反垄断争议的可仲裁性（德国案例）

更新时间：2018-01-23 11:41:19  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1589次

欧盟法院于2015年在CDC v. Akzo Nobel这一具有里程碑意义案件中裁定欧盟成员国对反垄断争议具有管辖权条款，那仲裁条款能否适用反垄断争议呢？一审德国法院－多特蒙德地区法院（Landgericht Dortmund）在这个问题上作出了判决，认为适用德国法的情况下，无论条款措辞是广义性的还是狭义性的（broadly or narrowly），仲裁条款均能适用于卡特尔损害赔偿(judgment of 13 September 2017, case no. 8 O 30/16 [Kart])。

 

1. 背景

在2015年CDC v. Akzo Nobel案件的判决中，欧盟法院认为，根据欧盟布鲁塞尔条例制度，支持欧盟成员国管辖权条款的适用范围并不当然包括卡特尔损害索赔，除非此项约定明确而具体。考虑到卡特尔损害索赔的不可预见性，“一个抽象地适用于所有因合同关系产生的纠纷的条款，”不能解释为“可扩大到当事人一方所谓的因另一方参与非法卡特尔行为产生的相关侵权责任。”鉴于遭受损失的企业在同意该管辖权条款之时并不能合理地预见此类诉讼，并且该企业在当时对非法的卡特尔行为也一无所知，该等诉讼不能视为因合同关系引起的。因此，该等条款也并不会有效减损法院的管辖权。” (judgment C-352/13, paras. 69-70)。

 

由于欧盟法院对该方面作出裁定所适用的法律是有利于欧盟成员国的自治欧盟法律，其裁定不能合法地直接关联到仲裁条款的解释（一般来说，仲裁条款的解释是由相关的仲裁庭根据适用的国家法律来确定）也就是说，欧盟法院应考虑到这些影响。

 

因此，审理该事项的一审国家法院–阿姆斯特丹上诉法院（Kemira v. CDC, judgment of 21 July 2015, case no.ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:3006, 关于氯化钠行业的卡特尔诉讼）和鹿特丹地方法院（Stichting De Glazen Lift/Kone et al., judgment of 25 May 2016, caseno. ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:4164, 关于电梯行业的卡特尔诉讼）–在处理仲裁条款方面和欧盟法院的做法相同。相比之下，英国高等法院在Microsoft Mobile OY (Ltd) v. Sony Europe Limited & Ors [2017]EWHC 374 (Ch)一案中认为，仲裁条款的管辖范围（适用英国法律）包括私人卡特尔侵害行为（作为关于供应合同中的条款解释问题）。

 

2. 多特蒙德地区法院裁定

在关于铁路行业卡特尔损害赔偿诉讼案件，多特蒙德地区法院作出了与英国高等法院在Sony一案中相同的裁定（认为仲裁条款有效）。申请人与卡特尔之一成员达成的合同中包含了“所有因本合同产生的争议”和“所有与本合同有关仲裁条款”提交仲裁解决的仲裁条款（地区法院适用了德国法律）。因此，被告根据仲裁协议请求法院驳回诉请。相反，申请人认为仲裁条款并不包括卡特尔损害赔偿，并明确提到了欧盟法院在CDC v. Akzo Nobel et al一案中的决定。

多特蒙德地区法院并未认可申请人的主张，认为仲裁条款适用于该案件。其强调在依据德国法律解释仲裁条款时必须采取友好仲裁的立场。这通常会导致适用广泛的解释使签订的着眼于合同性质索赔的仲裁协议通常被认为也涵盖了侵权索赔。由于根据德国法律，卡特尔行为被归类为侵权赔偿，如果由于一系列导致合同索赔的事实行为衍生卡塔尔索赔，也因此由仲裁条款管辖（在适用德国法律的情况下）。

