| Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request of the Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality for Instructions on the Case of the Application of Xiamen Langxun Software Development Co., Ltd. for the Revocation of an Arbitral Award | | 最高人民法院关于对北京市高级人民法院就厦门朗讯软件开发有限公司申请撤销仲裁裁决案件的请示的复函 |
| (No. 52 [2015] of the Civil Division IV of the Supreme People's Court on December 31, 2015) | | （2015年12月31日 (2015)民四他字第52号） |
| The Higher People's Court of Beijing Municipality: | | 北京市高级人民法院： |
| Your Request for Instructions on the Case of the Application of Xiamen Langxun Software Development Co., Ltd. for Revoking the Arbitral Award No. 0281 [2014] of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (No. 385 [2015], HPC, Beijng) has been received. Upon deliberation, the following reply is hereby made: | | 你院京高法[2015]385号《关于厦门朗讯软件开发有限公司申请撤销中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会[2014]中国贸仲京裁字第0281号仲裁裁决案件的请示》收悉。经研究，答复如下： |
| This case is an arbitration-related judicial review case triggered by the disputes over the amendment to and applicability of the arbitration rules, the jurisdiction of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“CIETAC”) and its former branch over the arbitration cases and other issues. Whether an award shall be revoked shall be reviewed under the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Official Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Request of the Higher People's Court of Shanghai Municipality and Other Courts for Instructions on Cases Involving Judicial Review of the Arbitral Awards Issued by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Former Sub-Commissions Thereof and Other Arbitration Institutions (Interpretation No. 15 [2015] of the Supreme People's Court, hereinafter referred to as the “Official Reply”) and other laws and judicial interpretations. The focus is whether the CIETAC has jurisdiction over the issues involved in the award and the understanding of Article 3 of the Official Reply. | | 本案系中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(以下简称中国贸仲)及其原分会因对仲裁规则的修改适用、仲裁案件的管辖权等问题产生争议而引发的仲裁司法审查案件，对裁决是否应予撤销的问题，应当根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》、《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》及本院法释[2015]15号《最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复》(以下简称《批复》)等法律及司法解释进行审查。焦点问题是中国贸仲对裁决所涉事项是否有管辖权，以及对《批复》第三条的理解。 |
| According to the facts as stated in your request for instructions, the Equity Transfer Agreement containing the arbitration agreement involved in this case was signed on April 27, 2007, before the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission South China Sub-Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “South China Sub-Commission”) was renamed South China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (also known as the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration, hereinafter referred to as the “CIETAC South China Sub-Commission”). The disputes under the Equity Transfer Agreement had been arbitrated for several times. The two arbitrations on October 22, 2010 and October 25, 2010 were both accepted and conducted by the South China Sub-Commission, and the two parties