>>>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
 
Siemens International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (Case concerning application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award)
西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司诉上海黄金置地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】

Siemens International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (Case concerning application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award) 西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司诉上海黄金置地有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷案
The First Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai 上海市第一中级人民法院
Civil Ruling 民事裁定书
(2013) Hu Yizhong Minren (Waizhong) zi No. 2 (2013)沪一中民认(外仲)字第2号
Basic Facts 基本案情
Petitioner: Siemens International Trade Co. Ltd 申请人:西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司。
Legal Representative: Dieter Steinbrenner, general Manager 法定代表人:DieterSteinbrenner,总经理。
Attorney: Xing Xiusong, Beijing (Shenzhen) Global Law Office 委托代理人:邢修松,北京市环球(深圳)律师事务所律师。
Respondent: Shanghai Golden Landmark Co. Ltd 被申请人:上海黄金置地有限公司。
Legal Representative: Henry Onggo 法定代表人:HENRYONGGO(某某某),董事长。
Attorney: Xu Jianfeng, Guangdong WANG JING & CO, Shanghai Office 委托代理人:徐剑锋,广东敬海律师事务所上海分所律师。
Petitioner, Siemens International Trade Co. Ltd. (“Siemens”), filed the case against Respondent,Shanghai Golden Landmark Co. Ltd (“Golden Landmark”), regarding the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award. In 14 June 2013, the case was accepted by this Court. This Court legally formed a collegial panel and heard the case. The case has now been concluded. 申请人西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司(以下简称西门子公司)诉被申请人上海黄金置地有限公司(以下简称黄金置地公司)申请承认与执行外国仲裁裁决一案,本院于2013年6月14日立案受理后,依法组成合议庭进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。
Siemens argued: Siemens and Golden Landmark concluded the “China Shanghai Pudong New District Lujiazui Trade Zone b2-5 Land Golden Landmark Building High (Low) Voltage Distribution System Supply Project” contracts in September 2005, after bidding. During the performance of the contract, disputes arose between the parties. Golden Landmark filed an application for arbitration before the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”) to terminate the contracts and to cease payments. Siemens filed counterclaims against Golden Landmark in the arbitration proceedings, requesting Golden Landmark to pay the price for all the goods, interest plus compensation for other losses suffered by Siemens. On 28 November 2011, SIAC issued the final award in which all the claims made by Golden Landmark were rejected and the counterclaims of Siemens were granted. Under the award, Golden Landmark should pay Siemens RMB 9,415,120.49 and SGD 172,292.63. Golden Landmark paid some of the monies, but RMB 5,133,872.30 remained unpaid, consisting of: RMB 4,340,460 under section (b) of the award; and RMB 793,412.30 under section (c) of the award, that is the interest until the date the award was registered on 28 November 2011. Siemens argued that, both China and Singapore are signatories to the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (“New York Convention”)and the award should be recognized and enforced under the New York Convention. Siemens thus made the following application to this Court: 1) Recognize and enforce the final award made by SIAC in No. ARB062/07 case (Award No. 73 in 2011); 2) Enforce the unpaid balance due by Golden Landmark under the award, that is, the principle RMB 4,340,460 plus interest; 3) Enforce the double interest for the debt during the period of the deferred performance, due according to Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law; 4) Golden Landmark should bear the litigation fee. 申请人西门子公司诉称:西门子公司与黄金置地公司于2005年9月通过招标方式签订了“中国上海市浦东新区陆家嘴贸易区B2-5地块黄金置地大厦高(低)压配电系统供应工程”合同文件。合同履行过程中,双方产生争议,黄金置地公司在新加坡国际仲裁中心提起仲裁,要求解除合同、停止支付货款;西门子公司在该仲裁程序中提出了反请求,要求黄金置地公司支付全部货款、利息并赔偿其他损失。2011年11月28日,新加坡国际仲裁中心登记做出了上述仲裁案的《最终裁决》,驳回了黄金置地公司的全部仲裁请求,并支持了西门子公司的各项仲裁反请求。根据裁决,黄金置地公司应当向西门子公司支付9,415,120.49元人民币及172,292.63新加坡元。后黄金置地公司支付了部分款项,但至今尚欠裁决第(b)项下未付货款4,340,460元人民币以及第(c)项下截止到裁决登记日2011年11月28日的利息793,412.30元人民币没有支付,合计5,133,872.30元人民币。西门子公司认为,中国与新加坡都是《承认与执行外国仲裁裁决公约》(以下简称《纽约公约》)的成员国,本案仲裁裁决应按照《纽约公约》的规定予以承认与执行。西门子公司为此向本院提出请求如下:一、承认并执行新加坡国际仲裁中心在编号为ARB062/07的仲裁案件中做出的《最终裁决》(2011年第73号裁决);二、强制执行被申请人黄金置地公司在《最终裁决》下应当向西门子公司支付但尚未支付的款项,即本金4,340,460元人民币及其利息;三、强制执行被申请人黄金置地公司按照民事诉讼法二百五十三条的规定应当加倍支付延迟履行期间上述款项的利息;四、由黄金置地公司承担本案诉讼费用。
