international commercial dispute resolution · in september 2017, anjie won an arbitration case in...

国际商事争议解决法律简报 2017年 12月

1

International Commercial

Dispute Resolution

NEWSLETTER December 2017 Issue

AnJie Law Firm

19/F, Tower D1, Liangmaqiao Diplomatic Office Building,

No. 19, Dongfangdonglu, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100600, P.R.China

Tel: +86 (10) 8567 5988 Fax: +86 (10) 8567 5999

中国·北京市朝阳区东方东路19号亮马桥外交办公大楼D1座19层

电话：+ 86 (10) 8567 5988 传真：+ 86 (10) 8567 5999

www.anjielaw.com

安杰国际商事争议解决简报

商事仲裁专刊 2017 年 12 月刊

目录 Table of Contents

国际商事仲裁新闻速递 International Commercial Arbitration News

安杰代表中国客户在海外仲裁中赢得重大胜利.............2 AnJie Prevails in an International Arbitration, Representing

Chinese Client.....................................................................2

安杰为德国知名机械制造企业赢得管辖权争议诉讼.....2 AnJie Prevails in Jurisdictional Disputes on Behalf of a

Leading German Enterprise................................................2

仲裁司法审查司法解释原则通过.....................................3 The Judicial Interpretation on Judicial Review of

Arbitration Principally Passed.............................................3

北京四中院首例认可香港仲裁裁决案件.........................3 Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court Enforces HK

Arbitral Award for the First Time. ......................................3

SCC 对于仲裁员回避问题的最新规定.............................3 SCC Releases New Regulation on Challenge of

Arbitrators...........................................................................3

ICCA 与 QUEEN MARY 联合发布关于国际仲裁中的第

三方资助的公开讨论报告草案.........................................4

ICCA and QUEEN MARY Publicize a Draft Report on

TPF......................................................................................4

中国国际商事争议解决热点聚焦 China International Commercial Dispute Resolution

Spotlight

中国仲裁实践中机构送达仲裁文书的优势.....................5 What to Expect from a Chinese Arbitration Institution.......5

安杰国际商事仲裁观察 AnJie Observations on International Commercial

Arbitration

仲裁通知使用的语言若与仲裁语言不同，能否构成“适

当通知”?.............................................................................7

Whether a Notice of Arbitration in a Language Different

from the Arbitration Language Qualifies a “Proper

Notice”? ..............................................................................7


2

【国际商事仲裁新闻速递】

【International Commercial Arbitration News】

安杰代表中国客户在海外仲裁中赢得重大胜利 AnJie Prevails in An International Arbitration

Representing Chinese Client

2017 年 9 月，安杰协助一家中国公司在新加坡

国际仲裁中心（SIAC）获得一起仲裁案件的全面胜

利。案件系一起大宗煤基化工类产品国际货物买卖合

同纠纷，中国公司作为申请人，被申请人是一家印度

知名跨国企业。安杰最终为客户赢得了近 500 万美元

（合人民币 3,000 余万元）的赔偿，申请人的各项仲

裁请求几乎全部获得仲裁庭的支持。此外，该案特别

成功之处是，申请人提出的“要求被申请人赔偿申请

人与安杰律师事务所委托合同约定的风险代理律师

费”的仲裁请求获得了仲裁庭的支持。

In September 2017, AnJie won an arbitration case in

the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). In

this case, AnJie represented the claimant which is a

Chinese company, against a top-tier Indian multinational

corporation. This case involves disputes for international

sales of chemical commodities. The Tribunal upheld

almost all the claims brought by the claimant and ruled a

compensation about 5 million US dollar. One particular

victory in this case is, the Tribunal ruled that the

Respondent is to compensate the Claimant‟s legal expense,

which includes the contingency fees to be paid to

Claimant‟s counsel.

安杰为德国知名机械制造企业赢得管辖权争议

诉讼

AnJie Prevails in Jurisdictional Disputes on

Behalf of a Leading German Enterprise

近期，安杰律师事务所代理德国知名水泵制造企

业 KAMAT GmbH & Co. KG（本案卖方，下称卡玛

特公司），在由北京某机械设备公司（本案买方）提

AnJie Law Firm successfully challenged the

jurisdiction of Chinese courts in six cases concerning

international sales of goods. In the six cases, AnJie

represents the defendant KAMAT GmbH & Co. KG, a


3

起的六宗国际货物买卖合同诉讼中，成功提出管辖权

异议。法院最终作出对卡玛特公司有利的裁定，裁定

本案应由卡玛特公司所在地德国法院管辖，中国法院

对案件无管辖权。

high-profile German pump manufacturer, The plaintiff was

a machinery and equipment company based in Beijing.

