>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
O'KEY Logistics LLC. v. Guangdong South Fortune Import and Export Co., Ltd.(dispute over recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award)
俄罗斯欧凯有限公司(O’KEYLogisticsLLC)与广东南方富达进出口有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

O'KEY Logistics LLC v Guangdong SouthFortune Import & Export Co., Ltd.(dispute over recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award) 俄罗斯欧凯有限公司(O'KEYLogisticsLLC)与广东南方富达进出口有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷案
The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou (3 December 2013) 中华人民共和国广东省广州市中级人民法院
Civil Ruling 民事裁定书
(2013)Sui Zhongfa Minsi Chuzi No.12 (2013)穗中法民四初字第12号
Basic Facts 基本案情
Claimant: O'KEY Logistics Co., Ltd. 申请人(仲裁申请人):俄罗斯欧凯有限公司(O'KEYLogisticsLLC)。
Legal Representative: Sokolov Evgeniy Vladimirovich 法定代表人:SokolovEvgeniyVladimirovich。
Attorney: Fu Jun, Beijing Yingke (Guangzhou) Law Firm. 委托代理人:傅军,北京市盈科(广州)律师事务所律师。
Respondent: Guangdong South Fortune Import & Export Co., Ltd. 被申请人(仲裁被申请人):广东南方富达进出口有限公司。
Legal Representative: Lu Yong, Chairman of board of directors. 法定代表人:陆勇,该公司董事长。
Agents ad litem: Su Xiaojian and Tang Wei, employees of the company. 委托代理人:苏小建、唐伟,均系该公司员工。
The case concerns the application of the recognition and enforcement of the foreign award between O'KEY Logistics LLC (“O'KEY”) and Guangdong South Fortune Import & Export Co., Ltd (“South Fortune”). After having accepted the case, in compliance of the law, the Court constituted a collegial panel and heard the case. The hearing in this case has now been concluded. 申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司与被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决一案,本院受理后,依法组成合议庭进行了审查。本案现已审理终结。
O'KEY claimed as follows: The dispute over the payment for goods between O'KEY and South Fortune was referred to arbitration before the International Commercial Arbitration Court (“ICAC”) of the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“RFCCI”) and Award No. 982010 was rendered. However, South Fortune failed to perform its obligation under the Award. Pursuant to the Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the Civil Procedure Law of the PRC and applicable judicial interpretations, O'KEY hereby applied as follows: 1. To recognize and enforce Award No. 98/2010 issued by the ICAC of RFCCI; 2. To order South Fortune to pay the arrears for USD 38,478.45 (RMB 243,183.80) and the arbitration fee for USD 5,448 (RMB 34,431.36); 3. To order South Fortune to bear the costs of the case. 申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司申请称:其与被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司因货款纠纷一案,已由俄罗斯联邦工商会的国际商务仲裁庭作出裁决(俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭982010号案件裁决书),被申请人未履行裁决规定的义务。根据《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》及相关司法解释的规定,特申请:1.承认和执行俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭982010号裁决书所裁决的事项;2.判令被申请人依前述裁决书向申请人一次性支付欠款38478.45美元(折合人民币243183.80元)、仲裁费5448美元(折合人民币34431.36元);3.被申请人承担本案执行费。
South Fortune defensed as follows First, O'KEY is not a qualified claimant. The name stated in the Certificate Registration of the Legal Entity submitted by the claimant is “O'KEY Logistics Co., Ltd.”, but the name stated in the Application for Arbitration is “O'KEY Co., Ltd.', and the Application is not affixed with the corporate seal. The claimant failed to prove the said two companies are the same one. Therefore, South Fortune argued that the claimant should be O'KEY Logistics Co., Ltd. as stated in the Certificate Registration of the Legal Entity. Otherwise the claimant should be deemed to fail to submit the qualification document, and therefore should not be deemed as a party to the Award. Second, O'KEY had submitted an application for the recognition and enforcement of the Award on the same grounds before, but then withdrew the application