基于既判力请求上海第二中级人民法院撤销仲裁裁决

经过长达10年的三个仲裁程序后，一家投资了中国一处商场的德国投资者向上海法院申请撤销当地一家仲裁委员会所作出的裁决，撤裁理由为该裁决违反了针对同一事项作出的较早裁决。

该全球性房地产投资者的公司法务确认其已于今年六月份向上海市第二中级人民法院提起申请，申请撤销一份今年5月作出的对其不利的赔偿义务金额高达3300万美元的裁决。该投资者在仲裁程序中的委托律师为方达律师事务所团队；鉴于法院程序仍在进行中，该投资者要求匿名。

该投资者希望撤销的裁决是由上海国际仲裁中心（“SHIAC”）的仲裁庭（根据多数意见）作出。该裁决支持了一家上海本地房地产开发商。从GAR所见的相关文件来看，GAR理解，该投资者将在法院程序中主张该裁决本身就是“荒谬的”（其中包括赔偿未来四十年的房产税差额损失约2800万美元），而且与SHIAC另一仲裁庭早先于2013年12月就同一争议作出的前案裁决书完全相反。

前案裁决支持了德国投资者，裁令上海开发商应赔偿3000万美元。该开发商此前曾申请撤销该前案裁决，但上海市第二中级人民法院在向中国的最高人民法院请示后，于2015年12月驳回了该申请。其后，最高人民法院对该案请示的“复函”作为指导案例刊载于《涉外商事海事审判指导》。

该投资者在法院程序中将主张，两个仲裁案件虽然请求事项相反，但具有完全相同的争议焦点、完全相同的当事人，这就导致后案裁决违反了一事不再理原则和中国法律规定的仲裁终局性原则。

该投资者亦将强调，尽管其作出了相当的努力意欲确保仲裁员的国际性，但作出该案裁决的仲裁庭仍是由三名中国国籍仲裁员组成，且由一名上海本地的离任法官担任首席仲裁员。

一个极度失败的商场交易

2005年，德国投资者同意从上海开发商及其香港母公司手中以1.05亿美元的价格收购该商场。双方约定，中国开发商继续负责经营商场六年，并保证德国投资者享有4400万美元的净利润。

双方商定的交易流程为：商场先由香港母公司转让给上海开发商；之后的六个月为“排他期”，德国投资者应在此期间内根据当地规定设立注册于上海的全资子公司；最终商场由上海开发商转让给该全资子公司。

但在2007年3月，距排他期届满之日三天前，德国投资者被上海开发商告知交易告吹。

当时，上海房地产价格正在飞涨。德国投资者认为，上海开发商之所以这么做，是因为上海开发商突然获得了一笔再融资，使其获得了更强的议价能力。该开发商则予以否认，称该笔再融资并未完全缓解其财务压力。

三个仲裁案件

继试图和解未果后，上海开发商和德国投资者分别于2007年和2008年提起了仲裁申请。上海开发商根据买卖合同（框架协议的附件之一）提起仲裁请求。德国投资者（连同其子公司）则根据双方之间更基础的框架协议要求对方继续履行合同。

案件由中国主要仲裁机构CIETAC当时的上海分会受理，该机构于2012年与CIETAC分离，独立成为“SHIAC”。

在这两个案件中，双方指定的仲裁员和由仲裁机构指定的首席仲裁员是完全相同的——首席仲裁员均为张玉卿。两个案件的开庭也是在上海同时进行。

但在经过两次开庭后，上海开发商于2009年1月撤回了第一起仲裁案件。之后，开发商在第二起案件中提起又撤回了反请求；随后以买卖合同为依据发起了第三个仲裁程序。

GAR理解，德国投资者从一开始就表达过第三起案件属于重复仲裁的顾虑，但它仍根据SHIAC的要求，在保留提出程序异议权利的前提下指定了一名仲裁员。然而，为了避免裁决结果冲突和确保程序的高效，德国投资者明确主张，SHIAC应当指定原来第一和第二案的首席仲裁员作为首席仲裁员；或至少应该指定一个非中国和非德国的第三国国籍人士。该投资者提出，肯定不能是上海本地的仲裁员。

而SHIAC指定了一名上海本地的离任法官担任首席仲裁员。

下一步？

对于正在进行的申请撤裁程序，德国投资者的公司法务告诉GAR，他担心的是“地方保护主义的阴霾”会继续笼罩着撤裁程序，上海法院会在不向更高级别法院请示的情况下就驳回撤裁申请。他指出，根据中国法律，只有法院认为裁决需要撤销的情况下才会层报至更高级别法院。

上海开发商的委托律师来自上海嘉创润华律师事务所，GAR请求其对案件发表评论或澄清，但他们未予回应。GAR理解，后案仲裁庭在该裁决中大篇幅地解释其为何认为两案不具有同一性。同SHIAC作出的所有裁决一样，该案裁决后由SHIAC核阅并批准。

2016年，SHIAC因其对争议案件的管理工作表现及启动处理中非争议、金砖国家争议和航空领域争议的多个特别中心的工作，荣获“GAR区域仲裁指南年度最受关注仲裁机构奖”。

【英文版】

Shanghai court asked to set aside award for res judicata

04 October 2017 Shanghai

Following three arbitrations spanning 10 years, a German investor in a Chinese shopping mall has applied to a Shanghai court to set aside an award of the local arbitral commission on the grounds that it contradicts an earlier award in the same dispute.