Golden Landmark submitted: Siemens' application should be rejected and the arbitral award should not be recognized and enforced. The reasons are as follows: 1. According to Article V of the New York Convention, the award should not be enforced if the arbitration agreement is invalid or the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of China. In this case, both parties were Chinese legal entities and the Contract was performed in China, so this case does not contain any foreign element. Thus,the agreement to submit the dispute to a foreign arbitration commission was invalid and the recognition and enforcement of the award would violate the public policy of China. 2. The arbitral award contains errors on the merits, and the recognition and enforcement would lead to unfair result. According to the contracts, the premise that Golden Landmark pay all the contract price is that the goods delivered by Siemens pass the acceptance inspection and be installed and debugged as qualified. However, the arbitral tribunal decided that Golden Landmark pay all the contract price without having investigated whether Siemens had delivered the goods according to the Contract (In fact, Siemens did not deliver the buses, 10kv transformer etc.). Thus, it was wrong for the tribunal to order Golden Landmark to pay all of the contract price and that is the reason why Golden Landmark has not performed sections (b) and (c) of the award. 3. As to the double interest claimed by Siemens, the relevant articles of the Civil Procedure Law only apply to binding judgment made by Chinese courts, not to foreign arbitral awards. 被申请人黄金置地公司答辩称:西门子公司的申请应予驳回,涉案仲裁裁决应不予承认与执行。理由如下:一、根据《纽约公约》第五条的规定,如果仲裁所依据的仲裁协议无效,或者承认与执行仲裁裁决有违我国公共政策的,相应的仲裁裁决就不应被承认与执行。本案双方当事人均为中国法人,合同履行地也在国内,故本案民事法律关系并不具有涉外因素,双方约定将争议提交外国仲裁机构进行仲裁的仲裁协议应为无效,承认与执行该仲裁裁决也将有违我国公共政策。二、涉案仲裁裁决的实体有误,若予以承认与执行将导致不公正的结果。根据双方合同约定,黄金置地公司支付所有合同价款的前提是西门子公司交付的货物经验收合格并安装调试合格,但仲裁庭在没有查明西门子公司是否交付了合同货物的情况下(事实上,西门子公司尚未交付母线、10kv变压器等货物),就裁决黄金置地公司支付全部合同价款,显然是错误的,这也是黄金置地公司目前尚未履行(b)(c)两项裁决义务的原因。三、关于西门子公司在本案中请求的双倍利息,其所依据的民事诉讼法的相关规定只适用于我国法院做出的生效判决,并不能适用于外国仲裁裁决。
Siemens' reply to Golden Landmark: 1. The arbitration agreement is valid and the award should be recognized and enforced. 1) During the arbitral proceedings, it was Golden Landmark that filed the arbitration and, after it lost the case, refused to recognize and enforce the arbitral award, which violates the good faith principle. 2) After the award was rendered, Golden Landmark partially performed its payment obligation, which indicates that it recognized and accepted the legal effect of the arbitral award. 3) As to whether this case contained any foreign element, since Siemens is a foreign invested enterprise, established in the Shanghai Waigaoqiao Bonded Zone, it can hardly be said that the parties and the content of the Contract in this case “do not contain any foreign element” under Chinese Bonded Zone Policy. In addition, the subject matter of this case was to import goods, which were located outside China and were delivered to China for the purpose of performing the Contract. Thus, the subject matter of the Contract was not without any foreign element. 4) Chinese Civil Procedure Law and Arbitration Law do not stipulate that the arbitration agreement is invalid if the agreement to submit the dispute to a foreign arbitral commission does not containing foreign element. 2. Whether the content of arbitral award contained any mistakes is beyond the scope of the review of the Court in the process of recognition and enforcement. According to the New York Convention, the enforcing state can only review the procedural issues as well as the public policy issues stipulated by Article V of the Convention. The enforcing state cannot review the merits of the award. The issue raised by Golden Landmark that some goods had not been delivered according to the Contract falls beyond the scope of review. Besides, the award had already dealt with this issue. 3. Claimant Siemens's application for enforcement complies with the arbitral award and with Chinese law. The double interest clause stipulated under Article 253 of the Civil Procedure Law does not apply only to binding judgments rendered by Chines courts, but also applies to “other legal documents”. “Other legal documents” include a foreign arbitral award.
......
 针对黄金置地公司的上述答辩意见,西门子公司提出如下反驳意见:一、涉案仲裁协议应为有效,仲裁裁决应予承认与执行。1、在仲裁程序中,是黄金置地公司依据合同中的仲裁条款先行提出仲裁,在仲裁败诉后又以仲裁协议无效为由,要求拒绝承认与执行仲裁裁决,违背了诚实信用原则。2、裁决做出后,黄金置地公司已经履行了部分支付义务,说明其已承认并接受了仲裁裁决的法律效力。3、关于本案是否具有涉外因素问题,因西门子公司是外商投资企业,设立在上海外高桥保税区,根据我国保税区制度,本案当事人和合同内容并非“不具涉外因素”。此外,本案标的物的主要部分是进口货物,在合同签订时位于国外,并为履行合同目的运往中国,故本案合同标的并非“不具涉外因素”。4、我国民事诉讼法和仲裁法并未规定将没有涉外因素的纠纷提交外国仲裁机构的仲裁条款为无效。二、仲裁裁决的内容是否有误,不属于法院承认与执行阶段的审查内容。根据《纽约公约》的规定,执行地法院只能对公约第五条规定的程序性事项及公共利益进行审查,而不能对仲裁裁决的实体内容进行审查。黄金置地公司提出的合同项下部分货物未予交付的问题并不属于本案审查范围,何况仲裁裁决已经对此做出了认定。三、申请人西门子公司的执行请求事项符合裁决书和中国法律规定。我国民事诉讼法第二百五十三条规定的双倍罚息除适用于我国法院的生效判决外,还适用于“其他法律文书”,涉案外国仲裁裁决应包含在上述“其他法律文书”之列。
......

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 【¥700.00】 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