文 | 潘志成 合伙人 匯業律師事務所
內地與香港仲裁程序相互協助保全安排五要點
Five Takeaways from The Arrangement ConcerningMutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of ArbitralProceedings between Mainland and HKSAR
2019年10月1日，由內地最高人民法院與香港特別行政區律政司籤署的《關於內地與香港特別行政區法院就仲裁程序相互協助保全的安排》（法釋[2019]14號，以下簡稱「《協助保全安排》」）已正式生效。2019年10月8日國慶長假後的第一個工作日，全國首例香港仲裁在內地法院的保全申請向上海海事法院遞交。
On October 1, 2019, The Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered interimMeasures in Aid of Arbitral Procedures between the Mainland and Hong Kong SpecialAdministrative Region (FS [2019] No. 14, hereinafter referred to as 「TheArrangement」) signed by the Supreme People’s Court of the Mainland and theDepartment of Justice of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region hasofficially come into force. On October 8, 2019, the first working day after theNational Day holiday in Mainland China, the first application for interimmeasures in aid of arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong was submitted to ShanghaiMaritime Court.
對於這部法律文件從事國際商事仲裁業務的律師以及可能涉及國際商事仲裁的法務人士應當給予高度重視。該文件雖不能徹底改變訴訟和仲裁在國際商事爭議解決中地位與平衡，但對於內地及香港國際商事仲裁實務而言具有一定突破性意義，會對國際商事爭議解決機構的選擇以及對仲裁條款的安排產生一系列影響。為此筆者建議可以從以下五個要點了解《協助保全安排》。
The Arrangement is noteworthy to lawyers whopractice in the field of international commercial arbitration and in-housecounsels who might be involved into international commercial arbitration.Although this document may not completely tilt the balance between courtlitigation and arbitration as two optional dispute resolution forms forinternational commercial disputes, it does have great impact on internationalcommercial arbitration practice between the Mainland and Hong Kong, and may havepotential influence over the selection of dispute resolution forms and thedrafting of the arbitration clause. The followings are the five takeaways fromthis Arrangement:
要點一：國際商事仲裁缺乏臨時禁令措施跨境執行的制度安排
Takeaway1: International commercial arbitrationlacks institutional arrangement for cross-border enforcement of interimmeasures
國際商事爭議解決在選擇爭議解決機構時，一般都會考慮法院訴訟與仲裁之間各自的優勢和劣勢，並根據比較結果加以選擇。相比較於法院訴訟，仲裁在國際商事爭議解決方面存在一系列優勢，例如《紐約公約》的成員國之間可以通過《紐約公約》實現仲裁裁決的承認與執行，通過選擇仲裁員可以增加裁決者的專業性，仲裁機構、仲裁地、仲裁語言、仲裁規則的可選擇性增加了程序上的靈活性，以及仲裁的保密性等等。
When selecting dispute resolution forms forinternational commercial disputes, the parties would consider the respectiveadvantages and disadvantages of both court litigation and arbitration, and makeselection according to this comparison result. Compared with court litigation,arbitration has a number of advantages. For instance, among members of the NewYork Convention, they could recognize and enforce the arbitral awards accordingto this Convention, guarantee the expertise of the adjudicator by selectingarbitrators, increase procedural flexibility, as well as the confidentiality ofarbitration by choosing arbitral center, place of arbitration, arbitrationlanguage and arbitration rule.
然而與法院訴訟程序相比，仲裁也存在一些劣勢，例如缺乏對裁決再次審查的上訴機制、難以處理多方主體之間非單一合同糾紛等等。而在仲裁的劣勢當中，最常被提及的一大劣勢就是仲裁缺乏具有強制力的程序保障措施或臨時禁令措施，無法向法院訴訟那樣進行強制傳喚、強制調查取證或證據出示，也無法進行財產保全、證據保全、行為保全。如果仲裁申請人需要相應的臨時措施保障其權益，仲裁機構自身並無法實施相應措施。即便根據《聯合國國際貿易法委員會仲裁示範法》第17條、以及根據上海國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會等仲裁機構的仲裁規則，仲裁機構可以做出臨時措施的決定，但這些決定最終也只能依靠法院對仲裁機構的配合來執行。
However, compared with court proceedings,arbitration also has some disadvantages, such as the lack of an appeal mechanismfor re-examining the arbitral award, and the difficulty of handling non-singlecontract disputes between multiple parties. Among the disadvantages ofarbitration, the most frequently mentioned disadvantage to arbitration is thelack of any coercive procedural supporting measure or interim measures, and itis impossible for an arbitral center to compel discovery, attendance of witnesslike in court proceedings, let alone property preservation, evidencepreservation, or behavior preservation. If a party to arbitral proceedingsneeds interim measures to protect its rights, despite that based upon Article17 of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration or the arbitration rules of some arbitralcenter such as the SIETAC, an arbitral center dose have power to grant interimmeasures, an arbitral center can not enforce such coercive measures, and theparty eventually needs to rely on national courts to cooperate and enforce suchinterim measures.
