法国法院认定，仲裁裁决因违反公共政策而被撤销

更新时间：2018-04-18 11:09:44  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1608次

法国法院认定，仲裁裁决因违反公共政策而被撤销

2018年1月16日，法国巴黎上诉法院撤销MK Group v. Onix 案的仲裁裁决，法院认定，当事人以欺诈的方式取得当地的行政审批，违反了国际公共政策 (international public policy)。

案件事实

本案开始于2003年，Dao Lao 公司在老挝设立，经营黄金开采项目。该公司由俄罗斯公司MK集团占有70%的公司股权，老挝公司Lao  Geo Consultant占有30%的股权。2010年，MK集团决定将其60%的股份转让给一家乌克兰公司 Onix。2011年， Lao Geo Consultant、 Onix以及老挝计划和投资部、老挝自然资源和环境部签署了备忘录，该备忘录规定Onix必须要在项目中投资1250万美元。2014年， MK集团向ICC提起仲裁，请求认定转让无效，理由是Onix没有履行其投资1250万美元的义务。 仲裁庭在2015年作出裁决，认定股权转让有效。MK集团不服该裁决，向法国巴黎上诉法院提起上诉，并提出该仲裁裁决违反国际公共政策， 理由是，（1）备忘录中有两个版本 ，一个版本中包含1250万美元投资的规定，而另一个版本中没有规定；（2）MK集团还认为该裁决违反了老挝法律中关于公共政策的一些强制性规定。

争议焦点

备忘录的签订是否违背了国际公共政策; 对Onix的股权转让是否有效。

法院观点

法院撤销了之前的仲裁裁决，认定其违背了国际公共政策。上诉法院认为， 根据法国民事诉讼法第1520条的规定，法院有权对所有相关因素予以审查，包括事实与法律，并决定裁决是否应当被撤销。

法院认为，所有的重要的价值和法律原则都应纳入考量。因此，某些国际公共政策的强制性规定也应予以考察。

With respect to international public order, it held that thisnotion concerns all values and principles that French courts cannot overlook,even in an international context, and that only to this extent may foreignmandatory rules be considered to form part of the international public order inFrance.

法院对两份不同版本的备忘录作出了认定，一份是英文文本，另一份是老挝文本。英文版本的备忘录中没有关于1250万美元投资的规定，而老挝版本的备忘录中有此种规定，以便通过老挝行政部门的审批。法院认为，老挝当局把该规定视为“实质性条件”，这种欺诈的方式“明显、实际、具体 ”违背了国际公共政策。( ‘manifest, effective and concrete’ violation of internationalpublic policy has taken place.)

法国法院改变了对国际公共政策的审查标准，在2014年以前的司法实践中，法国法院认为，只有公然（flagrant）、实际（effective）、具体（concrete）违反国际公共政策才可以撤销仲裁裁决。 现在法院不再使用该审查标准，去除了“公然”，保留了原有的“实际、具体”，并增加了“明显”（manifest），因此现在法院采用的判断标准是，是否“明显、实际、具体 ”违反国际公共政策。

“French courts had required that a violation of internationalpublic policy be ‘flagrant. The present decision, therefore, confirms this‘manifest, effective and concrete’ test for violations of international publicpolicy. The flagrancy criterion was, however, abandoned by the Paris Court ofAppeal, which retained only the test of ‘effective and concrete’ violation.”

总结

 在本案中，法国法院改变了审查国际公共政策的原则，法国法院会进对国际公共政策行全面的考察，考量许多相关因素。法国法院在2017年的一个案件中也撤销了一项裁决，法院引用了联合国大会的决议关于国际公共政策的认定，认为该仲裁裁决的执行会允许权利人从非法洗钱活动中盈利，“明显、实际、具体 ”地违背了国际公共政策。从这两个案件中可以看到，在国际商事仲裁中，国际公共政策正在成为关键因素，国际公共政策的违反与否，将直接影响到仲裁裁决的认定。当事人在进行国际商事活动时，也应当将国际公共政策纳入考量。

 

【英语原文】

 French courts redefinenew test for violations of international public policy to set aside arbitral awards (Société MK Group c v S.A.R.L. Onix et Société Financial Initiative)

 

 

 

By William Kirtley of Aceris Law

Société MK Group c v S.A.R.L.Onix et Société Financial Initiative,Cour d’appel de Paris, 16 January 2018,No 15/21703

 

What are the practical implications of this case?

