美国地方法院确认仲裁裁决，驳回被申请人加纳政府关于争议协议受加纳法律管辖的主张

更新时间：2018-06-19 11:36:05  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1519次

2007年，加纳共和国（“Ghana”）与巴尔干能源有限责任公司（Balkan Energy LLC）协商，翻新（refurbishment）和试运行（commissioning）一艘未使用的动力驳船（power barge）。按照加纳法律的要求，巴尔干能源有限责任公司成立了一个当地的子公司来执行该项目：即巴尔干能源（加纳）有限公司（“Balkan Ghana”）。Balkan Ghana和Ghana随后签订了一项《购电协议》（“PPA”），根据该协议，双方同意将任何争端提交海牙常设仲裁法院（PCA）进行仲裁。双方还就PPA应受加纳法律管辖达成一致。

《加纳宪法》规定，政府参加的任何国际商业或经济交易必须经议会批准。根据这一规定，PPA的效力取决于Ghana必须就其有权与Balkan Ghana签订协议提供保证（Ghana provide assurances regarding its authority to enter into the agreement with Balkan Ghana）。因此，加纳总检察长兼司法部长向Balkan Ghana提供了两项法律意见，意见(1)由于Balkan Ghana是一家当地注册的公司，因此PPA不属于上述宪法要求的范围，因此不需要议会批准；意见(2) Ghana有权并授权签订PPA。

2009年双方发生纠纷并成立了仲裁庭。尽管总检察长试图在加纳法院确认不需要议会批准之前限制仲裁程序，仲裁庭还是发布了一项临时裁决，涉及其审理该争端的管辖权。仲裁庭的结论是，PPA中的仲裁协议与更大的合同（the larger contract）是分离的，虽然PPA整个合同受加纳法律管辖，但仲裁协议受仲裁地的法律，即荷兰法律管辖。适用荷兰法律，仲裁庭解释道，仲裁协议的有效性不受《加纳宪法》的影响，其管辖权不会受到加纳法院关于PPA的有效性或可执行性可能作出的任何裁定的影响。

2014年，在审议了各方当事人的大量简要陈述（extensive briefing）并进行了为期一周的开庭审理之后，仲裁庭根据案情作出了有利于Balkan Ghana的最终裁决（the “Award”），特别认定：(1) Balkan Ghana有一个合理预期，即Ghana接受了PPA的有效性，因此有权依赖PPA，并期望Ghana履行PPA规定的义务；(2) Ghana 未能履行PPA的义务。仲裁庭裁定Ghana 向Balkan Ghana支付总额1175万美元外加利息和费用。2016年，Balkan Ghana将其在该裁决中的所有权利和利益转让给了母公司巴尔干能源有限公司（“Balkan UK”）。

2017年，Balkan UK和Balkan Ghana提起诉讼，请求确认这项裁决。Ghana提出不予执行，并提出四个论点：(1) 法院缺乏属事管辖权（subject-matter jurisdiction），因为根据《外国主权豁免法》（“FSIA”），Ghana有权享有豁免；(2) 即使法院拥有管辖权，根据不方便法院原则（doctrine of forum non conveniens），也应当驳回执行申请，因为Ghana是解决争端的更好选择地；(3) 两个申请人都没有资格提出执行请求，因为将裁决从Balkan Ghana转移给Balkan UK是无效的；(4) 根据1958年《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（《纽约公约》）提出了各种抗辩理由，执行请求应当被驳回。

法院依次驳回了加纳所有论点。首先，Ghana无权享有FSIA规定的豁免，因为在执行仲裁裁决方面存在着一项豁免例外。其次，不方便法院原则不适用于在美国请求外国政府执行外国仲裁裁决的行为。第三，Balkan Ghana合法地将其在该裁决中的权利转让给Balkan UK，因此Balkan UK有资格根据《纽约公约》提起执行申请。第四也是最后一点，Ghana提出的三种抗辩理由——即：(1) 仲裁协议根据加纳法律是无效的；(2) 各方当事人不同意将仲裁条款的有效性问题提交仲裁庭；(3) 承认该裁决有悖于美国的公共政策——都没有道理。因此，鉴于有利于仲裁争端解决的联邦政策，法院驳回Ghana不予执行之请，确认执行仲裁裁决。

【英文部分】

U.S.: District court confirms arbitration award, denying Respondent’s claims that the agreement at issue was subject to Ghanaian law.

