Keeping up with the courts

This article is from the Dispute Resolution chapter of the 2015 Annual Review and is available for download here.


Qi Zhou of East & Concord Partners highlights the most important regulatory changes to dispute resolution in the past year, the most common types of disputes and the effect of the new CIETAC rules on arbitration in China

1. What important laws, regulations and judicial interpretations were issued or amended in the past twelve months?

In addition to conventional revisions made to certain laws, the major legislative highlights during the past year include: procuratorial authorities being granted the power to initiate public interest lawsuits, the establishment of the intellectual property courts, the expanded scope of Taiwan judgments and rulings that can be recognised and enforced and the implementation of the case opening registration system.

The important laws, regulations and judicial interpretations newly issued or revised in the past year are as follows:

• Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Decision Concerning Authorising the Supreme People's Procuratorate to Launch a Pilot Project for Public Interest Lawsuits in Certain Regions (promulgated on July 1 2015)
  
• PRC National Security Law (promulgated on July 1 2015)
  
• National People's Congress, Decision on Amending the (promulgated on March 15 2015)
  
• PRC Administrative Procedure Law (Revised in 2014) (promulgated on November 1 2014)
  
• Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, Decision on the Establishment of Intellectual Property Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou (promulgated on August 31 2014)
  
• Plan for the Pilot Project for the Reform of the Institution of Public Interest Lawsuits by Procuratorial Authorities (promulgated on July 3 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Provisions for the Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitration Awards from Taiwan (promulgated on June 29 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Provisions for the Recognition and Enforcement of Civil Judgments from Taiwan Courts (promulgated on June 29 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Environmental Tort Liability Dispute Cases (promulgated on June 1 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the (promulgated on April 22 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Registration of Case Openings by People's Courts (promulgated on April 15 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Civil Trial Supervision Procedures in Strict Accordance with the Law to Directed Retrials and Remands for New Trials (promulgated on February 16 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the (promulgated on January 30 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Several Provisions on Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Patent Disputes (Revised in 2015) (promulgated on January 29 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Decision on Amending the (promulgated on January 29 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Circuit Courts (promulgated on January 28 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Law in the Trial of Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation Cases (promulgated on January 6 2015)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Ministry of Civil Affairs and Ministry of Environmental Protection, Circular on Thoroughly Implementing the Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation System (promulgated on December 26 2014)
  
• Supreme People's Procuratorate, Measures for Remote Video Interviews (Trial Implementation) (promulgated on December 25 2014)
  
• Supreme People's Court, Provisions on Jurisdiction in Cases of the Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou Intellectual Property Courts (promulgated on October 31 2014)

2. What were the most common types of disputes during the past year and why?

It is our understanding that legal actions and arbitration involving lease financing were the most common in the past year.

The reasons were both macro, such as the transitioning of the Chinese economy, and micro, such as misunderstandings regarding the lease financing contracts by the lessees and repurchase parties, resulting in performance defects or controversy and thus frequent disputes.

Firstly, the comprehensive transformation of the Chinese economy toward a new normal has had an obvious driving effect on the number of lease financing contract dispute cases. The Chinese real estate market has seen its 15-year prosperity period come to an end, and is entering an adjustment period, resulting in a marked increase in pressure from the slowing economy and triggering a clear slide in the investment growth long driven by the real estate industry. Additionally, the continuous promotion of changes in the industrial structure, method of development and regime will be accompanied by the gradual elimination of dated production methods. The combination of the two greatly increases the likelihood of fluctuations in the industries where the subject matters of lease financing contracts are are relatively concentrated. Such fluctuations will definitely have a relatively large impact on the normal operations of the relevant lessees and their capacity to repay payables such as rent and interest, thus giving rise to a large number of lease financing contract disputes.

Secondly, the special nature of lease financing contracts themselves can easily give rise to misunderstandings by the parties over the contractual relationship. Generally speaking, a typical lease financing contractual relationship comprises three parties (the lessor, lessee and supplier) and two contracts (the sale and purchase contract and lease contract). However, with the development of new business models, lease financing transaction parties are becoming more complex. In addition to the typical three party transaction structure, lessors, out of risk control considerations, incorporate more interested parties into the lease financing transaction by adding repurchase parties, guarantors, etc., so as to maximise the protection of their rights and interests. This added complexity and the new changes that continuously arise further complicate the legal relationships in lease financing, making disputes more likely to occur. Furthermore, a lease financing contractual relationship is not a simple overlaying of a sale and purchase contractual relationship on a lease contractual relationship. It has separate legal features, which also give rise to several special provisions in lease financing contracts. Improper understanding of these special provisions has led to a number of disputes.

