegalUpdates 4 参见最高人民法院关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复 ( 法释号 ) 第 3 条最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国仲裁法若干问题的解释 ( 法释号 ) 第 13 条第款

法院的最终管辖裁定权根据仲裁庭管辖权自决原则, 管辖权纠纷已由仲裁庭或仲裁机构确认后, 法院将不再受理相关争议 4 但批复确立了人民法院对于三家仲裁机构分会仲裁条款管辖权问题的最终管辖权 : 仲裁案件的申请人向仲裁

3 附件 : 最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复中华人民共和国最高人民法院公告最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复已于 015 年 6 月 3 日由最高人民法院审判委员会第 1655 次会议通过, 现予公布, 自 015 年 7 月 17 日起施行最高人民法院 015 年 7 月 15 日最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复 (015 年 6 月 3 日最高人民法院审判委员会第 1655 次会议通过法释号 ) 上海市高级人民法院江苏省高级人民法院广东省高级人民法院 : 因中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会 ( 以下简称中国贸仲 ) 于 01 年 5 月 1 日施行修订后的仲裁规则以及原中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会 ( 现已更名为华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会, 同时使用深圳国际仲裁院的名称, 以下简称华南贸仲 ) 原中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会 ( 现已更名为上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会, 同时使用上海国际仲裁中心的名称, 以下简称上海贸仲 ) 变更名称并施行新的仲裁规则, 致使部分当事人对相关仲裁协议的效力以及上述各仲裁机构受理仲裁案件的权限仲裁的管辖仲裁的执行等问题产生争议, 向人民法院请求确认仲裁协议效力申请撤销或者不予执行相关仲裁裁决, 引发诸多仲裁司法审查案件上海市高级人民法院江苏省高级人民法院广东省高级人民法院就有关问题向我院请示为依法保护仲裁当事人合法权益, 充分尊重当事人意思自治, 考虑中国贸仲和华南贸仲上海贸仲的历史关系, 从支持和维护仲裁事业健康发展, 促进建立多元纠纷解决机制出发, 经研究, 对有关问题答复如下 : 一当事人在华南贸仲更名为华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海贸仲更名为上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会之前签订仲裁协议约定将争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会或者中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会仲裁的, 华南贸仲或者上海贸仲对案件享有管辖权当事人以华南贸仲或者上海贸仲无权仲裁为由请求人民法院确认仲裁协议无效申请撤销或者不予执行仲裁裁决的, 人民法院不予支持当事人在华南贸仲更名为华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海贸仲更名为上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员

查案件请示问题的批复已于 015 年 6 月 3 日由最高人民法院审判委员会第 1655 次会议通过, 现予公布, 自 015 年 7 月 17 日起施行最高人民法院 015 年 7 月 15 日最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易

4 会之后 ( 含更名之日 ) 本批复施行之前签订仲裁协议约定将争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会或者中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会仲裁的, 中国贸仲对案件享有管辖权但申请人向华南贸仲或者上海贸仲申请仲裁, 被申请人对华南贸仲或者上海贸仲的管辖权没有提出异议的, 当事人在仲裁裁决作出后以华南贸仲或者上海贸仲无权仲裁为由申请撤销或者不予执行仲裁裁决的, 人民法院不予支持当事人在本批复施行之后 ( 含施行起始之日 ) 签订仲裁协议约定将争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会或者中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会仲裁的, 中国贸仲对案件享有管辖权二仲裁案件的申请人向仲裁机构申请仲裁的同时请求仲裁机构对案件的管辖权作出决定, 仲裁机构作出确认仲裁协议有效其对案件享有管辖权的决定后, 被申请人在仲裁庭首次开庭前向人民法院提起申请确认仲裁协议效力之诉的, 人民法院应予受理并作出裁定申请人或者仲裁机构根据最高人民法院关于确认仲裁协议效力几个问题的批复 ( 法释号 ) 第三条或者最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国仲裁法若干问题的解释 ( 法释号 ) 第十三条第二款的规定主张人民法院对被申请人的起诉应当不予受理的, 人民法院不予支持三本批复施行之前, 中国贸仲或者华南贸仲上海贸仲已经受理的根据本批复第一条规定不应由其受理的案件, 当事人在仲裁裁决作出后以仲裁机构无权仲裁为由申请撤销或者不予执行仲裁裁决的, 人民法院不予支持四本批复施行之前, 中国贸仲或者华南贸仲上海贸仲受理了同一仲裁案件, 当事人在仲裁庭首次开庭前向人民法院申请确认仲裁协议效力的, 人民法院应当根据本批复第一条的规定进行审理并作出裁定本批复施行之前, 中国贸仲或者华南贸仲上海贸仲受理了同一仲裁案件, 当事人并未在仲裁庭首次开庭前向人民法院申请确认仲裁协议效力的, 先受理的仲裁机构对案件享有管辖权此复