have fulfilled the relevant arbitrations and have not raised any objection against the jurisdiction of the aforesaid arbitrations. It shall be confirmed that both parties agree with the fact that the South China Sub-Commission is the arbitration institution jointly agreed by both parties. The South China Sub-Commission was renamed CIETAC South China Sub-Commission, but this change shall not affect the previous agreement of the parties. Meanwhile, the parties to the disputes involved in this case respectively applied for arbitration with the CIETAC South China Sub-Commission and the CIETAC. The CIETAC made a decision on having jurisdiction according to the application of the arbitration case applicant, but under the provisions of Article 20 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 2 of the Official Reply, as the respondent of the arbitration case has filed an application with the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen (hereinafter referred to as the “Intermediate Court of Shenzhen”) for confirming the validity of the arbitration agreement before the first hearing of the arbitration tribunal, the issue of jurisdiction of the CIETAC and the CIETAC South China Sub-Commission shall be determined by the people's court. As the arbitration agreement involved in this case was signed before the renaming concerning CIETAC South China Sub-Commission, under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Official Reply, the CIETAC South China Sub-Commission shall have jurisdiction over the disputes involved in this case. Furthermore, on January 20, 2015, the Intermediate Court of Shenzhen has rendered the civil ruling (No. 51 [2013] of the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen), specifically determining that the disputes involved in this case should be accepted by the CIETAC South China Sub-Commission. Therefore, the CIETAC has no jurisdiction over the disputes involved in this case and has no authority to arbitrate. | | 根据你院请示所述事实，含有案涉仲裁协议的《股权转让协议》签订于2007年4月27日，签订时间在中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会 (以下简称华南分会)更名为华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(又名深圳国际仲裁院，以下简称华南贸仲)之前。《股权转让协议》项下争议曾发生多次仲裁。2010年10月22日以及10月25日的两次仲裁皆由华南分会受理并裁决，双方当事人已经履行相关裁决，对前述仲裁的管辖问题皆未提异议。应当认为，双方当事人对华南分会是双方共同约定的仲裁机构并无不同意见。尽管华南分会此后更名为华南贸仲，但该变更并不影响此前当事人的约定。同时，案涉争议当事人分别向华南贸仲和中国贸仲申请仲裁，尽管中国贸仲根据仲裁案件申请人的申请作出有管辖权的决定，但根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第二十条以及《批复》第二条之规定，由于仲裁案件被申请人已经于仲裁庭首次开庭前向深圳市中级人民法院(以下简称深圳中院)申请确认仲裁协议效力，中国贸仲和华南贸仲的管辖权问题应由人民法院裁定。由于案涉仲裁协议签订时间在华南贸仲更名之前，根据《批复》第一条第一款的规定，华南贸仲对案涉争议享有管辖权。且深圳中院已于2015年1月20日作出(2013)深中法涉外仲字第51号民事裁定，明确作出了案涉争议由华南贸仲受理的认定。由上，中国贸仲对案涉争议没有管辖权，无权仲裁。 |
| As to the understanding of Article 3 of the Official Reply, in consideration of the context of the Official Reply, Article 3 shall be applicable under two premises. First, the people's court has not accepted the litigation of a party applying for the confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement and has not rendered any ruling, otherwise the result rendered in a valid ruling of the people's court shall prevail. Second, there is no circumstance under which two institutions concurrently accept a case and render rulings, otherwise the provisions of Article 4 of the Official Reply shall be applicable. As the aforesaid premises do not exist in this case, Article 3 of this Official Reply shall not be applicable for the handling of this case. | | 关于《批复》第三条的理解。结合《批复》上下文，第三条的适用应有两个前提。一是人民法院并未受理当事人申请确认仲裁协议效力之诉并作出裁定，否则应以人民法院生效裁定认定的为准。二是不存在两个机构同时受理和作出裁决的情况，否则应适用《批复》第四条之规定。本案不具备以上前提，不应适用《批复》第三条处理本案。 |
