法国–国际仲裁裁决的执行

13 2 月 2018

法国

仲裁

Québec’s international (and domestic) arbitration rules are codified in the Code of Civil Procedure (the “CCP”) and were first enacted over thirty years ago as part of a major, progressive reform of arbitration law in the Province. This reform was inspired by the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “Model Law”) and sought to promote arbitration as a means of private dispute resolution.

Today, each of the other Canadian provinces have separate legislation that governs international arbitration that is, like Québec, largely based on the Model Law.

Frequently in the context of commercial arbitrations, a party seeks the specific enforcement of the terms of a contract, or, for example, other types of protective or preservation orders. An important issue that has arisen under Québec law over the years is whether an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to render these types of orders, which are injunctive in nature.

Until 2011, there was serious debate in Québec as to whether an arbitrator had the power to render orders of specific performance, namely orders that force a party to an arbitration to do something, or not to do something. The debate stemmed from the fact that: (1) orders of specific performance can be akin to an injunction – which is defined in the CCP as “an order enjoining a person not to do or to cease doing something or, in applicable cases, to perform an act or operation under pain of all legal penalties” – and the CCP expressly provides that the Superior Court of Québec, Québec’s court of original jurisdiction and the highest trial court in the Province (the “SCQ”), has the exclusive jurisdiction to issue the extraordinary remedy of an injunction; and (2) a specific article in the CCP provided that a “judge or court” (as opposed to an arbitrator) could grant provisional measures before or during arbitral proceedings.

In 2011, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the “QCA”), Québec’s highest court, rendered a decision (Service Bérubé Ltée v. General Motors du Canada Ltée, 2011 QCCA 567) (“Bérubé”) that examined the question of whether an arbitrator could order the performance of a contract by a party to an arbitration. More specifically, in Bérubé, a key issue was whether the arbitrator could force General Motors to renew a franchise agreement with its franchisee. The QCA held that not all orders of specific performance were akin to an injunction and that arbitrators can enforce the performance of a contract that is at issue before them.

A year later, in 2012, in a highly anticipated decision (Nearctic Nickel Mines Inc. v. Canadian Royalties Inc., 2012 QCCA 385) (“Nearctic Nickel”), the QCA reaffirmed that arbitrators can order specific performance of contractual obligations that do not amount to injunctions. In Nearctic Nickel, consistent with the terms of a joint venture agreement between the parties, an arbitrator ordered a minority partner to transfer its interest in a mining property to the majority partner. The QCA held that this order did not constitute an injunction but rather, “was tantamount to an order to convey title and where the award itself is equivalent to the specific performance of the contractual obligations.” The QCA did not, however, expressly hold that an arbitrator could issue an injunction.

In rendering its decision in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA rejected the assertion that an arbitrator never possessed the power to grant orders of an injunctive nature because, without limitation: (1) in Québec, specific performance of an obligation (as opposed to pecuniary damages) is, in cases where this is possible, the rule and this can be obtained through an injunction or a simple court order; (2) this interpretation would be incompatible with the codified principle in the CCP that arbitrators “have all of the necessary powers for the exercise of their jurisdiction”; and (3) consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s (the “SCC”), Canada’s final court of appeal, modern interpretation of arbitration as a “complete system of alternate dispute resolution”, the powers granted to arbitrators should include the possibility for arbitrators to render awards to be executed by specific performance that do not require court intervention.

In deciding whether the order of an arbitrator is the equivalent of an injunction, the QCA noted as follows:

[63] In order to appreciate whether an arbitrator issued a particular order which would be tantamount to an injunction, one must look at the commercial agreement, determine the true intentions of the parties and decide whether, in light of all the circumstances, the pith and substance of the order truly constitutes an injunction with all of its known penal implications or whether it is more of a declaratory nature which serves the purpose of giving full effect to the Arbitrator’s determinations of the parties’ rights.

Of note in Nearctic Nickel, the QCA also indicated, in obiter, that an arbitral tribunal could grant provisional measures even where the parties’ agreement was silent on this issue. In support of this position, the QCA relied on the fact that the Model Law (article 17) expressly provides that arbitrators have the power to grant interim measures and this article was expressly incorporated in the CCP with respect to inter-provincial and international arbitration and that it would not make sense for domestic arbitration in Québec to follow different rules.

