SCC对于仲裁员回避问题的最新规定

更新时间：2017-11-20 17:08:33   张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1819次

1. SCC理事会将在仲裁员回避裁定中说明理由

2018年1月1日，斯德哥尔摩商会(SCC)仲裁院将开始在仲裁员回避裁定中提供理由。SCC理事会在9月采纳了这一新政策。

尽管《SCC仲裁规则》不要求理事会为其任何裁定（包括涉及仲裁员回避的裁定）说明理由，但理事会偶尔也会为了当事人和被要求回避的仲裁员的利益而主动作出这种选择。自2005年以来，SCC也定期发表文章对提交的所有回避申请进行汇总并说明这些申请是否被接受。这些定期出版物使得理事会的裁定对于用户更具有可预测性。

在新政策下，除非双方另有约定，否则SCC将为理事会作出的所有涉及仲裁员回避的裁定提供理由。SCC秘书长Annette Magnusson表示：“我们相信，让当事人和仲裁员深入了解理事会在仲裁员回避方面的裁定，将进一步增强他们对仲裁程序的信心。”

裁定理由原则上应当简短，只需简要地分析说明理事会驳回或者接受回避申请的原因。然而，在特殊情况下如有必要，理事会可以提供更详细的理由。该服务将包括在SCC收取的管理费中，不会对用户产生额外费用。

从历史上看，伦敦国际仲裁院(LCIA)曾是唯一一家对涉及仲裁员回避的裁定说明理由的仲裁机构，但近年来，其他仲裁机构也纷纷效仿。ICC仲裁院在2015年宣布，在各方要求的情况下，仲裁院将为涉及仲裁员回避的裁定说明理由。

2.SCC规定的仲裁员公正标准

与大多数仲裁机构规则一样，《SCC规则》规定仲裁员必须公正独立。仲裁员在被任命前必须披露任何可能对其公正性或独立性产生怀疑的情况。如果这种情况发生在仲裁过程中，仲裁员必须立即予以披露。如果已披露的情况或当事人所知的其他情况可能引起对仲裁员独立性或公正性的合理怀疑，当事人可以根据《SCC规则》第15条请求仲裁员回避。如果其他当事人均同意该回避申请，仲裁员必须辞职。除此之外，SCC理事会应当对该回避申请作出裁定。

2.1《SCC规则》

《SCC规则》第15.1条规定，“如果存在对仲裁员独立性和公正性产生合理怀疑的情形或者该仲裁员并不具备双方当事人所约定的资格，当事人一方可对该仲裁员提出异议。”该规则中并未对“合理怀疑”作出定义，也未解释在何种情况下可能合理地引起这种怀疑。因此，在对回避申请（根据15.1条提出）进行裁定时，SCC理事会会参考准据法的规定以及国际仲裁实践中的优选范例。

2.2《瑞典仲裁法》

大多数SCC仲裁的官方仲裁地都在瑞典，且程序法也适用《瑞典仲裁法》。该法第8条规定，“如果存在任何可能削弱对仲裁员公正性的信心的情况”，该仲裁员应该被免除职务。在理论和判例上，正如《UNCITRAL示范法》和《SCC规则》中所述，“公正性”的要求已经扩大解释为包含“独立性”。在《瑞典仲裁法》的提议修正案（可能在2017年生效）中，第8条已添加了“公正性”的措辞。

对于可能会对仲裁员公正性和独立性的信心造成削减的情况，《瑞典仲裁法》第8条进行了非详尽列举，包括：（1）仲裁员或者和其有密切关系的人可能“从争议结果中获得（或遭受）引人注意的预期利益（或损害）”；（2）仲裁员代表了可能获得利益或者遭受损害的一方；以及（3）仲裁员已对争议采取了立场。当然，没有列举在第8条中的情况也可以作为取消仲裁员资格的理由。无论如何，SCC理事会在裁定哪些情况根据《SCC规则》会引起“合理怀疑”时，该法的这个规定可以为其提供指引。

2.3 Jurisprudence

Sweden’s Supreme Court has held that anarbitrator’s impartiality should be assessed objectively. This means that an arbitrator should be removed ifthe circumstances would normally lead to doubts as to impartiality, even if inthe case at hand there is no reason to suspect that thearbitrator is actually partial.

