论排除仲裁地司法审查协议与《欧洲人权公约》第6.1条的一致性——以欧洲人权法院Tabbane v.Switzerland案为例

Compatibility between Agreement for Excluding Judicial Review of Arbitral Seat and Art. 6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights——Taking the Tabbane v. Switzerland Case Rendered by ECt HR as an Example

随着国际商事仲裁中双重司法监督机制的日渐式微,"非当地化理论"由此兴起并处在不断的发展过程中,越来越多的国家在法律上允许非本国当事人协议排除或放弃仲裁地的撤销权,但这类弃权协议是否潜在地违反了《欧洲人权公约》第6.1条所规定的根本程序性权利,一直是理论上的争议焦点。司法实践中,2016年欧洲人权法院在Tabbane v.Switzerland案中认定,弃权协议不会构成对《欧洲人权公约》第6.1条的根本违反。究其原因,一方面是有效的弃权协议必须符合严格的形式要求和实质条件;另一方面是当事人仍然有权获得其他司法救济,其根本程序性权利不会受到实质性减损。不过对于体育、消费、雇佣、投资等具有特殊性质的争议,弃权协议不具有适用的余地。

With the gradual decline of double judicial review mechanism in international commercial arbitration,delocalization theory then comes to emerge,and stays in the course of continuous development.More and more countries set out the provision permitting non-domestic parties to exclude or waive the right of arbitral seat to annul arbitral awards,but whether this kind of waiver agreement potentially violates the fundamental procedural rights stipulated in Art.6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights is always the focus of dispute in theory.In judicial practice,European Court of Human Rights in 2016 adjudicated in the Tabbane v.Switzerland case that the waiver agreement did not substantially violate Art.6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights.The reasons behind it are that,on one hand,a valid waiver agreement must conform to the strict formal requirements and substantive conditions;on the other hand,parties could still get access to other judicial remedies,so their fundamental procedural rights will not be substantially undermined.However,as for those disputes with special nature,such as sports,consumption,labor and investment,waiver agreements do not have any room to apply.