The SCC refused leave to appeal from the QCA’s decision in Nearctic Nickel (19 July 2012, No. 34801). As is always the case when the SCC dismisses an application for leave to appeal, it did not provide reasons for its decision.

In 2016, the CCP provisions dealing with arbitration were amended, including to take into account amendments to the Model Law. As part of these significant amendments, the legislator added article 638 CCP, which provides that “[t]he arbitrator may, on a party’s request, take any provisional measure or any measure to safeguard the parties’ rights […].” The legislator also added article 639 CCP, which provides that in urgent situations, even before a party requests provisional or safeguard measures, the arbitrator may issue “provisional orders” for a period not exceeding twenty days. In addition, in article 646 CCP, which deals with the grounds on which a court can refuse to homologate (recognize) an arbitral award, the legislator added the following underlined terms: “The court cannot refuse to homologate an arbitration award or a provisional or safeguard measure unless it is proved that […].”

Subsequent to the 2016 amendments to the CCP, the ratio of the QCA’s decisions in Bérubé and Nearctic Nickel was applied by the SCQ in a 2017 decision in Truong v. Syndicat des copropriétaires Appartements Miraflor, 2017 QCCS 3673 (“Truong”). In Truong, the Court reaffirmed that in Québec, an arbitrator can issue an order of specific performance that is not necessarily an injunction.

More recently, the question of an arbitrator’s powers and more specifically whether an arbitrator can issue a safeguard order that was akin to a Mareva injunction (i.e., a freezing order to prevent a party from dealing with its assets) was considered by the SCQ in the case of Hachette Distribution Services (Canada) Inc. c. 2295822 Canada Inc., 2018 QCCS 1213 (“Hachette”). In Hachette, the SCQ noted the legislator’s clear recognition, in enacting article 646 CCP, that an arbitral tribunal has the power to grant provisional measures or safeguard orders. The SCQ noted that an arbitrator’s ability to do so must be linked to the arbitrator’s mandate, which must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner.

It should be noted that in Ontario, the Arbitration Act (Ontario) expressly provides that an arbitrator can render orders of specific performance and injunctions. The same is true under the relevant arbitration legislation in a number of other Canadian provinces.

The author of this post is David Stolow.

众所周知，法国法律对执行国际仲裁裁决（特别是在法国境外作出的仲裁裁决）极为有利。如果对方当事人在法国拥有资产，这个法院应相应地把它视为一项优先事项。

下文介绍了为在法国执行国际仲裁裁决而采取的必要步骤。请注意，所述的某些步骤只是潜在的，取决于另一方可能抵制执行的意愿。

步骤 1: 获取司法确认

该裁决被提交给巴黎民事法院（Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris）的首席法官，由他决定是否给予司法确认。没有要归档的简报。

首席法官的答复所需的时间因法院的工作量和他能否出庭而大不相同。不过，在特殊紧急情况下，总可以与办事员在办公室商讨，来处理紧急事宜。

在实际操作中，需要下列文件才能继续工作：裁决的原件或经核证的副本、裁决的经认证的译文、仲裁协议的副本以及每份文件的经认证的副本和一份补充副本。

步骤2：保护司法确认

如果批准或拒绝司法确认，可在其裁决开始后一个月内向巴黎上诉法院提出上诉。如果上诉方在国外注册或有住所，则可申请额外的距离延期。

如果批准司法确认，对方当事人往往试图以《法国民事诉讼法》（«CCP»）第1520条的限制理由质疑该裁决在法国的可执行性，理由通常是：

仲裁庭错误地支持或无管辖权，
仲裁庭的组成不规范，
仲裁庭作出的裁决未与诉讼请求保持一致，
违反了正当程序要求，或
该裁决的承认或执行将违反法国的国际公共政策。

在目前的司法环境中，令人感兴趣的是巴黎上诉法院的新的判例法，允许对仲裁庭在所谓的贿赂案件中的事实调查结果进行有限的修订（见AD newsflash）。

在提出上诉后，对方当事人必须在3个月内就上诉提交完整的意见书，被告自上诉人提交上诉书的日期起，有3个月的时间来答复上诉人（新的延误按照自2017年9月生效的2017年5月6日的改革）。

