2018年6月15日，荷兰最高法院在ECLI:NL:HR:2018:914 (Bursa/Güris et al.)案中裁定，请求撤销仲裁裁决的（备选）期限应严格适用。若裁决递交或发出(deposit or dispatch)后的第一个三个月期限届满，则在裁决或执行许可送达后的第二个三个月限期开始前，不得提起撤销请求。

背景

土耳其西北部的一个大城市，Bursa自治市与一建筑公司财团就其城市轨道系统（“Bursa轻轨系统”）的建设签订一份合同。《建筑协议》载有根据1998年1月1日《国际商会（ICC）仲裁规则》提交仲裁的条款，仲裁地点为海牙。

始于1997年的Bursa轻轨系统项目引起许多争议，并导致了几项ICC仲裁裁决的作出以及在荷兰法院的几个撤销程序。本案涉及2011年7月11日作出的一项仲裁裁决，其中，Bursa被责令就因项目延误而导致的额外费用向Güris 等一些建筑公司进行赔偿。

2011年10月3日，Güris 等人向海牙地区法院登记处递交仲裁裁决，随后请求同一法院授予临时救济的法官准予执行该裁决，并于2012年6月6日获得执行许可。Güris 等人还向土耳其Bursa地区法院请求承认和执行该裁决，并于2013年5月30日得到批准。

撤销程序

2012年9月19日，Bursa在海牙地区法院提出诉讼，请求撤销仲裁裁决，其理由是其中一名仲裁员没有保持公正和独立（根据现行荷兰程序法，撤销之诉应向有管辖权的上诉法院提起）。海牙地区法院驳回其撤销请求，该裁定在上诉程序中得到海牙上诉法院的支持。海牙上诉法院裁定，Bursa缺乏诉因(cause of action)，因撤销请求没有在规定的期限内提交。

对于这项对Bursa不利的裁决，根据该裁决适用的荷兰程序法（旧《荷兰民事诉讼法》第1064（3）条，现为第1064a（3）条），提出撤销之诉有两个期限：

（1）第一个期限为三个月

自仲裁裁决向仲裁地的地区法院登记处递交之日起开始计算。 然而，根据现行《荷兰民事诉讼法》第1064a条，该期限自裁决发送给当事人之日起开始起算。只有在当事人已同意将裁决递交地区法院登记处时，该期限才能自递交之日起开始计算。

（2）第二个期限为三个月

从裁决以及执行许可送达之日起开始计算。

Bursa在第一个期限届满后提出撤销请求。海牙上诉法院裁定，Bursa不能证明裁决和执行许可已经送达，因而不能证明第二个期限已经开始计算。因此，Bursa撤销请求的提出不在任何一个期限内。

最高法院裁定

最高法院首先讨论，在第一个期限届满后但在第二个期限开始前（即裁决和执行许可送达后），是否存在可能提起撤销程序的情况。Bursa认为，若该裁决将被执行“足够明确”，就可以提起撤销程序。

最高法院驳回了该论点，并对第二个期限进行文义解释。旧《荷兰民事诉讼法》第1064（3）条（现第1064a（3）条）的措词是指在裁决和执行许可送达“后”“在三个月内”提出的撤销请求。使用“在……内”和“在……后”的措辞表示该请求必须在第二个期限之内而非之前。此外，Bursa的论点会导致实际困难，因撤销请求的及时性将依赖主观标准，即执行的发生“足够明确”。

随后，最高法院讨论若第二个期限在撤销程序期间开始计算，撤销请求是否仍然可被受理。Bursa认为，撤销程序在海牙地区法院待决期间，Bursa地区法院事实上已送达其载有执行许可的判决。Bursa因此认为其提出的撤销请求是及时的。

该论点也被法院驳回。最高法院认为撤销请求必须在第二次期限内提交，并认为，第二个期限在撤销程序期间开始计算的事实与撤销请求的及时性无关，若该请求在第二个期限开始之前提出。

评论

请求在荷兰撤销仲裁裁决的当事人有两次机会。第一次机会是在裁决发送给各方当事人或向有管辖权的地区法院递交后三个月内提出撤销申请。或者，撤销申请可以在裁决和执行许可送达后三个月内提出。

最高法院的裁定表明，这两个期限将严格适用。错过适当期限的当事人所提出的撤销请求将被宣布不予受理。不予受理的情形还包括在第一个期限届满后但在第二个期限开始前提交申请的情况。

因此，未能在第一个期限内提起撤销程序的当事人，需等到裁决和执行许可送达后才能提出撤销请求，即使对方当事人显然将在以后执行裁决。若当事人在第一个期限届满后且第二个期限开始前仍然提交撤销请求，则建议该当事人在裁决和执行许可送达后再次提交新的撤销请求。

【英文原文】

Dutch Supreme Court applies strict interpretation of the (alternative) time limit for filing for the annulment of an arbitral award

By  Marc Noldus

In Supreme Court 15 June 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:914 (Bursa/Güris et al.) the Dutch Supreme Court ruled in favour of a strict application of the (alternative) time limit for filing for the annulment of an arbitral award. If the first time limit of three months after the deposit or dispatch of the award has lapsed, a claim for annulment cannot be filed until the start of the second time limit of three months after service of the award and leave for enforcement.

