沃达丰诉印度投资条约仲裁案件

更新时间：2018-06-25 15:50:27  张振安 临时仲裁ADA 编辑：lianluobu  点击次数：1592次

沃达丰诉印度投资条约仲裁开始于2007年, 当时沃达丰获得了印度 Hutchison Essar的多数股权 [1]。那是在开曼岛发生的交易，从本质上说, 沃达丰利用避税港逃避了印度税务当局的管辖。

溯及征税

因此, 2012年印度最高法院裁定该交易超出了印度税务部门的管辖范围, 在印度不征税, 这也就不足为奇了。然而, 印度政府不同意这一裁定, 作为回应，修正了其所得税法（Income Tax Act）并追溯适用。

这项修订的目的, 是要确保各公司不能再通过避税天堂的操作，逃避印度的所得税。随后, 印度政府针就笔交易对沃丰达进行追溯征税（retroactively tax）和处罚。这种溯及性征税是沃达丰和印度之间争端的导火线, 这可能成为印度与外国投资者之间最具影响力的争议。

沃达丰诉印度: 仲裁开始

沃达丰认为该修正案的追溯适用违反了印度-荷兰的双边投资条约（India-NetherlandsBIT）。2012年通知争议，2014年4月提交仲裁[2]。印度提出了初步的管辖权异议作为回应。

沃达丰诉印度: 平行诉讼

此后不久, 沃达丰于2015年6月就同样的争议根据印度-英国的双边投资条约（India-UK BIT）通知了印度政府。2017年1月, 它发起仲裁, 有效地根据不同条约对同一项争议发起了平行诉讼（parallelproceeding）。[3] 根据不同的双边投资条约中约定的争端解决，两个仲裁庭对此项争议均有管辖权。沃达丰之所以能引用不同的双边投资条约, 是因为母公司是英国法人, 而子公司是荷兰法人。

仲裁禁令

然而, 在平行诉讼开始后, 印度政府向德里高等法院申请, 法院发出仲裁禁令。法院认为, 使用以前的投资者－国家裁定证实其主张, 进行平行诉讼是滥用权力。这个论点确实有法律依据。然而,因为仲裁庭完全有能力自裁管辖权，因此，法院

因此, 德里高等法院发出了令人吃惊的临时命令, 即禁止仲裁的禁令（Anti-Arbitration Injunction），该禁令将导致法院没有根据的干涉仲裁，因为合法组成的仲裁庭对平行诉讼程序问题的裁决本身具有管辖权。幸运的是， 2018年5月7日, 德里高等法院推翻了其临时命令, 并允许仲裁程序继续进行。[4]

禁止仲裁禁令对沃达丰与印度争议的重要性

如果禁止仲裁禁令被批准，根据禁令仲裁庭何去何从存在不确定性。例如, SGS案件仲裁庭[5] 则采取无视仲裁禁令, 声称尊重禁令将违反其保护投资者仲裁权的责任和义务。

然而, 从印度禁止仲裁禁令的尝试中可以吸取一个重要教训。印度将抵制潜在的裁决。显然,关于这一争议, 印度并不关心损害（tarnishing）其国际声誉。它不会屈服于国际社会的压力，接受仲裁庭的裁决。

然而, 拒绝批准禁止仲裁的禁令, 沃达丰可能在印度执行潜在的裁决增加了希望。德里高等法院有效地证明了它独立于中央政府。

【英文部分】

 

Vodafone versus India Investment Treaty Arbitration

By AcerisLaw LLC

The Vodafone versus India investment treaty arbitratoin has its origins in 2007 when Vodafone acquired a majority stake in India’s Hutchison Essar[1]. It was a Cayman island transaction. Essentially, Vodafone used the tax haven to escape the jurisdiction of India’s tax authorities.

RetroactiveTaxation

It was therefore unsurprising when, in 2012, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that the transaction was outside the scope of India’s tax department’s jurisdiction and was not subject to taxation in India. The Indian government, however, did not agree with this decision and responded by amending its Income Tax Act, retroactively.

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure that companies could no longer avoid Indian income tax by operating out of tax havens. The Indian government then proceeded to retroactively tax and fine Vodafone for the transaction. This retroactive taxation is the origin of the Vodafone versus India dispute that has become perhaps the most publicised dispute between India and a foreign investor.

Vodafone versus India: Arbitration Commenced

Vodafone considered the retrospective application of the amendment to be in breach of the India-NetherlandsBIT. It accordingly notified the dispute in 2012, and thereupon invoked arbitration in April 2014[2]. India responded by raising apreliminary jurisdictional objection.

Vodafone versus India: Parallel Proceedings

Shortly thereafter, in June 2015, Vodafone notified the same dispute, but now under the India-UK BIT. In January 2017,it invoked arbitration, effectively initiating a parallel proceeding for the same dispute under a different treaty.[3] Both arbitral tribunals can establish jurisdiction through the respective dispute settlement provisions in the aforementioned BIT’s. Vodafone had access to both these BITS’s because the parent company is British, while the subsidiary is Dutch.

Anti-Arbitration Injunction

Nevertheless, after the initiation of the parallel proceedings, the Indian government approached the Delhi High Court to issue an anti-arbitration award. It considered the initiation of parallel proceedings to be an abuse of rights, using previous investor-State decisions to substantiate its claim. This argument does have merit. The merit of the argument is insignificant, however, as an arbitral tribunal is perfectly competent to rule on its own jurisdiction.

It was therefore surprising when the Delhi High Court issued an interim order granting the anti-arbitration injunction. This would have resulted in an unfounded interference. The legitimately constructed arbitral tribunal has the competence rule on the issue of parallel proceedings on its own. It is therefore fortunate, that on 7 May 2018, the Delhi High Court overturned its interim orderand allowed the arbitration proceedings to continue.[4]

The Significance of the Anti-Arbitration Injunction on the Vodafone Versus India Dispute

If the anti-arbitration injunction had been granted, it is uncertain how the tribunal would have approached it. The SGS tribunal[5],for example, ignored an anti-arbitration injunction, asserting that respecting it would be in violation of its duty to protect the investor’s right to arbitrate.

There is one significant lesson, however, to take away from India’s anti-arbitration injunction attempt. India will fight against a potential award. It is clear that concerning this dispute, India is unconcerned with tarnishing its international reputation. It will not succumb to pressure from the international community to accept a decision of the arbitral tribunal.

The refusal to grant the anti-arbitration injunction,however, provides Vodafone with hope that it might enforce a potential award in India. The Delhi High Court effectively demonstrated its independence from the central government.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/2007/05/10/vodafone-hutch-sale-markets-equity-cx_rd_0510markets1.html– 494828273bef

[2] https://www.italaw.com/cases/2544

[3] http://investmentpolicyhub.unctad.org/ISDS/Details/819

[4] Para 148: “Of course, it is a matter of practicethat National Courts will exercise great self restraint and grantinjunction only if there are very compelling circumstances and the Courthas been approached in good faith and there is no alternative efficaciousremedy available”(emphasis added)

[5]SGS v Pakistan Decision of 3 July 2002 reported at(2003) 19 Arbitration International 182