提出附加的意见书，额外增加一套是常见的做法，而且一次听审通常安排在上诉人向法院提出初步声明后18个月左右进行。

必须指出的是，在这类诉讼中，已准予执行裁决的裁决在法国仍然具有可执行性，因此，除非被告向法院提出中止执行的具体申请，否则该裁决的受益人在继续获取利益的过程中将不存任何障碍。（《刑事诉讼法》第1526条）

步骤3：维护裁决的即时可执行性（可能）

为了把不公正地损害被执行裁决的一方的特殊情况考虑在内，《刑事诉讼法》保留在特殊情况下请求上诉法院中止执行裁决的可能性。

在这种情况下，债务人必须证明，强制执行将对其权利造成严重的有害后果（第1526条2款）。符合的标准是限制性的。当裁决的受益人是一家外国公司时，通常会要求将款项提存，而不是立即转给受益人，理由是如果对方当事人对执行令的上诉胜诉，它将很难收回资金。

这些程序通常会被加快(在1个月或2个月内进行审理)。对方当事人在对司法确认令提出上诉后立即提出请求。根据听证日期，需要迅速提交一份简要答复。

步骤4：扣押资产

扣押资金

在收到司法确认令后，执达吏可下令扣押在法国银行账户中的任何资金。

该过程是一个“saisie-attribution”，以下简称“扣押”。执达吏得到指示，前往有关银行总部，通知银行扣押与裁决相对应的款项。

请注意，法国执达吏可以访问一个名为FICOBA的特定文件，该文件向他们提供债务人的开户银行的名称。

一旦执达吏要求银行提供资金，银行就有义务提供可用资金的详细资料。大多数银行会在同一天被组织起来答执达吏的要求。

一旦执达吏对资金执行扣押，该款项即被视为债权人的财产，债务人不得使用。这可能使债务人的业务陷于瘫痪，因此建议谨慎行使扣押。

然后在8天内将扣押通知债务人。

这些资金仍然处于冻结状态，以便债务人提出潜在的质疑（1个月）。

扣押其他种类的资产

当然，可以根据法国法律扣押其他各种资产（不动产、公司股票、债券等）。扣押金通常是最容易的。

步骤5：对方当事人对扣押的质疑（可能）

在收到扣押通知后一个月内，被扣押方有权向执行官（“Juge de l’exécution”或“JEX”）提出质疑。

对方当事人可以提出的论点通常涉及扣押本身，并且不涉及司法确认令的有效性，因为其他程序可出于这一目的。

在JEX之前通常需要交换几份辩护状和举行一场听证会。

可以对JEX的决定提出上诉。上诉并不妨碍执行。但是，存在特别程序要求上诉法院在某些条件下中止执行（有明显过分的后果）。

总之，这一过程相当简单明了，即使债务人有合法的追索权，而且上述措施可能显得相当具有技术性。一旦债权人获得了司法确认，潜在的公共力量就会自然而然地被给予债权人。

请注意，尽管众所周知，法国法院在判决法律费用方面并不慷慨，但有些判决在这一领域已经用了大量款项（例如，在CA Paris，26日9月2017年的60万欧元，第16/15338号）因此，在成功的情况下，强制执行的费用由债务人承担。

这篇文章的作者是Flore Poloni

如何确保你的债权在长期内可以得到执行？如果满足某些条件，债权人可以冻结债务人在瑞士所拥有的资产。在实践中，在两种情况下资产可被扣押：第一种情况是债权人对在瑞士没有住所的债务人主张债权；第二种情况是债权人持有可执行的判决或裁决。

毫无疑问，尽管面临着监管压力，瑞士金融业在当今金融界依旧发挥着主导作用。因此，瑞士管辖权有利于希望对持有瑞士银行账户或其他资产的债务人主张债权的债权人。尽管实践表明，被查封的主要是银行账户，但其他资产，如房地产，艺术品或对第三方的索赔同样可以被扣押。