2.3判例

瑞典最高法院认为应客观地评估仲裁员的公正性。这意味着如果面临的情况通常会导致对仲裁员公正性的怀疑，那么该仲裁员应该被免职，即使所处理的案件中不存在任何理由怀疑仲裁员实际上存在不公。

2.4《国际律师协会指引》

《国际律师协会国际仲裁利益冲突指引》（以下简称“《IBA指引》”）自2004年首次发布以来，在国际仲裁界得到了广泛的认可。仲裁员通常凭借《IBA指引》作出关于预期任命和必要披露的裁定，在回避申请中也通常引用该《IBA指引》。SCC理事会根据《SCC规则》对回避申请进行裁定时通常会参考《IBA指引》。最后，瑞典最高法院注意到，尽管法院裁定是根据《仲裁法》的规定作出，但法院也可以考虑《IBA指引》——特别是涉及非瑞典当事人的案件。

《IBA指引》规定，“如果合理的第三方知道有关事实和情况时认为，仲裁员在作出裁决时可能受到当事人陈述的案件是非之外的因素的影响，则怀疑是正当的。”换言之，是表面偏见（而非实际偏见）可能会导致仲裁员被免职。

为了促进更大的一致性且减少不必要的回避申请和仲裁员更撤，《IBA指引》对特定情形和关系进行列举并指出要求仲裁员进行披露或取消其资格是否正当合理。特定情形被分为红色、橙色和绿色清单。红色清单描述了从合理的知情第三方的角度存在客观利益冲突的情况。橙色清单描述了从当事人角度可能对仲裁员的公正性或独立性产生合理怀疑的情况。绿色清单描述了从客观角度并不存在任何表面或实际利益冲突的情形。SCC理事会在评估某种情形或关系是否会引起《SCC规则》规定的“合理怀疑”时，通常会参考红色、橙色和绿色清单。

3. SCC有关仲裁员回避的程序规定

想请求仲裁员回避的当事人必须向仲裁秘书提出书面申请并陈述原因。回避申请必须在当事人得知引起仲裁员回避的情况发生之日起15天内提交。如果回避申请未能在规定时间内提交，则认为当事人已放弃权利，SCC理事会将因此驳回申请。

当一方当事人提出回避申请时，仲裁庭秘书会为另一方当事人和仲裁员提供发表评论的机会。如果另一方当事人同意该回避申请，该仲裁员必须辞职。除此之外，包括仲裁员主动要求辞职而另一方反对的情况，理事会都应对回避申请作出最终裁定。

SCC秘书处为理事会编制了一份备忘录，其中包括回避申请的理由，仲裁员和另一方当事人递交的评论，以及基于SCC先例、权威书籍和《IBA指引》对情况所作的分析。理事会会在月度会议上对回避申请进行讨论，或者在需要紧急裁定时通过电子方式讨论。一旦SCC理事会作出裁定，当事人和仲裁员将得到回避申请是否被驳回或者接受的通知。SCC目前还没有为其裁定说明理由，但或许在将来会改变现有做法。

SCC旨在有效地处理仲裁员回避申请并以此避免仲裁程序的延误。仲裁员和反对方通常会有一周的时间对回避申请作出评论，SCC理事会通常会在回避申请提交的4周内作出裁定。

4．结论

在裁定是否要接受回避申请时，即考虑回避申请中陈述的情况是否会对仲裁员的公正性或独立性产生合理怀疑，SCC理事会将参考准据法、判例和国际仲裁实践中的优选范例。《国际律师协会国际仲裁利益冲突指引》会影响理事会的分析，但是在理事会的决策中不起决定性作用。

此外，应当注意的是，可能导致仲裁员被免职的是表面偏见，而不是案件争议中存在的实际偏见。例如，仲裁员在一个案件中争议问题的裁定可能影响该仲裁员担任代理律师的其他相关案件的结果，这里交叉的部分可能会引起表面偏见。

在相关期间，SCC理事会审议了几个回避申请，其中当事人认为仲裁员在另一个平行程序中担任反方代理律师，因此该仲裁员可能存在偏见。这种情况就其本身而言很难对仲裁员的公正性产生合理怀疑。在小型法律界（如斯德哥尔摩），仲裁律师在不同背景以不同身份面对彼此并不足为奇。

如果以几年前就不复存在的情况或关系作为回避申请的理由，那么该申请通常不会被接受。例如，当仲裁员和当事人或者其代理人的关系在仲裁开始三年多以前就已经结束，这通常不会引起关于仲裁员公正性的合理怀疑。《IBA指引》中罗列的时间架构可以作为参考，但是不起决定性作用。

如果当事人在回避申请中提出数个理由，SCC理事会将把所有相关情况纳入考虑范围并做出整体评价。也许将数个关系或者情况结合考虑足以作为回避申请的支撑，即使将其分开考虑并不足以作为仲裁员免职的正当理由。例如，如果仲裁员和申请人的代理律师同时参与（但不是协理关系）另外一起争议案件，且该仲裁员重复（但非多次）被申请人的代理律师指定为仲裁员，这些情况结合在一起可能会导致对仲裁员公正性和独立性的合理怀疑。

SCC理事会以往作出的裁定可能表明了理事会对于仲裁员回避理由的不同观点，但这些观点不应被视为具有决定性。每个回避申请将始终在所提交争议的背景下基于所提出的理由进行考虑。

【英文版】

SCC Board to Provide Reasoned Decisions on Arbitrator Challenges

On 1 January 2018, theArbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC) will begin providing reasons for its decisions on challenges to arbitrators. This new institutional policy was adopted by the SCC Board in September.