签订仲裁协议约定将争议提交中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会或者中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会上海分会仲裁的, 中国贸仲对案件享有管辖权二仲裁案件的申请人向仲裁机构申请仲裁的同时请求仲裁机构对案件的管辖权作

5 August 10, 015 Dispute Resolution Chinese Supreme People's Court Issued Judicial Reply Jurisdictional Dispute Arising from CIETAC Split Solved On July 15, 015, the Chinese Supreme People s Court (hereinafter the SPC ) published an Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request of the Shanghai High People's Court et al. for Instructions on the Cases Involving the Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and Its Former Sub- Commissions (hereinafter the SPC Reply ). The SPC Reply solves the jurisdictional disputes arising since 01 over the Sub-commission Arbitration Clause (namely the arbitration clause by which the parties agree to submit disputes to arbitration before the "China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission South China Sub-Commission" or the "China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Shanghai Sub-Commission") among China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (hereinafter the "CIETAC"), the former CIETAC Shanghai Sub- Commission (renamed the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, also known as the Shanghai International Arbitration Center, hereinafter the "SHIAC"), and the former CIETAC South China Sub-Commission (renamed the South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, also known as the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, hereinafter the "SCIA"). I The SPC Reply Makes Clear the Divisions of Jurisdiction regarding the Subcommission Arbitration Clause The SPC Reply makes clear the division of jurisdiction regarding the Sub-commission Arbitration Clause using three key time points, namely: (1) the renaming date of the SHIAC on April 8, 013 1, () the renaming date of the SCIA 1 The renaming date of the SHIAC is the date when the Shanghai Bureau of Justice approved the SHIAC s application for renaming, see the Administration Approval Decision of the Shanghai Bureau of Justice (Hu Si Zhong Deng Zi 013 No.1), available at 1

for Instructions on the Cases Involving the Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards Made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and Its Former Sub- Commissions

6 on November 4, 01, and (3) the effective date of the SPC Reply on July 17, 015. The division of jurisdiction is summarized briefly as follows. Arbitration Contract Date Jurisdiction Clause Before April 8, 013 SHIAC Referring From April 8, CIETAC disputes to the 013 to July 16, (with "CIETAC 015 exceptions 3 ) Shanghai Sub- Commission" On and after July 17, 015 CIETAC Before November 4, SCIA Referring 01 disputes to the From November CIETAC "CIETAC South 4, 01 to July China Sub- (with 16, 015 Commission" exceptions 3 ) On and after July 17, 015 CIETAC II Rules for Judicial Review established by the SPC Reply concerning jurisdiction regarding the Sub-commission Arbitration Clause 1. Protecting the Validity and Enforceability of Arbitral Awards According to the SPC Reply, any application for revocation or non-enforcement of an arbitration award on the ground that the arbitration institution lacks jurisdiction shall be rejected by the court where, before the SPC Reply takes effect, the CIETAC, SHIAC or SCIA has already accepted an arbitration case that actually should not have been accepted by that arbitration institution in accordance with the SPC Reply, and has rendered an arbitral award.. Chinese Court has Final Determination of Jurisdiction According to the Competence-Competence principle in international commercial arbitration, once an arbitral tribunal or arbitration institution has exercised jurisdiction over the dispute, the courts normally will refrain from accepting and hearing any dispute regarding the jurisdiction of such case. 4 The SPC Reply makes it clear that the Chinese courts have final determination of jurisdiction over the disputes (among the three arbitration institutions) arising from the Sub-commission Arbitration Clause in the following circumstance: the claimant in an arbitration case (last accessed on August 5, 015). The renaming date of the SCIA is the date when the Provisions on the Administration of Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (for Trial Implementation) (Order No. 45 of the Shenzhen Municipal People's Government) takes effect, which provides that the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission South China Subcommission is renamed the SCIA. 3 Where claimant applies to the SCIA or the SHIAC for arbitration and the respondent raises no objection to such jurisdiction, after the arbitral award is rendered, the people s court shall reject any party s application for revocation or nonenforcement of such arbitral award on the ground that the SCIA or SHIAC lacks jurisdiction. 4 See Article 3 of the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Confirmation of the Validity of Arbitration Agreements (Fa Shi [1998] No.7) and Paragraph of Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China (Fa Shi [006] No.7).

and after July 17, 015 CIETAC Before November 4, SCIA Referring 01 disputes to the From November CIETAC "CIETAC South 4, 01 to July China Sub- (with 16, 015 Commission" exceptions 3 ) On and after

