中华人民共和国
广东省广州市中级人民法院
民 事 裁 定 书
(2013)穗中法民四初字第12号
申请人（仲裁申请人）：俄罗斯欧凯有限公司（O’KEY Logistics LLC）。
法定代表人：Sokolov Evgeniy Vladimirovich。
委托代理人：傅军，北京市盈科（广州）律师事务所律师。
被申请人（仲裁被申请人）：广东南方富达进出口有限公司。
法定代表人：陆勇，该公司董事长。
委托代理人：苏小建、唐伟，均系该公司员工。
申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司与被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决一案,本院受理后,依法组成合议庭进行了审查。本案现已审理终结。
申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司申请称：其与被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司因货款纠纷一案，已由俄罗斯联邦工商会的国际商务仲裁庭作出裁决（俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭98/2010号案件裁决书），被申请人未履行裁决规定的义务。根据《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》及相关司法解释的规定，特申请：1.承认和执行俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭98/2010号裁决书所裁决的事项；2.判令被申请人依前述裁决书向申请人一次性支付欠款38478.45美元（折合人民币243183.80元）、仲裁费5448美元（折合人民币34431.36元）；3.被申请人承担本案执行费。
被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司辩称：第一，申请人的主体不适格。申请人提交的法律实体登记证明显示的名称为“俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司”，而本案申请书上的申请人名称为“俄罗斯欧凯有限公司”，且没有加盖公司公章。申请人无证据证明上述二者为同一公司，故被申请人认为应以法律实体登记证明显示的俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司为申请人，否则应认定申请人没有提交主体证明文件，不能认定其为涉案仲裁裁决的当事人。第二，申请人曾因同一事由提出过申请承认与执行仲裁裁决，后因其自身原因撤回起诉，原诉讼终结。申请人在上一案中撤诉，应认定其放弃了自身权利，应驳回其本案的申请。第三，申请承认与执行外国仲裁裁决应适用我国法律关于两年执行时效的规定，申请人的申请已超过了申请执行时效。涉案仲裁裁决是2010年12月8日作出的，申请人在2013年1月24日才提出承认和执行申请。在申请人无充分证据证明其申请期限符合法律规定的情况下，应自行承担不利后果。第四，申请人提交的合同文本是复印件，且合同上“余承泉”的签名并非其本人所签，故涉案仲裁协议不是被申请人的真实意思表示。第五，被申请人并没有收到俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭的任何通知。根据申请人提交的仲裁规则，请求书、答辩书、更正通知书等所有与仲裁裁决有关的材料都未送达给被申请人。即使申请人提交的邮寄单是真实的，由于邮寄单没有注明邮寄的材料名称和内容，不能证明所有仲裁材料已送达给被申请人。另外，申请人提交的仲裁通知也仅是仲裁庭出具的通知文件，不能证明仲裁庭已通知了被申请人。第六，仲裁庭的组成违反了仲裁规则。申请人提交的仲裁规则第十七款第二条规定，仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成，除非鉴于案件复杂程度、请求金额（通常不应超过25000元美元）以及其他情形主席团可以派一名解决。根据俄罗斯国际商事仲裁法规定，当事人没有确定仲裁员，仲裁员的人数应为三人。本案中申请人的请求金额远超过了25000美元，被申请人也没有选定仲裁员，因此仲裁庭应由三人组成。并且按仲裁规则，独任仲裁员应当由主席团认定，而仲裁裁决书记载是由干事会认定的，故仲裁庭的组成不符合仲裁规则的规定。第七，根据仲裁规则规定，纠正裁决书应在30天内进行，但仲裁庭作出的纠正决定是在2011年1月14日，超出了仲裁规则规定的期限。本案审理过程中，被申请人称由于其没有被给予指定仲裁员或者进行仲裁程序的适当通知、仲裁庭的组成或仲裁程序同进行仲裁的国家的法律不符，根据《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第五条（1）款第（二）、（四）项的规定，应拒绝承认和执行涉案仲裁裁决。
申请人为证明其主张向本院提供了下列证据材料：证据1.申请人的商业登记证和法定代表人身份证明书；证据2. 俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭仲裁裁决和仲裁裁决决议；证据3. 买卖合同及补充协议；证据4. 俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁规则；证据5. 俄罗斯UPS公司邮件妥投证明共四份；证据6. 俄罗斯国际商事仲裁庭的仲裁员任命通知书；证据7.广东南方富达进出口有限公司的工商登记资料。
经本院组织质证，被申请人对申请人提供的证据发表如下质证意见：对证据1申请人的商业登记证有异议，登记证上的名称为俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司，而申请人的申请书和仲裁裁决书里都是俄罗斯欧凯有限公司，没有“物流”两字。对法定代表人身份证明书没有异议。对证据2俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭仲裁裁决和仲裁裁决决议没有异议。对证据3买卖合同及补充协议不予认可，因为文本是复印件，而且合同上“余承泉”的签名不是他本人签的。对证据4俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁规则没有异议。对证据5四份仲裁庭送达通知不予认可。被申请人没有收到仲裁材料，也没有被申请人的签收记录。外国仲裁文书的送达应根据中国与俄罗斯司法协助的相关规定，通过中国外交部门和司法机关进行送达。对证据6俄罗斯国际商事仲裁庭的仲裁员任命通知书不予认可，理由同上，而且也没办理公证认证手续。对证据7被申请人的主体资料没有异议。
被申请人没有提交证据材料。
经审理查明：2007年5月16日，申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司作为买方、被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司作为卖方在俄罗斯联邦圣彼得堡市签订编号为DCP—75/160507号买卖合同。合同首部记载被申请人的法定地址：中国广东省广州市XXX路X号XXXXXX酒店X楼。合同第1.12.仲裁与法律适用约定：因执行本合同而发生的，未由本合同协定的所有争议，均根据俄罗斯联邦法律而解决，适用法律是俄联邦实体法。因执行本合同而发生的所有争议、异议、请求，包括涉及本合同履行、违约、终止或失效等问题，应在俄联邦工商会国际商事仲裁院按照其规则进行仲裁。该合同文本为英文和俄文两种语言，每一页均加盖有“广东南方富达进出口有限公司”字样的印章，并有“余承泉”字样的签名。被申请人称，申请人提供的买卖合同不是正本而是复印件，合同上“余承泉”字样的签名并非其本人书写，余承泉曾是其公司的法定代表人，但已在2008年底退休。