Lastly, parties to a lease financing relationship often lack awareness of guarding against the legal risks involved in entering into and performing their contracts. In the course of entering into the contracts, the parties, driven by performance, place emphasis on the number of items and neglect qualification reviews, and fail to establish a sound and rigorous credit check and risk management mechanism. In the course of performing the contracts, some lessors ignore post-financing business tracking, making it impossible for them to become aware of a deterioration in the business of the lessees, which also frequently gives rise to disputes. In addition, the separation of the ownership of and the right to use the leased property in lease financing transactions also brings to the fore the issue of the safety risks associated with the leased property.

3. What are the main amendments made to the CIETAC Rules in 2015? What are the major effects and significance of these amendments?

Substantive amendments were made to 20 articles of the main text of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission, Arbitration Rules (2015) (2015 Rules), of which 10 are newly added articles.

The major amendments to the 2015 Rules have a significant impact on arbitration proceedings.

The Arbitration Court put in charge of managing cases

Article 2 of the 2015 Rules specifies that the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) will establish an Arbitration Court responsible for carrying out case handling work such as applications for and management of arbitration cases, while the CIETAC Secretariat will be responsible for internal management functions such as implementing CIETAC's work plans and training and supervising arbitrators. These amendments are a product of CIETAC's need to adapt to its own reforms. Lifting the Secretariat's burden of having to handle both arbitration cases and administrative matters enhances the efficiency of proceedings.

The principle of good faith incorporated

The principle of good faith is the “king provision” in civil law. The express incorporation of the principle of good faith into the 2015 Rules with these most recent amendments is a product of the revamping of the arbitration philosophy. In the traditional philosophy of arbitration, the parties to arbitration are adversaries, a stance that is not conducive to the effective resolution of conflicts. In contrast, modern arbitration philosophy holds that the parties to a proceeding and their agents bear an obligation of procedural collaboration – while they pursue their own interests in the course of arbitration, they may not harm the interests of others or the public.

Rules for the consolidation of arbitration stipulated

Modern commercial activities often involve numerous entities, with multiple deals, linked deals and various transaction structures, and the master contractual relationship is also often accompanied by guarantee and other dependent contractual relationships. In civil procedures, such legal relationships should be consolidated for trial based on provisions for “general colitigation”, but the PRC Arbitration Law lacks specific provisions on the consolidation of arbitration for such cases.

Article 19 of the 2015 Rules sets forth four circumstances for the consolidation of arbitration, namely where: (1) the arbitration claims in each case are made on the basis of the same arbitration agreement; (2) the arbitration claims in each case are made on the basis of multiple arbitration agreements, the contents of such arbitration agreements are identical or compatible, the parties involved in each case are identical and the nature of the legal relationships involved in each dispute are identical; (3) the arbitration claims in each case are made on the basis of multiple arbitration agreements, the contents of such arbitration agreements are identical or compatible and the multiple contracts involved are in a master and dependent contractual relationship; or (4) all of the parties to the cases agree to the consolidation of arbitration.

These amendments provide clear guidance for the consolidation of arbitration, not only greatly enhancing arbitration efficiency and reducing the arbitration costs of the parties, but also avoiding situations where different tribunals render mutually conflicting awards.

Provisions on the addition of parties included

The 2015 Rules attempt a breakthrough in the long-debated issue as to whether parties may be added to an arbitration procedure and fill the gap in the PRC Arbitration Law.

Permitting the addition of third parties to arbitration procedures can effectively prevent the repeated hearing of the same arbitration claim, and is thus conducive to enhancing arbitration efficiency and economising judicial resources. However, its potential to run against the principle of arbitration being voluntary should not be overlooked. This is because, when a third party participates in arbitration, there may not be an effective arbitration agreement between the third party and the other parties, or if the same does exist, CIETAC may not have been selected as the arbitration institution to render an award. Accordingly, Article 18 of the 2015 Rules puts in place a restriction, namely that a party may apply to the arbitration commission to add a party only on the basis of an arbitration agreement that is prima facie binding on the party that is being added. The 2015 Rules additionally bestow the right of objecting to an arbitration agreement and/or arbitration case on any party, so as to preserve the voluntary nature of arbitration.

Emergency arbitrator procedure introduced

The addition of the emergency arbitrator procedure to the 2015 Rules is an innovative attempt to conform with international practice. It ensures that the arbitration commission can provide emergency remedies to a party before a tribunal is constituted, and is an effective supplement to the interim measures taken by courts and tribunals.