By Amanda Praestholm and Grant Hanessian

Balkan Energy Ltd. v. Republic of Ghana, No. 17-cv-00584 (D.D.C. Mar. 22, 2018)

In 2007, the Republic of Ghana (“Ghana”) negotiated with Balkan Energy LLC for the refurbishment and commissioning of an unused power barge. As required by Ghanaian law, Balkan Energy LLC formed a local subsidiary to carry out the project: Balkan Energy (Ghana) Limited (“Balkan Ghana”).Balkan Ghana and Ghana subsequently entered into a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”), whereby the parties agreed to submit any disputes to arbitration beforethe Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. The parties also agreed that the PPA was to be governed by Ghanaian law.

The Constitution of Ghana requires parliamentary approval for any international business or economic transaction to which the government is a party. In light of that requirement, the effectiveness of the PPA was conditioned on the requirement that Ghana provide assurances regarding its authority to enter into the agreement with Balkan Ghana. Accordingly, Ghana’s Attorney General and Minister for Justice provided Balkan Ghana with two legal opinions, opining that (1) because Balkan Ghana was a locally incorporated company, the PPA did not fall under the ambit of the aforementioned constitutional requirement and thus parliamentary approval would not be required; and (2) Ghana had the power and authorization to enter into the PPA.

When a dispute between the parties arose in 2009, an arbitral tribunal was constituted. Despite the Attorney General’s attempt to restrain the arbitral proceedings pending confirmation from Ghanaian courts that parliamentary approval was not necessary, the arbitral tribunal nonetheless issued an Interim Award addressing its jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It concluded that the arbitration agreement in the PPA was severable from the larger contract, and that, while the PPA as a whole was governed by Ghanaian law, the arbitration agreement was governed by the law of the Netherlands, as the designated seat of arbitration. Applying Dutch law, the tribunal explained that the validity of the arbitration agreement is not affected by the Ghana Constitution, and that its jurisdiction would not be impacted by any decision that may be reached in the Ghanaian courts as to the validity or enforceability of the PPA.

After considering extensive briefing by the parties and holding a weeklong hearing, the tribunal issued its final Award on the Merits (the “Award”) in 2014 in favor of Balkan Ghana, specifically holding that: (1)Balkan Ghana had a reasonable expectation that Ghana had accepted the validity of the PPA and was therefore entitled to rely on the PPA and expect that Ghana would fulfill its obligations thereunder; and that (2) Ghana failed to comply with its obligations under the PPA. The tribunal ordered Ghana to pay Balkan Ghana a total of $11.75 million plus interests and costs. In 2016, Balkan Ghana assigned all of its rights and interests in the Award to a parent company,Balkan Energy Ltd. (“Balkan UK”).

In 2017, Balkan UK and Balkan Ghana filed this suit to confirm the Award. Ghana moved to dismiss, advancing four arguments: (1) the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Ghana is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (the “FSIA“); (2) even if the court had jurisdiction, dismissal would be appropriate under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because Ghana is the better forum in which to resolve the dispute; (3) neither Petitioner had standing to bring the Petition because the assignment of the Award from Balkan Ghana to Balkan UK was invalid; and (4) confirmation of the Petition should be denied because of various defenses under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of ForeignArbitral Awards, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517 (the “New YorkConvention“).

The court rejected each of these arguments in turn.First, Ghana was not entitled to immunity under the FSIA because there is an exception to immunity for enforcing arbitration awards. Second, the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not apply to actions in the United States to enforce arbitral awards against foreign nations. Third, Balkan Ghana legally assigned its rights in the Award to Balkan UK and therefore Balkan UK had standing to bring this enforcement action under the New York Convention. Fourth and finally, none of the three defenses put forth by Ghana—namely, that (1) the arbitration agreement is invalid under Ghanaian law; (2) the parties did not agree to submit the question of the validity of the arbitration clause to the arbitral tribunal; and (3) recognition of the Award would be contrary to the public policy of the United States—had merit. Thus, in view of the federal policy in favor of arbitral dispute resolution, the court denied Ghana’s motion to dismiss and confirmed the Award.