>>>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
 
No.4 of Second Group of Model Cases Involving Construction of the “Belt and Road” Published by the Supreme People's Court: Siemens International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (Case concerning application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award)
最高法院发布的第二批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例之四:西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司与上海黄金置地有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案
【法宝引证码】

No.4 of Second Group of Model Cases Involving Construction of the “Belt and Road” Published by the Supreme People's Court: Siemens International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (Case concerning application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award)
(Case concerning application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award)
最高法院发布的第二批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例之四:西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司与上海黄金置地有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案
No.4 of Second Group of Model Cases Involving Construction of the “Belt and Road” Published by the Supreme People's Court: Siemens International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (Case concerning application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award) 最高法院发布的第二批涉“一带一路”建设典型案例之四:西门子国际贸易(上海)有限公司与上海黄金置地有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案
--Abiding by Obligations of Enforcing the Arbitral Award as Prescribed in the New York Convention and Creating a Quality Legal Environment in Pilot Free Trade Zones ——恪守《纽约公约》裁决执行义务营造自贸试验区优质法治环境

[Basic Facts]

 基本案情

On September 23, 2005, Shanghai Golden Landmark Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Golden Landmark Company”) and Siemens International Trade (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Siemens Company”) concluded a contract on supply of goods by means of invitation for bids. It was stipulated in the contract that Siemens Company should deliver equipment to the construction site before February 15, 2006 and if there was any dispute between the parties, they should submit it to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre for arbitral settlement. During the performance of the contract, the parties had a dispute. Golden Landmark Company initiated arbitration in the Singapore International Arbitration Centre and requested termination of the contract and suspension of payment for goods. In the arbitration procedure, Siemens Company initiated a counterclaim and requested full payment for goods, interest, and compensation for other losses. In November 2011, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre issued an arbitral award, in which the arbitration claims of Golden Landmark Company were dismissed and the arbitration counterclaim of Siemens Company was supported. Golden Landmark Company made a partial payment and it still owed the payment for goods and the interest thereof under the arbitral award, amounting to CNY5,133,872.3. In accordance with the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (namely, the New York Convention), Siemens Company instituted a claim in the No. 1 Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai Municipality for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award issued by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre. Golden Landmark Company contended that: The arbitral award should not be recognized and enforced on the ground that both parties were Chinese legal persons and the place where the contract was performed was also within the territory of China. The civil relationship involved had no foreign-related factors. The agreement between both parties on submitting any dispute to a foreign arbitration institution was invalid. If the arbitral award involved was recognized and enforced, it would violate the public policy of China.
 2005年9月23日,黄金置地公司与西门子公司通过招标方式签订了一份货物供应合同,约定西门子公司应于2006年2月15日之前将设备运至工地,如发生争议须提交新加坡国际仲裁中心进行仲裁解决。双方在合同履行中发生争议。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。西门子公司在仲裁程序中提出反请求,要求支付全部货款、利息并赔偿其他损失。2011年11月,新加坡国际仲裁中心作出裁决,驳回黄金置地公司的仲裁请求,支持西门子公司的仲裁反请求。黄金置地公司支付了部分款项,尚欠仲裁裁决项下未付款及利息合计人民币5133872.3元。西门子公司依据《承认与执行外国仲裁裁决公约》即《纽约公约》,向上海市第一中级人民法院请求承认和执行新加坡国际仲裁中心作出的仲裁裁决。黄金置地公司抗辩认为,应不予承认和执行该仲裁裁决,理由为:双方当事人均为中国法人,合同履行地也在国内,故案涉民事关系不具有涉外因素,双方约定将争议提交外国仲裁机构仲裁的协议无效,若承认和执行案涉裁决将有违中国的公共政策。
...... 裁判结果
 ......

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 【¥200.00】 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