法院无权任命机构仲裁中的仲裁员（卡塔尔案例）

更新时间：2017-10-24 10:13:10   张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：2234次

本争议产生于某有限责任公司（设立于卡塔尔，以下简称“公司”）的股东之间。两名股东曾订立两份协议，即《公司章程》与《股东协议》。

这两份协议均包含仲裁条款，二者对仲裁事项的范围作了相同规定，但在仲裁方式的选择方面却有所不同。《公司章程》中的仲裁条款规定了临时仲裁，而《股东协议》中的仲裁条款则规定由卡塔尔国际调解和仲裁中心（以下简称“QICCA”）下设的一个常设仲裁机构进行仲裁。

关于本案纠纷，位于卡塔尔当地的公司股东（即原告）向卡塔尔一审法院提出申请，请求该法院任命一名仲裁员，理由是其与另一名外国股东（即被告）未能就独任仲裁员的任命达成一致。

因此，原告主张这种情况可适用《卡塔尔民商事诉讼法》第195条。原告依据《公司章程》中的临时仲裁条款，却无视了《股东协议》中的机构仲裁条款。AlTamimi在卡尔塔一审法院担任被告代理人。

被告认为根据《股东协议》中的仲裁条款，双方就有关仲裁员的任命机制所达成的协议须得到适当尊重。

被告主张仲裁具有诺成性且所有内容都应受到相关缔约方之间共同协议的约束。鉴于双方已就仲裁程序的规则（包括仲裁员的任命机制）达成一致，那么他们之间的协议就必须被采纳和遵守。基于上述分析，被告认为法院无权对本案作出裁定。一审法院支持了被告的上述抗辩并驳回了此案。

原告基于之前的论点（与初审时论点相同）向上诉法院提起上诉。此外，原告声称其曾试图向QICCA提起仲裁以使机构仲裁条款生效，但被告在任命仲裁员方面不予配合并拒绝遵守仲裁程序。

上诉法院推翻了一审法院的裁定，撤销该裁定并指定了一名仲裁员。上诉法院无视或忽略了机构仲裁条款，因此并未依据股东商定的程序规则中所确立的仲裁员任命机制，而是依据《民商事诉讼法》第195条。该条规定，其适用范围只能扩展适用于临时仲裁而不适用于机构仲裁。

被告主要基于前述论点对上诉法院的裁定（即撤销一审裁定）提出上诉。被告辩称，第195条列举的条件必须满足相关当事人之间不存在任何有关仲裁员任命机制的协议，且相关当事人未能就仲裁员的人选达成一致意见。

最高法院将上述条件适用于本案时查明，原告未能与被告就仲裁员的人选达成一致意见，却直接向法院起诉请求任命一名仲裁员并得到了上诉法院的支持。最高法院指出，原告不顾《股东协议》中的仲裁条款而坚持如此行事，尽管《股东协议》中的仲裁条款已规定仲裁程序应受QICCA规则的约束，而QICCA规则第9条已对双方未能任命仲裁员时的仲裁员任命机制作出规定。

因此，最高法院于2017年2月7日撤销上诉法院的裁定并维持一审法院作出的裁定。

值得注意的是，该裁定是在卡塔尔的新《仲裁法》（No.2/2017，于2017年2月7日颁布）颁布之前作出。《民商事诉讼法》第195条与该法中调整仲裁的其他条款均被新颁布的《仲裁法》废除。但是最高法院的裁定仍确立了如下原则：法院无权对仲裁员进行任命并以此代替相关方为该目的就特定机制达成协议，否则将违背当事人的意愿并违反“有约必守”原则。

 【英文版】

The Incompetenceof The National Courts to Appoint an Arbitrator in The InstitutionalArbitration

Adispute arose between the partners of a limited liability company (“the Company”) incorporated in Qatar. These two partners concluded two agreements,namely 1) the Articles of Association and 2) the Shareholders Agreement (“theTwo Agreements”).