经过申请，债权人可以指示银行所在地或资产所在地的瑞士法院实施单方面冻结以对抗在瑞士拥有资产的债务人，如果提出申请的债权人可以初步证明自己满足以下瑞士联邦债务执行与破产法（“DEBA”）中规定的三个条件：

（一）请求冻结令的债权人有一个成熟无担保债权；

（二）存在冻结请求的法律依据；

（三）债务人的资产位于瑞士。

正如前文所指，冻结请求的最相关因素是：

（一）债务人不在瑞士居住，债权本身与瑞士有足够的联系，或基于由债务人签署的确定的债务（“对非瑞士居民财产的扣押”）；

（二）债权人对债务人有可执行的法院判决或仲裁裁决（“可强制执行的所有权”）。

对非瑞士居民财产的扣押：根据瑞士联邦债务执行与破产法，仅仅是资产位于瑞士不足以建立“与瑞士的充分联系”。“与瑞士的充分联系”的要求，很大程度上取决于瑞士法院以逐案审查的标准审查的具体事实。瑞士法院认为足够的联系应建立在以下情况下：基本合同在瑞士签订或履行，基本合同受瑞士法律管辖，债权人居住在瑞士，债权人的债权与瑞士的商业活动有关联。

可强制执行的所有权：此为冻结请求的第二种因素，债权人需要有可强制执行的所有权。瑞士联邦债务执行与破产法没有区分国内和外国法院判决或仲裁裁决。假设它们均可被强制执行（无论是根据卢加诺公约、瑞士国际私法可强制执行判决或根据纽约公约可强制执行在非瑞士地区仲裁的裁决），所有的判决和裁决均可以作为扣押位于瑞士的资产的因素。

瑞士法院将要求债权人在上文所述的扣押的先决因素下提供初步证据。因为扣押本身被认为是单方面的，它会在许多情况下，以债务人措手不及。由于这一意外效应和扣押的性质，即防止债务人进一步处置将被扣押的资产，扣押很有可能有助于债权人在未来保护并最终主张其债权。

One of the commonly discussed advantages of international commercial arbitration over litigation in the cross-border context is the enforcement issue. For the purpose of swifter enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, the vast majority of countries signed the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

On contrary, there is no relevant international treaty of such scale for the enforcement of foreign court judgements. Normally, the special legal basis, such as agreement on judicial cooperation between two or more countries, needs to be relied upon in order to get a court judgment recognized and enforced in another country. There are quite many countries that do not have such an agreement with China. This includes, among others, US, Germany or the Netherlands.

Interestingly, however, recently the Chinese court in Wuhan enforced the US court judgement rendered by the Los Angeles Superior Court of California in the Liu Li v Tao Li and Tong Wu case. It did so despite the fact that there is no agreement between China and US providing for mutual recognition and enforcement of such judgements. The court in Wuhan found, however, that the reciprocity in recognizing and enforcing the court judgments between China and US was established because of an earlier decision of the US District Court of the Central District of California recognizing and enforcing the Chinese judgement rendered by the Higher People’s Court of Hubei in the Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co., Ltd et. al. v Robinson Helicopter Co., Inc. case.

Interestingly, similar course of action was taken earlier in 2016 when the Chinese Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court enforced the Singaporean judgement relying on the reciprocity principle in the Kolma v SUTEX Group case.

How much does it tell us?

Should we now feel safe when opting for own courts in the dispute resolution clauses in the China-related deals? – despite the fact there are no relevant agreements between China and our country? The recent moves of the Chinese courts are, indeed, interesting developments changing the dispute resolution landscape in a desirable direction and increasing the chances for enforcing the foreign commercial court judgements. Yet, as of today, one should not see them as the universal door-openers for the foreign court judgements in similar situations. Accordingly, rather careful approach is recommended and the other dispute resolution methods securing the safer way of enforcement, like arbitration, should be kept in mind. The further changes remain to be seen.

