北京仲裁委员会

发布时间： Wed Mar 14 15:38:15 CST 2018   供稿人：刘念琼

争点效是民事诉讼法领域关于判决理由拘束力所提出的一个理论，具体来说，日本学者新堂幸司将其定义为“在前诉中，被双方当事人作为主要争点予以争执，而且法院也对该争点进行了审理并作出判断，当同一争点作为主要的先决问题出现在其它后诉请求的审理中时，前诉法院对于该争点作出的判断所产生的通用力”。

争点效在作用上与既判力有相似之处，前者着眼于判决理由中的争点，后者则针对判决主文。仲裁裁决作为一种具备法律效力的文书，其既判力已经在近年的理论与实践中逐渐得到了认可，但其争点效之有无却备受争议。本文试从北仲仲裁实践视角出发，探讨这一争议问题。在A与B公司之间的居间合同纠纷中，因B公司未支付居间报酬，A以合同中约定的仲裁条款提起支付居间报酬之仲裁请求。在前案已作出裁决的情况下，B公司另提起一仲裁案件，以A从未履行居间义务为由，请求解除居间合同。由于本案合同约定的仲裁条款为“提交原告方所在地的仲裁委员会仲裁”，且双方分别作为申请人在己方住所地的仲裁委员会先后提起了仲裁，故在上述两案在事实上无法通过合并仲裁以达到统一处理之结果的前提下，不可避免地可能会在两案的裁决理由中对一个核心问题进行认定，即A 是否确实履行了居间合同项下义务，是否存在根本违约行为。

从仲裁请求的处理角度，两个仲裁案件的处理并不会导致裁决主文既判力的冲突，但对于任何一方当事人来说，都要对同一问题进行重复争执（尤其是在前案中主张未得到支持的当事人），甚至当事人基于前案的庭审情况调整仲裁策略后或将影响不同仲裁庭对同一争点的判断。

根据中国民事诉讼法司法解释第93条的规定，已被仲裁机构生效裁决所确认的事实，除非当事人有相反证据足以推翻，否则无须再举证证明。针对这一规定，有观点认为其仅仅是对于仲裁裁决这一法律文书特殊证明效力的认定，是对当事人证明责任的免除，而非要求审理者必须接受这一判断。尤其在仲裁中，因仲裁程序与法院审判程序不同，有观点进一步认为仲裁的一裁终局特性将会使当事人无法通过上诉、再审等程序寻求错误认定救济，若赋予仲裁裁决争点效，对于某争点的错误判断可能会导致后续案件的一错再错。

就争点效理论而言，前诉中对某一争点的判断之所以可以被后诉采纳，最重要的因素是该争点已在前诉中穷尽了主张和举证。笔者认为，前述否定争点效之观点似乎体现出理论界对仲裁裁决效力的信任度不足。确实，在中国仲裁发展的现阶段，囿于仲裁程序的固有属性及当事人的参与度和重视度，或许仍与争点效之原意有所出入。但倘若在尊重当事人的意思自治的前提下，仲裁庭能够采取必要的审理措施保障当事人穷尽具体争点之主张与举证，而据此将前案裁决理由应用于后案前提判断中，显然将有助于在仲裁程序中落实诚实信用原则和公平原则，维护当事人间权利与义务的安定性，彰显仲裁裁决的公信力。

根据北仲仲裁规则第33条，仲裁庭认为有必要时，可以自行调查事实、收集证据。举证虽为当事人义务，但确有事由导致当事人举证不能或者举证困难的情况下，为了查明案件事实，仲裁庭有权自行调查取证以达到裁决结果的公平和稳妥。仍以前述居间报酬案件为例，若现有证据不足以证明任何一方主张时，仲裁庭固可以利用证明责任对此作出认定。但基于实质解决争议的立场，仲裁庭也可以向已与B公司达成交易的C公司调查取证，以明确A 对于合同项下居间义务的履行与否。仲裁庭的调查取证权亦是已被中国仲裁法第43条所确立的权利，尽管存在难度，但从北仲的实践经验看，已有不少案件通过仲裁庭发出调查函或者仲裁庭实际到涉案现场调查情况的方式得以实现。另外，根据北仲规则第35条、第36条和第38条，在开庭审理之外，仲裁庭还可以采取程序令、审理范围书、庭前会议、接受书面质证意见和书面辩论意见等方式充分了解当事人对争议焦点的主要意见。

在前案中，由于当事人自身参与仲裁程序的经验有限，在立案之初，双方均未就A对居间合同的履行情况予以充分举证和说明。有鉴于此，仲裁庭在初步阅卷后向双方发出程序令，列出问题清单要求双方予以回复并辅以证据证明。庭审中及庭审结束后，双方进一步就本案的焦点问题进行了口头辩论并发表书面代理意见。当然，此种审理措施的采取需要当事人的参与和配合，而在充分阐明该审理措施的做法和目的的前提下，既给予了当事人多次就争点问题进行主张和举证的机会，也使得仲裁裁决高质量地解决了双方的争议。笔者认为，采用了前述审理措施而得出的裁决理由，未尝不可应用于其后的仲裁案件中。

不可否认的是，中国仲裁在过去十年的高速发展下，不同地区、不同机构、不同仲裁参与人员对于具体仲裁实践的认知和理解尚难言统一，若将争点效应用于仲裁领域或许过于冒进。但是，仲裁庭可以利用自身专业性在适当时机采取必要的审理措施，当事人也应该积极参与仲裁程序以维护自身主张和举证之权利，以借此不断提高仲裁裁决的公信力，谋求实现争点效之可能。

作者：北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心

仲裁秘书刘念琼

“Issue preclusion” refers to a doctrine of civil procedure that precludes repeated litigation of the same issues. It prohibits parties from, more precisely,re-litigating matters that have already been determined by a previously rendered adjudication, and can be seen through by the court’s finding and reasoning.