The plaintiff filed the six cases in 2015. After two years‟

proceedings, both Beijing Daxing District

People‟s Court and Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People‟s

Court ruled that the German courts have jurisdiction over

all six cases.

仲裁司法审查司法解释原则通过 The Judicial Interpretation on Judicial Review of

Arbitration Principally Passed

2017 年 12 月 4 日，最高人民法院审判委员会审

议并原则通过《最高人民法院关于审理仲裁司法审查

案件若干问题的规定》（以下简称“《规定》”）。

《规定》主要内容包括仲裁司法审查案件类型、受理、

管辖、审查程序以及审理案件中的具体法律适用问题

等，共有 24 条。《规定》的出台贯彻了党的十八届

四中全会决定的精神，同时改善了现有司法解释难以

适应仲裁司法审查案件审判工作需要的现状。

Judicial committee of Chinese SPC reviewed and

made an initial approval to “The Provisions of the

Supreme People's Court on the Trial of Cases of Judicial

review of Arbitration” (“the Provisions”) on 4 December

2017. The Provisions contains 24 articles relating to

judicial review of arbitration, which involve cause of

action, admissibility, jurisdiction, trial procedure and

application of laws, and others. The Provisions has not

been officially promulgated.

北京四中院首例认可香港仲裁裁决案件 Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court Enforces

HK Arbitral Award for the First Time

2017 年 5 月 9 日，北京市第四中级人民法院裁

定认可国际商会国际仲裁院（ICC）于 2015 年 9 月

23 日在香港作出的 20025/RD（c.20026/RD 号仲裁裁

决的效力，仲裁案件的两名被申请人应在规定时间内

履行仲裁裁决确定的义务，否则，申请人可向法院申

请强制执行。法院主要依照《最高人民法院关于内地

与香港特别行政区相互执行仲裁裁决的安排》审查并

最终确定是否应执行该仲裁裁决。这是北京市四中院

第一次认可香港仲裁裁决。

On 9 May 2017, Beijing No.4 Intermediate People‟s

Court (the “Court”) decided to enforce the No.20025/RD

(c.20026/RD) arbitral award, which was rendered by ICC

in Hong Kong on 23 September 2015. The Court gave its

ruling mainly based on “Arrangements for the Mutual

Enforcement of arbitral awards between the mainland and

the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by the

Supreme People‟s Court” (SPC Fa Shi [2000] No.3). This

is the first Hong Kong arbitral award enforced by Beijing

No.4 Intermediate People‟s Court.

SCC 对于仲裁员回避问题的最新规定 SCC Releases New Regulation on Challenge of

Arbitrators

瑞典斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院（SCC）近日作出新

规定——在仲裁员回避裁定中陈述理由，该新规将于

2018 年 1 月 1 日起施行。在此规定下，若当事人无

特殊约定，SCC 将为理事会作出的所有涉及仲裁员

回避的裁决提供理由。理由以简短为原则，特殊情况

下可更为详细。此服务不收取额外费用。理事会将参

考准据法、判例和国际仲裁事件中的范例、《IBA 关

The Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber

of Commerce (SCC) recently released a new regulation.

The new regulation will come into effect on 1 January,

2018. Under this regulation, if there is no specific

agreement between the parties, SCC will provide its

rationale for all the decisions made by the SCC Board

relating to challenges against arbitrators. The rationale will

be brief. More detailed discussion could be furnished in

specific cases. The SCC Board will take applicable law,

jurisprudence, practice in international arbitration and the


4

于利益冲突的指引》等决定是否同意仲裁员回避的申

请。

IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest into consideration

when making the decisions.

ICCA 与 QUEEN MARY 联合发布关于国际仲

裁中的第三方资助的公开讨论报告草案

ICCA and QUEEN MARY Publicize a Draft

Report on TPF

2017 年 9 月 1 日至 10 月 31 日，由国际商事仲

裁理事会(ICCA)和伦敦玛丽女王大学（Queen Mary）

课题组制定的关于国际仲裁中第三方资助的公众意

见征询报告草案进行了公示。在广泛征求公众意见建

议后，最终报告将于 2018 年 4 月在 ICCA 大会上发

布。该课题组是由 ICCA 与 Queen Mary 针对仲裁中

第三方资助问题而专门成立的。课题组由多名权威专

家组成，草案的形成来源于课题组的会议讨论、展示

等的成果和成员、特别顾问的意见。

ICCA and QUEEN MARY task force on Third Party

Funding (TPF) in international commercial arbitration

published a Draft Report on TPF in September 2017. The

final report will be released in the ICCA Congress in April

2018. The task force is specially constituted for research

on TPF in Arbitration. It is comprised off leading

arbitration experts. The Draft Report is based on the

discussion and presentation in the task force as well as

suggestions from members and counselors.