The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

仲裁可能是个奇异的奇迹世界，然而，在另一个方面，如果想要在规划和管理过程中从一开始就专业地掌控，仲裁可以成为一个直接引领获胜战略的过程。

关于仲裁程序可以阐释很多，但本文试图指出仲裁律师在策略和知识方面必须掌握的7个要素。

1 –你必须控制你的仲裁程序。——这似乎微不足道。然而，一次又一次，例如一些笔者审查或管理的案子表明，当律师知道“技术问题”并为此计划，他们便获得了相当大的优势，或至少控制了国际仲裁。

2 –准确界定仲裁协议/条款——这一基本要素再多强调也不为过，因其对仲裁程序的重要性和重大影响。任何仲裁程序的初步阶段——总是以某种同意为基础，赋予仲裁庭管辖权——是维护利益的关键。

3 –谨慎选择和确定仲裁所在地——仲裁所在地并不“仅仅”是仲裁举行的地方，而是指拥有对相关事项具有管辖权，支持和执行仲裁程序的法院的国家。

这可能有关键的影响，甚至是对仲裁协议本身的有效性有影响，因为每个国家都有自己的内部的仲裁法，并且可依此来解释仲裁协议的有效性或无效性而不考虑仲裁适用的法律和当事人最初的意图。例如，在一些国家中，如果没有签署的仲裁协议则不能强制执行仲裁，而在其他国家，如以色列，则可以在没有书面文件的情况下承认仲裁的裁决。

即使采取临时措施，仲裁地也可能产生重大影响。根据仲裁地法，审查什么样的临时措施是可能的或不可能的极其重要——有些案子围绕临时措施进行，没有这些临时措施，仲裁可能毫无意义。

根据特定国家的公共政策，仲裁地也可能有重大影响——其可能使仲裁裁决无法得到批准或执行因其违反公共政策原则，从而使仲裁裁决毫无价值。

4 –可能的补救办法和其他排除措施的定义——其为另一必要要素，出于某些原因在实践中常常被忽视，尽管这种明显的优势可能超过仲裁的范围。仲裁协议的当事人不仅有权提供属于仲裁和适用法的事项，并且有权控制他们在仲裁中的法律曝光。事实上，当事人有权最小化或最大化这些–如果他们只考虑救济的定义，而非将其作为午夜条款。

例如，当事人可以定义惩罚性或侵权损害赔偿的包括或排除。同样，当事人可以规定可能的赔偿（例如某一交易的某一价值），所有的方式都可以使仲裁程序完全由当事人或他们中任何一方的实际需求所引导。这将包含和尽量减少意外的或未知的风险。

在这方面，清楚地确定仲裁庭可能拥有的权力的范围也很重要，因为包括的内容可能会被排除在外。

例如，当事人有时规定仲裁庭拥有管辖权，来对合同及其条款的解释的问题提出裁决–但这样的规定可能会被认为丧失对于违反合同的管辖权–这可能成为让当事人执行裁决的重大障碍。

5 –确定适用的法律——很显然这一点具有重大的意义和重要性。许多当事人被认为已同意适用的法律，如英国法或瑞士法，而实际上没有考虑到该法及其在该案中可能对该事件的影响。当提出需要被保护的利益范围和可能产生的负面影响时，非常需要咨询律师来了解所打算适用的法律。

6 –确定和控制仲裁费用——国际仲裁可能极其昂贵，特别是如果当事人没有事先提供进行这一过程的条款。当事人可以并且应当控制费用和其他事项，通过以下方式：

规定一名独任仲裁员而非三人仲裁庭
规定仲裁将只由书面陈述和证词来进行
规定文件披露的限制——特别是在处理美国当事人或依据美国适用法律（可能有极其广泛和往往是繁重的披露规定）的情况下
提前规定短期听证会和对听证会次数的限制
任命一名仲裁员管理仲裁，而不需要在申请国际仲裁机构时通常涉及的行政成本和费用
规定仲裁员为与该事项有关的领域的专家，以备有特定的专业知识，因此避免了任命专家的必要性。

7 –确保执行是可能的——即使在签订仲裁协议之前，必须事先审查的一个重要因素是执行仲裁裁决的可能性。总的来说，1958的《纽约公约》为这一考虑提供了充分的参考。但情况可能并非总是如此。因此，对于公约的一个技术性审查足以保证在特定的案子或情况下仲裁裁决的执行性。