在不涉及跨境的國內仲裁案件中，根據我國《仲裁法》第二十八條和第四十六條規定，當事人可以提出財產保全或證據保全申請，並由仲裁機構依據《民事訴訟法》相關規定向財產所在地法院或證據所在地法院提交保全申請。但是對於涉及跨境的國際商事仲裁，我國內地法院在根據《紐約公約》承認與執行外國的國際商事仲裁時，通常將可承認的仲裁裁決理解為境外仲裁機構的生效裁決，而保全措施等臨時禁令措施往往不被視為具有終局效力的裁決，因此難以獲得法院的承認和執行。
In domestic arbitration cases that do not involvecross-border enforcement, a party to arbitral proceedings may apply for property preservation or evidence preservation based upon Articles 28 and 46 of The Arbitration Law of China, and the arbitral center shall forward such application to the court where theproperty or evidence is situated based upon relevant provisions of The Civil Procedural Law.However, for international commercial arbitration with cross-border enforcement factor involved, when a domestic court recognizes and enforces foreign internationalcommercial arbitral award under the New York Convention, such recognizable arbitralaward usually would be interpreted as an effective and binding award issued byforeign arbitral center, while the interim measures such as temporary injunctive measures usually would not be treated as final awards, so it is difficult to obtain recognition and enforcement by courts.
要點二：內地與香港的跨境執行不適用《紐約公約》
Takeaway 2: New York Convention will not beapplicable to the cross-border enforcement between the Mainland and HKSAR
如果具體到內地與香港兩地跨境商事爭議解決而言，又不單單存在《紐約公約》條文是否涵蓋臨時禁令措施的問題，更大的問題是內地與香港的跨境執行就不能適用《紐約公約》。根據中國加入《紐約公約》時所聲明的保留，僅對另一締約國領土內作出的仲裁裁決予以承認和執行，而在我國恢復對香港行使主權之後，香港已不再屬於另一締約國的領土，因此內地與香港的跨境執行問題不再適用《紐約公約》。
In particular, regarding the cross-bordercommercial disputes between the Mainland and HKSAR, whether the provisions ofthe New York Convention could cover interim measures is not the only trouble,an even bigger trouble is that the New York Convention does not apply tocross-border enforcement between the Mainland and HKSAR. According to thereservations declared by China when it acceded to the New York Convention, onlythe arbitral awards made in the territory of another sovereign state arerecognized and enforced, and after the restoration of sovereignty over HongKong, Hong Kong no longer belongs to the territory of another sovereign state.Therefore, the issue of cross-border enforcement between the Mainland and HKSARis no longer subject to the New York Convention.
對於內地和香港的跨境商業仲裁，雙方是通過《最高人民法院關於內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的安排》（法釋[2000]3號）、《最高人民法院關於香港仲裁裁決在內地執行的有關問題的通知》（法[2009]415號）等司法協助文件來相互之間認可和執行仲裁裁決。但是在前述文件中，也沒有明確規定對於仲裁機構作出的臨時禁令措施法院應如何處理。
For cross-border commercial arbitration between theMainland and HKSAR, the two sides recognize and enforce arbitral award througha series of mutual assistance legal documents, such as The Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between theMainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FS [2000] No.3) and The Notice of Relevant Issues ConcerningEnforcing Hong Kong Arbitral Award in the Mainland (F [2009] No. 415).However, even within the aforementioned legal documents, there is no provisionexplicitly provides how a court should deal with the interim measures rendered byan arbitral center.
在此背景下，仲裁在國際商事爭議解決可能需要的程序保障措施和臨時禁令措施方面，相比較於法院訴訟，無疑存在短板。這一點也會影響國際商事爭議案件中當事人對解決機構的選擇。
Against this background, the lack of coerciveprocess supporting measures and interim measures becomes a noticeableshortcomings of arbitration in international commercial dispute resolution. Ifthe nature of a potential dispute might need such coercive measures, theparties probably would prefer court litigation to arbitration.
