Today, I’d like to share a section of the court’s reasoning in the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award in China.
Upon examination, this Court finds that Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates: “If the arbitration award made by a foreign arbitration institution requires recognition and enforcement by the People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China, the party concerned shall apply directly to the Intermediate People’s Court at the domicile of the person to be enforced or at the location of the person’s property. The People’s Court shall handle the matter in accordance with the international treaties concluded or acceded to by the People’s Republic of China or according to the principle of reciprocity.” This Court is the Intermediate People’s Court at the domicile and the location of the property of the person to be enforced. In accordance with the above-mentioned legal provisions, this Court has jurisdiction over this case.
The 1958 New York Convention entered into force in China on April 22, 1987. In accordance with the reciprocity reservation and commercial reservation made by China when joining the Convention, China applies the Convention to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in another contracting state’s territory, and China applies the Convention only to disputes arising from contractual and non-contractual commercial legal relations according to Chinese law. Since the arbitration award in this case was made in the Russian Federation, which is a contracting state to the Convention, and the dispute resolved by the arbitral award is a commercial legal relationship under Chinese law, this Court applies the 1958 New York Convention when reviewing the arbitral award.
It has been verified that [Applicant] has submitted to this Court the documents prescribed in Article 4 of the New York Convention, including the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement between the parties, and this Court confirms this.
In this case, the Respondent’s main reason for refusing to recognize and enforce the arbitral award is that the Respondent is not a party to the contract, and that the contract party is [other] Company, registered in Hong Kong. After examination, this Court finds that the contract clearly states that the seller is [XXX] Agricultural Company, whose domicile is in [XXX], and the payee is [XXX]. The parties to the foreign-related arbitration award are the Applicant and the Respondent. Therefore, the Respondent is a party to the contract, and its claim that it is not a party to the contract is unfounded.
Regarding matters that the Court is reviewing ex officio, after reviewing the arbitral award, the matters in dispute between the parties, according to Chinese law, can be resolved through arbitration, and there is no issue of public policy in recognizing or enforcing the award. Therefore, the arbitral award [XXX] rendered by the International Commercial Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry on October 14, 2021 does not fall under any of the circumstances listed in Article 5 of the 1958 New York Convention for refusal of recognition and enforcement. This Court can recognize and enforce the award.
In accordance with Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, and Articles 3, 4, and 5 of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, the Court rules as follows:
Judgment Result:
The arbitration award No. [XXX] issued by the International Commercial Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation Chamber of Commerce and Industry is hereby recognized and enforced.
The application fee of RMB 500 shall be borne by the Respondent, [XXX]
This ruling is a final judgment.