for its own reason. O'KEY should be deemed to waive its own rights due to the withdrawal of its application in the previous case, so its application in the current case should be dismissed. Third, the application of the recognition and enforcement of the foreign awards should meet the requirement of a two-year time limit under the Chinese law. However, in the case, the application by O'KEY was made after expiry of the time limit. The Award was concluded on 8 December 2010, however, O'KEY submitted the application on 24 January 2013. In the event that O'KEY failed to prove that its application within the time limit, it should bear any unfavorable outcome thus caused. Fourth, the contract submitted by O'KEY is a photocopy, and Yu Chengquan (余承泉)'s signature on the contract was not signed by the person himself. Therefore, the arbitration agreement did not reflect South Fortune's real intention. Fifth, South Fortune did not receive any notice from the ICAC of the RFCCI. Pursuant to the arbitration rules submitted by O'KEY, the statement of claims, the statement of defences, the notice of correction and none of the documents relating to the arbitral award have been served on South Fortune. Even if the post receipt submitted by O'KEY was true, since the receipt does not show any name nor the content of the materials mailed, it still cannot prove that all the arbitration documents had been delivered to South Fortune. In addition, the Notice of Arbitration submitted by O'KEY was a notice issued by the tribunal, it was insufficient to prove that the tribunal had notified South Fortune. Sixth, the composition of the arbitral tribunal violates the arbitration rules. According to Article 17.2 of the ICAC Rules, an arbitral tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators, unless in view of the complexity of the case, the amount of the claim (which shall not, as a rule, exceed USD25,000), and other circumstances, the ICAC Presidium determines, in its own discretion, that the case shall be settled by a sole arbitrator. According to the Law of the Russian Federation on International Commercial Arbitration, in the event the parties fail to appoint an arbitrator, the number of arbitrators shall be three (3). In this case, the amount claimed by O'KEY is far more than USD 25,000, and South Fortune did not appoint an arbitrator, therefore the arbitral tribunal should consist of three (3) arbitrators. Moreover, according to the arbitration rules, where a case is examined by a sole arbitrator, the ICAC Presidium shall appoint the sole arbitrator. However, in the case, the Award stated that the said arbitrator was appointed by the executive secretary. Therefore, the composition of the arbitral tribunal did not comply with the arbitration rules. Seventh, pursuant to the arbitration rules, any correction to an arbitral award shall be made within thirty (30) days. In this case, however, the correction made by the arbitral tribunal took place on 14 January 2011, which exceeded the time limit as set forth in the rules on arbitration. During the hearing of this case, South Fortune claimed it had not been properly notified to appoint an arbitrator or engage in the arbitration proceedings, so the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitration proceedings were not in compliance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place. According to Article V (1) (ii) and (iv) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral Award should be refused. 被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司辩称:第一,申请人的主体不适格。申请人提交的法律实体登记证明显示的名称为“俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司”,而本案申请书上的申请人名称为“俄罗斯欧凯有限公司”,且没有加盖公司公章。申请人无证据证明上述二者为同一公司,故被申请人认为应以法律实体登记证明显示的俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司为申请人,否则应认定申请人没有提交主体证明文件,不能认定其为涉案仲裁裁决的当事人。第二,申请人曾因同一事由提出过申请承认与执行仲裁裁决,后因其自身原因撤回起诉,原诉讼终结。