最高法院拒绝承认和执行俄罗斯仲裁裁决（瑞典案例）

更新时间：2018-06-19 11:39:16  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1876次

摘要: 瑞典最高法院于 2018年5月4日作出判决（案号Ö 3626-17），被申请人没有在仲裁中给予陈述其观点的机会而拒绝承认和执行外国仲裁裁决, (见《瑞典仲裁法》第54条2款，1999:116)。

判决请见：

https://www.arbitration.sccinstitute.com/views/pages/getfile.ashx?portalId=89&docId=3259325&propId=1578

被申请人宣称, 他们没有充分机会根据俄罗斯联邦商会国际仲裁院(ICAC 规则) 和《俄罗斯国际商事仲裁法》进行的仲裁程序陈述他们的观点。

仲裁被申请人开庭审理前提交抗辩意见。由于当事人通知仲裁庭他们打算协商解决争议, 仲裁庭分别三次推辞开庭审理时间。当事人最后通知仲裁庭没有达成和解时, 被申请人请求仲裁庭同意延期开庭审理, 以便他们可以根据案情准备抗辩意见。但是仲裁庭不同意被申请人的延期开庭审理请求, 按照原计划开庭审理, 被申请人没有提交答辩意见。最终仲裁庭支持仲裁申请人请求，被申请人败诉，并承担相应的仲裁费用。

上诉法院的裁定, 被申请不提交答辩书（注：由于和解谈判而多次延期开庭审理）, 也没有准备开庭审理辩论意有正当理由。上诉法院驳回了申请人的强制执行申请。申请人向最高法院提起上诉。

 最高法院指出, 执行仲裁裁决的原则是外国仲裁裁决在瑞典应该得到承认和执行 (《瑞典仲裁法》第53条)。但是, 如果仲裁裁决被执行当事人可以证明其没有机会陈述其观点(第54 条第2款、纽约公约第 V (1) (b) 条) ，就不会执行该裁决。法院注意到, 尽管仲裁庭曾经两次要求被申请人提交答辩书, 但并没有遵守这些程序令。但是, 法院认为, 为了和解解决纠纷,当事人多次要求延期开庭审理, 这一事实使得仲裁过程中情况发生了变化。在这种情况下, 被申请人没有必要提交答辩书，仲裁庭继续仲裁后并没有通知被申请人。仲裁庭应给予被申请人一个合理的机会, 以便根据案情准备答辩意见。在没有这样做的情况下, 仲裁庭无视正当程序的基本原则。法院认为, 考虑到被申请人未能在俄罗斯成功撤销仲裁裁决的事实, 拒绝在瑞典承认和执行该仲裁裁决。

【英文部分】

New on Swedish Arbitration Portal: Supreme Court refused recognition and enforcement of an award

By SCC

(Judgment in the Swedish Supreme Court, 4 May 2018. Case No. Ö 3626-17)

Summary: The question in the application to the Supreme Court was whether there were grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award  in Sweden on the basis that the Respondent in the arbitration was not given an opportunity to present its case in the arbitration (see item 2 of Section 54 of the Swedish Arbitration Act,1999:116).

The challenging party argued that they had not been given a sufficient opportunity to present their case in the arbitration proceedings conducted in accordance with the International Arbitration Court at the Chamber of Commerce of the Russian Federation (ICAC rules) and the Russian International Commercial Arbitration Act.

The Respondent to the arbitration did not submit a defence in the lead up to the main hearing. The tribunal postponed the main hearing in this matter on three separate occasions due to the parties informing the tribunal that they intended to resolve the dispute.  When the parties finally informed the tribunal they had not reached a settlement the Respondent requested a postponement so that they could prepare their case on the merits. This request was denied and the arbitration continued without the Respondent submitting a Statement of Defense.  In the final award the Respondent was ordered to pay an amount to the Claimant as well as compensation for the arbitration costs.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Respondent had justifiable reasons not to submit a Statement of Defense and to not prepare to argue the case atthe hearing.  The Court of Appeal therefore rejected the Claimant’s application for enforcement. The Claimant applied to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court noted that the main rule for enforcement is that foreign arbitral awards shall be recognised and enforced in Sweden (Section 53 of theSwedish Arbitration Act). However, the arbitral award will not be enforced if the party, against whom the arbitral award is relied upon can establish that it did not have an opportunity to present its case (item 2 of Section 54, ArticleV(1)(b) New York Convention).  The Court noted that the Respondent had been encouraged on two occasions to submit a Statement of Defense and the company did not comply with these procedural orders.  However, the Court considered that the fact that the parties asked for a number of adjournments of the main hearing due to the attempts to reach an amicable settlement changed the circumstances of the arbitration.  In this situation there was no need for the Respondent to file a Statement of Defence and the tribunal did not revert to the Respondent in relation to this once the arbitration continued.The Tribunal should have given the Respondent a reasonable opportunity to prepare its case on the merits. In not doing so the Tribunal has disregarded basic principles of due process.  The Court considered that this, in conjunction with the fact that the Respondent was not successful in challenging the award in Russia, created an impediment to recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in Sweden.