91精品国产99久久久久久红楼,欧美高清另类,欧美日韩中文在线观看,久久激情精品,91视频导航,亚洲欧美日韩一级,巨人精品福利官方导航

執(zhí)行國際仲裁裁決 “既判爭點禁反言”（Issue Estoppel）的應(yīng)用與爭議（第二部分）

2017年第09期    作者:李靄明    閱讀 11,020 次

英國 (持續(xù))

1.本文第一部分探討了“既判爭點禁反言”原則在英國仲裁裁決執(zhí)行的一個早期應(yīng)用。事實上，近年關(guān)于此原則于同類訴訟中的運用在英國亦再成為焦點，而相關(guān)判決更帶來了不少爭議。

2.在 Yukos Capital Sarl v OJSC Rosneft Oil Co [2012] EWCA Civ 855 一案中，Yukos 公司成功地于 2006 年在一家俄羅斯仲裁中獲勝并得到針對一個由俄羅斯政府操控的企業(yè) Rosneft 公司的四個裁決。但在 2009 年，作為仲裁地法院的俄羅斯法院接納了 Rosneft 公司提出的廢止裁決 (annulment of award) 申請。

3.接著于同年，Yukos 公司設(shè)法在荷蘭執(zhí)行同一仲裁裁決，并要求荷蘭法院拒絕承認(rèn)上述廢止，理由是俄羅斯法院在廢止聆訊中“不公正及不獨立” (partial and dependent)。這論點被荷蘭法院接納，最終允許執(zhí)行裁決。Yukos 公司因此能于荷蘭獲得裁決的部分執(zhí)行。

4.為能取得仲裁裁決的全部成果 (主要包括仲裁后的利息)，Yukos 公司進一步在英 國申請執(zhí)行仲裁裁決。其中的一個爭議在于英國法院應(yīng)否受制于荷蘭法院認(rèn)為俄羅斯法院廢止聆訊不公正及不獨立的判決而同樣地于英國拒絕執(zhí)行仲裁裁決。

5.在 2011 年，英國原訟庭裁定俄羅斯法院的廢止聆訊是否不公正及不獨立的問題正是英國法院須裁決的問題，而該問題已被荷蘭法院決定了，因此認(rèn)為“既判爭點禁反言”被確立，而 Yukos 公司亦成功取得仲裁裁決執(zhí)行的命令。 Rosneft 公司提出上訴。

6.在上訴中，關(guān)于“既判爭點禁反言”部分的判決被推翻。上訴庭雖同意“既判爭點禁反言”原則能適用于仲裁裁決執(zhí)行訴訟中，但它認(rèn)為荷蘭法院和英國法院分別要決定的是上述廢止聆訊有否違反各自的公共政策，而兩地關(guān)于公共政策的法律標(biāo)準(zhǔn)可能大為不同，因此兩地法院須處理的問題根本并不相同。上訴庭亦指出要確立俄羅斯法院在廢止聆訊中不公正，英國法院須依賴證據(jù)以支持該指稱而各項被指不公正的地方亦須特別地被列舉，舉證因此亦與荷蘭的法律要求不同。上訴庭最終裁定“既判爭點禁反言”沒有被確立，英國法院在此議題上不必遵從荷蘭法院的判決:

“151 The difficulty with Mr Pollock's submission is that “public order” or “public policy” is inevitably different in each country. The standards by which any particular country resolves the question whether the courts of another country are “partial and dependent” may vary considerably and it is also a matter of high policy to determine the circumstances in which this country should recognise the judgments of a state where the interests of that very state are at stake. Normally such recognition will be given and, if it is to be refused, cogent evidence of partiality and dependency will be required. Our own law is (or may be) that considerations of comity necessitate specific examples of partiality and dependency before any decision is made not to recognise the judgments of a foreign state. It is our own public order which defines the framework of any assessment of this difficult question; whether such decisions are truly to be regarded as dependent and partial as a matter of English law is not the same question as whether such decisions are to be regarded as dependent and partial in the view of some other court according to that court's notions of what is acceptable or otherwise according to its law.

…

153 It is thus clear that cogent evidence is required before it is possible to call a foreign court decision partial and dependent. The relevant degree of cogency may well differ in different countries.” (重點加強)

7.在本文第一部分提及的 Good Challenger 案例及上述的 Yukos 案例雖均認(rèn)同 “既判爭點禁反言”原則上能適用于仲裁裁決執(zhí)行訴訟中，但英國法院最終還是裁定有關(guān)的事實或情況不能令該原則被確立。

8.但不久之后，被認(rèn)為首個直接運用“既判爭點禁反言”原則拒絕仲裁裁決執(zhí)行的重要案例 Diag Human SE v Czech Republic [2014] EWHC 1639 (Comm) 終于在英國出現(xiàn)。

9.Diag Human 公司是一個血漿供應(yīng)商。它與捷克共和國的糾紛早于 1990 年初已開始。其后，雙方通過協(xié)議以仲裁形式解決紛爭。協(xié)議的第 V 條特別指出允許一個額外的仲裁結(jié)果審查程序，但各方須在仲裁裁決后的三十天內(nèi)提出。