Author biography

Qi Zhou
Partner

Qi Zhou is the founding partner of East & Concord Partners, head of the dispute resolution team, senior arbitrator of the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission and adjunct professor of the law school of China University of Political Science and Law. He graduated from the economics law department of China University of Political Science and Law in 1986. In the same year, he started his work as a lawyer at Beijing Foreign Economic Law Firm and obtained his qualification in 1987. Qi is well versed in dealing with various civil and commercial disputes and has handled numerous complicated high profile litigation and arbitration cases.

天达共和律师事务所的周琦律师重点探讨了过去一年中争议解决方面最重大的监管变化、最常见的纠纷类型及修改后的贸仲委规则对中国仲裁的影响

1. 在过去12个月中有什么重要的法律、法规及司法解释出台或修改？

在过去一年，除对部分法律常规性修改外，主要立法亮点有：赋予检察机关提起公益诉讼的权力；知识产权法院的设立；扩大认可与执行台湾地区裁判的范围；立案登记制度实施等。

过去一年新出台或修改的重要法律、法规及司法解释如下：

• 全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于授权最高人民检察院在部分地区开展公益诉讼试点工作的决定（2015年7月1日发布）
• 中华人民共和国国家安全法（2015年7月1日发布）
• 全国人民代表大会关于修改《中华人民共和国立法法》的决定（2015年3月15日发布）
• 中华人民共和国行政诉讼法（2014修正）（2014年11月1日发布）
• 全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于在北京、上海、广州设立知识产权法院的决定（2014年8月31日发布）
• 检察机关提起公益诉讼改革试点方案（2015年7月3日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于认可和执行台湾地区仲裁裁决的规定（2015年6月29日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于认可和执行台湾地区法院民事判决的规定（2015年6月29日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于审理环境侵权责任纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的解释（2015年6月1日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》若干问题的解释（2015年4月22日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于人民法院登记立案若干问题的规定（2015年4月15日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于民事审判监督程序严格依法适用指令再审和发回重审若干问题的规定（2015年2月16日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》若干问题的意见（2015年1月30日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定（2015修正）（2015年1月29日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于修改《最高人民法院关于审理专利纠纷案件适用法律问题的若干规定》的决定（2015年1月29日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于巡回法庭审理案件若干问题的规定（2015年1月28日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释（2015年1月6日）
• 最高人民法院、民政部、环境保护部关于贯彻实施环境民事公益诉讼制度的通知（2014年12月26日发布）
• 最高人民检察院远程视频接访办法（试行）（2014年12月25日发布）
• 最高人民法院关于北京、上海、广州知识产权法院案件管辖的规定（2014年10月31日发布）

2. 过去一年中哪种类型争议最为多发？关于此种争议的大规模发生有何特殊原因？

据我们了解，过去一年中，融资租赁的诉讼及仲裁最为多发。

究其原因，既有中国经济转型等宏观方面原因，也有承租人、回购人等对融资租赁合同存在认识误区，导致产生履约瑕疵或争议，纠纷频发等微观层面原因。

首先，中国经济向新常态全面转换对融资租赁合同纠纷案件数量有显著的传导作用。中国房地产市场结束了15年的繁荣期，进入调整期，导致了今年经济下行压力明显增大，引发了长期由房地产业带动的投资增长明显下滑。与此同时，产业结构、发展方式及体制的变化不断推进必然伴随着落后生产方式的逐步淘汰。二者相结合使得融资租赁合同的标的物相对集中的国内相关实体产业极易出现波动。此类波动必然对相关承租人的正常经营，以及租金、利息等应付款的偿还能力造成较大影响，继而引发大量的融资租赁合同争议。

其次，由于融资租赁合同本身的性质特殊，故合同当事人对融资租赁合同关系容易存在认识上的误区。一般而言，典型的融资租赁合同关系由三方当事人（出租人、承租人和供货商）两个合同（买卖合同与租赁合同）构成。但是，随着新兴商业模式的发展，融资租赁交易的当事人主体呈复杂化趋势。除典型的三方交易架构外，出租人出于风险控制的考虑，以增加回购人、保证人等方式将更多的利益相关方纳入到融资租赁交易体系中，从而最大限度的保护其权益。而前述交易模式的复杂性和不断出现的新变化亦使得融资租赁的法律关系日趋复杂，容易产生纠纷。此外，融资租赁合同关系并非买卖合同与租赁合同关系的简单迭加，而是具有独立的法律特征，这也构成了融资租赁合同中的若干特殊条款，有些纠纷的发生与当事人对特殊条款的理解不当有关。