The relevance of this decision is twofold. First, with respect to foreign mandatory rules, it is interesting to see to what extent these rules will be invoked before French courts as grounds to set aside an arbitral award. As specified by the Paris Court of Appeal, this is possible only when such mandatory rules contain the same objective as values and principles shared by French courts, which can then be applied in an international context.

The most relevant impact of this decision, however, relates to the characterisation of a violation of international public policy. As the Paris Court of Appeal held, this violation must be ‘manifest, effective and concrete’. In this respect, the court considered that it had the power to examine all relevant elements, both in fact and in law, in order to rule whether the award should be set aside for aviolation of international public policy.

Prior to 2014, French courtshad required that a violation of international public policy be ‘flagrant,effective and concrete’. The flagrancy criterion was, however, abandoned by the Paris Court of Appeal, which retained only the test of ‘effective and concrete’ violation (see Sté Gulf Leaders for Management and Services Holding Companyv SA Crédit Foncier de France, Paris Court of Appeal, 4 March 2014).

More recently, the Paris Court of Appeal then added to this test the need for a ‘manifest’ violation of international public policy and confirmed that the court has the power to scrutinise all elements of a case in order to determine whether any ‘manifest,effective and concrete’ violation of international public policy has taken place (see Belokon v Kirghizstan, ParisCourt of Appeal, 21 February 2017).

The present decision,therefore, confirms this ‘manifest, effective and concrete’ test for violationsof international public policy.

It is rare that acts are flagrant (obvious violations of international public order to all) as opposedto manifest (where the violation of international public order can be ascertained on the basis of evidence).

 

 

What was thebackground?

The origins of this case datefrom 2003, when a Laotian company named Dao Lao was created for the purposes of a gold mining project in Laos. This company was 70% owned by a Russian  MK Group and 30% owned by a Laotian company named Leo Geo Consultant. In 2010, MK Group decided to sell a 60% stake in Dao Lao, with its rights to be transferred to a Ukrainian company named Onix. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was then signed in 2011 between MK Group, Lao Geo Consultant, Onix and two Laotian State Ministries. This MOU dealt with the approval of said transfer, which was allegedly subject to Onix’ preliminary investment of $12.5m in the project.

In 2014, MK Group initiated an International Chamber of Commerce arbitration against Onix and the bank that had provided financing, requesting the arbitral tribunal to declare, inter alia, that the transfer of shares was ineffective since Onix had not honoured its obligation to invest $12.5m in the project. The arbitral tribunal ruled in2015, however, that the transfer was valid.

  

What did the court decide?

The arbitral award rendered was challenged before the Paris Court of Appeal by MK Group on two grounds, the first concerning failures by the arbitral tribunal to respect its mission and the second based on a violation of international public order. With respect to the latter, MK Group claimed international public order was violated as the arbitral tribunal had issued its award based on falsified documents, since two different versions of the MOU were produced in arbitral proceedings, one specifying the need for an investment of $12.5m and the other not. MK Groupal so considered the award to violate several mandatory provisions of Laotian law.

At the outset, the Paris Court of Appeal specified that, pursuant to Article 1520 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, it had the power to examine all relevant elements, both factual and legal, in order to determine whether the award must be set aside on the pled grounds. With respect to international public order, it held that this notion concerns all values and principles that French courts cannot overlook,even in an international context, and that only to this extent may foreign mandatory rules be considered to form part of the international public order in France.

Regarding the issue of falsified documents, the court held that two different versions of the MOU had been prepared since the very beginning of the transfer operation by Dao Lao management, one in English reflecting the agreement of the parties and another in Lao destined for Laotian administrative authorities. Considering that the arbitral award conferred a protected title with respect to an investment realised through the fraudulent acquisition of administrative authorisation,the Paris Court of Appeal set aside the award on the ground that international public policy was violated in a ‘manifest, effective and concrete’ manner.