Although the SCC Arbitration Rules do not require the Board to motivate any of its decisions, including those relating to challenges, the Board has occasionally chosen to do so on its own initiative for the benefit of the parties and the challenged arbitrators.The SCC has also, since 2005, regularly published articles summarizing all submitted challenges and stating whether or not they were sustained. These periodic publications make the Board’s decision-making more predictable tousers.

Under the new policy, the SCC will provide reasoned decisions on all arbitrator challenges decided by the Board, unless the parties agree otherwise. “We believe that giving parties and arbitrators insight into the Board’s decision-making with regard to challenges will further enhance their confidence in the arbitral process,” says SCC Secretary General Annette Magnusson. 

As a main rule, the reasoned decisions will be brief, stating concisely the analysis upon which the Board dismisses or sustains the challenge. If warranted by the circumstances of a particular challenge, however, more extensive reasons may be given. The service will be included in the SCC’s administrative fee; there will be no additional cost to users.

Historically, the London Courtof International Arbitration (LCIA) was the only major institution to provide reasoned decisions on arbitrator challenges, but in recent years other arbitral institutions have followed suit. The ICC Court of Arbitration announced in 2015 that it would do so when requested by the parties.

2. The standard for arbitrator impartiality in SCC arbitrations

The SCC Rules stipulate, as do most institutional rules, that arbitrators must be impartial and independent.Before being appointed, arbitrators must disclose any circumstances that may give rise to doubts as to his or her impartiality or independence. And if new such circumstances arise during the course of the arbitration, arbitrators must disclose them immediately. If the disclosed circumstances – or other circumstances of which a party is aware – give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s independence or impartiality, the party may challenge the arbitrator under Article 15 of the SCC Rules. If all other parties agree to the challenge, the arbitrator must resign. In all other cases, the SCC Board makes a decision on the challenge.

2.1 The SCC Rules

Article 15(1) of the SCC Rules provides that a party may challenge an arbitrator “if circumstances exist which give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence or if he/she does not possess the qualifications agreed by the parties.” The rules do not define “justifiable doubts”, or explain which circumstances may legitimately give rise to such doubts. Therefore, when determining whether a challenge filed under this provision should be sustained, the SCC Board looks to applicable law and best practices in international arbitration for guidance.

2.2 The Swedish Arbitration Act

Most SCC arbitrations have their formal seat in Sweden, rendering the Swedish Arbitration Act is applicable to the proceedings.Section 8 of the Act states that an arbitrator shall be discharged “if there exists any circumstance which may diminish confidence in the arbitrator’s impartiality”. In doctrine and jurisprudence, the “impartiality” requirement has been interpreted to include “independence” as spelled out in the UNCITRAL model law and the SCC Rules. In the proposed revisions to the Act, which may be adopted in 2017, the word

“independence” has been added to Section 8.

Section 8 of the Act provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may diminish confidence in an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, including (1) the arbitrator or a person closely associated with him may “expect benefit or detriment worth attention, as a result of the outcome of the dispute”, (2) the arbitrator represents a party who may expect such benefit or detriment, and (3) the arbitrator has taken a position in the dispute. Of course, circumstances other than those enumerated in Section 8 may serve as grounds for disqualifying an arbitrator. Nonetheless, this provision of the Act guides the SCC Board’s determination of which situations give rise to “justifiable doubts” under the SCC Rules.

2.3 Jurisprudence

Sweden’s Supreme Court has held that an arbitrator’s impartiality should be assessed objectively. This means that an arbitrator should be removed ifthe circumstances would normally lead to doubts as to impartiality, even if inthe case at hand there is no reason to suspect that the arbitrator is actuallypartial.

2.4 The IBA Guidelines on Challenges to Arbitrators

The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest inInternational Arbitration have gained wide acceptance within the international arbitration community since their first issuance in 2004. Arbitrators commonly rely on the Guidelines when making decisions about prospective appointments and necessary disclosures, and the Guidelines are frequently cited in challenges.The SCC Board routinely consult the Guidelines when deciding challenges under the SCC Rules. Finally, Sweden’s Supreme Court has noted that, while its decisions are based on the provisions in the Arbitration Act, it may also consider the IBA Guidelines – especially in cases involving non-Swedish parties.