2010年5月6日，申请人因与被申请人就上述买卖合同发生纠纷，遂向俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭提起仲裁申请，要求裁决被申请人返还货款共38478.45美元。俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日作出98/2010号仲裁裁决：被告人广东南方富达进出口有限公司应赔偿给原告人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司欠债38478.45美元及原告人的有关仲裁的费用5448美元。
2011年1月14日，俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭作出98/2010号案件决议：因为国际商务仲裁庭2010年12月8日作出的裁决里未写被告公司的全称，根据国际商务仲裁庭规程第43条第1项，国际商务仲裁庭决定，将国际商务仲裁庭2010年12月8日作出的裁决里提到的GuangDong South 公司确认为中国广东省GuangDong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.（广东南方富达进出口有限公司）。本决议作为俄罗斯联邦工商会的国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日对于98/2010号案件作出的裁决的组成部分。
另查明：（一）申请人提交的《俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁院（ICAC）规则》（中文译本）第16款文件的邮寄和交付：1.ICAC应按照一方提供的己方或对方文件接收地址向任何一方寄送案件文件。若先前提供的地址发生任何变化，各方应立即通知ICAC。2.任何一方向ICAC提交的所有文件均应由ICAC转交给另一方，除非该等文件已经由该方在仲裁期间转交给另一方。仲裁裁决可能依据的专家编制的任何报告或者分类为证据的其他文件也应由ICAC转交给各方。3.请求书、答辩书、听证通知书、仲裁裁决和指令应通过挂号邮件发送，并要求或者不要求回执，但应记录交付邮件的行为。4.其他文件可通过挂号邮件或者普通邮件发送，通知以及其他通信也可通过电报、传真或电子邮件等发送，但是应记录所发送的通信。5.上述任何文件还可通过要求回执的快递交付。6.通信应于被一方收到之日视作收悉，或者于若根据本款前述各项规定发送则应收到之时视作收悉。7.若一方任命代表，案件文件应发往或交付给该代表（除非该方对ICAC另有通知）并且应视作由该方发送或交付。第17款仲裁庭的组成：1.若双方无其他约定，案件仲裁庭应按照本款第2-9项的要求组成。2.仲裁庭应由3名仲裁员组成；除非鉴于案件复杂程度、请求金额（通常不应超过25000美元）以及其他情形，ICAC主席团根据其自行决定权判定案件应由唯一仲裁员解决。3.若仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成，原告应于收到ICAC通知后15天内通知ICAC其任命的仲裁员和候补仲裁员，除非原告提前作出该项任命。4.若原告未于本款第3项所述时限内选择仲裁员和候补仲裁员，ICAC主席团应代其任命仲裁员和候补仲裁员。5.若仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成，被告应于收到ICAC关于原告所选或任命仲裁员和候补仲裁员的通知后15天内通知ICAC其任命的仲裁员和候补仲裁员。6.若被告未于本款第5项提及的时限内选择仲裁员和候补仲裁员，ICAC主席团应代其任命仲裁员和候补仲裁员。7.若仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成，ICAC主席团应从仲裁员名单中任命一名首席仲裁员和一名候补首席仲裁员。8.若仲裁庭由三名仲裁员组成，以便在多名原告和多名被告之间进行仲裁，则多名原告和多名被告应分别选择一名仲裁员和一名候补仲裁员。若原告或被告未达成协议，ICAC主席团应任命一名仲裁员和一名候补仲裁员。ICAC主席团还可为另一方任命一名仲裁员和一名候补仲裁员。9.若案件由唯一仲裁员审理，ICAC主席团应从仲裁员名单中任命唯一仲裁员和候补唯一仲裁员。10.ICACA主席团可授权ICAC院长决定仲裁员和候补仲裁员的任命，包括首席仲裁员和候补仲裁员、唯一仲裁员和候补唯一仲裁员。11.根据本规则，仲裁庭和首席仲裁员的职责同样适用于唯一仲裁员。第20款仲裁庭成员的更换：1.若仲裁员拒绝承担其职责或者被要求回避或者因为其他任何原因不能参见案件程序，则应由各自的候补仲裁员更换。……若双方未另行约定，适用本项的规定。
（二）俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭作出的98/2010号案裁决书（中文译本）记载：（1）2010年7月22日国际商务仲裁庭的秘书处向被告人寄发诉讼申请书和有关文件，以及关于仲裁成员的通知函，本通知函里还提倡被告人在收到诉讼申请书的副本之日起的30天内给仲裁庭提交其对诉讼的回答。根据信使服务处的通知书，仲裁庭的2010年7月22日的有关诉讼的资料及通知函于2010年7月26日递交给被告人。国际商务仲裁庭的秘书处指定仲裁审判的日期为2010年11月17日16:00点钟，并给原被两告寄发以2010年9月3日签发的1800—98/2930号传票，该传票2010年9月22日送到原告人手里，2010年9月7日送到被告人手里。（2）根据国际商务仲裁庭规程第17条，国际商务仲裁庭的干事会任切特威尔特科夫A.M.为本案件的独任仲裁员，任柴卡V.I.为替补仲裁员。
（三）被申请人认为仲裁庭的组成与仲裁规则不符的表现是，根据《俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁院（ICAC）规则》第17款第2条的规定，申请人在本案中主张的金额超过了25000美元，故仲裁庭应由3名仲裁员组成，而本案的仲裁庭是由独任仲裁员组成；另根据第17款第9条的规定，独任仲裁员也应由ICAC主席团任命，而本案的独任仲裁员是由干事会任命的。申请人对此回应称，《俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁院（ICAC）规则》第17款第2条并未排除金额超过25000美元的案件可由独任仲裁员审理；本案的独任仲裁员是由ICAC主席团任命的，仲裁裁决书的俄文本和《俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁院（ICAC）规则》俄文本第17款第9条中关于“ICAC主席团”的俄文表述是相同的，仲裁裁决书中文译本中称独任仲裁员是由“干事会”任命的，是中文翻译错误所致。