法院认为，既然一致认为是同时发生的侵权索赔（如对先合同义务的违反或故意欺骗的情况），无论卡特尔侵权是发生在协议签订之前，还是过错的性质和严重程度影响仲裁条款的解释，这些都不重要。此外，它与民间执法处分公共利益（private enforcement also serves public interests）并无关系，因为其他侵权索赔也是如此。基于同样的观点，法院裁定不适用欧盟法院在CDC v. Akzo Nobel et al. 一案中规定的有关管辖权条款可预见性的条件。根据法院解释，该条件不能令人信服，并且并没有原则规定，在支持欧盟成员国的管辖权条款（适用布鲁塞尔一号条例）和适用德国法律的仲裁条款方面必须适用同样的标准。

 

3. 启示

从仲裁的角度来看，多特蒙德的地区法院支持仲裁条款的广义解释是令人欢迎的。该裁定目前正处于上诉阶段，还有待观察杜塞尔多夫高等地区法院（Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf）以及最终的德国司法最高法院（Bundes gerichtshof）是否也持同样的观点。

如果该决定被维持原判，这将意味着，在卡特尔索赔案件中，若相关仲裁条款适用德国法，如果这些案件中的申请人与部分公司达成了仲裁条款，他们就卡特尔方面的索赔可能面临不同的争议解决程序。此外，这可能并不是潜在的申请人在仲裁条款起草阶段想要明确规定的，否则，在这种情况下，这样的仲裁条款本就会成为当事人的首选（在这种情况下，试图考虑一个可能存在卡特尔问题而调整相应的条款或争议解决机制，通常可能因为各种原因在商业上被认为是一个不值得考虑的方案）。

然而，令申请人安慰的是，即使有利于被申请人，但是案件的结果可能并不是被申请人可能想要追求的结果。被申请人将需要仔细考虑他们的抗辩策略。援引仲裁协议将很有可能意味着争议将只涉及被申请人和申请人，如通常会使得被申请人无法通过通知第三方而获得其他卡特尔成员的任何分配赔偿。要在法庭获得由于仲裁条款而驳回卡特尔诉讼的管辖权争议的胜诉，今后很长时间内将需要付出极大代价才能取得。

[原文]

 

Do arbitration clauses catch cartel damagesclaims?

Whilst the CJEU’s 2015 landmark decision in CDC v. Akzo Nobel et al. considered whether cartel damages claims fall within the scope of jurisdiction clauses in favour of EU Member States, what about arbitration clauses? The first German court decision on this issue, handed down by the Regional Court of Dortmund (Landgericht Dortmund), has concluded that, where German law applies to the clause, they do – irrespective of whether the clause is worded broadly or narrowly (judgment of 13 September 2017, case no. 8O 30/16 [Kart]).

Background

In its 2015 decision in CDC v. Akzo Nobelet al., the CJEU concluded that, under the Brussels Regulation regime, a jurisdiction clause in favour of an EU Member State could not be found to include cartel damages claims within its scope, unless this agreement is explicit and specific. Considering the unknown and unforeseeable nature of cartel damages claims, “a clause which abstractly refers to all disputes arising from a contractual relationship” cannot be interpreted as “extending to a dispute relating to the tortious liability that one party allegedly incurred as a result of the other’s participation in an unlawful cartel. Given that the undertaking which suffered the loss could not reasonably foresee such litigation at the time that it agreed to the jurisdiction clause and that that undertaking had no knowledge of the unlawful cartel at that time, such litigation cannot be regarded as stemming from a contractual relationship. Such a clause would not therefore have validly derogated from the referring court’s jurisdiction.” (judgment C-352/13, paras. 69-70).

As the CJEU’s decision on this point was based on the application of autonomous EU law on jurisdiction clauses in favour of EU Member States, its decision was not, legally, directly relevant to the interpretation of arbitration clauses (which, generally speaking, is determined by the national law which falls to be applied to the clause before the relevant tribunal/court) That being said, some influence had to be expected before theEU courts.