7 requests the arbitration institution to determine the jurisdiction over the dispute at the time of applying for arbitration, and after the arbitral institution decides that the arbitration agreement is valid and it has jurisdiction over the case, the respondent files a lawsuit with the Chinese court before the arbitral tribunal s first hearing applying for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement. Under such circumstance, the court shall accept the application and make a final decision accordingly. 3. The Arbitration Institution which First Accepted the Case has Jurisdiction over the Case For cases that were accepted by the CIETAC, SCIA or SHIAC before the SPC Reply takes effect, if any party applies for the court to confirm the validity of the arbitration agreement before the first hearing of the arbitration tribunal, the court shall comply with the SPC Reply as shown in the chart above. However, where the party did not challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement before the arbitral tribunal s first hearing, the arbitration institution that first accepted the case shall have jurisdiction over the case. arbitration agreements, the authority of case acceptance for the relevant arbitration institutions, jurisdiction over arbitration cases, and the enforceability of arbitral awards involving the Subcommission Arbitration Clause. As a result, quite a number of the judicial review lawsuits have been brought before various Chinese courts. The SPC Reply fully addresses all possible circumstances and situations that might arise in practice, successfully solves the jurisdictional disputes among the three arbitration institutions, and provides clear guidance for parties to apply for and proceed with arbitration involving the Subcommission Arbitration Clause. Since its publication, the SPC Reply has been duly recognized by arbitration practitioners. The SPC Reply not only solves uncertainties regarding the Sub-commission Arbitration Clauses, but also takes into account and balances the interests of the relevant arbitration institutions by acknowledging CIETAC s leading position and public credibility in the arbitration community as well as recognizing and respecting the SHIAC and SCIA s independent positions and their new names. Basing on the above analysis, after the SPC Reply comes into effect, we direct parties to the following recommendations. III Comments As the SPC Reply states in its introduction, disputes over the Sub-commission Arbitration Clause among the three arbitration institutions since 01 have caused controversies and uncertainty regarding the validity of such type of If the arbitration clause was entered into before July 17, 015, the parties shall apply to the appropriate arbitration institutions in accordance with the time points categorized in the SPC Reply; When the parties enter into arbitration 3

arbitration agreement. Under such circumstance, the court shall accept the application and make a final decision accordingly. 3.

8 agreements on and after July 17, 015, the agreement should accurately name the selected arbitration institution, i.e. China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SHIAC), or Arbitration Commission South China Sub- Commission" or "China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Shanghai Sub-Commission" in their relevant arbitration clause, they should be advised that CIETAC will have jurisdiction over the case. South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (SCIA); and If the parties continue to name the "China International Economic and Trade (The full text of the SPC Reply in Chinese is attached.) Christine KANG Attorney Tel: Nan HU Attorney Tel: Xin JIANG Attorney Tel: Xuan JIANG Attorney Tel: This document is provided for and only for the purposes of information sharing. Nothing contained in this document constitutes any legal advice or opinion of Jun He Law Offices. For more information, please visit our official website at or our WeChat public account 君合法律评论 /WeChat account JUNHE_LegalUpdates. 4

Sub-Commission" in their relevant arbitration clause, they should be advised that CIETAC will have jurisdiction over the case.

<4D6963726F736F667420576F7264202D20B5DAC8FDB7BDBE57C9CFD6A7B8B6D6AEB7A8C2C98696EE7DCCBDBEBF2E646F63>

<4D6963726F736F667420576F7264202D20B5DAC8FDB7BDBE57C9CFD6A7B8B6D6AEB7A8C2C98696EE7DCCBDBEBF2E646F63> 題目 : 第三方網上支付之法律問題探究 Title:A study on legal issues of the third-party online payment 姓名 Name 學號 Student No. 學院 Faculty 課程 Program 專業 Major 指導老師 Supervisor 日期 Date : 王子瑜 : 1209853J-LJ20-0021

则 1. 保 护 仲 裁 裁 决 效 力 批 复 施 行 之 前, 中 国 贸 仲 上 海 国 仲 华 南 国 仲 已 经 受 理 但 根 据 批 复 规 定 不 应 由 其 受 理 的 案 件, 当 事 人 对 管 辖 权 没 有 提 出 异 议, 但 却 在 仲 裁 裁 决 作 出 后 以 仲

则 1. 保护仲裁裁决效力批复施行之前, 中国贸仲上海国仲华南国仲已经受理但根据批复规定不应由其受理的案件, 当事人对管辖权没有提出异议, 但却在仲裁裁决作出后以仲