外语送达的仲裁通知能否构成仲裁“适当通知”

更新时间：2017-11-03 09:20:30   张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1596次

简介

在Zavod Ekran OAO v Magneco Metrel UK Ltd案中，关于《1996仲裁法》里送达给被告的仲裁的“适当通知”的定义，英国商业法院给出了一些有趣的评论。这一方面鲜有权威性的案例，但是英国法院把它当作事实问题来处理。而请求法院拒绝执行仲裁裁决的一方需要证明没有收到仲裁程序的适当通知。

在本案中，虽然向英国被申请人发出的仲裁通知书和附带文档都是用外文写的，但是这并不足以证明他没有给于适当的仲裁通知。因此，英国商业法院支持了原命令，准许执行对被告的纽约公约仲裁裁决。这篇法律报告将探索英国商业法院对“适当通知”要求的广泛解释。

当事人和争议的背景

Zavod Ekran OAO（即申请人）是一家位于西伯利亚的俄罗斯玻璃制造公司，Magneco Metrel UK Ltd（即被申请人）是一家生产耐火材料的生产商。2013年，双方当事人签订了由英语和俄语起草的合同，合同中注明被告会为原告的一个炉窖提供耐火材料。

引起纠纷的原因是炉壁上出现了损毁的迹象，并且这导致了大量熔化玻璃的泄露。原告认为是被告的产品质量低劣，而被告认为是因为原告未能正确操作干燥程序才使得炉壁损毁的。

裁决以及拒绝执行的理由

这个争议无法根据合同来解决，因此在2015年12月22日，原告将此案提交给了坐落于莫斯科俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁法庭（ICAC）。被告没有参与在2016年5月的审讯，之后在2016年7月13日，仲裁庭下达了对原告有利的裁决，加上仲裁费用共270233美元。

纽约公约的157个签约国都需要相互承认并且执行由其他签约成员国下达的外国仲裁裁决。在俄罗斯联邦下达的裁决是一个纽约公约裁决。根据《1996仲裁法》的第101条，英国法院可以准许纽约公约裁决像法院命令或者判决的方式执行，除非满足第103条下的特定情况，否则不予拒绝纽约公约裁决的认可和执行。

原告向英国商业法庭申请执行仲裁裁决，Justice Males法官在2017年1月16日签发裁定允许执行该裁决。在现在的诉讼中，被申请人申请撤销那个裁定因为他认为仲裁程序并没有给出“适当通知”，这是裁决的认可或者执行会被拒绝的一个特定事由。被申请人认为满足1996仲裁法下第103（2）（c）条的判决条件，即他没有收到任命仲裁员或者仲裁程序启动的适当通知，或者因此未能提出辩护。

• 英国商业法院关于“适当通知”的解释

• 被告宣称其没有收到关于这一争议的仲裁程序的适当通知，即：

• 原告没有在仲裁行为之前发出信件

• 在双方之间没有就可能进行仲裁的联系，以明示通知的方式，表明争议将会提交仲裁来解决

• ICAC在2016年1月14日寄出的函件中包括了仲裁通知和附带文件，之后还有信件告知仲裁员委任等，这些都是用俄文写的而且没有任何翻译

• 任命仲裁员的要求以及有关15天内有一个替补仲裁员、30天内提交答辩状的说明都是用英语通知的

• 不知道ICAC的重要性并且相信这些文件只是重复原告先前的抱怨。

Mr Justice Blair不支持被告的说法，并且拒绝撤销裁决，原因如下：

• 含有索赔表单和附带文件的包裹是通过空运寄出的，上面显示的寄件人是莫斯科“商业仲裁庭”；

• 包含仲裁索赔表单的说明信中有一行用英语写的说明，表明本信来自于“俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁法庭”，况且ICAC没有任何其他理由写信给被申请人；

• 说明信上的Email地址包含用英语写的“仲裁”；

• 说明信只有一页，被告可以简单地将它翻译一下，这也是合理的（这样一来，他就能知道任命仲裁员和提交答辩状的要求）；并且

• 因为合同中规定仲裁地为莫斯科并适用俄罗斯法律，所以仲裁所用语言为俄语且与合同履行相关的争议在俄罗斯解决也是合情合理的。

鉴于这些，Mr Justice Blair发现尽管原告本可以做更多事情来告诫被告仲裁程序的启动，并且ICAC本可以用英语标明应对这些通知的重要性，但说明信上的相关信息很可能引起被告的注意，因此，被申请人的观点并未能满足法律规定的不予执行的要求标准，以证明他没有收到适当的仲裁通知或者适当的任命仲裁员的通知，为此未能在仲裁中为其案件提出辩护。

结论

在2017年9月1日宣布的判决中，Justice Blair法官认为仅仅是因为在英国收到的仲裁通知不是用英语写的这个事实本身并不影响通知的有效性，虽然也有可能会有影响，但是这取决于具体情况。法官认为如果说明信用英语写明这是一份“仲裁启动通知”或者“用仲裁的方式”，这就是表达清楚充分的仲裁通知了。判决表明英国商业法院准备在认可和执行纽约公约裁决时，扩大仲裁通知的解释。

为了避免仲裁的“适当通知”送达给被告的相关争议，国际争议中的双方当事人应该确保在送达仲裁通知时对其进行翻译，尽管在本案中即使原告没有这样做也影响不大，这甚至还适用于一些潜在的合同文件，详细说明仲裁时不要用其中一方语言。这个判决还能提醒当事人，不执行纽约公约下的仲裁裁决需要达到较高的门槛，因为英国法院只会在极少的情况下拒绝执行纽约公约裁决。

[英文]

Does service in a foreign language constitute “proper notice” of arbitration proceedings?