有些情况下，即使目标管辖权属于《纽约公约》，法律或政治考虑也可能妨碍执行。例如：国家间强制执行的非相互关系，与目标执行国的公共政策相抵触的裁决，源自法律冲突的问题——因为执行地的管辖权通常会适用其自身的法律、规则和价值观。

此外，如果对方当事人有偿付能力，则应提前进行探讨其资产位于何处，并对此类资产强制执行裁决的能力。

明智地进行仲裁。

有一些地方适合进行仲裁，而一些地方需要避免。这篇文章的目的不是赞扬前者或者是批评后者，而是想要说明为何瑞士是一个仲裁地的极佳选择。

仲裁条款有时候会被称为 “午夜条款”。它们被称为“午夜条款”是因为它们往往是双方在试图敲定一份交易合同时谈判的最后条款。如果双方正在寻找一个好的争端解决机制或者在最后关头难以找到合适的折衷办法，那么在瑞士进行仲裁是一个很好的选择。为什么呢？接下来本文将介绍几个此举特别的优点。

第一点，瑞士在举办各种国际仲裁（包括特设的和机构的）上有悠久的传统。这个传统可以追溯到一百多年前。由于这些历史和经验，你将很容易接触到许多优秀的法律从业人员，包括律师和仲裁员。

第二点，瑞士在政治上是中立的，并且是许多国际组织（WTO世界贸易组织，WIPO国际知识产权组委会，IOC国际奥委会等）的所在地。这确保了瑞士对不同文化和价值观念的开放态度并且使其成为进行国际仲裁的好去处。

第三点，瑞士实体法为其用户提供了一个非常自由、明确和可预见的法律框架。因此，在瑞士进行的仲裁非常理想地结合了受利于瑞士实体法的法律选择条款。

第四点，很重要的是，瑞士提供了一个非常稳定的法律体系和一个优秀的法律框架。瑞士的国际仲裁法遵循一个有效的制度并且仅由18个非常简洁的条款组成。此外，瑞士司法机构在处理有关仲裁裁决的争议时采用非常友好的仲裁办法，并且只在特殊情况下加以干预。当只有一个争议时，这个争议会提交给瑞士最高法院——瑞士联邦最高法院。最高院不会审查判决的是非曲直，但是它将确保最基本的法律原则（公共政策）得到很好的执行。因此当事人不会有把争议提交州法院前的多步撤销诉讼成本。争议一般在六个月内会解决。

第五点，瑞士在旅行准入、酒店、安全、法庭报告和翻译需求方面都提供了重要的基础设施。

最后一点，在瑞士进行的仲裁给你提供了极大的灵活性。你可以采用所有主要仲裁机构的仲裁法，比如ICC国际商会、Swiss Chambers of Commerce瑞士商会、LCIA伦敦国际仲裁院、SCC斯德哥尔摩商会仲裁院、DIS德国仲裁机构、AAA美国仲裁协会、SIAC新加坡国际仲裁中心、HIAC休斯顿国际仲裁俱乐部、CIETAC中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会或者采用特设规则，这将会为你的仲裁建立一个合适的基础。因为所有上述原因和更多其他原因，来自瑞士的仲裁裁决会有一个良好的声誉，并且在需要的情况下很容易在国际上被强制执行。

There is a number of dispute resolution mechanisms available for the disputes with the Chinese parties. Depending on bargaining power of the parties and few other circumstances, such as limitations of Chinese law, the dispute can be sometimes resolved outside of China. More frequently, however, the Sino-foreign disputes are resolved in China and this post offers a brief introduction to the methods available there .

As almost anything else in business, an optimal method for resolution of future disputes is worth of anticipating well in advance. Once there is a conflict, it is much more difficult for the parties to agree on the solution equally acceptable to both of them. There is a variety of options to choose from and each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. Also, there is no “one size fits all” solution and each transaction as well as dispute should be approached individually. Of course, there is always is a default solution, which is going to state court in case the parties have not provided for any alternative mechanism, but this is not always the most optimal way to go.

