The Supreme People's Court releases the 36th batch of guiding cases
Recently, the Supreme People's Court released the 36th batch of guiding cases, all of which are arbitration judicial review cases. The release of the cases aims to strengthen the guidance of arbitration judicial review cases, so as to ensure the uniform scale of adjudication, promote the correct implementation of the law achieving strict and fair justice, and striving to let the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.
A. Guiding Case No. 196 "Application for Confirmation of the Validity of Arbitration Agreement between Yunyu Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Zhongyuancheng Commercial Investment Holdings Co., Ltd".
The case justifies that if a party requests confirmation of the non-existence of an arbitration agreement on the grounds that the arbitration clause has not been established, the people's court shall review it in accordance with the application for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement. If the parties have concluded the arbitration clause at the time of conclusion of the contract and reach an agreement on submitting it to arbitration, the formation of the contract shall not affect the establishment and validity of the arbitration clause. This case clarifies the specific meaning and legal effect of the principle of independence of arbitration agreements, and has strong guiding value for the trial of similar cases.
B. Guiding Case No. 197 "Application by Shenzhen Shizheng Gongying Investment Holdings Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Municipal Bureau of Transport for Confirmation of the Validity of the Arbitration Agreement".
The case clarifies that if the arbitral tribunal has notified the parties by reasonable means, the parties however have not raised objections to the validity of the arbitration agreement before the first hearing of the first arbitral tribunal, it shall be deemed the parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal over the case. Although the case has entered the re-arbitration procedure, it is still the same dispute, and the parties' acceptance of the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal is still valid in the process of re-arbitration, and they are not entitled to submit an application for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration agreement before the first hearing of the re-arbitration. The case adjudication rules are of guiding significance for accurately understanding and applying the "before the first hearing" stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 20 of the Arbitration Law, and have a positive influence on guiding the parties to exercise their litigation rights in a lawful and timely manner.
C. Guiding Case No. 198, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Yueyang Branch and Liu Youliang's Application for Revocation of Arbitral Award.
The case clarifies that the under the circumstance that the actual constructor is not a party to the construction contract concluded between the consignor and the contractor, nor has it entered into a valid arbitration agreement with the consignor or the contractor, as a consequence of which, it should not be bound by the arbitration agreement herewith. If the actual contractor applies for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the consigner and the contractor upon the arbitral award rendered by arbitration tribunal, the people's court shall support the request of the consignor to revocate the arbitral award. The adjudication rules of this case further clarify the principle of high autonomy of the arbitration agreement, which has certain guiding significance for the application of law in such cases.
D. Guiding Case No. 199 "Application for Revocation of Arbitral Award by GAO Zheyu and Shenzhen Cloud Silk Road Innovation and Development Fund Enterprise and Li Bin".
It is clarified in the case that the the circumstance where respondent to be compensated for the equivalent of bitcoin to the US dollar, and then convert the US dollar into RMB, is a disguised support for the redemption transaction between Bitcoin and legal tender, which violates the state's regulations on virtual currency financial supervision and contrary to the public interest. The people's court shall revocate the arbitral award in this context. This case has important guiding significance for people's courts and arbitration institutions to handle cases involving virtual currency.
E. Guiding Case No. 200 "Swansk Honey Processing Company's Application for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards".
This case clarifies that if the arbitration agreement only stipulates that the dispute shall be settled through expedited arbitration meanwhile the arbitration institution is not expressly stipulated, the arbitral award rendered by ad hoc arbitral tribunal does not fall within the scope of the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The people's court shall not support the respondent's claim on the ground that ad hoc arbitration award will not be recognized and enforced as the adoption of ad hoc arbitration is not in line with the arbitration agreement. This case has a guiding effect on justifying legal concepts such as "ad hoc arbitration" and "expedited arbitration", and demonstrates the international image of China's implementation of enforcing international conventions.
F. Guiding Case No. 201, Dragan Cokotović v. Shanghai Envo Catering Management Co., Ltd. and LV En Labor Service Contract Dispute.
The case clarifies that dispute settlement decisions made by internal dispute resolution entities of international individual sports organizations are not foreign arbitral awards under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The parties agree that any dispute concerned will be submitted to the international sports organization for settlement, and if the jurisdiction does not fall within the scope of international sports organization, it will be subsequently submitted to the International Court of Arbitration for Sport for arbitration. If the agreement is not invalid under the applicable law, the agreement shall be deemed valid. Where an international single sports organization has actually exercised jurisdiction, and the dispute involved in the case does not meet the conditions for initiating arbitration agreed upon by the parties, the people's court shall exercise the jurisdiction over the dispute in accordance with law. This case involves the determination of the legal nature of the dispute settlement decision made by the internal dispute resolution body of an international sports organization, and the adjudication rules confirmed by the case are of exemplary significance for the trial of similar cases.
(Source: The Supreme Court website)