选择ICC仲裁规则是否一定选择ICC仲裁院？

俄罗斯说NO

据俄罗斯媒体报道，ICC最近向俄罗斯最高法院提出申请，请求澄清俄罗斯法院对ICC某个案件（No. A40-176466/17）中载明的标准仲裁条款的处理方式。在本案中，莫斯科仲裁院和各上诉法院（包括最高法院）认定，援引仲裁机构的仲裁规则不能充分证明各当事人已同意由该特定机构管理争议案件。

背 景

Dredging and Maritime Management SA（“申请人”）和JSC“Inzh Trans Stroy”（“被申请人”）因被申请人在履行合同中的不当行为而产生争议。

该合同包含ICC标准仲裁条款：“因本合同引起的或与本合同有关的所有争议，最终应由按照上述规则指定的一名或多名仲裁员根据国际商会仲裁规则解决”。瑞士日内瓦为仲裁地。

申请人提起仲裁程序，ICC作出了一项有利于申请人的补偿360万欧元外加利息的裁决。

当申请人在俄罗斯申请承认并执行裁决时，俄罗斯法院基于两个主要理由驳回了申请：

被申请人已经破产并与其债权人达成和解，将分期偿还债务。该裁决的执行将损害其他债权人的利益，因而违反俄罗斯的公共政策。（本文对此不予置评。）

ICC标准仲裁条款未规定由具体的仲裁院管理仲裁案件，因为该条款只提及《ICC规则》，未提及ICC本身。因此，ICC仲裁庭没有管辖权。

评 论

俄罗斯法院过去曾多次支持ICC和其他标准仲裁条款。因此，在本案中，认定援引一套机构规则并不表明有意将该争议提交给具体的机构或仲裁院的结论多少有些令人惊讶。这也是一种难以支持的分析，特别是考虑到各当事人约定适用的《ICC规则》的第1条规定，ICC国际仲裁院是根据这些规则解决争议的管理机构。

考虑到涉及俄罗斯当事人的大量合同包含ICC或其他公认仲裁机构公布的标准仲裁条款，这种做法令人担忧。这些标准条款中有一些很可能只提及某个特定仲裁机构的规则，但没有明确指定仲裁院的名称。

目前尚不清楚最高法院是否会回应ICC的请求，也不清楚该请求是否会公开。根据俄罗斯法律，上述判决并不构成有约束力的先例，但该案很可能在未来产生有说服力的影响。因此，澄清将受到欢迎。

同时，建议那些考虑与俄罗斯当事人签订仲裁协议的当事人，修改任何仲裁机构所推荐的标准仲裁条款，以明确将任何争议提交仲裁，由指定仲裁机构按照其规则进行管理。

【英文原文】

THE ICC STANDARD ARBITRATION CLAUSE POTENTIALLY INVALID IN RUSSIA

According to Russian media, the ICC has recently applied to the Russian Supreme Court (“SC“) asking that it clarify the approach of Russian courts to the ICC standard arbitration clause demonstrated in one of their cases (No. A40-176466/17). In this case the Moscow Arbitrazh Court and appeal courts (including the SC), found that are ference to the arbitration rules of an arbitral institution was not sufficiently clear evidence that the parties had agreed on that specific institution to administer the resolution of their disputes.

Background

The dispute arose between Dredging and Maritime Management SA (“Claimant“) and JSC “Inzh Trans Stroy” (“Respondent“) on the grounds of the Respondent’s improper performance under a contract.

The contract contained the standard ICC arbitration clause: “All disputes arising out of orin connection with the present contract shall be finally settled under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed in accordance with the said Rules”. Geneva, Switzerland was chosen as the seat of arbitration.

The Claimant brought arbitral proceedings and the ICC Tribunal issued an award in its favour for the recovery of EUR 3.6 m plus interest.

When the Claimant applied to have the award recognised and enforced in Russia, the Russian courts dismissed the application on two principal grounds:

The Respondent had been in insolvency, reached a settlement with its creditors and was supposed to pay the debts in instalments. The enforcement of the award would prejudice other creditors, therefore, it violates the Russian public policy. (We do not comment on this ground in this note.)

The standard ICC arbitration clause failed to provide for a specific arbitration court to administer the arbitration as it only referred to the ICC Rules and not to theICC itself. Therefore, the ICC Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Comment 

Russian courts have upheld the ICC and other standard arbitration clauses on numerous occasions in the past. The conclusion in this case that a reference to a set of institutional rules does not indicate a clear intention to refer that disputeto a specific institution or arbitration court is therefore somewhat surprising. It is also an analysis which is difficult to support, particularly given that the first article of the ICC Rules agreed between the parties refers to the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce as the administrative body for resolving disputes under those rules.

The approach is concerning given that a large number of contracts involving Russian parties contain the standard arbitration clauses published by the ICC or other recognised arbitral institutions. It is quite possible that a number of these standard clauses may refer to the rules of a particular arbitral institution but not expressly name the arbitration court.

It is not clear if the SC will respond to the ICC’s request or if such request will become publicly available. The above judgments do not set a binding precedent under Russian law, but the case may well have a persuasive effect in future. Clarity would therefore be welcomed.

In the meantime, itwould be advisable for those considering entering into an arbitration agreement with a Russian party to amend the recommended standard arbitration clauses of any arbitral institution to make it clear that any disputes are to be referred to arbitration, administered by the named arbitration institution in accordance with its rules.

By Alexei Panich

                                                                                                               来源：微信公众号 临时仲裁ADA