最后，融资租赁关系参与方在缔约及履行过程中法律风险防控意识不足。在缔约过程中，各参与方受到业绩驱动，重项目数量而轻资质审查，没有建立完善缜密的资信审查和风险管理机制；在履约过程中，有些出租人忽视融资后业务跟踪，未能及时察觉承租人的经营恶化趋势，亦导致纠纷频发。加之融资租赁交易中租赁物所有权和使用权相分离的特点，使得租赁物的安全风险问题亦尤为突出。

3. 2015贸仲规则最主要的修改之处在哪里？这些修改的主要影响和意义是什么？

《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则（2015版）》（以下简称“2015版规则”）的主文部分实质性修改了20个条款。其中，新增加条款为10条。

2015版规则的主要修订内容及其影响和意义：

仲裁院负责管理仲裁案件

2015版规则第2条规定，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（以下简称“贸仲”）新设仲裁院，由仲裁院履行仲裁案件的申请、管理等案件办理相关工作，由原秘书局/秘书处履行贸仲工作计划实施、仲裁员培训和监督等贸仲内部管理职能。该修改是贸仲适应自身改革需要的产物，改变了仲裁案件办理与行政事务均由秘书处负责的情况，提升了仲裁的专业性。

诚实信用原则的引入

诚实信用原则是民法上的“帝王条款”。此次修订将诚实信用原则明确纳入2015版规则是仲裁理念更新的产物。传统仲裁理念中，仲裁双方当事人势不俱栖，并不利于双方矛盾的有效化解。而现代仲裁理论认为，仲裁程序中的当事人及其代理人负有程序协同义务，即在仲裁程序中追求自己利益的同时不损害他人和社会的利益。

明确了合并仲裁规则

当代商事活动中经常涉及多方主体，既有多重买卖、连环买卖等交易形式，所形成之主合同关系也常伴随保证合同等从合同关系。在民事诉讼程序中，依据“普通共同诉讼”的规定，对于此类法律关系应当合并审理，而中国《仲裁法》中并未对此类案件的合并仲裁做出具体规定。

2015版规则第19条列举了四种合并仲裁的情形，包括：j各案仲裁请求依据同一个仲裁协议提出；k各案仲裁请求依据多份仲裁协议提出，该多份仲裁协议内容相同或相容，且各案当事人相同、各争议所涉及的法律关系性质相同；l各案仲裁请求依据多份仲裁协议提出，该多份仲裁协议内容相同或相容，且涉及的多份合同为主从合同关系；m所有案件的当事人均同意合并仲裁。

这一修订为合并仲裁提供了明确的指引，不仅极大地提高了仲裁效率并节省当事人的仲裁成本，而且可以避免出现不同仲裁庭作出相互冲突裁决的局面。

增加了仲裁程序中追加当事人的规定

2015版规则尝试突破长期存于理论界中对于仲裁程序中是否允许追加当事人的争议，也是对中国《仲裁法》空白规定的补充。

允许仲裁程序中追加第三人能够有效防止同一仲裁请求被重复审理，有利于提高仲裁效率、节约司法资源。但也不应忽略其潜在的对仲裁自愿性原则的违背。因为第三人参与仲裁时，该第三人和其他当事人之间可能并不存在有效的仲裁协议，或者并未选择贸仲作为仲裁机构进行裁决。为此，2015版规则第18条作出了限制性规定，即一方当事人需要依据表面上约束被追加当事人的仲裁协议才能向仲裁委员会申请追加当事人。2015版规则还赋予任何一方当事人对于仲裁协议及/或仲裁案件的异议权，以此保护仲裁的自愿性。

紧急仲裁员程序的引入

2015版规则加入紧急仲裁员的程序是一次与国际接轨的创新性尝试。该程序保证了仲裁委员会在仲裁庭组成前能够向当事人提供紧急救济，是对于法庭及仲裁庭采取的临时性措施的有效补充。


作者简历

周琦
合伙人

天达共和律师事务所的创始合伙人，争议解决部负责人，中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会资深仲裁员，中国政法大学法学院兼职教授。1986年毕业于中国政法大学经济法系，同年于北京市对外经济律师事务所开始从事律师工作，并于1987年获取律师资格。周琦律师擅长处理各类民商事纠纷，承办过大量的重大、疑难诉讼及仲裁案件。