要點三：《協助保全安排》對臨時禁令措施跨境執行的突破
Takeaway 3: The Arrangement makes a breakthrough incross-border enforcement of interim measures
2019年10月1日生效的《協助保全安排》，恰恰我國內地最高法院和香港律政司針對以上仲裁在臨時救濟措施方面的短板所進行的修補。
The Arrangement which has come into force on October 1 2019 could betreated as an action taken by the Supreme Court of China and the Department ofJustice of Hong Kong to fix the shortcomings of arbitration in term ofcross-border enforcement.
根據《協助保全安排》第三條規定，香港仲裁程序的當事人，在仲裁裁決作出前，可以參照我國內地《民事訴訟法》、《仲裁法》以及相關司法解釋的規定，向被申請人住所地、財產所在地或者證據所在地的內地中級人民法院申請保全。被申請人住所地、財產所在地或者證據所在地在不同人民法院轄區的，應當選擇向其中一個人民法院提出申請，不得分別向兩個或者兩個以上人民法院提出申請。
According to Article 3 of the Arrangement, a party to arbitral proceedingsin Hong Kong may, before the arbitral award is made, by reference to theprovisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the P.R.C., the Arbitration Law of theP.R.C. and relevant judicial interpretations, make an application for interimmeasures to the Intermediate People’s Court of the place of residence of theparty against whom the application is made (「respondent」) or the place wherethe property or evidence is situated. If the place of residence of therespondent or the place where the property or evidence is situated falls withinthe jurisdiction of different people’s courts, the applicant shall make anapplication to any one of those people’s courts, but shall not make separateapplications to two or more people’s courts.
同時該條規定，香港仲裁程序的當事人可以在申請仲裁之前向內地法院申請保全，也可以在申請仲裁之後向內地法院申請保全。如果當事人在有關仲裁機構或者常設辦事處受理仲裁申請後提出保全申請的，應當由該機構或者常設辦事處向內地法院轉遞其申請；而如果當事人在有關仲裁機構或者常設辦事處受理仲裁申請前提出保全申請，內地人民法院採取保全措施後三十日內未收到有關機構或者常設辦事處提交的已受理仲裁案件的證明函件的，內地人民法院應當解除保全。
Based upon the same Article, a party to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kongmay make application for interim measures either before or after application for arbitration to the corresponding mainland people’s court. Where anapplication for interim measures is made after the relevant institution orpermanent office has accepted the arbitration case, the party’s applicationshall be passed on to the mainland people’s court by the said institution orpermanent office. Where a party makes an application for interim measure beforethe relevant institution or permanent office has accepted the arbitration case,but the people’s court of the Mainland has not received a letter from the saidinstitution or permanent office certifying its acceptance of the arbitrationcase within 30 days after the interim measures is taken, the people’s court ofthe Mainland shall discharge the interim measure.
《協助保全安排》第四條明確了香港仲裁程序當事人向內地法院申請保全所需提交的文件，具體包括保全申請書、仲裁協議、身份證明材料、仲裁申請及受理證明文件等，同時該條規定身份證明材料需辦理公證認證，所有文件如是外文均需提交中文譯本。《協助保全安排》第五條進一步明確了保全申請書必須具備的內容。
Article 4 of the Arrangement clarifies the documents and materials to besubmitted by a party to arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong when applying forinterim measures, including the application for interim measures, the arbitrationagreement, documents of identity, the request for arbitration and theacceptance certificate, etc. The documents of identity need to be certified. Alldocuments must be submitted with Chinese translation if they are in foreignlanguages. Article 5 of the Arrangement sets out the contents to be specifiedwithin the application for interim measure.
根據《協助保全安排》第八條規定，受理香港仲裁程序當事人的保全申請後，內地法院可以要求申請人提供擔保。如果當事人的保全申請符合我國內地法律規定，內地法院應當作出保全裁定。《協助保全安排》並未明確規定內地法院作出保全裁定的時限，僅規定內地法院應儘快審查保全申請。
According to Article 8 of the Arrangement, after accepting the applicationfor interim measures by a party to the arbitral proceedings in Hong Kong, a People’s court of the Mainland may require the applicant to provide security.After examination and being satisfied that the party’s application for interimmeasure is in accordance with the law of the requested place, the court of therequested place shall make a decision or order for interim measure. TheArrangement does not clearly specify the time limit for a Mainland court tomake a decision or order. It only provides that a requested court shall examinethe application for interim measure expeditiously.
