| Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality for Instructions on the Case of the Revocation of the Arbitral Award No. 415 (2013) of the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Center) | | 最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院就撤销上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(上海国际仲裁中心)(2013)沪贸仲裁字第415号裁决案请示的复函 |
| (No. 8 [2015] of the Civil Division IV of the Supreme People's Court on October 9, 2015) | | （2015年10月9日 (2015)民四他字第8号） |
| The Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality: | | 上海市高级人民法院： |
| Your Request for Instructions on the Case of the Revocation of the Arbitral Award No. 415 (2013) of the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Center) (No. S1 [2014], HPC, Shanghai) has been received. Upon deliberation, the following reply is hereby offered: | | 你院(2014)沪高民二(商)撤字第S1号《关于撤销上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(2013)沪贸仲裁字第415号裁决案的请示》收悉。经研究，答复如下： |
| According to your report for instructions and the materials attached thereto, it was stipulated in Article 11.6 of the Framework Agreement on No. 688, Huaihai Middle Road, Luwan District, Shanghai, China (hereinafter referred to as the “Framework Agreement”) signed by the Union Investment Real Estate AG (hereinafter referred to as “UIR”) with Whole Team Limited (hereinafter referred to as “W&T”) and Shanghai Huashi Zhongxing Shopping Mall Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huashi Company”), Article 3 of the Agreement on Amending the Framework Agreement and also in Article 13 of the supplementary provisions of the Shanghai Real Estate Sales Contract annexed to the Framework Agreement signed between UIR and Huashi Company that, any dispute arising from the agreement or any dispute related to it (excluding the net profit guarantee, the signing guarantee and the purchase price guarantee which are annexed to the Framework Agreement) should be submitted to the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission for final settlement through arbitration. The above arbitration clauses comply with the provisions of the law governing the arbitration agreement, i.e., the Chinese law, and are lawful and valid and legally binding upon UIR, W&T and Huashi Company. | | 根据你院请示报告及所附材料，Union Investment Real Estate AG(以下简称联合公司)与世家有限公司(以下简称世家公司)、上海华狮中兴商场管理有限公司(以下简称华狮公司)等签订的《关于中国上海市卢湾区淮海中路688号之框架协议》(以下简称《框架协议》)第11．6条、《框架协议之修改协议》第3条以及由联合公司和华狮公司签订的《框架协议》附件之《上海市房地产买卖合同》补充条款第13条，均约定因该协议引起的或与之有关的任何争议(不包括《框架协议》附件之净收益保函、签约保函和购买价保函)，应提交上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会通过仲裁最终解决。上述仲裁条款，符合仲裁协议准据法即我国法律的规定，其合法有效，对联合公司、世家公司和华狮公司具有法律约束力。 |
| Regarding whether Defa Shopping Mall Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defa Company”) was a party in the arbitration clauses, when the said agreement was signed, Defa Company was not formed or did not sign the agreement. However, from the point of view of the contents of the Framework Agreement and the contents as agreed upon in the Annex thereto, W&T and Huashi Company, and others, as the sellers agreed that UIR may purchase by itself or designate a company to purchase the mall at No. 688, Huaihai Middle Road, Luwan District, Shanghai. The sellers agreed to take all necessary measures and actions to ensure the undertakings and rights given to the buyer under the agreement. It was further stipulated in Article 2 of the supplementary provisions of the Shanghai Real Estate Sales Contract that UIR and Huashi Company confirmed that, when signing this contract, both parties intended that the affiliated person designated by UIR within the territory of Shanghai Municipality would purchase the shopping mall, and both parties would fully cooperate with each other in enabling UIR to set a designated person as soon as possible after the signing of the contract. According the above agreement, Huashi Company and W&T had known and agreed that UIR would perform the Framework Agreement by means of designating the newly-formed company as the buyer, and they also fully expected that any dispute arising from the performance of the Framework Agreement between them and the newly-formed company designated by UIR would be bound by the arbitration clauses. According to the performance of the agreement, UIR had notified Huashi Company and W&T of its application for formation of a wholly foreign-owned enterprise, Defa Company, in Shanghai Municipality through the letters sent on November 2 and November 7, 2006, so that the enterprise may purchase the shopping mall; in December 2007, in the request for arbitration submitted by Huashi Company against UIR as the respondent, Huashi Company also confirmed that UIR had designated Defa Company as the buyer. Therefore, as Defa Company was designated by UIR as the buyer, Defa Company became a party in the arbitration clauses which were contained in the Framework Agreement, and was not required to sign any other arbitration clause separately. As it was stipulated in Article 1.2.1 of the Framework Agreement that UIR would still have the right to exercise its rights within its own authority after UIR appointed the buyer and it was stipulated in Article 11.4 of the Framework Agreement that UIR and UIR's buyer should jointly and severally assume the obligations under the agreement, UIR will not withdraw from the Framework Agreement because it designated Defa Company as the buyer and UIR will still be qualified to initiate arbitration. In conclusion, in respect of the contents agreed upon in the agreement and the background and purpose of the transaction, UIR and Defa Company as arbitration applicants are based on the agreement and are conducive to resolving disputes. | | 关于德发商场管理(上海)有限公司(以下简称德发公司)是否为仲裁条款当事人的问题。