（四）申请人另提供了俄罗斯UPS公司邮件妥投证明共四份，拟证明仲裁庭通过俄罗斯UPS快递公司曾分别于2010年7月26日、9月7日、2011年1月26日、1月27日向中国广东省广州市明月一路9号凯旋华美达大酒店三层广东南方富达进出口有限公司邮寄送达了相关仲裁材料和裁决书等，该证明上分别注明有“判断98/10”、“决议98/10”、“议程98/10”、“判断98/10（诉讼）”等。申请人解释称，这是对涉案仲裁案案号的标注。
（五）被申请人在本案中主张，申请人提交的法律实体登记证明显示其名称为“俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司”，而本案申请书上的申请人名称为“俄罗斯欧凯有限公司”，申请人无证据证明二者为同一公司，故其作为申请人的主体不适格。申请人则称，之所以其中文名称有差异，是因翻译的原因造成的，二者实际为同一主体。经查，申请人提交的证明其主体身份的法律实体登记证明、买卖合同、仲裁裁决书以及授权委托书上其俄文名称相同，而与之对应的上述四份材料的中文翻译件中除法律实体登记证明显示其中文名称为“俄罗斯欧凯物流有限公司”外，其余均为“俄罗斯欧凯有限公司”。被申请人在庭审中表示不同意另行提交中文翻译件以证明上述文件材料上显示的主体为不同主体。
（六）申请人曾于2012年4月19日向本院提出承认与执行涉案仲裁裁决申请，本院以（2012）穗中法民四初字第101号案立案受理后，申请人又于2012年11月5日以提供经公证认证的相关证据需要较长时间，待准备好相关证据后再行申请为由向本院提出撤回该承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的申请。本院于2012年11月5日裁定准许申请人撤回申请。
本院认为：本案为申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决纠纷，被申请人的住所地在本院辖区内，根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百八十三条的规定，本院依法对本案享有管辖权。涉案仲裁裁决是由俄罗斯境内的仲裁机构作出的，中国是《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（1987年4月22日对我国生效）的缔约国，根据《中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦关于民事和刑事司法协助条约》第二十一条关于仲裁裁决的承认与执行，缔约双方应根据一九五八年六月十日在纽约签订的关于承认与执行外国仲裁裁决的公约，相互承认与执行在对方境内作出的仲裁裁决的规定， 本案依法应适用《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》和《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》的有关规定。
关于被申请人抗辩的申请人的主体资格问题。经查，申请人提供的法律实体登记证明、买卖合同、仲裁裁决书以及授权委托书上其俄文名称相同，虽然与之对应的中文翻译件中的中文名称有差异，但被申请人无证据证明上述材料显示的主体为不同主体。申请人关于其中文名称不同是因翻译原因造成的主张有理，本院予以采纳。被申请人关于申请人主体不适格，不能认定其为涉案仲裁裁决的申请人的主张无依据，本院不予支持。
关于申请人曾撤回承认和执行申请后能否再次提起申请及是否超过申请执行期间的问题。申请人在之前提出承认与执行涉案仲裁裁决的申请后又撤回，只是其对自身诉讼权利的处分，不违反法律法规的强制性和禁止性规定，应予允许，不能因此而认为申请人放弃了自身实体权利而不能再次提出承认和执行申请。俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日作出涉案仲裁裁决，申请人于2012年4月19日第一次提出承认和执行申请时，没有超过 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百三十九条规定的二年申请执行期间。申请人于2012年11月5日撤回第一次承认和执行的申请，本院于同日裁定准许申请人撤回申请后，应适用申请执行时效中断的规定。故申请人于2013年1月24日再次提起本案申请，并没有超过二年的申请执行期间。
关于被申请人抗辩主张其没有被给予指定仲裁员或者进行仲裁程序的适当通知的问题。涉案仲裁裁决书记载，仲裁庭秘书处于2010年7月22日向被申请人邮寄送达了仲裁申请书和有关文件以及关于仲裁成员的通知函，2010年7月26日送达给了被申请人；仲裁庭又于2010年9月7日向被申请人送达了仲裁庭的开庭传票。申请人为此提供的俄罗斯UPS公司快递妥投证明能与仲裁裁决书的上述记载相印证。而且俄罗斯UPS公司快递妥投证明上记载的送达地址与涉案买卖合同上被申请人的地址一致。故根据《俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁院（ICAC）规则》第16款关于文件的邮寄和交付的规定，应认定仲裁庭已履行了给予被申请人指定仲裁员或者进行仲裁程序的适当通知的义务。被申请人以没有被给予指定仲裁员或者进行仲裁程序的适当通知为由主张不予承认和执行涉案仲裁裁决，本院不予采纳。
关于被申请人抗辩主张仲裁庭的组成与仲裁规则不符的问题。根据《俄罗斯工商会国际商事仲裁院（ICAC）规则》第17款关于仲裁庭组成的规定，ICAC主席团有权根据案件的具体情况决定由独任仲裁员组成仲裁庭审理案件。另根据仲裁裁决书的俄文本，审理本案的独任仲裁员是由ICAC主席团任命的。被申请人也无证据证明仲裁庭的组成违反了俄罗斯国际商事仲裁法的规定。故仲裁庭的组成符合上述仲裁规则的规定。被申请人以仲裁庭的组成与仲裁规则不符为由主张不予承认和执行涉案仲裁裁决，本院不予支持。
关于被申请人称申请人提交的合同文本是复印件、余承泉的签名不是其本人签名、仲裁协议不是其真实意思表示以及仲裁庭于2011年1月14日作出的补正决议超出了仲裁规则规定的30天期限的问题。因被申请人提出的上述理由并非《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第五条规定的不予承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的事由，本院依法不作审查和认定。
综上所述，申请人已按照《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第四条的规定提供了经正式认证的裁决书正本和经正式证明的仲裁协议副本以及相应的中文译本，被申请人无证据证明俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日作出的98/2010号仲裁裁决具有《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第五条所规定的可以拒绝承认和执行的情形。申请人的请求符合1986年12月2日全国人大常委会颁布的《关于我国加入<承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约>的决定》的规定，也不违反我国加入该公约时作出的保留性声明条款，故对该裁决书应当予以承认和执行。根据《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第四条、第五条，《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百八十三条的规定，裁定如下：