TheTwo Agreements included arbitration clauses. The arbitration clauses were identical as to the scope of matters subject to arbitration, but they differed as to the arbitration forum. The arbitration clause inserted in the Articles of Association provided for an ad hoc arbitration, while the arbitration clause inserted in the Shareholders Agreement provided for an institutional arbitration under the auspices of Qatar International Centre for Conciliationand Arbitration (“QICCA”).

Inrelation to a dispute that arose between the partners, the local Qatari partner of the Company (“the Claimant”) filed a claim before the Qatari Court of First Instance requesting the said court to appoint an arbitrator, on the basis that the foreign partner (“the Defendant”) failed to agree on an arbitrator.

Accordingly,the Claimant submitted that this triggers the application of Article 195 of the Qatari Civil and Commercial Procedure Law. The Claimant relied on the ad hoc arbitration clause in the Articles of Association, but disregarded the institutional arbitration clause in the Shareholder’s Agreement. Al Tamimi represented the Defendant before the Qatari Court of First Instance.

The Defendant pleaded that the mechanism agreed upon between the parties, as perthe arbitration clause inserted in the Shareholders Agreement – with regards tothe appointment of the arbitrators – should be duly respected.

The Defendant argued that arbitration is of a consensual nature and that all elements of the same should be subject to the mutual agreement between the concerned parties. Given that the parties had agreed on the rules applicable on the procedures of the arbitration proceedings, including the mechanism of the appointment of the arbitrators, then their agreement must be adopted and adhered to. The Defendant argued that based on such analysis, the court is not competent to decide in this case. The Court of First Instance upheld the defence and rejected the case.

The Claimant challenged the case before the Court of Appeal based on the same arguments submitted to the Court of First Instance. In addition the Claimant argued that he had tried to effectuate the institutional arbitration clause by filing a case before the QICCA, but the Defendant did not cooperate with the former in appointing an arbitrator and refused to comply to the arbitration proceedings.

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in turn cancelling such judgment, and appointed an arbitrator. The Court of Appeal ignored or overlooked the institutional arbitration clause and consequently failed to rely on the mechanism of appointment of arbitrators determined in the procedural rules agreed upon between the partners. The Court of Appeal instead relied on Article 195 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law. Article 195 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law provides that the scope of its application extends only in the case of ad hoc arbitration, and not the institutional arbitration which was not the case at hand.

The Defendant challenged the judgment of Cassation based mainly on the aforementioned argument. The Defendant argued that the conditions enumerated in Article 195 are that there must have been an absence of any agreement between the concerned parties as to the mechanism of appointment of the arbitrator(s),as well as the failure of the concerned parties to reach an agreement as to the name of the arbitrator.

The Court of Cassation, in applying such conditions to the case at hand, found that the Claimant had failed to reach an agreement with the Defendant as to the name of the arbitrator and had instead directly filed the case before the court rendered by the Court of Appeal before the Court to appoint an arbitrator. The court stated that this was done by the Claimant despite the terms of the arbitration clause in the Shareholders Agreement, which states that the arbitration proceedings shall be subject to the rules of QICCA. The QICCA rules address the mechanism of appointment of an arbitrator(s) where parties have failed to do so, under Article 9.

Accordingly,on February 7, 2017, the Court of Cassation cancelled the judgment of the Courtof Appeal and upheld the judgment rendered by the Court of First Instance.

It is noteworthy that this judgment was rendered before the promulgation of the New Arbitration Act No. 2/2017 in Qatar, which was promulgated on 7 February 2017. Article 195 of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law and the other articles governing arbitration under the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law,were cancelled upon the issuance of the New Arbitration Act. However, the judgment of the Court of Cassation establishes the principle that the Court has no competence in appointing an arbitrator in lieu of an agreement by the concerned parties as on a certain mechanism for such purpose. Otherwise, this would be considered a contradiction to the will of the parties, and a violationof the principle of pacta sunt servanda.