案例/Case Review

2014年4月29日，申请人加拿大XX公司与被申请人天津XX公司签订《合同书》一份，由申请人承包天津XX别墅的木结构设计、加拿大进口结构骨架的供货、现场技术指导、技术服务及售后服务等业务，合同总价款暂定人民币1315万元。该合同第十一条载明：“在执行本合同期间，如产生分歧，双方将本着友好合作精神，协商解决。协商不成，向北京仲裁机构申请仲裁。”之后，在合同履行过程中，双方产生纠纷，且就纠纷解决方式产生争议。申请人请求法院确认仲裁条款无效，被申请人请求向北京仲裁委员会申请仲裁。

On the 29th of April,2014, the claimant，a Canadian company, entered into a contract with the respondent, a Tianjin company. It provided that the claimant would engaged to be responsible for the structural design of wooden villas, supplying for Canadian imported structural frames, onsite technical instruction, technical service and after-sales service and etc. The provisional lump sum price is 13.15 million CNY. It’s provided in Clause 10 of the contract that “in case any disputes arise during the execution of this contract, it shall be resolved by negotiation in spirit of amicable collaboration. An arbitration shall be applied to Beijing arbitration establishment if it can’t be resolved by negotiation. In performance of the contract, a dispute arose and can’t be resolved by negotiation. The claimant complained to the court and pleaded that the arbitration clause shall be null and void, whereas the respondent was applying to the Beijing Arbitration Commission

法院判决

Court’s decision

确认申请人XX公司与被申请人XX公司于2014年4月29日签订的《合同书》中的仲裁条款无效。

It’s affirmed that the contract, signed on April 29th of 2014 between claimant and respondent is null and void

律师观点

Lawyer’s view

申请人公司与被申请人公司签订的《合同书》中约定，双方产生分歧后协商不成向北京仲裁机构申请仲裁。由于北京市有三家仲裁机构可受理涉案合同争议，即北京仲裁委员会、中国海事仲裁委员会和中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会，而双方在系争仲裁条款中并未明确由哪家仲裁机构进行仲裁。根据《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国仲裁法〉若干问题的解释》第六条的规定，“仲裁协议约定由某地的仲裁机构仲裁且该地仅有一个仲裁机构的，该仲裁机构视为约定的仲裁机构。该地有两个以上仲裁机构的，当事人可以协议选择其中的一个仲裁机构申请仲裁；当事人不能就仲裁机构选择达成一致的，仲裁协议无效。”由于本案当事人签订的仲裁协议未约定明确的仲裁机构，且不能协商一致达成补充协议，故依据上述规定，该仲裁协议应认定无效。

It’s provided, in the contract signed between the claimant and respondent, that parties shall apply to Beijing arbitration establishment in case negotiation can’t be concluded for any dispute arising thereof. Because there are three arbitration establishments: Beijing Arbitration Commission, China Maritime Arbitration Commission, and China International Economic & Trade Arbitration Commission. The parties didn’t define, in the arbitration clause, which commission shall be applied. According to the clause 6, the Supreme Court’s interpretation about several issues for applying PRC Arbitration Law, one arbitration establishment shall be deemed as the contracted arbitration establishment if the arbitration agreement provides that the disputes shall be arbitrated by the arbitration establishment in one place and that’s the only one in such place. If there is two and above arbitration establishment in a place, parties can choose which one shall be applied by agreement, whereas the arbitration agreement may be null and void if the parties can’t reach an agreement. In this case, the arbitration agreement didn’t provide a definite arbitration establishment, moreover, they didn’t reach an agreement afterwards. Therefore the arbitration agreement shall be null and void as per the stipulation stated above.