欧洲杯直播吧

 
欧洲杯直播吧    |    欧洲杯直播吧史录  |     欧洲杯直播吧状师    |    营业范畴    |    欧洲杯直播吧法讯    |    专题研讨    |    最新静态    |    欧洲杯直播吧画廊    |    广纳贤士
 

     
 

一、泛论 General overview
     为领会本国仲裁裁决在中国的认可与履行环境,咱们经由进程中国裁判文书网搜集了从2007年至2018年的67个有关认可与履行本国仲裁裁决的案例(咱们征询了局部法院,得悉另有局部案件并不在收集发布),咱们的阐发也基于这67个案例停止,详见表1。
     To have a general situation of the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China, we searched the Chinese courts’ verdicts and judgments publicized on the website and got over 67 cases related to recognizing and enforcing foreign awards in China covering a period from 2007 to 2018 (We are told by the court, which we consulted about the verdicts and judgments, that some of the cases were not publicized). The results of the 67 cases are in Table 1.
  在67个案例中,有52起予以认可和履行,占总数的77.6%,仅3起未予以认可。在52起认可与履行的案例中,有19起跟大批商品买卖有关,如棉花、煤炭、原油、橡胶等。   

    Among those 67 cases, 52 cases are recognized and enforced, accounting for 77.6% of the total cases surveyed, and only 3 cases are refused recognition or enforcement. Of the 52 cases recognized and enforced, 19 are related to the commodity transactions such as cotton, coal, crude oil, rubber, etc.
  52个案例散布于以下几个省分,见表2:
  The 52 recognized cases are scattered in 13 provinces in China as in Table 2.
  67个案例之仲裁地散布如表3所示:

  Among the 67 cases, the seats of arbitration are shown in Table 3.

二、认可与履行的仲裁案例中被请求人抗辩来由阐发 Analysis of respondents’ defense in cases of recognized or enforced award
     咱们对已获认可和履行的案例停止了阐发,在52个案例中,被请求人的辩论来由首要包含以下内容:
We analyzed the 52 recognized and enforced cases, respondents’ defense mainly includes the following excuses:
  (1)裁决成果不公允,裁决成果粉碎了公允准绳;
The arbitral award is unfair or the unfair award violates the principle of fairness.
  (2)条约项下无实在的商业来往;
There is no real trade under the contract.
  (3)因请求人的缘由致使扩展的丧失,不应由被请求人承当;
The extended losses caused by the applicant shall not be supported by the award.
  (4)仲裁裁决对利钱的计较不准确;
The interest in the award is incorrect.
  (5)仲裁裁决违背了中国的外汇办理政策的相干法则;
The award violates China’s regulation on foreign exchange policy.
  (6)仲裁裁决违背了中国的有毒化学物资的办理法则;
The award violates China’s regulation on poison chemicals.
  (7)仲裁裁决违背了中国对修建行业的相干政策和法令划定,由于相干划定请求修建设想应具备响应的天资;
The award violates the public policy and Chinese law in construction that requires a certain qualification in designing and constructing a building.
  (8)条约由英文誊写,被请求人不晓得仲裁条目的存在;
The contract is written in English so the respondent does not know the arbitration agreement.
  (9)被请求人未收到仲裁裁决;
The award has not been received by the respondent.
  (10)被请求人未收到仲裁庭的任何告诉;
The respondent did not receive any notice from the arbitration.
  (11)被请求人未到场到庭审法式中;
The respondent did not participate in the arbitration procedure.
  (12)两边未签定仲裁和谈;
There is no arbitration agreement between the parties.
  (13)请求人状师的权限仅是代办署理仲裁履行,而在认可仲裁的案件中无代办署理权;
The applicant’s lawyer only has the right to represent the applicant in the enforcement procedure but no right to represent the client in the recognition procedure.
  (14)仲裁法式的停止与仲裁条目商定不符;
The arbitration procedure is not in accordance with the agreement.
  (15)国民法院对认可仲裁裁决无统领权;
The court has no jurisdiction over the case of recognizing the award.
  (16)请求已跨越两年。
The case is filed beyond two years.
  此中,1-4项的内容属于仲裁的实体内容,该当在仲裁法式中由仲裁机构检查,而不属于在认可和履行法式中法院检查的内容,国民法院在认可与履行的法式中该当侧重检查对条约的合用题目。
No.1 to No. 4 are the issues of the fact that should be argued in the procedure of arbitration rather than in the recognition case where the scope of the court’s review should be centered on the application of the Convention.
  5-7项中,被请求人提到了中国的大众政策题目。根据国民法院的概念,大众政策该当懂得为我法令王法公法令的根基准绳、加害我国国度主权、风险社会大众宁静、违背仁慈风尚等足以危及我国底子社会大众好处的景象。是以,5-7项的抗辩并未获撑持。
No. 5 to No. 7 are the issues about China’s laws and regulations or public policy. The court’s opinion in those cases is that the public policy refers to the basic principles of law, violation of China’s national sovereignty, endangering public safety, violating good customs and endangering the fundamental public interest of China. Therefore, No.5 to No. 7 failed to defend the respondent.
  8-16项的9条辩论来由是法庭该当真正听取与检查的内容。有能够被请求人谎称本身未收到仲裁庭响应的法令文书及告诉(普通是函件)。但第9-11项中是有电子邮件发送给辩论人,以是其辩论来由未能取得国民法院的撑持。
From No.8 to No. 16, the nine reasons are the real issues that should be heard and reviewed by the court. It is possible for the respondent to falsely claim that he has not received the relevant legal documents and notice of the arbitration tribunal (usually by mail). No. 9 to No. 11 failed to defend the respondent because emails were sent to the respondent.
  第13项是法庭审理进程中罕见的题目,请求人和代办署理状师必须供给所需的文件,该裁决能力取得认可。
No.13, a common problem in court proceedings, requires the applicant and the attorney to provide the required documents in order for the award to be recognized.
  第14-16项的来由一旦被证实是子虚的,被请求人的辩论将不会取得法庭的撑持。
No.14 to No. 16 are abandoned by the court when it turns out that the reasons are not true.

三、谢绝案例中被请求人辩论来由阐发 Analysis of respondents’ replies in cases of refusing the award
     经由进程已有的数据阐发,一共有3个案件被谢绝认可与履行(此中2个案件的仲裁位置于英国,1个案件仲裁位置于瑞士),谢绝来由以下:
According to the existing data analysis, 3 cases are refused (2 seated in the UK, and 1 seated in Swiss) for the following reasons:
  (1)当事人两边不签定仲裁和谈;
There is no arbitration agreement between the parties; or
  (2)请求人提交法庭的相干文件资料不颠末法定公证认证。
The documents are not notarized and certified.
  上述3个被拒案件中有两个案件被拒的缘由,是原买卖条约上署名的天然人不取得被请求公司的受权,无权代办署理被请求的公司签约。在中国,公司对外签定和谈必须加盖公章或由公司的法定代表人、有权代办署理人署名。是以,法庭认定两边当事人之间不存在仲裁和谈和条目,裁定不予认可与履行该仲裁裁决。这两个案件的被请求人是统一家公司。
In two of the 3 refused cases, the awards are refused because the natural person signing on the contract is found to have no authorized right to sign the contract on behalf of the respondent. In China, it is the seal or the stamp, instead of someone’s signature, that can best represent a company. Therefore, the court refuses the award on the ground that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties and thus rules that the award be refused. The respondent of the two cases are the same company.

四、总结 Summary
     对上述67个案例的阐发,咱们以为:中法令王法公法院对绝大局部的本国仲裁裁决都是予以认可并履行的。中法令王法公法院严酷根据纽约条约的划定检查本国仲裁裁决的效率,普通环境下仅检查其法式性效率,不检查裁决的实体内容(触及中国大众政策等除外)。对谢绝认可的裁决也是严酷根据纽约条约的划定履行。
With the above analysis of the 67 cases relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitration awards in China, we find that the Chinese courts recognize and enforce most of the arbitration awards. The Chinese courts will only check the procedural legality which the arbitration should follow and will not examine the substantive awards (excluding Chinese public policy, etc.). The reasons for the refusal comply with the provisions of the New York Convention.

作者先容
江苏欧洲杯直播吧状师事件所
刘晖、杨柳状师

 
 
 
    
欧洲杯网上下注平台|官网 欧洲杯网上下注平台|官网 欧洲杯网上下注平台|官网