Accordingly, the first national courts which dealt with the issue – the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (Kemira v. CDC,judgment of 21 July 2015, case no. ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:3006, regarding a sodiumchloride cartel) and the District Court of Rotterdam (Stichting De GlazenLift/Kone et al., judgment of 25 May 2016, case no. ECLI:NL:RBROT:2016:4164,regarding an elevator cartel) – reached the same result as the CJEU in respect of the arbitration clauses before them. In contrast, the English High Courtheld in Microsoft Mobile OY (Ltd) v. Sony Europe Limited & Ors [2017] EWHC374 (Ch) that an arbitration clause (to which English law applied) covered a private cartel damages action (as a matter of interpretation of the clause in the context of the supply contract before it).

The decision of the Regional Court of Dortmund

In refusing to hear a cartel damages action brought before it in relation to a rail cartel, the Regional Court of Dortmund reached the same end result as the English High Court did in Sony. The contracts between the claimant and one of the cartel members contained arbitration clauses (in respect of which German law fell to be applied by theRegional Court) which referred to arbitration “all disputes out of this contract” and “all disputes out of and in connection with this contract”.Accordingly, the defendant relied on the arbitration agreements and asked the court to dismiss the action. In contrast, the claimant maintained that the arbitration clauses did not cover cartel damages claims and explicitly referredto the CJEU’s decision in CDC v. Akzo Nobel et al.

The Regional Court of Dortmund disagreed with the claimant and held that the action fell within the arbitration clauses.It emphasised that an arbitration-friendly stance must be taken when interpreting arbitration clauses under German law. This generally leads to their wide interpretation so that arbitration agreements concluded with a viewto contractual claims are generally considered to also cover concurring tortious claims. Since cartel damages actions are categorised as tortious claims under German law, they are thus covered by an arbitration clause (when German law applies to it) if they derive from a set of facts that also provides for a concurring contractual claim.

According to the court, it neither matters whether the cartel infringement took place prior to entering into the agreement, nor do the nature and seriousness of the fault have an influence onthe interpretation of the arbitration clause, as is also generally accepted regarding other concurring tortious claims (e.g. in case of breaches of pre-contractual duties or wilful deceit). Furthermore, it has no bearing on the interpretation that private enforcement also serves public interests since the same holds true for other tortious claims. With the same argument, the court decided against applying the foreseeability test stipulated by the CJEU in CDCv. Akzo Nobel et al. regarding jurisdiction clauses. According to the court,such test is not convincing and there is no principle that the same standards must be applied regarding jurisdiction clauses in favour of EU Member States(governed by the Brussels I Regulation) and arbitration clauses to which Germanlaw applies.

Implications

From an arbitration perspective, it is to be welcomed that the Regional Court of Dortmund supports a broad interpretation of arbitration clauses. The decision is currently pending in the appeal stage and it remains to be seen whether the Higher Regional Court of Dusseldorf (Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf) and ultimately the German Supreme Court ofJustice (Bundes-gerichtshof) will take the same view.

If upheld, the decision would mean that, incases where a relevant arbitration clause is subject to German law, a claimant in a cartel damages case may face a fragmentation of proceedings when it moves against several cartelists and agreed on arbitration with some of them.Furthermore, this may not be something which potential claimants can likely suppose to address at the drafting stage in circumstances where such an arbitration clause would otherwise be the parties’ preferred choice (in which case attempting to cater for the potential existence of a cartel by changes todrafting or the mechanism would, ordinarily, likely to be a commercial non-starterfor a variety of reasons).

Of comfort to claimants may, however, be that the result of the case may not be one which defendants may necessarily want to pursue, even if available to them. Defendants would need to carefully consider their defence strategy. Invoking the arbitration agreement would most likely mean that the dispute between themselves and the claimant would be resolved by an arbitration involving only themselves and the claimant i.e. the defendant would usually be prevented from securing, in that forum, any contribution claims from other cartelists by means of third party notices.Getting, before a court, a cartel damages claim dismissed in favour of arbitration may thus turn out to be a Pyrrhic victory in the long run.

By Dr. Rupert Bellinghausen; Julia Grothaus