5

【中国国际商事争议解决热点聚焦】

【China International Commercial Dispute Resolution Spotlight】

What to Expect from a Chinese Arbitration Institution

Practices here, such as who send the documents to respondents, vary from other countries

中国仲裁实践中机构送达仲裁文书的优势

Arthur Dong, Darren Mayberry

First published on AmChamChina

【中文摘要】中国仲裁中存在着许多与国际仲裁通行做法不同的实践，比如，仲裁文书的送达。仲裁文书送达

是指仲裁机构或当事人按照法定程序和方式，将仲裁文件送交当事人或其他仲裁参与人的行为。与通行的国际

仲裁实践中由申请人向被申请人直接送达仲裁文书的方式不同，在中国是由仲裁机构向当事人送达文书。这种

机构送达仲裁文书的方式具有便利性、高效性以及经济性等优势。

When a foreign company receives a Notice of Arbitration from a Chinese arbitration institution,

notifying them they are listed as a respondent in a case, they should not feel surprised that the Notice

is not sent by the claimant. It is common practice in China for arbitration institutions to conduct the

service of process. This rule contrasts with most other noted international arbitration institutions,

such as the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), the Singapore International

Arbitration Centre (SIAC), the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) and perhaps

other common law seated arbitral institutions, where claimants must serve their own documents to

respondents.

For instance, Article 20.1 of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration

Commission (“CIETAC”) Arbitration Rules (2015) on the „Submission and Exchange of Arbitration

Documents‟ states, “All arbitration documents from the parties shall be submitted to the Arbitration

Court.” In practice, this form of service of process is fairly straightforward. Claimants submit their

Requests for Arbitration (or Applications for Arbitration) directly to the arbitration institution

accompanied with the addresses and other contact information of the respondents. Once the

arbitration institution receives a Request (or Application) together with the arbitration fees, the

institution forwards it along to the respondents.

Institutional-managed service of process is even more convenient than service processed by

parties themselves. Indeed, Chinese arbitration institutions are already known for their lower fees

when compared to regional and global competitors, and institutional administration in this area lends

Chinese institutions a competitive service advantage.

Respondents should bear in mind the significance of the date of service (the date when the party

gets delivered with the legal document). Several important deadlines run from this date. Under

CIETAC Arbitration Rules, the time limitation to appoint an arbitrator runs 15 days from service,

whereas the time limitation to submit a statement of defense and counterclaim runs 45 days from

service of process whenever a foreign party may be involved. We advise respondents to consult their

attorney as soon as possible to discuss strategies for managing these critical procedural deadlines.


6

Even when arbitration rules declare it will be the arbitration institution who will deliver service,

the burden nonetheless falls on claimant to provide the correct information for that service. The

institution resembles a postman who will not bear responsibility for delay caused by incorrect

service information. The party must be very careful to provide full and correct information to the

institution. To avoid the difficulty of making service when arbitration begins, it is advisable to

stipulate a specific clause in the contract of service information.

Notice is a key procedural right guaranteed under the New York Convention, and thus a ground

for challenge of an award according to Article V1(b) of the 1958 New York Convention. Typically,

respondents become extremely focused on procedural irregularities, at least when faced with

impending enforcement of a high-value award. Chinese arbitration institutions are always cautious

to avoid creating situations where the award may be successfully challenged for improper service of

the notice of arbitration. Leading arbitration institutions almost unanimously adhere to a definition

of service of process which might cover a wide category of circumstances under which service could

be deemed valid.

Service by institution is well accepted in China. Non-Chinese users may appreciate the utility

and simplicity of this service. Certainly, institutionally guided service customarily saves claimant

companies considerable sums in legal fees, especially over the course of several separate cases. Only

very rarely do issues arise pertaining particularly to the institutional nature of the service. And every

year institutions are serving better. As a result, institutional service has emerged as a defining

advantage for China-based commercial arbitration.


7

【安杰国际商事仲裁观察】

【AnJie Observations on International Commercial Arbitration】

仲裁通知使用的语言若与仲裁语言不同，能否

构成“适当通知”?

