| Reply of the Supreme People's Court to the Request for Instructions on Objection to Jurisdiction over Disputes on a Contract for Carriage of Goods by Sea in the Case of Lianyungang Xiangshun Mineral Resources Co. Ltd. v. Ugland Shipping A/S | | 最高人民法院关于连云港祥顺矿产资源有限公司与尤格兰航运有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷管辖权异议一案的请示的复函 |
| (No. 1 [2013] of the Civil Division IV of the Supreme People's Court on February 4, 2013) | | (2013年2月4日 (2013)民四他字第1号) |
| The Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality: | | 天津市高级人民法院： |
| Your Request for Instructions on Objection to Jurisdiction over Disputes on a Contract for Carriage of Goods by Sea in the Case of Lianyungang Xiangshun Mineral Resources Co. Ltd. v. Ugland Shipping A/S (No. 5 [2012], HPC, Tianjin) has been received. Upon deliberation, the following reply is hereby made: | | 你院(2012)津高民四他字第5号《关于连云港祥顺矿产资源有限公司与尤格兰航运有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷管辖权异议一案的请示》收悉。经研究，答复如下： |
| This Court held that, although it is stipulated on the back of the bill of lading that the arbitration clause of the charter party indicated on the front of the bill of lading is incorporated into the bill of lading, the stipulation on the incorporation of such a clause on the back of the bill of lading is not binding on the holder of the bill of lading. It is not indicated on the front of the bill of lading that the arbitration clause in the charter party is incorporated into the bill of lading. The record of “freight costs shall be paid in accordance with No. 1015NICKEL Charter Party entered into on September 19, 2010” also cannot produce legal effects that the arbitration clause of the charter party is incorporated into the bill of lading and thus is binding on the holder of the bill of lading. Accordingly, Ugland Shipping A/S failed to produce evidence to prove that there was an arbitration agreement between it and Lianyungang Xiangshun Mineral Resources Co. Ltd., so there is no factual basis for Ugland Shipping A/S to raise objection to jurisdiction. | | 我院认为，尽管提单背面约定了提单正面所示租船合同中的仲裁条款并入提单，但提单背面并入条款的约定不产生约束提单持有人的效力。该提单正面并未载明租船合同中的仲裁条款并入提单。关于“运费按2010年9月 19日1015NICKEL号租船合同支付”的记载，亦不能产生租船合同仲裁条款并入提单、约束提单持有人的法律效果。据此，尤格兰航运有限公司不能举证证明其与连云港祥顺矿产资源有限公司之间存在仲裁协议，尤格兰航运有限公司提出管辖权异议，没有事实依据。 |
| This Court concurs with your handling opinions. Involving a dispute over a contract for carriage of goods by sea, this case shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of a maritime court. The destination involved in this case is located in the territories under the jurisdiction of the Tianjin Maritime Court, and the Tianjin Maritime Court has jurisdiction over this case. | | 同意你院的处理意见，本案是海上货物运输合同纠纷，应由海事法院专门管辖。涉案运输目的地位于天津海事法院管辖地域范围，天津海事法院对本案具有管辖权。 |
| | 此复 |
| | 附： |
| | 天津市高级人民法院关于连云港祥顺矿产资源有限公司与尤格兰航运有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷管辖权异议一案的请示 |
| | (2012年11月21日 (2012)津高民四他字第5号) |
| | 最高人民法院： |
| | 连云港祥顺矿产资源有限公司(以下简称祥顺公司)与尤格兰航运有限公司(以下简称尤格兰公司)海上货物运输合同纠纷一案，尤格兰公司不服天津海事法院就管辖权问题作出的(2011)津海法商初字第515-1号民事裁定，向我院提起上诉。我院在上诉立案审查期间发现，该案系涉外案件，且涉及仲裁条款效力认定问题，天津海事法院未按《最高人民法院关于人民法院处理与涉外仲裁及外国仲裁事项有关问题的通知》(法发[1995]18号)的规定上报，因此我院现将该案有关情况向钧院请示。
．．．．．． |
|
| |
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
|
| | | |
| | | |