申请人在上一案中撤诉,应认定其放弃了自身权利,应驳回其本案的申请。第三,申请承认与执行外国仲裁裁决应适用我国法律关于两年执行时效的规定,申请人的申请已超过了申请执行时效。涉案仲裁裁决是2010年12月8日作出的,申请人在2013年1月24日才提出承认和执行申请。在申请人无充分证据证明其申请期限符合法律规定的情况下,应自行承担不利后果。第四,申请人提交的合同文本是复印件,且合同上“余承泉”的签名并非其本人所签,故涉案仲裁协议不是被申请人的真实意思表示。第五,被申请人并没有收到俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭的任何通知。根据申请人提交的仲裁规则,请求书、答辩书、更正通知书等所有与仲裁裁决有关的材料都未送达给被申请人。即使申请人提交的邮寄单是真实的,由于邮寄单没有注明邮寄的材料名称和内容,不能证明所有仲裁材料已送达给被申请人。另外,申请人提交的仲裁通知也仅是仲裁庭出具的通知文件,不能证明仲裁庭已通知了被申请人。第六,仲裁庭的组成违反了仲裁规则。申请人提交的仲裁规则第十七款第二条规定,仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成,除非鉴于案件复杂程度、请求金额(通常不应超过25000元美元)以及其他情形主席团可以派一名解决。根据俄罗斯国际商事仲裁法规定,当事人没有确定仲裁员,仲裁员的人数应为三人。本案中申请人的请求金额远超过了25000美元,被申请人也没有选定仲裁员,因此仲裁庭应由三人组成。并且按仲裁规则,独任仲裁员应当由主席团认定,而仲裁裁决书记载是由干事会认定的,故仲裁庭的组成不符合仲裁规则的规定。第七,根据仲裁规则规定,纠正裁决书应在30天内进行,但仲裁庭作出的纠正决定是在2011年1月14日,超出了仲裁规则规定的期限。本案审理过程中,被申请人称由于其没有被给予指定仲裁员或者进行仲裁程序的适当通知、仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序同进行仲裁的国家的法律不符,根据《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第五条(1)款第(二)、(四)项的规定,应拒绝承认和执行涉案仲裁裁决。
To support its claims, O'KEY submitted the following evidence to the Court: Evidence No.1:O'KEY's Business Registration Certificate and the identity certificate of the legal representative; Evidence No.2: the Arbitration Award and the Resolution on Arbitration Award issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI; Evidence No.3: the Sales and Purchase Contract and its supplementary agreement; Evidence No.4: The Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (“ICAC Rules”); Evidence No.5: the four (4) successful delivery notes issued by UPS Company in Russia; Evidence No.6: the Notice of Arbitrator Appointment issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI; and Evidence No.7: the industry and commerce registration materials of Guangdong South Fortune. 申请人为证明其主张向本院提供了下列证据材料:证据1.申请人的商业登记证和法定代表人身份证明书;证据2.俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭仲裁裁决和仲裁裁决决议;证据3.买卖合同及补充协议;证据4.俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁规则;证据5.俄罗斯UPS公司邮件妥投证明共四份;证据6.俄罗斯国际商事仲裁庭的仲裁员任命通知书;证据7.广东南方富达进出口有限公司的工商登记资料。
Upon the examination of evidences, South Fortune challenged the evidences presented by O'KEY as follows: Evidence No.1, South Fortune challenged that O'KEY's Business Registration Certificate, arguing that the name on the said certificate is “O'KEY Logistics Co. Ltd.' but the name in the Application and the arbitration Award were both “O'KEY Co., Ltd.”, without the word “Logistics”. South Fortune had no objection to the identification of the legal representative. Evidence No.2, South Fortune had no objection. Evidence No.3, South Fortune refused to admit the Sales and Purchase Contract and its supplementary agreement, arguing these documents were photocopies and the signature of “Yu Chengquan” was not signed by the person himself. Evidence No.4 - ICAC Rules, South Fortune had no objection. Evidence No.5, South Fortune challenged the four delivery notes of the arbitration documents for the reasons that it has not been served with any arbitration document, and none of the record shows that it has signed and accepted the said documents. Foreign arbitration documents shall be served by China's diplomatic and judicial departments pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Treaty between the PRC and the Russian Federation on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters. Evidence No.6, South Fortune challenged the Notice of Arbitrator Appointment issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI, arguing that in addition to the aforesaid reasons, no procedure of notarization has been completed. Evidence No.7, South Fortune had not objection. 经本院组织质证,被申请人对申请人提供的证据发表如下质证意见:对证据1申请人的商业登记证有异议,登记证上的名称为俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司,而申请人的申请书和仲裁裁决书里都是俄罗斯欧凯有限公司,没有“物流”两字。对法定代表人身份证明书没有异议。对证据2俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭仲裁裁决和仲裁裁决决议没有异议。对证据3买卖合同及补充协议不予认可,因为文本是复印件,而且合同上“余承泉”的签名不是他本人签的。对证据4俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁规则没有异议。对证据5四份仲裁庭送达通知不予认可。被申请人没有收到仲裁材料,也没有被申请人的签收记录。外国仲裁文书的送达应根据中国与俄罗斯司法协助的相关规定,通过中国外交部门和司法机关进行送达。对证据6俄罗斯国际商事仲裁庭的仲裁员任命通知书不予认可,理由同上,而且也没办理公证认证手续。对证据7被申请人的主体资料没有异议。