对俄罗斯联邦工商会国际商务仲裁庭于2010年12月8日对申请人俄罗斯欧凯有限公司与被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司作出的98/2010号仲裁裁决予以承认和执行。
本案申请和执行费人民币4064元，由被申请人广东南方富达进出口有限公司负担。
本裁定送达后立即生效。
审 判 长 陈劲晖
审 判 员 徐玉宝
代理审判员 罗 毅
二Ｏ一三年十二月 三 日
本件与原本核对无异
书 记 员 方卓迪
王嘉宝
In the Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou
Guangdong, the People’s Republic ofChina
Civil Court Order
Decided on December 3, 2013
(2013) Sui Zhong Fa Min Si Chu Zi No.12
This is the transliteration of the citation of the case in Chinese. In the citation convention of the courts of the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”), Sui (穗) means Guangzhou (capital of Guangdong), Zhong (中) means intermediate; Fa (法) means court; Min (民) means civil; Si (四) means the fourth division; Chu (初) means first-instance (judgment of the Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou); Zi (字) is also a citation convention for classifying the type of judgment (whether it is a first instance or final judgment) or its issuing organization. Put together, Sui Zhong Fa Min Si Zhong (穗中法民四初) means a first-instance judgment of the fourth civil division of the Intermediate People’s Court of Guangzhou.
Applicant (Arbitration Applicant): O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd. (俄罗斯欧凯有限公司)
Domicile: 195027,Russian Federation, Saint-Petersburg, pr, Shaumyana, 8, korp.1, lit.Yu
Legal Representative: Sokolov Evgeniy Vladimirovich
Agent ad litem: Fu Jun (傅军), attorney with Beijing Yingke (Guangzhou) Law Firm (北京市盈科（广州）律师事务所)
Respondent (Arbitration Respondent): Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (广东南方富达进出口有限公司)
Domicile: 24/F, Ramada Pearl Hotel, 9 Mingyue Yi Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong (广东省广州市越秀区明月一路九号凯旋华美达大酒店二十四楼)
Legal Representative: Lu Yong (陆勇), Chairman of board of directors of the said company
Agents ad litem: Su Xiaojian (苏小建) and Tang Wei (唐伟), both employees of the said company
Following acceptance of the case of Applicant O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd. (“Applicant”) and Respondent Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. (“Respondent”) applying for recognition and enforcement of the foreign arbitral award, this Court organized a collegial panel and heard the case. The hearing of this case has now been concluded.
Applicant claimed as follows: The dispute over payment for goods between Applicant and Respondent has been arbitrated by the International Commercial Arbitration Court (“ICAC”) at the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry (“RFCCI”) which entered into the arbitral award (No. 98/2010). However, Respondent failed to perform its obligation under the said award. In accordance with the Convention of the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the provisions of the applicable judicial interpretations, Applicant applied as follows: 1. To recognize and enforce the arbitral award (No. 98/2010) issued by the ICAC of RFCCI; 2. To order Respondent to pay in one lump sum the arrears in the amount of USD 38,478.45 (RMB 243,183.80) and the arbitration fee in the amount of USD 5,448 (RMB 4,431.36) as decided in the said award; 3. To order Respondent to bear the enforcement fee of this case.