Introduction

In Zavod Ekran OAO v Magneco Metrel UK Ltd,the English Commercial Court has provided some interesting commentary as to what constitutes giving a defendant “proper notice” of arbitration proceedings under the English Arbitration Act 1996. There is little previous English authority in this area, but it is treated by the English courts as a question of fact. The onus of proof lies with the party claiming that enforcement of an arbitral award should be refused on the basis it was not properly notified of the proceedings.

In this case, the fact that the notice of arbitration and accompanying documentation had been served on an English defendant in a foreign language was not sufficient proof that it had not been given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings. Accordingly, the English Commercial Court upheld an order granting leave for a New York Convention arbitral award against the Defendant to be enforced. This legal update explores the considerations of the English Commercial Court in arriving at a broad interpretation of the requirement for “proper notice” to be given.

Background to the parties and the dispute

Zavod Ekran OAO (the “Claimant”)is a Russian glass manufacturing company based in Siberia, and Magneco MetrelUK Ltd (the “Defendant”)is an English manufacturer of refractory products (materials which retain their strength at high temperatures). In 2013, the parties entered into a contract drafted in both English and Russian text, pursuant to which the Defendant agreed to provide the Claimant with materials for one of the Claimant’s furnaces (the “Contract”). 

A dispute arose as a result of problems with the furnace wall, which showed signs of damage and led to a major leak of molten glass. The Claimant alleged that the goods supplied by the Defendant were of poor quality, whereas the Defendant asserted that the damage was caused by the Claimant’s failure to correctly operate the dry-out procedure.

The Award and grounds for refusal ofenforcement

Pursuant to the Contract, as the dispute could not be settled, the Claimant referred the case to arbitration at the International Commercial Arbitration Court (“ICAC”) at the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Moscow on 22 December 2015.Following a hearing in May 2016 in which the Defendant did not participate, the Tribunal issued an arbitral award on 13 July 2016 in the Claimant’s favour, in the sum of US$270,233 plus costs (the “Award”).

The 157 signatory states to the New York Convention are required to reciprocally recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards issued in other contracting member states. The Award made in the Russian Federation is a New York Convention award. Pursuant to section 101 of the English Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”), the English courts may grant leave for New York Convention awards to be enforced in the same manner as a court order or judgment, and cannot refuse to recognise or enforce them except in the limited circumstances set out in section 103.

The Claimant applied to the English Commercial Court for an order granting leave for the Award to be enforced, and such order was granted by Mr Justice Males on 16 January 2017. In the instant proceedings, the Defendant applied to set aside that order on the basis that it had not been given “proper notice” of the arbitral proceedings, which is one of the limited circumstances in which the recognition or enforcement of an award may be refused. The test the Defendant had to satisfy, which is set out in section 103(2)(c) of the Act, is that it was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case. 

The English Commercial Court’s interpretation of “proper notice”

The Defendant asserted that it did not have proper notice of the arbitral proceedings in this dispute, as:

• The Claimant had not sent a letter before action threatening arbitration; 

• There was not the kind of chain of correspondence between the parties with threats of arbitration culminating in express notice that the dispute is about to be referred to arbitration that one might normally expect;

• The cover letter from ICAC dated 14 January 2016 enclosing the notice of arbitration and annexed documents, as well as subsequent letters notifying it that arbitrators had been appointed, were almost entirely in Russian and it had not received translations;

• It had not been notified in English of the requirements to appoint an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator within 15 days and to file a defence within 30 days; and

• It did not know the significance of ICAC and believed the documents were a repeat of the Claimant’s previous complaints.

Mr Justice Blair was not convinced by the Defendant’s arguments, and refused to set aside the Award for the followingreasons:

• The package containing the claim form and annexed documents had been accompanied by an airway bill showing that the shipper was the “Commercial Arbitration Court” in Moscow;

• The cover letter enclosing the arbitration claim form contained a heading in English stating that it had comefrom “THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION COURT AT THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCEAND INDUSTRY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION” and there was no other reason for ICAC to be writing to the Defendant;

• The email address on the cover letter included the English word “arbitration”;

• The cover letter was one page, and it was reasonable to expect that the Defendant could have easily arranged to have it translated (and would therefore have known of the requirements for it to appoint an arbitrator and file a defence); and

• It was relevant that the Contract provided for arbitration in Moscow under Russian law, the language of the arbitration was to be Russian and the dispute related to the performance of the Contract in Russia.

In light of this, Mr Justice Blair found that whilst the Claimant could have done more to alert the Defendant to the commencement of the arbitration, and the ICAC could have flagged in English the importance of dealing with its notifications, the cover letter was likely to have brought the relevant information to the Defendant’s attention. Therefore,the Defendant was unable to satisfy the legal test that it had not been given proper notice of the arbitration proceedings or proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator, and had not been able to present its case in the arbitration.

Conclusions

In his judgment handed down on 1 September 2017, Mr Justice Blair stated that the mere fact that a notice of an arbitration is received in English in a language other than English should not in itself affect the validity of the notice, though it may do so, depending on the circumstances. The judge considered that if the letter had stated in English that it was a “notice of commencement of arbitration” or “in the matter of an arbitration”, it would clearly have constituted sufficient notice. The decision shows that the English Commercial Court is prepared to interpret the notification requirement broadly when it comes to recognising and enforcing New York Convention awards.

In order to avoid uncertainty as to whether“proper notice” of an arbitration has been given to a defendant, parties in international disputes should ensure that translations are provided when serving arbitral proceedings, even though the failure to do so was not fatal in this case. This applies even in circumstances where the underlying contractual documents specify that the arbitration is to be conducted in a language not used by one of the parties. This decision serves as another reminder of the high bar that must be reached by a party opposing enforcement of an arbitral award under the New York Convention, as the English courts will only refuse enforcement in rare circumstances.