Respondent has not submitted any evidence. 被申请人没有提交证据材料。
After hearing the case, the Court found that: On 16 May 2007, the buyer O'KEY and the purchaser South Fortune signed the Sales and Purchase Contract (“Contract”) of No. DCP-75/160507 in Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation. According to the Preamble of the Contract, the registered address is: 3/F, Ramada Pearl Hotel, No.9 Mingyue Yi Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China. According to Article 1.12 - Arbitration and Governing Law: any dispute arising from performance of this Contract yet not included herein, shall be settled in compliance with the law of Russian Federation, and the governing law is the Russian Federation Substantive Law. Any dispute, objection or request arising from this Contract, or any issue regarding the performance, breach, termination or invalidation of this Contract shall be resolved through arbitration by the ICAC of the RFCCI under the ICAC Rules. This Contract is written both in English and Russian, with the company seal of “Guangdong South Fortune Import & Export Co., Ltd.” and the signature of Yu Chengquan affixed on each page. According to South Fortune, the Contract provided O'KEY is a photocopy rather than the original, and the signature of Yu Chengquan was not signed by the person himself. Yu Chengquan was once the legal representative of South Fortune, but retired at the end of 2008. 经审理查明:2007年5月16日,申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司作为买方、被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司作为卖方在俄罗斯联邦圣彼得堡市签订编号为DCP—75160507号买卖合同。合同首部记载被申请人的法定地址:中国广东省广州市明月一路9号凯旋华美达大酒店3楼。合同第1.12.仲裁与法律适用约定:因执行本合同而发生的,未由本合同协定的所有争议,均根据俄罗斯联邦法律而解决,适用法律是俄联邦实体法。因执行本合同而发生的所有争议、异议、请求,包括涉及本合同履行、违约、终止或失效等问题,应在俄联邦工商会国际商事仲裁院按照其规则进行仲裁。该合同文本为英文和俄文两种语言,每一页均加盖有“广东南方富达进出口有限公司”字样的印章,并有“余承泉”字样的签名。被申请人称,申请人提供的买卖合同不是正本而是复印件,合同上“余承泉”字样的签名并非其本人书写,余承泉曾是其公司的法定代表人,但已在2008年底退休。
On 6 May 2010, due to the dispute arising out of the Contract, O'KEY applied to the ICAC of the RFCCI for arbitration, requesting the tribunal to order South Fortune to return the payment for goods in the amount of USD 38,478.45. On 8 December 2010, the ICAC of the RFCCI issued the Award No. 98/2010, ordering that South Fortune shall compensate O'KEY for the outstanding payment for goods in the amount of USD 38,478.45 and the arbitration fee of USD 5,448. 2010年5月6日,申请人因与被申请人就上述买卖合同发生纠纷,遂向俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭提起仲裁申请,要求裁决被申请人返还货款共38478.45美元。俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日作出982010号仲裁裁决:被告人广东南方富达进出口有限公司应赔偿给原告人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司欠债38478.45美元及原告人的有关仲裁的费用5448美元。
On 14 January 2011, the ICAC of the RFCCI issued the resolution No.98/2010 as follows: as the full name of South Fortune was not stated in the Award rendered on 8 December 2010, the ICAC decided to, in accordance with Article 43 (1) of the ICAC Rules confirm that “GuangDong South” as stated in the said Award shall be Guangdong South Fortune Import & Export Co. Ltd. This resolution shall be deemed as an integral part of the Award (No. 98/2010) rendered by the ICAC of the RFCCI on 8 December 2010.
......
 2011年1月14日,俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭作出982010号案件决议:因为国际商务仲裁庭2010年12月8日作出的裁决里未写被告公司的全称,根据国际商务仲裁庭规程第43条第1项,国际商务仲裁庭决定,将国际商务仲裁庭2010年12月8日作出的裁决里提到的GuangDongSouth公司确认为中国广东省GuangDongSouthFortuneImpExpCo.Ltd.(广东南方富达进出口有限公司)。本决议作为俄罗斯联邦工商会的国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日对于982010号案件作出的裁决的组成部分。
......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥800.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese