一、总论 General overview
为了解外国仲裁裁决在中国的承认与执行情况，我们通过中国裁判文书网收集了从2007年至2018年的67个有关承认与执行外国仲裁裁决的案例（我们咨询了部分法院，得知尚有部分案件并没有在网络公布），我们的分析也基于这67个案例进行，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起予以承认和执行，占总数的77.6%，仅3起未予以承认。在52起承认与执行的案例中，有19起跟大宗商品交易有关，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个案例分布于以下几个省份，见表2：
The 52 recognized cases are scattered in 13 provinces in China as in Table 2.
67个案例之仲裁地分布如表3所示：
Among the 67 cases, the seats of arbitration are shown in Table 3.
二、承认与执行的仲裁案例中被申请人抗辩理由分析 Analysis of respondents’ defense in cases of recognized or enforced award
我们对已获承认和执行的案例进行了分析，在52个案例中，被申请人的答辩理由主要包括以下内容：
We analyzed the 52 recognized and enforced cases, respondents’ defense mainly includes the following excuses:
(1)裁决结果不公平，裁决结果破坏了公平原则；
The arbitral award is unfair or the unfair award violates the principle of fairness.
(2)合同项下无真实的贸易往来；
There is no real trade under the contract.
(3)因申请人的原因导致扩大的损失，不应由被申请人承担；
The extended losses caused by the applicant shall not be supported by the award.
(4)仲裁裁决对利息的计算不正确；
The interest in the award is incorrect.
(5)仲裁裁决违反了中国的外汇管理政策的相关规则；
The award violates China’s regulation on foreign exchange policy.
(6)仲裁裁决违反了中国的有毒化学物质的管理规则；
The award violates China’s regulation on poison chemicals.
(7)仲裁裁决违反了中国关于建筑行业的相关政策和法律规定，因为相关规定要求建筑设计应具有相应的资质；
The award violates the public policy and Chinese law in construction that requires a certain qualification in designing and constructing a building.
(8)合同由英文书写，被申请人不知道仲裁条款的存在；
The contract is written in English so the respondent does not know the arbitration agreement.
(9)被申请人未收到仲裁裁决；
The award has not been received by the respondent.
(10)被申请人未收到仲裁庭的任何通知；
The respondent did not receive any notice from the arbitration.
(11)被申请人未参与到庭审程序中；
The respondent did not participate in the arbitration procedure.
(12)双方未签订仲裁协议；
There is no arbitration agreement between the parties.
(13)申请人律师的权限仅是代理仲裁执行，而在认可仲裁的案件中无代理权；
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)仲裁程序的进行与仲裁条款约定不符；
The arbitration procedure is not in accordance with the agreement.
(15)人民法院对承认仲裁裁决无管辖权；
The court has no jurisdiction over the case of recognizing the award.
(16)申请已超过两年。
The case is filed beyond two years.
其中，1-4项的内容属于仲裁的实体内容，应当在仲裁程序中由仲裁机构审查，而不属于在承认和执行程序中法院审查的内容，人民法院在承认与执行的程序中应当着重审查对公约的适用问题。
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，被申请人提到了中国的公共政策问题。根据人民法院的观点，公共政策应当理解为我国法律的基本原则、侵犯我国国家主权、危害社会公共安全、违反善良风俗等足以危及我国根本社会公共利益的情形。因此，5-7项的抗辩并未获支持。
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条答辩理由是法庭应当真正听取与审查的内容。有可能被申请人谎称自己未收到仲裁庭相应的法律文书及通知（一般是信件）。但第9-11项中是有电子邮件发送给答辩人，所以其答辩理由未能得到人民法院的支持。
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项是法庭审理过程中常见的问题，申请人和代理律师必须提供所需的文件，该裁决才能得到承认。
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项的理由一旦被证明是虚假的，被申请人的答辩将不会得到法庭的支持。
No.14 to No. 16 are abandoned by the court when it turns out that the reasons are not true.
三、拒绝案例中被申请人答辩理由分析 Analysis of respondents’ replies in cases of refusing the award
通过已有的数据分析，一共有3个案件被拒绝承认与执行（其中2个案件的仲裁地位于英国，1个案件仲裁地位于瑞士），拒绝理由如下：
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)当事人双方没有签订仲裁协议；
There is no arbitration agreement between the parties; or
(2)申请人提交法庭的相关文件材料没有经过法定公证认证。
The documents are not notarized and certified.
上述3个被拒案件中有两个案件被拒的原因，是原交易合同上签名的自然人没有获得被申请公司的授权，无权代理被申请的公司签约。在中国，公司对外签订协议必须加盖公章或者由公司的法定代表人、有权代理人签名。因此，法庭认定双方当事人之间不存在仲裁协议和条款，裁定不予承认与执行该仲裁裁决。这两个案件的被申请人是同一家公司。
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个案例的分析，我们认为：中国法院对于绝大部分的外国仲裁裁决都是予以承认并执行的。中国法院严格按照纽约公约的规定审查外国仲裁裁决的效力，一般情况下仅审查其程序性效力，不审查裁决的实体内容（涉及中国公共政策等除外）。对于拒绝承认的裁决也是严格按照纽约公约的规定执行。
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.
作者介绍
江苏泰和律师事务所
刘晖、杨柳律师 |