Whether a Notice of Arbitration in a Language

Different from the Arbitration Language Qualifies

a “Proper Notice” ?

在 Zavod Ekran OAO v Magneco Metrel UK Ltd

一案中，英国商业法院（简称“商业法院”）就仲裁

通知是否适当给出了有趣的评论。虽鲜有权威案例，

商业法院认为该问题是事实问题，并将相应的拒绝及

执行裁决举证责任分配给主张方。在本案中，商业法

院认为，申请人向在英国的被申请人发出俄语的仲裁

通知书足以构成《纽约公约》中的“适当通知”。

申请人 Zavod Ekran OAO（简称 Ekran）为俄罗

斯玻璃制造商，被申请人 Magneco Metrel UK Ltd（简

称 Magneco）为英国耐热材料生产商。2013 年，Ekran

和 Magneco 的合同约定 Magneco 为 Ekran 提供修理

熔炉的耐火材料，并以提交俄罗斯莫斯科工商会国际

商事仲裁法庭（简称 ICAC）仲裁的方式解决合同项

下争议。本次仲裁因熔炉壁损坏引起的玻璃泄漏致

Ekran 产生损失而引起。

2015年 12月，Ekran向 ICAC 申请仲裁。Magneco

缺席 2016 年 5 月的开庭。之后，仲裁庭作出有利于

Ekran 的裁决。Ekran 遂向英国商业法院申请承认执

行该裁决。Magneco 对此辩称，该裁决属于《1996

In Zavod Ekran OAO v. Magneco Metrel UK Ltd

(Case No: CL-2016-000720), the English Commercial

Court (the “Court”) gave comments as to whether

“proper notice” of arbitration proceedings was given. In

this case, the notice of arbitration and accompanying

documents served to the British Respondent were in

Russian. But the Court decided that the Respondent was

given proper notice of the arbitration.

The Claiment, Zavod Ekran OAO (Ekran) is a

Russian glass manufacturing company. The Respondent

Magneco Metrel UK Ltd (Magneco) is an English

manufacturer of refractory products. In 2013, the parties

entered into a contract under which Magneco agreed to

supply certain refractory materials to Ekran to repair

Ekran‟s furnace (“Contract”). The Contract also provides

that disputes were to be referred to arbitration in the

International Commercial Arbitration Court at Russian

Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICAC) in Moscow.

The dispute arose later between the two parties.

Ekran referred the dispute to arbitration under ICAC

in December 2015. Following a default hearing in May

2016 which Magneco did not show up, the Tribunal

rendered an arbitral award in Ekran‟s full favor in July


8

仲裁法案》规定的《纽约公约》裁决，《1996 仲裁

法案》第 103 项（2）（c）移植了《纽约公约》第 5

条，规定被申请执行人未获得仲裁、任命仲裁员的恰

当通知或未能充分申辩时，有权申请拒绝承认及执行

裁决。Magneco 依据上述条文请求商业法院拒绝承认

及执行 ICAC 作出的裁决。

Magneco 提出了具体的抗辩理由：（1）Ekran

没有发出提交仲裁的通知；（2）提交仲裁通知并非

明示，不足以让 Magneco 意识到争议可能提交仲裁；

（3）2016 年 1 月 14 日的仲裁函件几乎全部为俄文

且没有英文译本，仲裁通知不当。综上，Magneco

以本案仲裁通知不当，其未得以充分陈述案情为由申

请不予承认执行裁决。

商业法院并未支持 Magneco 的主张，法官认为：

首先，Ekran 2015 年 7 月 20 日的信件包含的“不支

付赔偿则提交仲裁”的语句构成提交仲裁的通知。其

次，Magneco 收到了 ICAC 2016 年 1 月 14 日的信件，

虽然信件为俄语书写，但英语抬头表明其源于 ICAC。

此外，邮单回执表明信件寄自 ICAC。而且，信件中

包含一封俄、英双语邮件地址、且邮件地址中出现“仲

裁”字样的附函。附函仅一页，易于翻译。最后，本

案合同中约定仲裁实体法为俄罗斯法律，语言为俄

语，地点为莫斯科的 ICAC，说明俄文对 Magneco 并

不构成障碍。。

虽然 Ekran 可以以更恰当的方式通知 Magneco，

商业法院仍裁定 Ekran 的通知已经达到充分、恰当的

标准。法官认为：“对英格兰的当事人以非英语方式

发出仲裁通知本身并不影响通知的效力，虽然在一些

情况下它容易构成不当通知（但在本案中不构成）。”

本案的启示在于，英国商业法院对《纽约公约》

项下裁决的不予承认和执行中的“适当通知”要求进

行了宽泛解释。但是，为最小化不当通知的风险，建

议申请人（1）在通知仲裁的信函抬头注明“仲裁”；

（2）尽管在仲裁语言并非英文的情况下，向英语国

家当事人送达文书的，最好也要提供文件的英文译

本。

2016 (the “Award”).

