瑞典案例：仲裁庭的“不适当通知”行为应限于“法律事实”

更新时间：2018-03-26 10:30:03  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1256次

 本案涉及一项特许经营协议下的租金协定争议，当事方向SCC提起仲裁。仲裁庭于2015年10月23日作出裁决（SCC, Case No. T 756-16 and T4427-16）后，一方当事人对仲裁裁决提出异议。争议内容为合同当事方的代理人之间达成的租金支付口头协定是否存在效力，即当事方是否有放弃租金的承诺。这一事实因素是否会对仲裁裁决结果产生实质性的影响。且该事实是否是仲裁庭必须要适当通知相对方的情形。裁庭未向利益相关方履行对该事实的通知义务是否构成仲裁程序瑕疵。

Summary: 被申请人（异议方）认为SCC裁决违反了瑞典仲裁法第34条第2项规定，向瑞典上诉法院申请撤销裁决书中的的67、71段及73段的部分内容。被申请人认为仲裁庭超越了仲裁协议的授权，未考虑到其利益。此外，仲裁庭对特定事项未履行通知，构成仲裁程序违法，违背了瑞典仲裁法第34条第6项，而应被撤销。

申请人认为仲裁庭并非未考虑到特定情形应向相对方履行通知义务。即便存在如此情形，也不影响仲裁结果的公正性。

瑞典上诉法院驳回了被申请人对仲裁裁决的异议和请求。法院认为，对仲裁裁决产生实质影响的因素应该是“法律事实（legal facts）”。

对于何谓能够影响仲裁裁决的“法律事实”在瑞典没有判例法或判例法明确解释，但依据法理可以作出认定“证据性事实或辅助性事实（Evidentiary facts or ancillaryfacts）”不属于其中。本案中的被申请方诉称的仲裁庭不适当履行通知行为即可认为是“证据性事实或辅助性事实（Evidentiary facts or ancillaryfacts）”。

本案中被申请方诉称的仲裁庭未履行适当通知的行为的事实仅属于“证据性事实或辅助性事实（Evidentiary facts or ancillaryfacts）”。故而，仲裁庭不存在不适当履行通知义务行为，且不构成仲裁程序瑕疵，驳回请求。

[英文原文]

 

Summary: The Respondent to the arbitration (challenging party) challenged the award under item 2 of Section 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act, requesting that the Court of Appeal annul paragraphs 67, 71 and part of paragraph 73 of the arbitral award.   The challenging party argued that the tribunal exceeded its mandate by basing its decision on circumstances which had not been referenced by the parties.

In the alternative the challenging party argued that a procedural error occurred in the arbitration and parts of the award should be set aside pursuant to item 6 of Section 34 of the Swedish Arbitration Act.  The party claimed that the tribunal committed a procedural error by not informing the challenging party that it had taken certain circumstances into account, thereby depriving the party of its right to argue those legal facts.  The challenging party argued that this constituted a material procedural error that materially affected the outcome of the arbitration. 

The Claimant to the arbitration claimed that the tribunal did not base its decision on any circumstance which had not been referenced by a party and that even if it had done so, it would not have affected the outcome of the arbitration.

The Court dismissed the challenge in its entirety. The Court noted that if an arbitrator bases his/her decision on a circumstance which has not been involved by a party, he/she shall generally be considered to have exceeded his/her mandate.  However, the Court noted that for an award to be annulled on the ground that the tribunal based its decision on circumstances not referenced by the parties, these circumstances must relate to legal facts not invoked by a party. The Court found in this case that the relevant circumstances taken into account by the tribunal did not constitute legal facts in the action at issue. Instead the circumstances were evidentiary circumstances in support of the parties having agreed on a waiver of the rent. As the circumstances were evidentiary facts the arbitral tribunal was not obliged to inform the party that it intended to take them into account.  Therefore the tribunal did not exceed its mandate, additionally no procedural error occurred and the claim was dismissed.