Respondent answered as follows: Firstly, Applicant is unqualified as a subject. The name stated in the Registration of Legal Entity which was submitted by Applicant is “O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd.”, but the name of Applicant stated in the Application for Arbitration is “O’KEY Co., Ltd.”, and the said application is affixed with no corporate seal. Applicant failed to prove the said two companies are the same one company. In light of the foregoing, Respondent contended that Applicant should be O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd. as stated in the Registration of Legal Entity, otherwise it should be deemed to have failed to submit the documents of subject proof, and therefore should not be deemed as a party to the arbitral award in question. Secondly, Applicant had submitted an application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award on the said grounds before, but then withdrew the said application due to its own reason. Therefore the said application had been concluded. Applicant withdrew its application in the said case, which should be deemed that Applicant had waived its own right, so Applicant’s application in this case should be dismissed. Thirdly, the provision of a two-year time limit for enforcement as set forth in the law of the People’s Republic ofChina(“PRC Law”) should apply to the application for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award. The application in this case was made after expiry of the said time limit. The arbitral award in question was concluded on December 8, 2010, however, Applicant submitted the said application on January 24, 2013. In the event that Applicant failed to prove that it applied within the time limit in compliance with the law, Applicant should bear any unfavorable outcome thus caused. Fourthly, the contract submitted by Applicant is a photocopy, and the signature “Yu Chengquan (余承泉)” it bears was not signed by the said person himself. Therefore, the arbitration agreement in question is not a true reflection of Respondent’s intention. Fifthly, Respondent has not received any notice from the ICAC of RFCCI. In accordance with the rules on arbitration, the Statement of Claims, the Answer, and the Notice of Correction, none of the documents relating to the arbitral award has been served on Respondent. Even if the mailing list submitted by Applicant was true, since the said list did not include any name and content of the mailing materials, it still cannot prove that all arbitration documents had been served on Respondent. In addition, the Notice of Arbitration submitted by Applicant was mere a notice issued by the arbitral tribunal, therefore it fails to prove that the arbitral tribunal has notified Respondent. Sixthly, the composition of the arbitral tribunal violates the rules on arbitration. In accordance with Article 2 (17) of the said rules, an arbitral tribunal shall consist of three (3) arbitrators: unless in view of the complexity of the case, or the claimed amount (which shall usually be no more than USD 25,000), and other circumstances, the presidium may appoint a sole arbitrator. According to the Law of the Russian Federation on International Commercial Arbitration, in case the parties fail to appoint arbitrators, the number of arbitrators shall be three (3). The claimed amount as requested by Applicant is far more than USD 25,000 in this case, and Respondent has not appointed an arbitrator, therefore the arbitral tribunal should consist of three (3) arbitrators. Moreover, according to rules on arbitration, the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the presidium, but the arbitral award recorded that the said arbitrator was appointed by the executive committee. Therefore, the composition of the arbitral tribunal did not comply with the provisions of rules on arbitration. Seventhly, in accordance with the provisions of the rules on arbitration, any correction to an arbitral award shall be made within thirty (30) days, but the correction made by the arbitral tribunal took place on January 14, 2011, which exceeded the time limit as set forth in the rules on arbitration. During the hearing of this case, Respondent claimed that Respondent had not been properly notified to appoint an arbitrator or engage in the arbitration proceedings, so the composition of the arbitral tribunal and the arbitration proceedings were not in compliance with the law of the country where the arbitration proceeded. According to Article 5 (1) (ii) and (iv) of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in question should be denied.
In support of its claims, Applicant provided the following evidence: Evidence Item No.1: Applicant’s Business Registration Certificate and the legal representative’s identity proof; Evidence Item No.2: the Arbitral Award and the Resolution on Arbitral Award both issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI; Evidence Item No.3: the Sales and Purchase Contract and its supplementary agreement; Evidence Item No.4: The Rules of the International Commercial Arbitration Court (“ICAC Rules”); Evidence Item No.5: the four (4) successful delivery notes issued by UPS Company in Russia; Evidence Item No.6: the Notice of Arbitrator Appointment issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI; and Evidence Item No.7: the industry and commerce registration of Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co., Ltd..
Upon examination of evidence organized by this Court, Respondent challenged the evidence presented by Applicant as follows: Respondent challenged Evidence No.1, Applicant’s Business Registration Certificate, arguing that the name on the said certificate is “O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd.”, but the name in the Application as well as in the Arbitral Award were both “O’KEY Co., Ltd.”, without the word “Logistics”. Respondent held no objection to the identity proof of the legal representative. Respondent held no objection to Evidence Item No.2, the Arbitral Award and the Resolution on Arbitral Award both issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI, but refused to admit Evidence Item No.3, the Sales and Purchase Contract and its supplementary agreement, arguing that the said evidence was in photocopy, and the signature thereon was not affixed by the stated authorized representative himself. Respondent held no objection to Evidence Item No.4, ICAC Rules, but challenged Evidence Item No.5, the four delivery notes of the arbitral award, on the following grounds: Respondent has not been served with any arbitration document, and none of the record shows that Respondent has signed and accepted the said documents. Foreign arbitration documents shall be served byChina’s diplomatic and judicial departments pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Treaty between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters. Respondent challenged Evidence Item No.6, the Notice of Arbitrator Appointment issued by the ICAC of the RFCCI, arguing that in addition to the aforesaid reasons, no procedure of notarization has been completed. Respondent did not dispute the identity proof of Applicant as reflected in Evidence Item No.7.