德发公司在上述协议签订时尚未成立，亦未签署该协议，但从《框架协议》及附件约定的内容看，世家公司以及华狮公司等作为出售方，同意由联合公司自行购买或指定的公司购买位于上海市卢湾区淮海中路688号的商场，出售方同意采取一切必要措施和行动确保协议项下给予买方的承诺和权利。附件《上海市房地产买卖合同》补充条款第2条进一步约定，联合公司和华狮公司确认，在签署本合同时，双方意向系由联合公司指定在上海市境内的关联人购买商场，双方全力相互配合，使联合公司在合同签署后尽快设立指定人。根据上述约定，华狮公司和世家公司知晓并同意联合公司将以指定新设公司为买方的方式履行《框架协议》，其对与受指定的新设公司之间因履行《框架协议》而产生的争议受仲裁条款约束也是有充分预期的。从协议履行情况看，联合公司通过2006年11月2日和11月7日函件已告知华狮公司和世家公司其在上海市申请设立外商独资企业德发公司，以便该企业购买商场；而华狮公司在2007年12月另案以联合公司为被申请人提起的仲裁申请书中，亦确认联合公司已指定德发公司为购买人。因此，德发公司由于受联合公司指定为买方，而成为《框架协议》所包含仲裁条款的当事人，无需再另行签署仲裁条款。由于《框架协议》第1．2．1条约定在联合公司指定买方时，联合公司仍有权以自身权限行使权利，第11．4条约定联合公司和联合公司买方在协议项下的义务为连带性质，故联合公司并不因指定德发公司为买方而退出《框架协议》，联合公司仍具有提起仲裁的主体资格。综上，从协议约定内容以及该交易的背景和目的，联合公司和德发公司作为仲裁申请人是有协议依据的，并有利于解决纠纷。 |
| Regarding whether the method of UIR in the designation of a buyer complies with the specific requirements of Article 3.1 of the Framework Agreement, whether the notice and confirmation letter issued by UIR arrived at Huashi Company before the rescission of the contract, whether UIR performed the obligation of capital contribution to Defa Company and when the “exclusive period” of the contract would expire as well as other relevant issues, as they are the disputes over the substantive rights and obligations of the cases and fall within the applicable scope of arbitration matters in the arbitration clauses, the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction over such issues and make a substantial determination. Your conducting of substantial determination on above issues went beyond the scope of reasons for statutory examination as set out in Article 70 of the Arbitration Law and Article 274 of the Civil Procedure Law, and lacked the corresponding legal basis. | | 至于联合公司指定买方的方式是否符合《框架协议》第3．1条的特定要求、其发出的通知和确认函是否在合同解除前到达华狮公司、联合公司是否依约履行对德发公司的出资义务以及合同“排他期”何时届满等问题，均系案件实体权利义务方面的争议，属于仲裁条款约定的仲裁事项范畴，应由仲裁庭管辖并作出实体认定。你院对上述问题进行实体审查，超出了我国《仲裁法》第七十条以及《民事诉讼法》第二百七十四条规定的法定审查事由范围，缺乏相应的法律依据。 |
| The issue of the consistency between the arbitration procedures and the arbitration rules in this case shall be judged according to the Arbitration Rules of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (2005) that are applicable in the arbitration procedures of this case. Article 42 of the Arbitration Rules provided: “Time Limit for Rendering an Award: 1. The arbitral tribunal shall render an arbitral award within six months from the date on which the arbitral tribunal is formed. 2. Upon the request of the arbitral tribunal, the chairman of arbitration commission may extend the time limit if he/she considers it truly necessary and the reasons for the extension are truly justified.” The Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission had repeatedly issued several notices of extension of the time limit for the award involved in this case, and particularly, issued certain notices after the expiration of the extended time limit. However, as the arbitration rules did not clearly define the time of a notice and the award in this case was rendered within the extended time limit, this case is not under the circumstance where the arbitration procedure as prescribed in Article 274 (1) (3) of the Civil Procedure Law was inconsistent with the arbitration rules. | | 关于本案是否存在仲裁程序和仲裁规则不符的问题，应当根据本案仲裁程序所适用的《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则》(2005年版)判断。该仲裁规则第四十二条规定：“作出裁决的期限：(一)仲裁庭应当在组庭之日起6个月内作出裁决书。(二)在仲裁庭的要求下，仲裁委员会主任认为确有正当理由和必要的，可以延长该期限。”上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会就涉案裁决多次作出延长期限通知，其中有部分通知是在经延长的期限届满后作出的。但由于仲裁规则并没有明确限定通知的时间，且本案裁决是在经延长的期限内作出的，因此本案尚不构成《民事诉讼法》第二百七十四条第一款第(三)项规定的仲裁程序与仲裁规则不符的情形。 |
| In conclusion, all the reasons of Huashi Company and W&T for applying for revocation, i.e., there was no arbitration agreement between Huashi Company and Defa Company, UIR and Defa were unable to serve as applicants in the arbitration at the same time, and the arbitration procedures violated the arbitration rules, are unfounded and shall be ruled to be rejected. | | 综上，华狮公司和世家公司关于其与德发公司之间没有仲裁协议、联合公司和德发公司不能同时成为仲裁申请人以及仲裁程序违反仲裁规则的申请撤裁理由均不能成立，应裁定予以驳回。 |
| | 此复 |
| | 附： |
| | 上海市高级人民法院关于撤销上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(上海国际仲裁中心) |
| | (2013)沪贸仲裁字第415号裁决案的请示 |
| | （2015年2月13日 (2014)沪高民二(商)撤字第S1号） |
| | 最高人民法院： |
| | 申请人上海华狮中兴商场管理有限公司(以下简称华狮公司)、世家有限公司(以下简称世家公司)与被申请人德发商场管理(上海)有限公司(以下简称德发公司)、Union Investment Real Estate GmbH(联合不动产投资有限公司，以下简称UIR) 申请撤销仲裁裁决一案，上海市第二中级人民法院(以下简称二中院)审查并经审判委员会讨论，拟裁定撤销涉案仲裁裁决。根据钧院[法1998(40)号]通知，二中院将拟处意见层报我院请示。经审查，我院审判委员会一致同意撤销仲裁裁决，现向钧院请示。
．．．．．． |
|
| |
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
|
| | | |
| | | |