| In summary, the CIETAC has no jurisdiction over the disputes involved in this case and has no authority to arbitrate. Under the provisions of item 2 of paragraph 1 of Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Articles 1 and 4 of the Official Reply, the arbitral award involved in this case shall be revoked. This Court concurs with your opinions in your Request for Instructions that the arbitral award involved in this case shall be revoked. | | 综上，中国贸仲对案涉争议不享有管辖权，无权仲裁。根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第五十八条第一款第二项、《批复》第一条及第四条的规定，案涉仲裁裁决应予撤销。同意你院关于撤销案涉仲裁裁决的请示意见。 |
| | 此复 |
| | 附： |
| | 北京市高级人民法院关于厦门朗讯软件开发有限公司申请 |
| | 撤销中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会[2014]中国贸仲京裁字第0281号仲裁裁决案件的请示 |
| | （2015年11月20日 京高法[2015]385号） |
| | 最高人民法院： |
| | 北京市第二中级人民法院受理了申请人厦门朗讯软件开发有限公司申请撤销中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会[2014]中国贸仲京裁字第0281号仲裁裁决一案，该院认为涉案裁决具有《中华人民共和国仲裁法》第五十八条第一款第(三)项规定的“仲裁庭的组成或者仲裁的程序违反法定程序的”情形，应予撤销。该案虽非涉外仲裁裁决，但对于《最高人民法院关于对上海市高级人民法院等就涉及中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会及其原分会等仲裁机构所作仲裁裁决司法审查案件请示问题的批复》中相关规定如何适用亦需请示。经研究，现将该案有关情况报告并请示如下： |
| | 一、当事人基本情况 |
| | 申请人(仲裁被申请人)厦门朗讯软件开发有限公司，住所地福建省厦门市思明区莲滨里28-33号第一层B7单元。 |
| | 法定代表人陈鹏玲，董事长。 |
| | 委托代理人郭磊明，万商天勤(深圳)律师事务所律师。 |
| | 委托代理人郑少娜，万商天勤(深圳)律师事务所律师。 |
| | 被申请人(仲裁申请人)深圳市中科远东创业投资有限公司，住所地广东省深圳市福田区中心区深南大道4009号投资大厦13楼C2-2。 |
| | 法定代表人刘龙华，董事长。 |
| | 委托代理人赵承阳，男，×年×月×日出生，汉族，深圳市中科远东创业投资有限公司法务专员，住北京市石景山区八宝山南路× ×。 |
| | 委托代理人韩雄杰，男，×年×月×日出生，朝鲜族，深圳市中科远东创业投资有限公司法务专员，住吉林省延吉市进学街× ×。 |
| | 二、北京市第二中级人民法院(以下简称二中院) 审理的基本情况 |
| | (一)申请人申请撤销的理由 |
| | 厦门朗讯软件开发有限公司(以下简称朗讯公司)申请称： |
| | 1.中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(以下简称中国贸仲)对本案没有受理权，并在人民法院对仲裁协议效力进行立案和审理的情况下拒不中止案件审理。 |
| | 2007年4月，朗讯公司和深圳市中科远东创业投资有限公司(以下简称中科远东公司)及其他六方共同签订了《股权转让协议》，朗讯公司根据该协议规定受让了中科远东公司持有的莱斯达航空服务(集团)有限公司(以下简称莱斯达公司)7．5385％股权(以下简称标的股权)，该协议还规定任何争议均应由“中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会”仲裁。此后，由于中科远东公司的违约行为，双方曾多次发生争议，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会华南分会(以下简称华南分会)在2008年7月和2010年分别立案对双方争议进行了审理。2009年5月，华南分会以[2009]中国贸仲深裁字第D76号裁决书对双方争议进行了裁决。2011年10月，华南分会又以[2011]中国贸仲深裁字第D93号裁决书对本案的其他争议进行裁决。根据上述裁决，朗讯公司和中科远东公司之间的《股权转让协议》已经解除，中科远东公司应承担相应的法律责任。 |
| | 此后，中科远东公司为了逃避其法律义务，以明显不成立的事实和理由于2012年10月25日向华南国际经济贸易仲裁委员会(又名深圳国际仲裁院，以下简称华南国仲)提起仲裁，华南国仲受理了此案，案号为SHEN DT2012208。2013年2月26日，在没有向华南国仲撤回仲裁申请的情况下，中科远东公司又以同样的事实和理由向中国贸仲提起仲裁。直至2013年3月份，中科远东公司才向华南国仲申请撤回本案仲裁请求。由于中国贸仲受理该案和双方约定不符，朗讯公司根据《中华人民共和国仲裁法》(以下简称《仲裁法》)的规定就《股权转让协议》中仲裁条款的效力及该案的管辖权，向深圳市中级人民法院提起诉讼，并于2013年3月26日由深圳市中级人民法院受理，案号为(2013)深中法涉外仲字第51号。在案件立案当天，朗讯公司向中国贸仲告知该案已由深圳市中级人民法院受理，中国贸仲及各方应等待法院的裁决结果。根据《仲裁法》第二十条的规定，对于仲裁协议效力有异议的，“一方请求仲裁委员会作出决定，另一方请求人民法院作出决定的，由人民法院裁定”。但是，在接到朗讯公司的告知函后，中国贸仲不仅不中止案件，反而继续进行案件审理及其他工作并作出[2014]中国贸仲京裁字第0281号裁决书，严重违反了法定程序，依照《仲裁法》第五十八条的规定，该裁决书依法应予撤销。
．．．．．． |
|
| |
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
|
| | | |
| | | |