Respondent did not submit any evidence.
After trial of the case, this Court finds the facts as follows: On May 16, 2007, the Sales and Purchase Contract of No. DCP-75/160507 was executed by and between Applicant and Respondent in Saint-Petersburg,Russian Federation. Respondent’s legally registered address recorded at the preamble of the said Contract is: 3/F, Ramada Pearl Hotel, 9 Mingyue Yi Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong,China. In accordance with Article 1.12. Arbitration and Application of Law of the said Contract, two parties agreed as follows: Any dispute arising from performance of this Contract yet not included herein, shall be settled in compliance with the law ofRussian Federation, and the law applicable thereto is the Russian Federation Substantive Law. Any dispute, objection or request arising from this Contract, or any issue regarding the performance, breach, termination or invalidation of this Contract shall be resolved through arbitration by the ICAC of the RFCCI under the ICAC Rules. This Contract is written both in English and Russian, with Respondent’s corporate seal of “Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co., Ltd.” and the signature of Yu Chengquan affixed on each page. Respondent contended that the Contract provided by Applicant is a photocopy rather than the original, and the signature of Yu Chengquan was not signed by Yu Chengquan himself. Yu Chengquan was once the legal representative of Respondent’s company, but retired at the end of 2008.
On May 6, 2010, due to the dispute in the said issue arose over the said Contract, Applicant applied to the ICAC of the RFCCI for arbitration, requesting the arbitral tribunal to order Applicant to return the payment for goods in the amount of USD 38,478.45. On December 8, 2010, the ICAC of the RFCCI issued the arbitral award (No. 98/2010), ordering that Defendant, Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co., Ltd., shall compensate Plaintiff, O’KEY Co., Ltd., for the outstanding payment for goods in the amount of USD 38,478.45 and the arbitration cost in the amount of USD 5,448.
On January 14, 2011, the ICAC of the RFCCI reached a resolution on arbitral award (No. 98/2010) as follows: As the full name of Defendant was not stated in the arbitral award entered into on December 8, 2010, the ICAC decided to, in accordance with Article 43 (1) of the ICAC Rules, confirm that Guangdong South as stated in the said award shall be Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co. Ltd.. This resolution shall be deemed as an integral part of the arbitral award (No. 98/2010) entered into by the ICAC of the RFCCI on December 8, 2010.
This Court also finds the following facts: 1. Article 16, Mailing and Delivery of Documents, of the ICAC Rules (Chinese translation) submitted by Applicant provides: (1) The ICAC shall mail documents to the address of a party provided by such party or by the other party. A party shall immediately notify the ICAC of any changes to the previously provided address. (2) All documents submitted by a party to the ICAC shall be forwarded by the ICAC to the other party, except such documents have already been transmitted by such party to the other party during the arbitral proceedings. Any report prepared by experts or other documents classified as evidence on which an arbitral award may be based shall also be delivered to the parties by the ICAC. (3) The Request for Arbitration, the Answer, the Notice of the Hearing, the Arbitral Award, and the Order shall all be posted by registered mail with or without a return receipt requested, provided that a record is made of the delivery of the mail. (4) Other documents may be posted by registered or ordinary mail, and notices and communications may also be sent by wire, fax, e-mail, etc, provided that a record is made of such communication. (5) Any of the aforesaid documents may alternatively be delivered by courier against receipt. (6) A communication shall be deemed to have been received on the day when it is received by a party or when it should be received if posted as specified in the preceding subparagraphs of this paragraph. (7) Where a party appoints a representative, any document relating to the case shall be sent or delivered to such representative, unless such party has notified the ICAC otherwise, and shall be deemed to have been sent or delivered by such party. About Article 17, Composition of the Arbitral Tribunal: (1) If the parties have not agreed otherwise, an arbitral tribunal for a case shall be established as required under subparagraphs 2 to 9 of this paragraph. (2) An arbitral tribunal shall consist of three arbitrators, unless in view of the complexity of the case, the claimed amount (which usually shall be no more than USD 25,000), and other circumstances, the ICAC presidium determines, in its own discretion, that the case shall be settled by a sole arbitrator. (3) Where an arbitral tribunal is to be composed of three arbitrators, the claimant shall, within 15 days upon receipt of a notice from the ICAC, inform the ICAC of the arbitrator and reserve arbitrator appointed thereby, unless the claimant has appointed such arbitrator in advance. (4) If the claimant fails to select an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator within the time limit as specified in subparagraph 3 of this paragraph, the ICAC presidium shall appoint an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator therefor. (5) Where an arbitral tribunal is to be composed of three arbitrators, the respondent shall, within 15 days upon receipt of a notice from the ICAC that an arbitrator and a reverse arbitrator have been selected or appointed by the claimant, inform the ICAC of the arbitrator and reserve arbitrator selected thereby. (6) If the respondent fails to select an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator within the time limit as specified in subparagraph 5 of this paragraph, the ICAC presidium shall appoint an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator therefor. (7) Where an arbitral tribunal is to be composed of three arbitrators, the ICAC presidium shall appoint a presiding arbitrator and a reserve presiding arbitrator from the List of Arbitrators. (8) Where an arbitral tribunal is to be composed of three arbitrators to arbitrate between multiple claimants and multiple respondents, the claimants and the respondents shall each select one arbitrator and one reserve arbitrator. Where the claimants or the respondents have not reached an agreement, the ICAC presidium shall appoint one arbitrator and one reserve arbitrator. The ICAC presidium may also appoint an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator for the other party as well. (9) Where a case is heard by a sole arbitrator, the ICAC presidium shall appoint a sole arbitrator and a reserve sole arbitrator from the List of Arbitrators. (10) The ICAC presidium may authorize the ICAC President to decide on the appointment of an arbitrator and a reserve arbitrator, including a presiding arbitrator and a reserve presiding arbitrator, and a sole arbitrator and a reserve sole arbitrator. (11) The duties of an arbitral tribunal and the presiding arbitrator thereof, in accordance with these Rules, shall apply to the sole arbitrator as well. About Article 20, Replacements in the Arbitral Tribunal: (1) Where an arbitrator has declined to assume his duties, or has been challenged, or cannot participate in the proceedings in the case for any other reasons, he/she shall be replaced by the respective reserve arbitrator. ... The provisions of this subparagraph shall apply where the parties have not agreed otherwise.
