|
|
|
No. 4 of Fifth Group of Five Model Cases Involving the "Belt and Road" Initiative Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Accurately Defining the Scope of the China-Mongolia Bilateral Treaty and Legally Recognizing and Enforcing the Arbitral Award Made in a Country Participating in the "Belt and Road" Initiative — Mongolian-Russian Joint Venture Non-Ferrous Metal State-Owned Enterprise v. Xizhou (Shanghai) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Case of Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award)
|
|
最高人民法院发布第五批5起涉“一带一路”建设典型案例之四：蒙俄合资有色金属国有企业与西洲（上海）科技发展有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案——准确界定中蒙双边条约范围 依法承认和执行“一带一路”共建国家仲裁裁决
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 4 of Fifth Group of Five Model Cases Involving the "Belt and Road" Initiative Issued by the Supreme People's Court: Accurately Defining the Scope of the China-Mongolia Bilateral Treaty and Legally Recognizing and Enforcing the Arbitral Award Made in a Country Participating in the "Belt and Road" Initiative | | 最高人民法院发布第五批5起涉“一带一路”建设典型案例之四：蒙俄合资有色金属国有企业与西洲（上海）科技发展有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案 |
| — Mongolian-Russian Joint Venture Non-Ferrous Metal State-Owned Enterprise v. Xizhou (Shanghai) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (Case of Application for the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Arbitral Award) | | ——准确界定中蒙双边条约范围 依法承认和执行“一带一路”共建国家仲裁裁决 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| Mongolian-Russian Joint Venture Non-Ferrous Metal State-Owned Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise") and Xizhou (Shanghai) Technology Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Xizhou Technology Company") entered into an Agreement on the Export of Iron Ore on May 5, 2020. Later, a dispute arose between Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise and Xizhou Technology Company due to the performance of the Agreement. Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise filed an application for arbitration with the International Arbitration Center of Mongolia according to the stipulations of the Agreement. Upon receipt of the application, the Mongolia International Arbitration Center mailed the application of Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise and the arbitral procedure document to the registered address of Xizhou Technology Company. Xizhou Technology Company signed for them, but did not make any reply. On December 16, 2022, the Mongolia International Arbitration Center tried the case in the absence of Xizhou Technology Company and made a final arbitral award that Xizhou Technology Company should pay Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise the remaining payment for goods in an amount of USD 172,702.10, the liquidated damages in an amount of USD 55,782.78, and the arbitration fee in an amount of USD 7,113. Since Xizhou Technology Company failed to perform the obligations as determined in the arbitral award, Mongolian-Russian Metal Enterprise filed an application with the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court for the recognition and enforcement of the aforesaid arbitral award. | | 蒙俄合资有色金属国有企业（以下简称蒙俄金属企业）与西洲（上海）科技发展有限公司（以下简称西洲科技公司）于2020年5月5日签订《铁矿石出口协议》。后蒙俄金属企业与西洲科技公司因履行该协议产生争议，蒙俄金属企业依据协议约定向蒙古国国际仲裁中心申请仲裁。蒙古国国际仲裁中心受理后，向西洲科技公司的注册地址邮寄了蒙俄金属企业的申请书及仲裁程序文件，西洲科技公司签收，但未提交任何回复，蒙古国国际仲裁中心于2022年12月16日在西洲科技公司缺席的情况下进行审理，并作出终局仲裁裁决书，裁决西洲科技公司应向蒙俄金属企业支付剩余货款172702.10美元、违约金55782.78美元及仲裁费用7113美元。因西洲科技公司未履行仲裁裁决确定的义务，蒙俄金属企业向上海市第一中级人民法院申请承认与执行上述仲裁裁决。 |
| [Judgment] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| Upon review, the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court held that the arbitral award involved was made by the Mongolia International Arbitration Center within the territory of Mongolia and therefore it was a Mongolian arbitral award. Both China and Mongolia are contracting states of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (hereinafter referred to as the "New York Convention") and they also entered into the Treaty on Civil and Criminal Judicial Assistance between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Mongolia (hereinafter referred to as the "China-Mongolia Bilateral Treaty on Judicial Assistance"). Article VII (1) of the New York Convention provides that "The provisions of the present Convention shall not affect the validity of multilateral or bilateral agreements concerning the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards entered into by the Contracting States nor deprive any interested party of any right he may have to avail himself of an arbitral award in the manner and to the extent allowed by the law or the treaties of the country where such award is sought to be relied upon." In accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the China-Mongolia Bilateral Judicial Assistance Treaty on the "scope of decisions to be recognized and enforced," the scope of decisions to be recognized and enforced in the Treaty includes decisions made by the courts and other competent authorities for property or non-property civil cases. Article 2 of the aforesaid Treaty provides that "for the purpose of the present Treaty, 'competent authorities' refer to courts, procuratorates, and other organs in charge of civil or criminal cases." Whether "competent authorities" include arbitration institutions is not specified in the aforesaid Article. After consulting the relevant negotiation records and draft treaties, it may be determined that "competent authorities" did not include arbitration institutions. Therefore, the China-Mongolia Bilateral Treaty on Judicial Assistance shall not apply to this case and the New York Convention shall apply in the review. Upon review, the arbitral award involved did not fall under any of the circumstances as provided in the New York Convention where it should not be recognized and enforced. Therefore, the Court ruled to recognize and enforce the arbitral award involved made by the Mongolia International Arbitration Center. | | 上海市第一中级人民法院经审查认为，案涉仲裁裁决由蒙古国国际仲裁中心在蒙古国境内作出，系蒙古国仲裁裁决。我国与蒙古国均为《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（以下简称《纽约公约》）缔约国，亦签订《中华人民共和国和蒙古人民共和国关于民事和刑事司法协助的条约》（以下简称《中蒙双边司法协助条约》）。《纽约公约》第七条第一款规定：“本公约之规定不影响缔约国间所订关于承认与执行仲裁裁决之多边或双边协定之效力，亦不剥夺任何利害关系人可依援引裁决地所在国之法律或条约所认许之方式，在其许可范围内，援用仲裁裁决之任何权利。”根据《中蒙双边司法协助条约》第十七条关于“承认与执行裁决的范围”规定，条约的承认与执行范围包括法院或其他主管机关对财产性或非财产性民事案件作出的裁决。该条约第二条规定：“在该条约中，‘主管机关'系指法院、检察院和其他主管民事或刑事案件的机关。”该条内容未直接明确“主管机关”是否包含仲裁机构。经查阅相关谈判记录、条约草案等，可以确定“主管机关”不包含仲裁机构，故本案不适用《中蒙双边司法协助条约》，应当适用《纽约公约》进行审查。经审查，案涉仲裁裁决不存在《纽约公约》规定的不予承认与执行的情形，故法院裁定承认和执行蒙古国国际仲裁中心案涉仲裁裁决。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|