论法院对国际商事仲裁裁决程序性瑕疵的司法审查

发布时间：2018-06-13 07:00

本文选题：国际商事仲裁裁决 + 司法审查　；参考：《南京大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：法院对国际商事仲裁裁决作出拒绝承认与执行裁决的理由不一而足。纵观二十年来国际商事仲裁裁决被我国法院拒绝承认与执行的实践,不难发现,仲裁协议无效、超越权限、未获适当通知、未获充分陈述、仲裁庭组成或仲裁程序不当等为重要的理由。法官对前两种情形的判断几乎没有多大争议,而对后三种情形则拥有较大的自由裁量空间。因而,非常有必要对后三者这样的程序性瑕疵进行类型化分析,以便法院在进行司法审查时更好地把握其限度。程序性瑕疵一：未获适当通知。“未获适当通知”在实践中主要包括未得到指定仲裁员的适当通知和未得到仲裁程序的适当通知。而事实上,对于“适当通知”如何进行认定,法律和公约都只字未提。相关的理论认为,通知的发出主体因仲裁形态及仲裁程序所处的阶段不同而不同；通知的内容包括与委任仲裁员有关的通知和仲裁程序进行的通知等两方面；通知的送达方式可由当事人约定,并且随着通信技术的更新而进行方式的创新。考察相关案例,法院在通过法律解释来明确审查标准时,应该把握如下限度：一是法院认定“适当通知”须同时满足“适当”和“通知”两个要件；二是法院对指定仲裁员期限过短的抗辩持宽容态度；三是法院需警惕有违诚信原则的“无赖抗辩”。程序性瑕疵二：未获充分陈述。仲裁庭必须保证当事人有进行充分陈述的权利,否则该裁决将面临被撤销或被拒绝承认与执行的后果。未得到仲裁程序的适当通知,自然会导致当事人未能出庭陈述。除此之外,仲裁庭未给予当事人充分陈述的机会、剥夺当事人充分陈述的权利等也是此类程序性瑕疵的常见情况。但是,未获充分陈述也可能因为当事人自身的原因,具体包括仲裁当事人消极行为导致未参加仲裁、未能陈述、未充分陈述。据此,法院在审查“未获充分陈述”的抗辩时,应秉持支持仲裁的态度,并结合具体案情来把握未获充分陈述的抗辩和有违诚实信用原则的抗辩之间的界限。程序性瑕疵三：仲裁庭组成或仲裁程序不当。该类程序性瑕疵可以分为四类：仲裁庭组成与当事人的协议不符,仲裁庭组成与仲裁地国家的法律不符,仲裁程序与当事人的协议不符,仲裁程序与仲裁地国家的法律不符。面对此种程序性瑕疵,法院应充分尊重当事人意思自治,对当事人的选择予以合理保护；但是在尊重当事人选择的前提下,法院也必须审查当事人的约定与强制性法律之间的契合度。具体而言,法院应该审查双方对于仲裁庭组成的约定是否违反正当程序,当事人是否存在消极行为放弃异议权的情形等。总而言之,法院在审查程序性瑕疵时,应该遵守在程序审范围内谨慎行使自由裁量权的原则,采取以下三阶段的分步裁量：第一步,确定待审查的情形是否属于仲裁的程序性事项。第二步,确定此类程序性瑕疵是否属于严重的程序性瑕疵,是否足以严重损害当事人的程序权利。第三步,确定本案中是否存在当事人放弃异议权的情形。只有每个阶段的审查得到确定的答案之后,才可对裁决予以拒绝承认与执行。
[Abstract]:In the past two decades , international commercial arbitration awards have been rejected by our courts for recognition and enforcement . It is difficult to find that the arbitration agreement is null and void , exceeds the competence , has not been duly informed , has not been fully stated , the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the improper procedure of the arbitration proceedings are important reasons .

Procedural flaws I : Not properly notified . " The failure to give due notice " in practice includes , in practice , the failure to give due notice of the appointment of an arbitrator and an appropriate notice of the failure to obtain an arbitration procedure . In fact , the law and the convention are silent on how the appropriate notice is held . The relevant theory holds that the issue subject of the notice varies depending on the arbitration form and the phase of the arbitration procedure ;
The content of the notice includes two aspects , such as the notice relating to the appointment of the arbitrator and the notice of the arbitration proceedings ;
The notice shall be served in such a manner as to be agreed by the parties and innovated in accordance with the renewal of the communication technology . When the relevant cases are examined , the court shall grasp the following limits when making clear the examination standards through the interpretation of the law : one is that the court holds that " proper notice " shall meet both the " proper " and " notice " ;
Second , the court has a tolerant attitude towards the defence of the duration of the appointed arbitrator ;
Third , the court needs to be vigilant against the principle of good faith " rogue defense " .

Procedural flaws II : Not fully stated . The arbitral tribunal must ensure that the parties have the right to make a full statement or that the award will face the consequences of being withdrawn or denied recognition and enforcement . In addition , the absence of adequate notice of the arbitral proceedings may result in the failure of the parties to appear in court .

Procedural flaws III : Improper composition of arbitral tribunal or improper arbitration proceedings . Such procedural flaws may be divided into four categories : the composition of the arbitration tribunal does not accord with the agreement of the parties , and the arbitration procedure does not accord with the agreement of the parties , and the arbitration proceedings do not accord with the laws of the parties to the arbitration . In the face of such procedural flaws , the court shall fully respect the party ' s autonomy and reasonably protect the choice of the parties ;
However , on the premise of respecting the choice of the parties , the court must also review the agreement between the parties and the mandatory law . In particular , the court should examine whether the agreement of the parties to the composition of the arbitration tribunal violates due process , whether the party has negative behavior , or the case of giving up the right of objection .

In summary , when reviewing procedural flaws , the Court should observe the principle of discretion exercised within the scope of the procedure , take the following three stages of discretion : first , determine whether the situation to be examined is a procedural matter of arbitration . Step 2 , determine whether such procedural flaws are serious procedural flaws , whether it is sufficient to seriously harm the procedural rights of the parties . Step 3 , determine whether a party waives the right to challenge . Only after the review of each stage has been determined , the award may be denied recognition and enforcement .
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D997.4;D925.7

【参考文献】