Ekran applied for recognition and enforcement of the

Award in the English Commercial Court. Magneco argued

that the enforcement should be refused according to

Section 103(2)(c) of the Arbitration Act 1996, which

originated from Art. V of the New York Convention and

provides that, a recognition or enforcement of a New York

Convention award may be refused if: “[T]he person

against whom it is invoked proves… that he was not given

proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the

arbitration proceedings or was otherwise unable to

present his case.”

Magneco applied for refusal of recognition and

enforcement of the Award under the above provision and

argued that it had not been given proper notice of the

arbitration. Magneco further alleged that the notice of

arbitration was improper because it was almost entirely in

Russian and no English translation was attached. As a

result, Magneco was unable to present its case.

The Court rejected Magneco‟s arguments for the

following reasons: first, there was specific wording of

arbitration in the letter filed by Ekran on 20 July 2015. In

this letter, Ekran declared to bring a claim in ICAC;

second, on 15 January 2016, Magneco received the

arbitration claim form and documents annexed to it, and

the title on the cover letter specified “ICAC.” The Court

further decided that, although the letter was in Russian, the

heading was in English and stated that it came from “THE

INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION

COURT”. Furthermore, the courier receipt showed that the

documents were from the “International Commercial

Arbitration Court” in Moscow. The Court also noted that

the documents, although voluminous, included a one-page

cover letter relatively easy to translate, and it contained

two e-mail addresses, in both Russian and English, which

mentioned the English word “arbitration”. Finally, the

Court noted that the Contract provided for arbitration in

ICAC in Moscow under Russian law, and the language of

the arbitration was Russian.

The Court stated that the above circumstances

“obviously [raise] the question [as to] what [Magneco]

thought the package was”, ruling that the letter obviously

related to an arbitration and constituted “proper notice”.


免责声明：

1.本刊系内部资料，不用于任何商业用途；2.本刊所编辑的内容并非正式的法律意见，仅供参

考；3.安杰律师事务所保留本刊的所有权利。

This Newsletter provides a general overview of the topics concerned. It is not legal advice and AnJie Law Firm will accept no responsibility for actions taken in reliance on this Newsletter. All rights are reserved by AnJie Law Firm. 电子邮件地址添加或删除：

如果您希望您的电子邮件地址从我们的邮件列表中添加或删除，请联系常琳女士。

电话：+86-10-8567 5954；邮件：[email protected] To un-subscribe from this Newsletter, please contact Ms. CHANG Lin. Tel: +86-10-8567 5954 E-mail: [email protected]

© 2017 安杰律师事务所

保留所有版权

9

如需了解更多信息,敬请联系安杰争议解决团队合伙人。 Please contact partners of the dispute resolution team at AnJie Law Firm for further information.

主编：董箫

Chief Editor: Arthur Dong

编委：王秀娟、谢晓勇、王延妍、叶朗、李慧君、Darren Mayberry，苑宇衡，常琳，周莹

Editors: Jansy Wang, Kevin Xie, Flora Wang, Zephyr Ye, Jocelyn Li, Darren Mayberry, Alex Yuan, Lynn Chan

董箫 | 合伙人

Arthur Dong | Partner

Tel: +86 10 8567 5998 | [email protected]

专业方向：国际贸易与投资、IP Expertise Area: Int’l Trade& Investment, IP

程冰 | 合伙人

Cheng Bing | Partner


专业方向：IP、国际投资 Expertise Area: IP, Int’l Investment

高苹 | 合伙人

Gao Ping | Partner


专业方向：公司治理、投融资 Expertise Area: Corporate, Investment & Financing

夏毅斌 | 合伙人

Xia Yibin | Partner


专业方向：争议解决、私人财富管理、保险 Expertise Area: Dispute Resolution,

Private Wealth Management, Insurance

詹昊 | 合伙人

Zhan Hao | Partner


专业方向：保险、反垄断 Expertise Area: Insurance, Anti-trust

章剑舟 | 合伙人

George Zhang | Partner


专业方向：投资、房地产 Expertise Area: Investment, Real Estate