全国服务热线：
18521536308最高院指导性案例第200号英文版
2022-06-25
（版权声明：最高院指导性案例第200号英文版译著由上海金律团翻译有限公司的张佳奇律师翻译完成。未经本公司许可，不得擅自复制传播！）
Guiding Case No. 200:
Svensk Honungsförädling AB's Application for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitration Award
Source: Supreme People's Court
Guiding Case No. 200
Svensk Honungsförädling AB's Application for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitration Award
(Discussed and passed by the SPC Judicial Committee and published on December 27, 2022)
Points for determination
The arbitration agreement only stipulates that the dispute shall be settled through fast arbitration, but if the arbitration institution is not clearly stipulated, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal shall make an award, which does not belong to the situation stipulated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign awards. If the respondent claims that the adoption of ad hoc arbitration is not in conformity with the arbitration agreement, the people's court will not support it.
Legal rules applied
1. Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Article 283 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), as amended on June 27, 2017, is applicable to this case).
2. Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign awards
Basic facts
On May 17th, 2013, Nanjing Changli Bees Product Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Changli Bees"), as the Seller, and Svensk Honungsförädling AB (hereinafter referred to as "Svensk)", as the Buyer, entered into Contract No. NJRS13001 in respect of honey sales in English, which contains an arbitration clause, stating "in case of disputes governed by Swedish law and that disputes should be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden".In addition, the Contract contains the following quality standard: Other parameters of the Honey shall comply with the European Standard (2001/112/EC, December 20, 2001) and be free from American foulbrood, microsporidia, varroosis, etc.
Disputes over the quality of honey arose between the Parties during the performance of the Contract. On February 23rd, 2015, Svensk filed a request for arbtration to the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in respect of Contract with Changli Bees as the respondent, claiming compensation from Changli Bees. On December 18, 2015, the Arbitration Institute made an arbitration award No. SCCF2015/023 on the grounds of its lack of jurisdiction, rejecting Swansk's request for arbitration.
On March 22, 2016, Svensk filed a request for ad hoc arbitration in respect of the Contract in Sweden with Changli Bees as the respondent. During the review of the request for arbitratiion, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal and the Stockholm District Court mailed appropriate documents to Changli Bees and its legal representative. But as of May 4, 2017, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal did not receive any other opinions except for two emails from Changli Bees stating that there was no arbitration clause in the Contract and Swedish law were not applicable. Afterwards, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal received a submission from the attorney of Changli Bees proposing a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and requesting the time period for submitting a statement of answer. On March 5 and 6, 2018, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal organized a hearing between the Parties. During the hearing, neither the attorney nor the legal representative of Changli Bees challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The ad hoc arbitral tribunal made the following award on June 9, 2018 in accordance with the Swedish Arbitration Act: 1. Changli Bees has violated the Contract and shall pay Svensk US$ 286,230 and interest thereon; and 2. Changli Bees shall compensate Svensk for SEK 781,614 and HK$ 1,021,718.45.
On November 22, 2018, Svensk applied to the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province, for recognition and enforcement of the above award.
During the court review, both Parties agreed that the arbitration clause in the Contract should be interpreted in accordance with Swedish law. Swansk believed that the dispute settlement clause should be interpreted as follows: "In case of any dispute, the dispute shall be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden in accordance with the Swedish law." Changli Bees believed that the clause should be interpreted as follows: "Any dispute governed by the Swedish law shall be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden."
Judgment
On July 15, 2019, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province made the civil order (2018) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 8, which recognized the validity and enforceability of the award made by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal composed of PeterThorp, Sture Larsson and Nils Eliasson on June 9, 2018 in respect of the Contract No. NJRS13001 between Svensk and Changli Bees.
Rationale
According to the effective court decree, it is confirmed, based on the facts ascertained and recognized, that the arbitration award made by the ad hoc arbitral tribunal composed of Peter Thorp, Sture Larsson and Nils Eliasson does not fall under the circumstances of refusing to recognize and enforce as stipulated in Item (b), (c), or (d) of Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, nor does it violate the terms of the reservation declaration made by the PRC upon accession to the Convention or the public policy of the PRC, nor are the matters in dispute unarbitrable. Therefore, the award should be recognized and enforced.
Whether the procedure of the ad hoc arbitration award is in violation of the arbitration agreement. This issue in dispute is a matter of the Parties' different understandings of the dispute settlement clause "in case of disputes governed by Swedish law and that disputes should be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden." From the meaning of the Chinese version of the clause, the Parties had not difference in the settlement of disputes by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden, but only had a difference in whether Expedited Arbitration may be proceeded by ad hoc arbitration. Compared with ordinary arbitration, Expedited Arbitration is more efficient, convenient and economical. Its key role lies in simplifying arbitration procedures, shortening arbitration time, reducing arbitration costs, etc., so that disputes between the parties can be resolved in a more efficient, and economical manner. For a permanent arbitration institution, an ad hoc arbitral tribunal is also efficient, convenient, and economical. In this case, both Parties agreed to settle their disputes by expedited arbitration, which does not exclude the resolution of disputes by ad hoc arbitration. And the Parties did not raise any objections to ad hoc arbitration. In such a case, the award made by the ad hoc arbitral tribunal conforms to the agreement of the Parties. Therefore, it should be determined that resolution of the disputes involved in the case by the ad hoc arbitral tribunal does not contradict with the arbitration agreement.