至此，香港仲裁程序的當事人有了一個相對明確的申請保全措施的制度安排。這一制度安排在一定程度上彌補了仲裁在國際商事爭議解決程序措施和臨時禁令措施方面的劣勢，從而減少了當事人在選擇國際商事仲裁時的顧慮。同時考慮到《紐約公約》尚沒有這樣的制度安排，在《協助保全安排》生效後，香港本地仲裁機構及仲裁業在與沒有類似制度安排的境外仲裁機構相比較，將獲得一大競爭優勢。
To sum up, the parties to the arbitration proceedings in Hong Kong have arelatively clear institutional arrangement for applying for preservationmeasures. This institutional arrangement has to some extent compensated the disadvantages of arbitration in international commercial dispute resolution procedures and temporary injunction measures, thereby reducing the concerns ofparties in the choice of international commercial arbitration. At the sametime, considering that there is no such institutional arrangement in the NewYork Convention, after the Arrangement cames into effect, the local arbitrationinstitutions and the arbitration industry in Hong Kong will gain a competitiveadvantage when compared with overseas arbitration institutions that have nosimilar institutional arrangements.
要點四：並非所有香港當地仲裁均可在內地申請保全
Takeaway 4: Not every arbitration in HKSAR could applyfor assistance of interim measures in Mainland China
《協助保全安排》生效後，並非所有香港當地的仲裁均可在我國內地申請保全。能夠適用《協助保全安排》向內地法院申請保全的仲裁，應當為仲裁地在香港，並由香港特區政府向內地最高法院所提交仲裁機構或其常設辦事處管理的仲裁。這就意味著在香港當地大量存在的臨時仲裁、非前述名單內仲裁機構所管理的仲裁，將無法通過《協助保全安排》申請內地法院採取保全措施。
Even after the Arrangement becoming effect, notevery arbitration in Hong Kong could apply for assistance of interim measuresin Mainland China. Arbitration which is eligible to the Arrangement should havethe place of arbitration in HKSAR, and the arbitration institution or itspermanent office should be within the list submitted by HKSAR to the MainlandSupreme Court. This means that a large number of ad hoc arbitrations in HongKong and arbitrations administered by arbitration institutions not included withinthe above list will not be able to apply for interim measures from Mainlandcourts through the Arrangement.
儘管如此，根據前述《最高人民法院關於香港仲裁裁決在內地執行的有關問題的通知》（法[2009]415號），香港當地的臨時仲裁、名單之外仲裁機構管理的仲裁，只要不存在不予認可的情形，其生效裁決仍可通過《最高人民法院關於內地與香港特別行政區相互執行仲裁裁決的安排》（法釋[2000]3號）申請內地法院執行。
Nevertheless, in accordance with the aforementioned The Notice of Relevant Issues Concerning Enforcing Hong Kong Arbitral Award in the Mainland (F [2009] No. 415), thefinal arbitral award issued by ad hoc arbitrations in Hong Kong or arbitrationsadministered by arbitration institutions outside the list, could still beenforced by the courts in Mainland China, through The Arrangement on Mutual Enforcement of Arbitral Awards between theMainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (FS [2000] No.3), as long as there is no unenforceable issue.
要點五：並非所有類型禁令措施均可向內地法院申請執行
Takeaway 5: Not every type of interim measurescould be granted by Courts in Mainland China
能夠通過《協助保全安排》向內地法院申請的措施類型，僅為內地法律所規定的財產保全、證據保全和行為保全三種類型。而境外法院通常可以做出的具有強制力的訴訟程序保障措施，例如強制證據出示等強制令措施，無法通過《協助保全安排》向內地法院申請。
There are only three types of interim measures thatcould be applied for with the Mainland courts through the Arrangement, namelyproperty preservation, evidence preservation and behavior preservation, whichare also stipulated by the relevant laws in Mainland China. The coercive proceduralsupporting measures that foreign courts could make, such as compel discovery,can not be applied for with the Mainland courts through the Arrangement.
作者往期文章推薦：
亮點與疑問：禁止濫用支配地位行為新規要點解析（附草案對照表）
《禁止壟斷協議暫行規定》要點解讀及草案對比
縱向壟斷協議判定標準之爭塵埃落定？——最高院駁回裕泰再審裁定評述