>首页 > 仲裁动态 > 仲裁资讯 > 仲裁要闻 > 正文

当事人是否可以放弃撤销仲裁裁决的权利(瑞士案例)

更新时间:2017-12-11 14:28:02  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑:lianluobu  点击次数:1447次

20171017,瑞士最高院裁定确认双方当事人已在其仲裁协议中有效放弃对国际仲裁庭裁决提出异议的权利,这份裁定对国际缔约方达成的仲裁协议有着重要影响。

瑞士最高法院驳回克罗地亚提出撤销对有利于Dechert客户MOLHungarian OilGas Plc.仲裁裁决申请,该案件对争议前达成的仲裁协议的执行有重大影响,并对国际缔约方之间未来订立仲裁协议的内容有重大影响。具体而言,瑞士最高法院认为,仲裁条款中规定的“不应对任何根据本合同做出的仲裁裁决向任何法院提起上诉”,构成对寻求撤销仲裁裁决权利的有效弃权。法院驳回了克罗地亚的主张,即弃权仅限于全面上诉,而不是撤销仲裁裁决或宣告仲裁裁决无效的诉讼。

 

背景:当前的仲裁

克罗地亚共和国v. MOL为当事人的PCA Case No. 2014-15 (UNCITRAL)进行的仲裁案,已引起了众多媒体关注,原因是克罗地亚对MOL提起了耸人听闻的受贿指控,但是最终被仲裁庭驳回了。

案件起因于本世纪初克罗地亚将国有能源公司Industrija Nafte d.d. (“INA”)私有化的决定。2003年,MOL匈牙利最大的公司在竞标过程中从克罗地亚购买了INA的初始股份。MOL之后和克罗地亚再签订一份股东协议(“SHA”),其中包含了各方同意依据UNCITRAL仲裁规则将争议提交仲裁的协议。

2009年,MOL增加了其在INA的股份,成为了INA的最大股东。MOL与克罗地亚达成了SHA的“首个修正案”(the “FASHA”)以及气体主协议(the “GMA”)GMA在与SHA相同的条款中包含了同样的仲裁条款。在承认MOL现在是INA唯一的最大股东的情况下,FASHA赋予了MOLINA的管理控制权。

2011年,2年多以后新政府当局——克罗地亚检察官指控MOL是通过向前总理Ivo Sanader行贿1000万欧元获得了克罗地亚对FASHAGMA的认可。克罗地亚检察官在萨格勒布县法院成功对Sanader定罪,尽管该定罪后来被克罗地亚宪法法院撤销了。克罗地亚的检察官现在正在以相同的指控对Sanader进行调查。在MOL董事长和CEO缺席的情况下,他们还指控了Zsolt Hernádi,声称其代表MOLSanader进行了行贿。MOLHernádi极力地否认了这些指控,如同下述,仲裁庭认定这些指控毫无根据。

20141月,Croatia根据SHAGMA中的仲裁条款启动了针对MOLUNCITRAL仲裁。Croatia请求仲裁庭(1)宣告因被指控的贿赂而FASHA GMA协议自始无效;(2)宣告因公司治理结构被指控违反克罗地亚公司法而FASHA自始无效;并且(3)裁决克罗地亚因MOL违反SHA而进行相应赔偿金。

201612月,仲裁庭由Neil Kaplan先生 (首席), Jaksa Barbić教授(Croatia任命),  Jan Paulsson教授 (MOL任命)组成,并驳回了Croatia针对MOL的所有指控。经过多年的仲裁,并且基于大量的证据材料,仲裁庭得出了“克罗地亚未能证明MOL确实向Sanader先生行贿的事实。”仲裁庭还裁定了克罗地亚有关公司治理以及违反SHA的主张没有事实依据,事实上在行贿指控之外并未有任何更多的无足轻重的索赔主张。

 

瑞士最高院的程序和判决

 