10.在 2008 年 8 月，Diag Human公司在與捷克共和國的仲裁中最終獲勝。

11.仲裁裁決發(fā)出后雙方均根據(jù)協(xié)議分別啟動額外的仲裁結(jié)果審查程序，但Diag Human公司之后撤回其審查申誚。雙方曾就此撤回的效果發(fā)生爭議，Diag Human公司指責(zé)捷克共和國的審查申請并沒有得到捷克共和國部長的授權(quán)因此對方并沒有正確地啟動仲裁審查程序，認(rèn)為仲裁裁決應(yīng)具有約束力 (binding)。

12.Diag Human 公司并沒有在捷克共和國執(zhí)行仲裁裁決，但卻嘗試在其他國家如法國，戶森堡，英國，美國及奧地利等地進行執(zhí)行申請。

13.2011年7月，Diag Human公司在英國法院提出執(zhí)行申請， 英國法院亦批出了執(zhí)行仲裁裁決的準(zhǔn)許命令 (下稱“2011年命令”)。

14.但其后于 2013 年 4 月，奧地利最高法院認(rèn)為上述仲裁裁決是受制于由雙方協(xié)議所容許的額外審查程序的決定，因此裁定該仲裁裁決未能就《紐約公約》第五（一）（戊）條下的規(guī)定對被執(zhí)行方產(chǎn)生約束力 (not binding), 并拒絕執(zhí)行裁決。

15.于是Diag Human公司到英國提出進一步的執(zhí)行申請。而捷克共和國亦同時申請擱置2011年命令。

16.英國法院須處理的其中一個重要問題是“既判爭點禁反言”能否在此案被成立，以使當(dāng)奧地利最高法院拒絕執(zhí)行該仲裁裁決后，英國法院亦不應(yīng)允許其執(zhí)行。

17.Diag Human 公司認(rèn)為各國有不同方法決定一個裁決是否為最終及具約束力，因此認(rèn)為有關(guān)“既判爭點禁反言”的爭議并不存在，英國法院應(yīng)允許裁決在英國執(zhí)行。

18.英國法院申明“既判爭點禁反言”原則適用于根據(jù)《紐約公約》執(zhí)行的仲裁裁決中，并指本案不存在任何情況使英國法院不接納外國法院對裁決作無約束力的判決。

19.雖然 Eder 法官在判詞的第五十八段中同意關(guān)于何為公共政策的問題上各國或持不同法理見解，因此此等議題不會構(gòu)成“既判爭點禁反言”(如Yukos案例所指)。但Eder法官認(rèn)為奧地利最高法院所判決的問題，即本案是否有有效的裁決審查程序在進行中的問題，與英國法院需解決的問題是相同的。因此不管奧地利最高法院的判決在英國法律下是否正確，Diag Human 公司亦已不能訴諸同一議題 ，而這亦應(yīng)為本英國訴訟的結(jié)論。相關(guān)判詞原文如下:

“[59]However,in circumstances where a foreign court decides that an award is not "binding", I see no reason in principle why that decision should not give rise to an issue estoppel between the parties provided, of course, that the other conditions referred to above apply. In particular, provided that the issue is the same and that the decision can properly be said to be "on the merits", it does not seem to me that the fact that such decision was made in the context of enforcement proceedings as opposed to any other type of proceedings can, of itself, be material. Indeed, that is consistent with the view expressed in the leading textbook…

…

[62]  … There is no doubt that Diag Human's argument that there was in fact no valid review in process and that the Award was therefore binding for that reason was raised before the Supreme Court - as I understood Mr Cox accepted. However, that argument was, in effect, rejected by the Supreme Court. In any event and bearing fully in mind the importance of caution in interpreting any judgment of a foreign court, there is no doubt, in my view, that the issue actually determined by the Supreme Court was that the Award was not binding. It is true that that decision was reached in the context of enforcement proceedings brought pursuant to the Convention which is, as I understand, in effect directly enforceable in Austria whereas the present enforcement proceedings are brought pursuant to s 103 of the 1996 Act. However, in my view, that is a distinction without a difference given the background to that statutory provision and the fact that its purpose is to give statutory effect in this jurisdiction to the Convention; and I did not understand Mr Cox to suggest otherwise. In my judgment, that is sufficient to give rise to an issue estoppel to such effect ie the Award is not binding. As submitted by Mr Crane, Mr Cox's complaint is in truth that the decision of the Supreme Court is wrong as a matter of English law if not as a matter of Austrian law; but as stated above, it is irrelevant whether this court might consider such decision was wrong on the facts or as a matter of English law. For the avoidance of doubt, any overriding consideration that the application of the principles of issue estoppel must work justice rather than injustice does not, in my view, lead to any different consideration.” (重點加強)

20.Diag Human 案例的出現(xiàn)引起了相當(dāng)?shù)膰H討論，對裁決的意見亦不一。但可以肯定的是此案例為推翻國際仲裁裁決的執(zhí)行確立了更多的可能性，亦相對地為仲裁的執(zhí)行帶來了不確定性。

李靄明

香港執(zhí)業(yè)大律師, 獲香港中文大學(xué)法學(xué)頒授法律學(xué)位（JD）及英國劍橋大學(xué)法學(xué)碩士。

業(yè)務(wù)方向：商業(yè)及公司法，土地法，遺產(chǎn)法及公法等，亦為國際仲裁中各方作代表律師。