Litigation

Chinese courts are commonly perceived by foreigners as rather undesirable scenario for dispute resolution. It is so due to the often mentioned problems, such as local protectionism of the Chinese courts or lack of their professionalism. However, in practice, this is not always true and especially the courts in the China’s well-developed regions, particularly in the biggest coastal cities are generally a safe harbor for disputes involving foreigners. The same holds true for the IP courts located in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. One needs to remember, however, that the jurisdiction of particular court depends on a number of factors, such as place of registration of the Chinese counterparty or place of performance of the contract and therefore, the Chinese top courts may not be the ones handling particular dispute in practice.

Arbitration

Arbitration is a common choice for foreign-related disputes in China. It happens so, because of a number of advantages of arbitration over litigation in such a context. To start with, China and the vast majority of the countries in the world are the parties to the New York Convention, which significantly streamlines the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. There is no comparable treaty of that scale for the enforcement of state court judgements, what can cause practical problems if certain country does not have an agreement on judicial assistance with China and the enforcement of foreign court judgements is sought. Therefore, since the parties want money and not a piece of paper, the use of arbitration in the cross-border context can substantially improve the prospects for effective enforcement of arbitral award. Furthermore, in contrast to litigating in China, in arbitration English language can be used in proceeding and a party can be represented by a foreign counsel. In arbitration, the parties can also select arbitrators resolving their dispute and a foreign arbitrator is not an uncommon scenario in case of the Sino-foreign arbitration proceedings in China. The parties can also select a specific arbitration institution and rules applicable to the proceeding.

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) and the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC) are one of the most frequently chosen arbitration institutions in China for the foreign-related disputes. Alternatively, if the circumstances of the case permit – the dispute can be taken outside of China and resolved, for instance, by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) or the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), which are fairly acceptable alternative choices for the Chinese parties.

Other options

One of the other methods popular in China is mediation. Mediation is typically faster, cheaper and increases the chances of preserving good relationship between the parties. However, one needs to remember that in order to mediate, the parties need to be willing to do so, since the role of mediator is to help the parties reach an agreement and not to ultimately decide their dispute. Furthermore, the product of mediation is a contract and so, the breach of mediation agreement typically equals to contractual breach.

One additional important tool frequently used in practice is engaging local lawyers for the purpose of negotiating with the Chinese party as soon as the dispute escalates. The lawyers can help the parties communicate and when the communication is impossible – they can prepare a document describing the claims and informing the Chinese party about the risk of undertaking further legal steps, such as staring court proceeding, what is made mainly for the purpose of brining the other party back to negotiation and finding a solution acceptable to both parties. This often helps save time and money, but it can be problematic if the other party ignores the actions of lawyer. Also, like in case of mediation, the problem lies in the enforcement of any agreement reached by the parties in the course of negotiation.

The main takeaways from this short post are the following:

Think about the dispute resolution mechanism in advance. There are quite many issues that need to be taken into consideration and there is no “one size fits all” solution. There might be the situations when going to the Chinese court makes perfect sense and there also might be the situations when it makes no sense at all. What is the best option for me in particular case? Which court can potentially have jurisdiction over my case? Does the country involved have a judicial assistance agreement with China for the purpose of enforcement? What should be the language of proceeding? Which arbitration institution to choose?
Think about hiring professionals right from the very beginning, preferably at the stage of negotiating and drafting agreements. Choosing an optimal solution for resolution of future disputes can help save a lot of time, money and energy. In case of dispute occurring already – act promptly. If the dispute escalates, think about what you can do to best preserve your rights. Should you apply for interim measures? Do you need to first negotiate before you can go for arbitration in case of multi-tier clauses? Which documents are needed to start the proceeding?

The author of this post is Monika Prusinowska.

General principles

There are a number of general contracting principles under Venezuelan contract law. These principles are mainly regulated by the Venezuelan Civil Code. General civil law principles like freedom to contract, capacity to contract, and formation are applicable under Venezuelan law. Contracts can be written or oral and, in general, no formal requirement for a contract to be enforceable and valid, the parties should however make sure that the signatories acting on behalf of another person or entity have authority to execute the contract.