克罗地亚在瑞士最高院基于几个理由寻求撤销该仲裁裁决。首先,克罗地亚主张其自己选定的边裁Barbić教授未能适当地披露其已在克罗地亚早先的一个没有关联的仲裁中被INA选定为仲裁员。其次,克罗地亚主张仲裁庭未适当排除其根据规定刑事问题司法协助的国际条约从奥地利刑事当局获得的特定证据。第三,克罗地亚争辩说,仲裁庭没有考虑关于克罗地亚关键证人证词可信度的某些主张。

瑞士最高法院驳回了所有主张。取而代之的是,法院同意MOLSHA以及GMA仲裁条款中规定“不应对任何根据本合同做出的裁决向任何法院提起上诉”,构成对寻求撤销仲裁裁决权利的有效弃权。

克罗地亚曾主张术语“上诉”并不包含“撤销”。克罗地亚认为仲裁条款中的措辞仅是确认有关仲裁裁决异议的通常规则:如当事人不能向对一项法院判决一样基于事实问题对仲裁裁决提起上诉。相反,当事人只能基于仲裁地的仲裁法规定的相当有限的理由寻求撤销仲裁裁决或宣告仲裁裁决无效(如关于承认与执行仲裁裁决的相关条约所规定的那样)。

瑞士法院并不认可这一主张。在仔细审查了瑞士的其他裁定和SHA以及 GMA中的措辞之后,法院认为MOL和克罗地亚双方均已放弃了对任何依据本协议所做裁决寻求撤销救济的权利。因此,瑞士法院最终驳回了克罗地亚撤销申请。

 

 

瑞士法院的裁定对当事人协商订立国际仲裁协议有很大影响。该裁定肯定了瑞士法院长期以来遵从当事人的选择,选择将仲裁作为独立于法院的一种解决争议的机制。尽管双方基于仲裁地的仲裁法所规定的理由通常具有对仲裁裁决提出异议的权利,当事人也可以放弃该权利。

法院裁定也强调了在完全理解相关仲裁法律基础上应当仔细起草仲裁条款。当事人使用格式化仲裁条款,或仅是从其他协议中剪切黏贴仲裁条款,将会面临很大的风险。

 

【英文内容】

 

SwissCourt affirms parties’ right to waive set-aside of arbitration award

 

In a 17 October 2017 decision with significant implications for arbitration agreements between international parties, the Swiss Supreme Court held that the parties had validly waived their right to challenge an international arbitral tribunal’s award in their arbitration agreement.

 

The decision by the Swiss Supreme Court to reject Croatia’s application to set-aside an award rendered in favor of Dechert client, MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Plc. (“MOL”), has significant implicationsfor the enforcement of pre-existing arbitration agreements and should shape future arbitration agreements between international parties. Specifically, the Swiss Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause’s provision that “[t]here shall be no appeal to any court from awards rendered hereunder” constituted a valid waiver of the right to seek set-aside of the award. The Court rejected Croatia’s argument that the waiver was limited to full-blown appeals, rather than actions to set aside or annul an arbitral award.

 

Background: The Underlying Arbitration

 

The underlying arbitration between the parties, The Republic of Croatia v. MOL, PCA Case No. 2014-15 (UNCITRAL), has generated significant media attention – in no small part because of the sensational allegation of bribery that were made by Croatia against MOL, but which were rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal.

 

The case arose from Croatia’s decision in the early 2000s to privatize its state-owned energy company, Industrija Nafted.d. (“INA”). In 2003, MOL – the largest company in Hungary – purchased an initial stake in INA from Croatia, following a competitive bidding process. MOL and Croatia then entered into a Shareholders Agreement (the “SHA”), which contained the parties’ agreement to arbitrate disputes pursuant to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

 

In 2009, MOL increased its stake in INA to become the largest shareholder in INA. MOL and Croatia entered into a “First Amendment” to the SHA (the“FASHA”) and a Gas Master Agreement (the “GMA”). The GMA contains an arbitration clause in the same terms as the one in the SHA. In recognition that MOL was now INA’s single largest shareholder, the FASHA gave MOL management control over INA.