In Japanese law educator Shindo Koji’s words, the doctrinal statement implies the following requirements for application of issue preclusion: “Where a particular issue has been argued by the parties, heard and determined by the court in the former litigation,the court’s reasoning of the issue would have binding effects on the subsequent litigation if that issue is meanwhile considered to be a preliminary problem.”

In most of the civil law jurisdictions,this binding effect is considered different from res judicata, while both may work to achieve similar goals. Res judicata is widely accepted to be applicable to a valid arbitral award. Whether the issue preclusion doctrine can apply to an arbitral award,however, is not so clear.

In a brokerage dispute, party A initiated arbitration proceedings, asking for the brokerage.Party B initiated another arbitration proceedings, claiming non-performance of party A, and asking for the termination of the contract. Because the arbitration agreement is written as “the dispute would be brought to the arbitration commission in the plaintiff's domicile”, the two arbitration proceedings were, as a result, administered by two arbitration institutions. Party B initiated the latter arbitration proceedings when the first arbitral award was rendered.Consolidation would never be an option for the consistency of the fact finding of the core issue in the case – whether party A performed the contract, or whether a substantial breach of contract existed.

The outcome of the awards could not be conflicted because the claims are different.But either party, especially the party that lost in the previous case, may argue the same issue in two cases, and parties can further adopt their strategy based on the outcome of the former case. In this scenario, the latter tribunal may be influenced by when they were conducting fact finding and reasoning of the same issue.

According to article 93 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, a party need not provide evidence for facts confirmed by effective awards rendered by arbitration institutions unless the facts can be overturned by contrary evidence. This article arguably gives the arbitral award a special effect of evidence and exempts the party’s burden of proof in latter cases, but is not a mandatory rule for the latter’s fact finding and reasoning.

The autonomous proceeding, which is a key difference of arbitration compared with a civil procedure, further fuels such an argument. One can argue that the finality of arbitration could limit the remedies of parties if an issue was wrongly determined. In conclusion, this argument claims not to apply issue preclusion to arbitral awards, because it can result in repeating mistakes in the following cases.

In the doctrine of issue preclusion, two key factors are whether parties exhausted their claims, and whether the issue was fully proven. This determines whether the fact finding and reasoning in the previous case can be accepted by the following case. It is,for the author, a question about how much trust we can put into an arbitral award.

Since the development of the Chinese arbitration industry is still at an early stage, the understanding of the nature of arbitration has not yet been, to a wider extent in the legal community, universally and accurately recognized. Sometimes a poor participation,or even the lack of participation, of the parties can reasonably limit the application of the doctrine of issue preclusion.

However, if the arbitral tribunal can,with respect of party autonomy, carefully design the arbitration proceedings, adopt necessary measures to ensure a sufficed claim and thorough fact finding, and on this basis, accept the binding effect of the previous tribunal’s fact finding and reasoning; then this can help secure the principle of good faith and fairness in latter cases, ensure the stability of rights and obligations, and establish the credibility of arbitral awards.

According to article 33 of BAC/BIAC’s arbitration rules, if the arbitral tribunal finds it necessary, the tribunal may undertake investigations and/or collect evidence on its own initiative. Although parties have the burden of proof, in order to fact find and ensure a fair and justified outcome the tribunal can investigate and collect evidence by itself, on the condition that parties, on reasonable grounds, can’t raise evidence successfully.

Taking the brokerage dispute mentioned earlier as an example, when the current evidence can’t prove a fact, the arbitral tribunal can investigate and collect evidence, rather than apply the rules of burden of proof, to make a decision; the tribunal can look at the brokered transaction between party B and its counterparty, namely company C.

An investigation into company C could easily confirm whether party A served in the transaction. The tribunal’s investigation and collection of evidence is also stipulated in article 43 of the PRC’s Arbitration Law. Although tribunals may not easily conduct the investigation and collection of evidence, in BAC/BIAC’s practice a good many tribunals have successfully utilized this vehicle via rendering a letter of investigation or conducting on-site investigations.

Furthermore, according to articles 35,36 and 38 of BAC/BIAC’s arbitration rules,the arbitral tribunal acquires a “tool box” to fully examine and carefully decide the issue,which includes rendering terms of reference,holding pre-hearing conferences and requiring written comment on evidence and written argument outside the oral hearing.

In the above-mentioned brokerage dispute,the inexperience of the parties’ participation leads to ambiguity of the key fact – the performance of party A. Therefore,the tribunal, at the early stage of document preparation, rendered a procedural order,giving a list of questions and requiring the parties’ claims and evidence submission.

This measure facilitates an efficacious hearing and helps the parties organize their submissions. There is no doubt that any procedural measures a tribunal adopted cannot be useful unless parties agree and participate. With parties’ understanding and willingness to fulfil the tribunal’s self-explained measures, parties may have a better chance to experience a high-quality dispute resolution by examining all aspects of the disputed issues. As a result, the author suggests applying issue preclusion in such a high-quality dispute resolution.

Different institutions and participants often have divergent expectations and understandings of the arbitration practice in the rapidly developing industry of the Chinese arbitration. The doctrine of issue preclusion might be applicable to arbitral awards made by more credible organizations, but to do so requires the arbitral tribunal and disputants to engage with the arbitral proceedings in a much more professional manner to ensure the quality of the arbitral hearing and, ultimately,lead to a satisfactory award.

Liu Nianqiong is a case manager at Beijing

Arbitration Commission/Beijing International

Arbitration Center (BAC/BIAC)