The global real estate investor confirmed through its in house counsel that it filed a set aside application with the Shanghai No 2 Intermediate People's Court in June in relation to a US$33 million award issued against it the month before. The investor is represented in the arbitration by a team from Fangda Partners and prefers to remain anonymous while court proceedings are going on.

The award that the investor wants set aside was issued by a majority tribunal at the Shanghai International Arbitration Commission - SHIAC - and was in favourof a Shanghai real estate developer. Based on documents it has seen, GAR understands that the investor will argue in court that the award is in itself "preposterous" - including damages for 40 years of taxes amounting toUS$28 million - and contradicts an earlier SHIAC award issued by a different tribunal in December 2013 in relation to the same dispute.

That previous award was in favour of the German investor and ordered the Shanghai developer to pay US$30 million. The developer applied to set aside the award but the application was dismissed by the Shanghai No 2 Intermediate People's Court following a reference to China's Supreme People's Court. The Supreme People Court's "reply" to the reference was subsequently cited in its official guidance on the "trial of foreign-related commercial and maritime cases". 

The investor will argue in court that the two arbitrations involved opposite claims but identical parties and identical issues in dispute - making the later award in violation of the principles of res judicata and the finaland binding nature of arbitration under Chinese law. 

The investor will also highlight how the award was issued by an all-Chinese tribunal presided over by a retired Shanghai judge, despite efforts it says it made to secure an international mix of arbitrators.

A collapsed shopping mall deal

In 2005, ‎the German investor agreed to buy a shopping mall from the Shanghai developer and its Hong Kong parent company for US$105 million. The parties agreed that the Chinese developer would continue to manage the mall for six years, with net profits of US$44 million guaranteed.

The agreed transaction involved the transfer of the mall from the Hong Kong parent company to the Shanghai developer; an "exclusivity period" of six months during which the German investor would set up a wholly owned subsidiary in Shanghai in line with the requirements of local authorities; and a further transfer from the Shanghai company to the subsidiary.

But three days before the expiry of the exclusivity period, the German investor was told by the Shanghai developer that the deal was off.

At the time, Shanghai real estate prices were rocketing and the German investor attributes the developer's decision to a sudden refinancing which gave it greater bargaining power. The developer denies this, saying that refinancing did not release it from financial pressure.

Three arbitrations

Following failed attempts at settlement, the Shanghai developer and German investor both began arbitrations, in 2007 and 2008, respectively. The Shanghai developer based its claims on the sale and purchase contract, while the German investor and its Shanghai subsidiary invoked a wider framework agreement between the parties and sought continued performance of the contract.

The cases were filed with the Shanghai branch of China's main arbitration provider, CIETAC, which broke away in 2012 and became SHIAC.

In both cases, the arbitrators nominated by the parties were the same and the same presiding arbitrator was appointed by the institution, Yuqing Zhang.The proceedings were heard at the same time in Shanghai.

But in 2009, after just two hearings,the Shanghai developer withdrew the first case. It subsequently filed and withdrew a counterclaim in the second case before starting a third arbitrationin reliance on the sale and purchase contract.

GAR understand the German investor raised the concern that the third case was duplicative from the outset but complied with SHIAC's invitation to appoint an arbitrator without prejudice to its rights to object to the procedure at a later stage.‎However, to avoid potentially conflicting awards and ensure efficiency of proceedings, it argued that SHIAC should appoint an arbitrator from the first and second cases as presiding arbitrator - or in any event someone from a country other than China or Germany. The arbitrator should definitely not be from Shanghai, the investor said. 

SHIAC, however, appointed a retired judge from Shanghai as president. 

What next?

With regard to the pending set aside application, the German investor's in-house counsel tells GAR he is concerned that "the shadow of local protectionism" will continue and that the Shanghai court will reject the request without referring it to a higher court. Under Chinese law, such references need only be made if an award is set aside, he notes.

Counsel to the Shanghai developer, from Shanghai Jua Chuang Run Hua Law Office, did not respond to a request for comment on the case or an invitation to give an alternative version of events. GAR understands the tribunal in the later case devoted a large part of the award to explaining why it did not find the two cases identical. The award was scrutinised and approved by SHIAC,as all its awards are. 

In 2016, SHIAC was given the GAR Guide to Regional Arbitation award for an institution that impressed, based on its performance in administering disputes and its launch of special centres to handle China-Africa disputes,disputes from BRICs countries and disputes in the aviation sector. 

来自：

http://globalarbitrationreview.com/article/1147589/shanghai-court-asked-to-set-aside-award-for-res-judicata

欢迎关注仲裁早新闻。每天三分钟，知晓仲裁事！