 

In 2011 – more than two years later and with a new government in place – Croatian prosecutors alleged that MOL had procured Croatia’s agreement to the FASHA and GMA by offering a 10 million euros bribe to former Prime Minister Ivo Sanader. Croatian prosecutors obtained a conviction against Sanader on these charges in the Zagreb County Court,although the conviction was later quashed by Croatia’s Constitutional Court.Croatian prosecutors are currently retrying Sanader on the same charges. They are also conducting a prosecution in absentia of MOL’s Chairman and CEO, Mr.Zsolt Hernádi, for allegedly offering Sanader the bribe on behalf of MOL. MOLand Hernádi have vigorously denied the allegations – and, as discussed below,the Arbitral Tribunal agreed that there is no evidence to support them.

 

In January 2014, Croatia commenced the UNCITRAL arbitration against MOL under the arbitration clauses contained in theSHA and GMA. Croatia asked the Arbitral Tribunal to (1) declare that the FASHA and GMA are null ab initio as a result of the alleged bribery; (2) declare that the FASHA is null ab initio because its corporate governance structure allegedly violates Croatian corporate law; and (3) award Croatia damages for MOL’s alleged breaches of the SHA.

 

In December 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal –composed of Mr. Neil Kaplan (Chairman), Prof. Jaksa Barbić (Croatia’sappointment), and Prof. Jan Paulsson (MOL’s appointment) – rejected all of Croatia’s claims against MOL. Following a multi-year arbitration and based on an extensive evidentiary record, the Tribunal came to the “confident conclusionthat Croatia has failed to establish that MOL did in fact bribe Dr Sanader.”The Tribunal also ruled that Croatia’s corporate governance and breach-of-the-SHA claims had no merit, and indeed, were “no more than makeweight claims instituted on the back of the bribery allegation.”

 

The Proceedings and Decision in the SwissSupreme Court

 

In the Swiss Supreme Court, Croatia soughtto set aside the arbitral award on several grounds. First, Croatia argued thatits own party-appointed arbitrator, Prof. Barbić, had improperly failed todisclose that he had been appointed by INA to serve as an arbitrator in anearlier, unrelated arbitration in Croatia. Second, Croatia argued that theArbitral Tribunal had improperly excluded certain evidence that it obtainedfrom Austrian criminal authorities under international treaties providing formutual legal assistance in criminal matters. Third, Croatia argued that theArbitral Tribunal had failed to consider certain arguments on the credibilityof the testimony of Croatia’s key witness.

 

The Swiss Supreme Court declined to reachany of these arguments. Instead, the Court agreed with MOL that the language inthe arbitration clauses of both the SHA and GMA – providing that “[t]here shallbe no appeal to any court from awards rendered hereunder” – was a valid waiverof the right to seek any recourse against the arbitral award.

 

Croatia had argued that the term “appeal”did not encompass “set-aside.” According to Croatia, the language in arbitralclause simply confirmed the usual rule concerning the challenge of arbitralawards:  i.e., parties cannot seek toappeal an arbitral award on the merits, as they can with respect to a courtjudgment. Rather, parties can only seek to set aside or annul an arbitral awardon relatively limited grounds provided for by the arbitral law at the seat ofthe arbitration (and as proscribed by applicable treaties on the recognitionand enforcement of arbitral awards).

 

The Swiss Supreme Court disagreed.Carefully reviewing other Swiss decisions as well as the language in the SHAand GMA, the Court concluded that both MOL and Croatia had waived their rightsto seek set-aside of any arbitral award rendered under the agreements.Accordingly, the Swiss Court dismissed Croatia’s set-aside application.

 

Key Takeaways

 

The Swiss Court’s decision has a number of implications for parties negotiating international arbitration agreements. The decision confirms the Swiss Courts’ longstanding deference to the parties’choice to select arbitration as a mechanism to settle their disputes independent of the courts. Notwithstanding that parties typically have the right to challenge arbitral awards based on the grounds set forth in the arbitral law at the seat of the arbitration, parties can waive that right. 

 

The Court’s decision also emphasizes the importance of carefully drafting arbitration clauses based on a thorough understanding of the applicable law. Parties who use boilerplate arbitration language – or simply cut and paste arbitration clauses from other agreements –do so at their peril.


By Arif and Alexander of Dechert