ICC仲裁为简易裁决开了绿灯？

更新时间：2017-11-16 14:41:00  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：2404次

2017年10月30日，ICC仲裁庭修订了仲裁实务手册，旨在为明显缺乏法律依据的索赔和抗辩提供即时驳回（immediate dismissal）指导。这一改变在《SIAC仲裁规则》和《SCC仲裁规则》（快速简易程序的先行者）的修改规则颁布之后作出，但《ICC仲裁规则》并未采用修改规则的形式。这种做法是否会有影响？

《2015Queen Mary仲裁调查报告》将仲裁速度和费用列为仲裁用户的主要考虑之一，自此之后仲裁机构就为了提高仲裁效率而忙于修正其仲裁程序规则和指导性说明——从规定加速程序到对仲裁员延迟作出裁决的行为进行处罚。2016年，新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）率先在其商业仲裁规则中对明显缺乏法律依据的索赔和辩护的即时驳回进行明确规定（《ICSID仲裁规则》调整的投资仲裁长期存在类似条款）。

简易程序的吸引力不容小觑。2016年9月，ICC发布了关于金融机构和国际仲裁的报告，其中认为金融机构习惯性选择诉讼而非仲裁的原因之一是他们能够从纽约或者英国法院获得简易判决。因此，仲裁机构响应这种需求并开始为索赔的即决驳回采纳特定程序，这种做法并不让人惊讶。

有些人可能会说，作为案件管理权的一部分，仲裁庭在每个案件中都能够适用其认为最恰当的程序（可能包括处理索赔的简易程序）。这也的确是ICC在其实务手册中采取的办法：尽管《ICC仲裁规则》还未作出修正，因此也没有对索赔的即时驳回作出明确规定，但实务手册已确认这种权力来源于该规则第22条，其中要求仲裁庭以快速且经济的方式进行仲裁。

通过对适用程序提供更多详细指导，ICC设法达成了当事人对于程序的期望，并向仲裁庭发出了明确信号，即仲裁庭应该在适当的时候考虑适用简易程序。虽然ICC采取的方法与SIAC、SCC不同（后两者规定，当事人可通过并入不同的规则“批准”适用简易程序），但这能使仲裁庭在面对适用即时驳回的案件时感到欣慰。当然，若决策者的权力主要来自于当事人协议，鲁莽的程序性裁定通常会遭受质疑。

在2014年对Travis Coal v Essar案的裁定中，英国高等法院驳回了当事人对仲裁裁决（通过简易程序作出）的异议，但败诉方今后很可能利用类似于“程序不正当”的论点试图抵制对其不利的裁决。如果仲裁规则或机构指导书中存在适用简易程序的明示条款，利用上述论点对裁决提起异议会变得更加困难。

【英文版】

Green light for summary awards in ICC arbitrations?

On 30 October 2017, the ICC Court revised its arbitration practice note to provide guidance on the immediate dismissal of manifestly unmeritorious claims and defences. The change follows amendments to the SIAC and SCC Arbitration Rules, the early adopters of express summary procedure provisions, but does not take the form of an amendment to the ICC Arbitration Rules. Will it make a difference?

Since the 2015 Queen Mary Arbitration Survey identifiedthe speed and cost of proceedings as one of the key concerns of arbitration users,institutions have been busy amending their procedural rules and guidance notes with measures designed to increase the efficiency of arbitration – from expedited procedures to sanctioning arbitrators for late delivery of awards. In 2016, the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC) was the first institution to include an express provision for the early dismissal of manifestly unmeritorious claims and defences in its commercial arbitration rules (a similar provision has long existed in investment arbitrations governed by the ICSID Arbitration Rules). The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) followed suit earlier this year.

The attraction of summary procedures is not to be underestimated. When the ICC released its report on financial institutions and international arbitration in September 2016, it identified the ability to obtain summary judgment from the New York or English courts as one of the reasons why financial institutions have traditionally opted for litigation over arbitration. It is not therefore surprising that arbitration institutions heeded the call and began adopting specific procedures for summary dismissal of claims.

Some may say, rightly, that it has always been open to tribunals as part of their case management powers to adopt the procedure they deem most suitable in each case, which may include summary disposition of claims. That is indeed the approach that the ICC has taken in its practice note: while the ICC Rules have not been amended, and do not therefore expressly provide for early dismissal of claims, the practice note confirms that such power derives from Article 22 of the Rules, which requires the tribunal to conduct the arbitration in an expeditious and cost-effective manner.

By providing more detailed guidance on the applicable procedure, the ICC has given a clear signal to tribunals that they should be considering summary procedures where appropriate, and has managed parties’ procedural expectations. Although the ICC’s approach differs from that of SIAC or the SCC, which guarantees that through incorporation of the respective Rules the parties “sanction” the availability of summary procedure,it will nevertheless give comfort to tribunals faced with cases which are suitable for early dismissal. Of course, in proceedings where the powers of the decision-makers derive foremost from the agreement of the parties, robust procedural decisions are often subject to challenge.

In a 2014 decision in Travis Coal v Essar,the English High Court rejected a challenge to an award rendered through a type of summary procedure, but unsuccessful parties are likely to use similar “denial of due process” arguments in the future in an attempt to resist an adverse award. It will be more difficult to do so where there are express provisions, either in the Rules or institutional guidance notes, that embrace summary procedures.