Background

The municipality of Bursa, a large city in north-western Turkey, entered into a contract with a consortium of construction companies for the construction of an urban railway system in its municipality (the ‘Bursa Light Rail System’). The construction agreement contains a submission to arbitration in accordance withthe Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) of 1 January 1998. The place of arbitration is The Hague.

The Bursa Light Rail System project, which dates back to 1997, has led to a number of disputes. This has resulted in several ICC arbitral awards as well as several annulment proceedings before the Dutch courts. The present case relates to an arbitral award of 11 July 2011 in which Bursa was ordered to reimburse a number of the construction companies, Güris et al., for additional costs incurred as a result of a delay of the project.

On 3 October 2011, Güris et al. deposited the arbitral award at the registry of The Hague District Court. Güris et al. then requested leave for enforcement of the award before the interim relief judge of the same court, which it granted on 6 June 2012. Güris et al. also filed for the recognition and enforcement of the award before the Bursa District Court in Turkey, which it granted on 30 May 2013.

Annulment proceedings

On 19 September 2012, Bursa filed a claim for annulment of the arbitral award before The Hague District Court on the grounds that one of the arbitrators had not been impartial and independent (under current Dutch procedural law, a claim for annulment is filed before the competent Court of Appeal). The Hague District Court rejected the claim for annulment, and that decision was upheld in appeal proceedings before The Hague Court of Appeal. The Hague Court of Appeal ruled that Bursa lacked a cause of action because the claim for annulment was not filed within the applicable time limits.

Under Dutch procedural law applicable to the award against Bursa (article 1064(3) Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (DCCP) (old), currently article 1064a(3)), there are two time limits for filing a claim for annulment:

 - The first time limit is three months, commencing on the date the award is deposited with the registry of the district court of the place of arbitration. Under the current article 1064a Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, however, this time limit commences on the date the award is dispatched to the parties. The date commences on the date the award is deposited with the registry of the district court only if parties have agreed to such deposition.

 - The second time limit is three months, commencing on the date the award is served together with a leave for enforcement.

Bursa had filed the claim for annulment after the first time limit had lapsed. The Hague Court of Appeal ruled that Bursa had not shown that the award and leave for enforcement were served on Bursa and therefore failed to show that the second time limit had commenced. As a result, Bursa’s claim for annulment fell within neither of the two time limits.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court first addressed whether there are circumstances under which annulment proceedings may be brought after the first time limit has lapsed, but before the second time limit has commenced (i.e. the award and leave for enforcement are served). Bursa argued that this is the case if it is ‘sufficiently clear’ that the award will be enforced.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument and resorted to a textual interpretation of the second time limit. The wording of article1064(3) DCCP (old) (currently article 1064a(3) DCCP) refers to a claim for annulment being brought “within three months after” service of the award and leave for enforcement. The use of the words “within” and “after” shows that this claim must be brought within and not prior to the second time limit. Additionally, Bursa’s argument would lead to practical difficulties because the timeliness of a claim for annulment would depend on the subjective criteria that it is ‘sufficiently clear’ that enforcement will take place.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court addressed whether a claim for annulment may still be admissible if the second time limit commences during annulment proceedings. Bursa had argued that the Bursa District Court had in fact served its judgment containing leave for enforcement while the annulment proceedings before The Hague District Court were still pending. For this reason, it held that its claim for annulment was brought timely.

This argument was rejected as well. Referring to its observation that a claim for annulment must be brought within the second time limit, the Supreme Court held that the fact that the second time limit had commenced during the annulment proceedings has no bearing on the timeliness of the claim for annulment if this was brought prior to the commencement of the second time limit.

Comments

A party seeking the annulment of an arbitral award seated in the Netherlands has two occasions to do so. Its first opportunity is to file a claim for annulment within three months after the award has been dispatched to the parties or deposited with the competent district court. Alternatively, it may file a claim for annulment within three months after the award and a leave for enforcement have been served.

The Supreme Court’s ruling shows that these two time windows are applied strictly. A party missing the appropriate time limit will be declared inadmissible in its claim for annulment. This includes the case where the claim is filed after the first time limit has lapsed but before the second time limit has commenced.

A party failing to initiate annulment proceedings within the first time limit will therefore need to wait until the award and leave for enforcement have been served before filing a claim for annulment, even it is clear that the counterparty will enforce the award in the future. If a party nevertheless files a claim for annulment before the second time limit has commenced (but after the first time limit has lapsed), it is advisable to file a new claim for annulment once the award and leave for enforcement are served.

来源： 临时仲裁ADA 不代表本会意见