Choice of Law and Jurisdiction

In general, the choice of foreign law by the parties as governing law for contracts is binding under Venezuelan law, provided that foreign law does not contrive essential principles of Venezuelan public policy. Collateral granted on assets located in Venezuela and other contracts relating to real estate located in Venezuela are governed by Venezuelan laws.

Choice of foreign jurisdiction is valid under Venezuela law. A foreign judgment rendered by a foreign court is enforceable in Venezuela, subject to obtaining a confirmatory judgment in Venezuela.

Such confirmatory judgment could be obtained from the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Republic in accordance with the provisions and conditions of the Venezuelan law on conflicts of laws, without a review of the merits of the foreign judgment, provided that: (a) the foreign judgment concerns matters of private civil or commercial law only; (b) the foreign judgment constitutes res judicata under the laws of the jurisdiction where it was rendered; (c) the foreign judgment does not relate to real property interests over real property located in Venezuela and the exclusive jurisdiction of Venezuelan courts over the matter has not been violated; (d) the foreign courts have jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to the general principles of jurisdiction of the Venezuelan Statute on Conflicts of Law (pursuant to such principles, a foreign court would have jurisdiction over Venezuelan entities if such entities submit to the jurisdiction of such foreign court, provided that the matter submitted to the foreign jurisdiction does not relate to real property located in Venezuela and does not contravene essential principles of Venezuelan public policy); (e) the defendant has been duly served of the proceedings, with sufficient time to appear in the proceedings, and has been generally granted with procedural guarantees that secure a reasonable possibility of defense; (f) the foreign judgment is not incompatible with a prior judgment that constitutes res judicata and no proceeding initiated prior to the rendering of the foreign judgment is pending before Venezuelan courts on the same subject matter among the same parties to litigation; and (g) the foreign judgment does not contravene the essential principles of Venezuelan public policy.

The submission by the parties of an agreement to arbitration in a country outside Venezuela would be binding in Venezuela. Venezuela is a party to the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). Pursuant to the New York Convention, arbitral awards are enforceable in Venezuela without requiring a confirmatory judgment in Venezuela (exequatur) or a retrial or re-examination of the merits. However, the Venezuelan court in charge of enforcing the award can review the causes of nullity of awards contemplated in the New York Convention.

Enforcement

In practice, enforcement proceedings in Venezuela are generally lengthy, complex and cumbersome, and may be challenged (and therefore delayed) by the affected party on many legal grounds, and may be suspended or delayed. From our experience, an enforcement proceeding may take from several months to a few years, depending on the circumstances and complexity of the case.

In addition, a judgment or award for money issued by a foreign court or arbitration panel would likely be enforced in Venezuela only in bolivars at the then existing Cadivi exchange rate, and then the company receiving the bolivars would have difficulties in converting such bolivars into foreign currency as a result of the existing exchange controls.

In light of the above, counterparties of Venezuelan companies (whether public or private) generally take into account the assets of such companies located outside Venezuela as the real guarantee or support for the contractual obligations of such Venezuelan companies.

Contractual clauses allowing one party to unilaterally terminate a contract without judicial intervention in case of breach of the obligations of the other party may be unenforceable, unless the terminating party is the Venezuelan government or a Venezuelan state-owned company. As a general rule, termination for breach of the other party requires a declaration by the court or the arbitral tribunal (in case the contract contains an arbitration clause).

The author of this post is Fulvio Italiani

您可能感兴趣的其他文章
其他文章 Legalmondo

Spain – Review of arbitration awards and public order

仲裁

西班牙

France | Arbitration clauses in international contracts with consumers are not enforceable

仲裁
契约

法国

France – Abrupt termination of contractual relationships and arbitration

仲裁
诉讼

法国

Spain | Request for annulment of arbitration awards and Public Order

仲裁
诉讼

西班牙

France – Direct action against the insurer and enforceability of arbitration clause

仲裁
保险

法国

Arbitration in the Russian Federation – Latest amendments to the federal law

仲裁

俄国

Arbitration in distribution contracts – The « IDArb »

仲裁
分销协议

西班牙

Russia – Arbitration or state court?

仲裁
诉讼

俄国