Guiding Case No. 200:
Svensk Honungsförädling AB's Application for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitration Award
Source: Supreme People's Court
Guiding Case No. 200
Svensk Honungsförädling AB's Application for Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitration Award
(Discussed and passed by the SPC Judicial Committee and published on December 27, 2022)
Points for determination
The arbitration agreement only stipulates that the dispute shall be settled through fast arbitration, but if the arbitration institution is not clearly stipulated, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal shall make an award, which does not belong to the situation stipulated in Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign awards. If the respondent claims that the adoption of ad hoc arbitration is not in conformity with the arbitration agreement, the people's court will not support it.
Legal rules applied
1. Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Article 283 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), as amended on June 27, 2017, is applicable to this case).
2. Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign awards
Basic facts
On May 17th, 2013, Nanjing Changli Bees Product Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Changli Bees"), as the Seller, and Svensk Honungsförädling AB (hereinafter referred to as "Svensk)", as the Buyer, entered into Contract No. NJRS13001 in respect of honey sales in English, which contains an arbitration clause, stating "in case of disputes governed by Swedish law and that disputes should be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden".In addition, the Contract contains the following quality standard: Other parameters of the Honey shall comply with the European Standard (2001/112/EC, December 20, 2001) and be free from American foulbrood, microsporidia, varroosis, etc.
Disputes over the quality of honey arose between the Parties during the performance of the Contract. On February 23rd, 2015, Svensk filed a request for arbtration to the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce in respect of Contract with Changli Bees as the respondent, claiming compensation from Changli Bees. On December 18, 2015, the Arbitration Institute made an arbitration award No. SCCF2015/023 on the grounds of its lack of jurisdiction, rejecting Swansk's request for arbitration.
On March 22, 2016, Svensk filed a request for ad hoc arbitration in respect of the Contract in Sweden with Changli Bees as the respondent. During the review of the request for arbitratiion, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal and the Stockholm District Court mailed appropriate documents to Changli Bees and its legal representative. But as of May 4, 2017, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal did not receive any other opinions except for two emails from Changli Bees stating that there was no arbitration clause in the Contract and Swedish law were not applicable. Afterwards, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal received a submission from the attorney of Changli Bees proposing a challenge to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and requesting the time period for submitting a statement of answer. On March 5 and 6, 2018, the ad hoc arbitral tribunal organized a hearing between the Parties. During the hearing, neither the attorney nor the legal representative of Changli Bees challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. The ad hoc arbitral tribunal made the following award on June 9, 2018 in accordance with the Swedish Arbitration Act: 1. Changli Bees has violated the Contract and shall pay Svensk US$ 286,230 and interest thereon; and 2. Changli Bees shall compensate Svensk for SEK 781,614 and HK$ 1,021,718.45.
On November 22, 2018, Svensk applied to the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province, for recognition and enforcement of the above award.
During the court review, both Parties agreed that the arbitration clause in the Contract should be interpreted in accordance with Swedish law. Swansk believed that the dispute settlement clause should be interpreted as follows: "In case of any dispute, the dispute shall be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden in accordance with the Swedish law." Changli Bees believed that the clause should be interpreted as follows: "Any dispute governed by the Swedish law shall be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden."
Judgment
On July 15, 2019, the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province made the civil order (2018) Su 01 Xie Wai Ren No. 8, which recognized the validity and enforceability of the award made by an ad hoc arbitral tribunal composed of PeterThorp, Sture Larsson and Nils Eliasson on June 9, 2018 in respect of the Contract No. NJRS13001 between Svensk and Changli Bees.
Rationale
According to the effective court decree, it is confirmed, based on the facts ascertained and recognized, that the arbitration award made by the ad hoc arbitral tribunal composed of Peter Thorp, Sture Larsson and Nils Eliasson does not fall under the circumstances of refusing to recognize and enforce as stipulated in Item (b), (c), or (d) of Paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, nor does it violate the terms of the reservation declaration made by the PRC upon accession to the Convention or the public policy of the PRC, nor are the matters in dispute unarbitrable. Therefore, the award should be recognized and enforced.
Whether the procedure of the ad hoc arbitration award is in violation of the arbitration agreement. This issue in dispute is a matter of the Parties' different understandings of the dispute settlement clause "in case of disputes governed by Swedish law and that disputes should be settled by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden." From the meaning of the Chinese version of the clause, the Parties had not difference in the settlement of disputes by Expedited Arbitration in Sweden, but only had a difference in whether Expedited Arbitration may be proceeded by ad hoc arbitration. Compared with ordinary arbitration, Expedited Arbitration is more efficient, convenient and economical. Its key role lies in simplifying arbitration procedures, shortening arbitration time, reducing arbitration costs, etc., so that disputes between the parties can be resolved in a more efficient, and economical manner. For a permanent arbitration institution, an ad hoc arbitral tribunal is also efficient, convenient, and economical. In this case, both Parties agreed to settle their disputes by expedited arbitration, which does not exclude the resolution of disputes by ad hoc arbitration. And the Parties did not raise any objections to ad hoc arbitration. In such a case, the award made by the ad hoc arbitral tribunal conforms to the agreement of the Parties. Therefore, it should be determined that resolution of the disputes involved in the case by the ad hoc arbitral tribunal does not contradict with the arbitration agreement.
- 联系电话： 18521536308、
- 微 信 号：ZJQ18521536308
- Q Q：3053323860
- 邮 箱：EliteLawyers@outlook.com
扫码关注我们
Copyright 2021 上海金律团翻译有限公司 All Rights Reserved 沪ICP备2022023473号-1
技术支持：索腾网络