The IBA Guidelines provide that “doubts are justifiable when a reasonable third person, having knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances, would reach the conclusion that there is a likelihood that the arbitrator may be influenced by factors other than the merits of the case as presented by the parties in reaching his or her decision.” In other words, it is the appearance ofbias — not actual bias — that may trigger dismissal of the arbitrator.

In order to promote greater consistency, and to avoid unnecessary challenges and arbitrator withdrawals and removals, the Guidelines list specific situations, relationships and circumstances and indicate whether disclosure or disqualification is warranted. The situations are divided into Red, Orange and Green lists. The Red List describes situations in which an objective conflict of interest exists from the point of view of a reasonable third person having knowledge of the relevant facts. The Orange List describes situations which in the eyes of the parties may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence.

The Green List describes situations or circumstances where there is no appearanceof or actual conflict of interest from an objective point of view.The SCC Board routinely references the Red, Orange and Green lists when assessing whether a circumstance, relationship or situation invoked as a ground for challenge gives rise to “justifiable doubts” as stipulated by the SCC Rules.

3．The SCC procedure for challenges to arbitrators

A party who wants to challenge an arbitrator must submit a written statement to the Secretariat setting forth the reasons for the challenge. The challenge must be filed within 15 days from when the circumstances giving rise to the challenge became known to the party. Failure by a party to challenge an arbitrator within the stipulated time period constitutes a waiver of the right to make the challenge, and the SCC Board will dismiss a challenge on this ground.

When a challenge is filed by a party, the Secretariat gives the other party and the arbitrators an opportunity to submit comments on the challenge. If the other party agrees to the challenge, the arbitrator must resign. In all other cases, including in those where the arbitrator offers to voluntarily step down but one party objects, the Board makes the final decisionon the challenge.

The SCC Secretariat compiles a memorandum for the Board, which includes the grounds for challenge, the comments submitted by the arbitrator and the other party, and an analysis of the circumstances based on SCC precedent, legal authorities, the IBA Guidelines. The Board discusses the challenge at one of its monthly meetings, or electronically in situations where an urgent decision is needed. Once the SCC Board has made a decision, the parties and the arbitrators are notified whether the challenge was sustained or dismissed. The SCC currently does not provide reasons for its decisions, but may begin doing so in the future.

The SCC aims to handle all challenges to arbitrators efficiently, and so as to avoid delaying the arbitral proceedings.Arbitrators and opposing parties are typically given one week to comment on the challenge, and the SCC Board usually renders its decision within 4 weeks of the challenge being filed.

4. Conclusion

When deciding whether a challenge should be sustained – that is, whether circumstances give rise to justifiable doubts as to an arbitrator’s impartiality or independence –the SCC Board considers applicable law, jurisprudence, and best practices in international arbitration. The IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest influence the Board’s analysis, but are not conclusive in the Board’s decision-making.

Again, it should be noted that it is the appearance of bias that may trigger removal of the arbitrator; not the existence of actual bias in the dispute at hand. For example, where the arbitrator’s adjudication of an issue in one casecould influence the outcome in a related case where the arbitrator serves as counsel, this overlap may create the appearance of bias.

During the relevant period, the SCC Board considered several challenges where the party alleged that the arbitrator was biased because of an opposing-counsel relationship in a separate but parallel proceeding. This circumstance, on its own, is rarely grounds for justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality. In a small legal community, such as Stockholm, it is unsurprising that arbitration lawyers face each other in different settings and different roles.

A challenge will generally not be sustained if it is based on circumstances or relationships that ceased to exist several years ago. For example, where a relationship between the arbitrator and a party or counsel ended more than three years before the start of the arbitration, it typically does not give rise to justifiable doubts regarding the arbitrator’s impartiality. The time frames set out in the IBA Guidelines serve as a reference, but they are not conclusive.

When a party presents several grounds for challenge, the SCC Board will make an overall assessment, taking all relevant circumstances into consideration. It may bethat several relationships or circumstances, when viewed in combination, are sufficient to sustain a challenge, even where, seen separately, they would not warrant release of the arbitrator. For example, if an arbitrator and the claimant’s counsel were both involved in a separate dispute, but not asco-counsel, and the same arbitrator had received some, but not many, repeat appointments from claimant’s counsel, the combination of those circumstances may give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality and independence.

Past decisions rendered by the SCC Board may indicate the Board’s view on various grounds for challenging an arbitrator. These views, however, should not be seen as definitive. Each challenge will always be considered on the grounds presented,and in the context of the dispute in which it was filed.

Resource from：

1．http://sccinstitute.com/about-the-scc/news/2017/scc-board-to-provide-reasoned-decisions-on-arbitrator-challenges/

2．SCC Practice Note: Board Decisions on Challenges to Arbitrators 2013-2015. By: Anja Havedal Ipp（SCC Legal Counsel），Elena Burova （SCC Intern）