2. The arbitral award (No.98/2010) (Chinese translation) entered into by the ICAC of the RFCCI records as follows: (1) On July 22, 2010, the secretariat of the ICAC sent to Defendant the Application for Arbitration, relevant documents and Notice on Arbitrators. In the said notice, the ICAC recommended Defendant to submit to the ICAC an answer within thirty (30) days upon receipt of the duplicate of the Application for Arbitration. According to the notice from messenger service，the arbitral materials and the notice sent by the ICAC on July 22, 2010 were served on Defendant on July 26, 2010. The time for arbitration decided by the secretariat of ICAC was 16:00 on November 17, 2010. In addition, Summons No. 1800—98/2930 signed and issued on September 3, 2010 was sent to Defendant, and was served on Defendant on September 7, 2010. (2). According to Article 17 of the ICAC Rules, the executive committee appointed Chet Wilt Cob A.M. as the sole arbitrator and Chaika V.I. as the reserve arbitrator
3. Respondent contended that the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in compliance with the ICAC Rules on the following grounds: According to Article 17 (ii) of the ICAC Rules, if the claimed amount exceeds USD 25,000, the arbitral tribunal shall consist of three (3) arbitrators. However, the arbitral tribunal in this case consisted only of a sole arbitrator; According to Article 17 (ix) of said Rules, the sole arbitrator shall be appointed by the ICAC presidium, but the sole arbitrator in this case was appointed by the executive committee. Applicant replied that the possibility that a case where the claimed amount exceeds USD 25,000 may still be heard by a sole arbitrator is not excluded in Article 17 (ii) of the ICAC Rules. The sole arbitrator in this case was appointed by the ICAC presidium, and the expression of “ICAC presidium” in the Arbitral Award in Russian was the same as that in Article 17 (ii) of the ICAC Rules in Russian. In the Chinese translation of the said Award, the expression that the sole arbitrator was appointed by executive committee was incorrect due to translation error.
4. Applicant also provided four successful delivery notes issued by UPS Company in Russia with the intention to prove that the arbitral tribunal mailed relevant arbitration materials and the Arbitral Award to Guangdong South Fortune Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. at the address of 3/F, Ramada Pearl Hotel, 9 Mingyue Yi Road, Yuexiu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong on July 26, 2010, September 7, 2010, January 26, 2011 and January 27, 2011, respectively. The said four notes are marked respectively “Decision 98/10”, “Resolution 98/10”, “Agenda 98/10” and “Decision (litigation) 98/10”. These marks, according to Applicant, are explanatory notes of the case citation of the arbitration in question.
5. Respondent also argued that the name of Applicant on the Registration of Legal Entity submitted by Applicant is “O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd.”, but the name of Applicant on the Application for Arbitration is “O’KEY Co., Ltd.”; that Applicant failed to prove the said two companies are the same one company, therefore, Applicant is not qualified as a subject in this case. However, Applicant contended that the inconsistency in company’s name was caused by mistranslation, and the two said companies are the same. Upon examination, this Court finds that the names of Applicant on the following identity documents in Russian are the same: the Registration Certificate of Legal Entity, the Sales and Purchase Contract, the Arbitral Award and the Letter of Authorization. But as for the Chinese counterparts of the said documents, only the Registration Certificate of Legal Entity records the name of Applicant as “O’KEY Logistics Co., Ltd.”, and the other three documents states the name of Applicant as “O’KEY Co., Ltd.”. During the trial, Respondent refused to provide additional Chinese translation to prove the companies as stated in the said documents are different.
6. Applicant once applied to this Court for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in question on April 19, 2012. This Court accepted such application and filed the case whose citation was (2012) Sui Zhong Fa Min Si Chu Zi No.101. Later, on November 5, 2012, Applicant withdrew the said application for the reason that it would take a long time to get the relevant evidence certificated and notarized, and Applicant would rather submit another application once such evidence was ready. On November 5, 2012, this court sustained Applicant’s application for withdrawal.
This Court holds as follows: This is a dispute arising from the application for recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, and the domicile of Respondent is within the jurisdiction of this Court. According to Article 283 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court has jurisdiction over this case. The arbitral award in question was issued by an arbitration agency within the territory of theRussian Federation, and the People’s Republic ofChinais a state party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (which became effective inChinaon April 22, 1987). In accordance with Article 21, Recognition and Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, of the Treaty between the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation on Mutual Legal Assistance in Civil and Criminal Matters, two contracting parties shall mutually recognize and enforce the arbitral awards made in other contracting party’s territory pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards signed in New York on June 10, 1958. Accordingly, this dispute shall be resolved pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic ofChina.
Regarding Respondent’s argument over Applicant’s capacity as a subject, this Court finds as follows: The names of Applicant in Russian on the Registration of Legal Entity, the Sales and Purchase Contract, the Arbitral Award and the Letter of Authorization are the same. Although the names on the said documents in Chinese are inconsistent with that on the original in Russian, Respondent failed to prove that the subject on the Chinese version and that on the Russian originals are not the same one.
Regarding the issue whether or not Applicant, after withdrawing the application for recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral award, may submit the same application again, and whether or not such application has exceeded the time limit, this Court finds as follows: Applicant withdrew the application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in question after submitting it, which was merely an exercise of Applicant’s own right of litigation, not in violation of any mandatory and prohibitive provisions of laws and regulations, thus, shall be sustained. Applicant therefore shall not be deemed to have waived its substantive right to submit such application again. The ICAC of the RFCCI gave the arbitral award in question on December 8, 2010. The first time Applicant submitted the said application was April 19, 2012, not exceeding the time limit as set forth in Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Applicant withdrew the first application for recognition and enforcement on November 5, 2012, and this Court sustained the said withdrawal on the same day. Thus, the provision on the suspension of time limit for enforcement application shall be applicable. Accordingly, the second time Applicant submitted the said application did not exceed the two-year time limit for the application for enforcement.
Regarding Respondent’s argument that no notices on arbitrator appointment or arbitration procedures had been properly served on Respondent, this Court finds as follows: According to the arbitral award, the Application for Arbitration, relevant documents and the Notice on Arbitrators were posted to Respondent by the secretariat of the ICAC on July 22, 2010, and been served on Respondent on July 26, 2010; the Summons was served on Respondent by the ICAC on September 7, 2010. The said records on the arbitral award are supported by such evidence as the four successful delivery notes issued by UPS Company inRussiaand provided by Applicant. In addition, the address on the said certificates is the same as Applicant’s address on the Sales and Purchase Contract in question. Therefore, according to Article 16, Provisions on Mailing and Delivery of Documents, of the ICAC Rules, it shall be deemed that the arbitral tribunal had performed its obligation of posting Respondent the notices on arbitrator appointment and arbitration procedures. Therefore, this Court dismisses Respondent’s argument that it refuses to recognize and enforce the arbitral award in question because the said notices had not been properly served thereon.
Regarding Respondent’s argument that the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in compliance with the rules on arbitration, this Court finds as follows: According to Article 17, Provisions on Composition of Arbitral Tribunal, of the ICAC Rules, the ICAC presidium has the right to appoint a sole arbitrator to settle a case in view of the specific circumstances of the case. In addition, according to the arbitral award in Russian, the sole arbitrator for this case was appointed by the ICAC presidium. Respondent had no evidence to prove that the composition of the arbitral tribunal violated the provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation on International Commercial Arbitration. Thus the composition of the arbitral tribunal complied with the provisions of the said rules. This Court thus dismisses Respondent’s argument that it refused to recognize and enforce the arbitral award in question because the composition of the arbitral tribunal was not in compliance with the rules on arbitration.
As to the following issues: the contract submitted by Applicant was a photocopy, the signature of “Yu Chengquan” was not affixed by the said authorized agent himself, the arbitration agreement failed to express Respondent’s true intention, and the resolution on arbitral award made on January 14, 2011 by the arbitral tribunal exceeded the time limit of thirty (30) days as set forth in the ICAC Rules, this Court finds that the said issues are not covered by Article 5, Matters for Refusing the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Tribunal, of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award, therefore this Court decides not to make any further examination or ruling according thereto.
By reason of the foregoing, Applicant, according to Article 4 of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award, has submitted the certified original copy of the arbitral award, the duplicate of the resolution on arbitral award, and their corresponding Chinese translations. Respondent failed to prove that the arbitral award (No.98/2010) entered into by the ICAC of the RFCCI on December 8, 2010 meets the requirements for refusing to recognize and enforce an arbitral award as set forth in Article 5 of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award. Applicant’s requests are in compliance with the Decision on Acceding to The Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award, and are not in violation of the saving clauses declared upon the PRC’s accession to the said Convention. Therefore, the said arbitral award shall be recognized and enforced. In accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Award, and Article 283 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court hereby orders as follows:
The arbitral award (No. 98/2010) entered into by the ICAC of the RFCCI on December 8, 2010 shall be recognized and enforced.
The application and enforcement fees for this case in the amount of RMB 4,064 shall be borne by Respondent.
This order shall take effect upon service.
Presiding Judge: Chen Jinhui (陈劲晖)
Judge: Xu Yubao (徐玉宝)
Acting Judge: Luo Yi (罗 毅)
This copy is verified to be identical with the original.
Clerks: Fang Zhuodi (方卓迪)
Wang Jiabao (王嘉宝)
In case of any discrepancy between the original and the translated version, the original shall prevail.