譯者 | 廖昭旭 不列顛哥倫比亞大學BA(Hons)
一審 | 王槐語 UCB LL.M.
二審 | 富 揚 北京師範大學法律碩士
編輯 | 袁馳程 江西師範大學本科生
Izzy 美國西北大學LL.M.
責編 | Susan 中國政法大學研究生
國際制裁與仲裁協議執行-英國巴克萊銀行訴VEB案
English Commercial Court rejects novel argument that LCIA arbitration agreement frustrated by sanctions, granting anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions restraining Russian proceedings
英國商事法庭駁回倫敦國際仲裁院“協議因制裁失效”的新論點，並頒佈反訴訟及反執行禁令，限制俄羅斯訴訟
關鍵詞：涉俄製裁、反訴訟禁令、反執行禁令
Introduction
引言
In an ongoing dispute between Barclays Bank and VEB, the state development bank of the Russian Federation, the English Commercial Court has granted (i) an anti-suit injunction (ASI) to prevent VEB from pursuing a claim that it commenced against Barclays in the Russian courts in breach of an arbitration clause, and (ii) an anti-enforcement injunction (AEI) to restrain VEB from enforcing any substantive order made by the Russian courts in relation to its claim.
在巴克萊銀行與俄羅斯聯邦國家開發銀行（下稱“VEB”）之間持續進行的一起爭議中，英格蘭商事法院作出裁定，授予(i) 反訴訟禁令（Anti-suit injuction, ASI），以阻止VEB在俄羅斯法院提起訴訟，指控巴克萊違反一項仲裁條款；及(ii) 反執行禁令（Anti-enforcement injunction, AEI），以阻止VEB執行俄羅斯法院就其訴訟作出的任何實質性裁決。
The Court rejected VEB's novel argument that the arbitration agreement had been frustrated as a result of sanctions imposed on VEB, putting down a clear marker that it considers that the imposition of sanctions does not mean sanctioned entities face obstacles to access justice and will not be sufficient to allow sanctioned parties to avoid their contractual obligations.
法院駁回了VEB提出的“針對VEB的國際制裁導致仲裁協議失效”的新論點，並明確表示法院認為制裁的實施並不意味著被制裁實體無法獲得司法救濟，制裁並不足以使被制裁方逃避其合同義務。
The Court's decision to grant a final ASI and AEI (see Barclays Bank PLC v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 1074 (Comm),[1] followed its decision in February to grant the injunctions on an interim basis following a without notice hearing (Barclays Bank PLC v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 225 (Comm)).[2]
法院最終裁定發出反訴訟和反執行禁令（見Barclays Bank PLC v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 1074 (Comm)）。此前在2024年2月，法院在一場無通知聽證會後已作出中期裁定，授予這些禁令（見Barclays Bank PLC v VEB.RF [2024] EWHC 225 (Comm)）。
This case is another in a recent line of cases where parties have sought ASIs and AEIs to enforce their arbitration agreements, when faced with sanctioned counterparties who have breached their arbitration clauses by commencing proceedings in the Russian courts.
此案與近年來多起案件類似，涉案方在對手方違反仲裁條款並在俄羅斯法院提起訴訟的情況下，尋求反訴訟和反執行禁令以執行其仲裁協議。
（圖片源自網路）
Background
背景
In 2022, VEB was designated as a sanctioned entity as a matter of UK, EU and US law. This led Barclays to terminate transactions entered into pursuant to an ISDA Master Agreement (Agreement) with VEB. Although termination of the Agreement resulted in Barclays owing money to VEB, Barclays was precluded from making payment owing to the asset freeze provisions imposed by sanction regulations that apply as a matter of English law.
2022年，根據英國、歐盟和美國法律，VEB被指定為受制裁實體。這導致巴克萊銀行終止了與VEB根據ISDA主協議（下稱“協議”）進行的交易。儘管該協議的終止導致巴克萊銀行對VEB欠付資金，但由於英國法律適用制裁條例中規定的資產凍結條款，巴克萊銀行無法付款。
The Agreement was governed by English law and provided for LCIA arbitration as the default dispute resolution mechanism. The Agreement also contained an asymmetric power which enabled Barclays to refer any claim commenced by VEB to the English courts rather than to arbitration.
該協議受英國法律管轄，並規定倫敦國際仲裁院仲裁作為預設的爭議解決機制。該協議還包含一項不對稱權力，使巴克萊能夠將VEB發起的任何索賠提交給英國法院，而不是仲裁。
Notwithstanding these dispute resolution provisions, VEB commenced proceedings against Barclays in Russia. Although Barclays challenged the jurisdiction of the Russian court on the basis of the agreed dispute resolution provision, on 5 December 2024, the Russian court gave directions for the resolution of both the jurisdictional and merits issues and scheduled a hearing for early February.
儘管有這些爭議解決條款，VEB仍在俄羅斯對巴克萊銀行提起訴訟。儘管巴克萊在雙方達成一致的的爭議解決條款的基礎上對俄羅斯法院的管轄權提出了質疑，但在2024年12月5日，俄羅斯法院對管轄權和案情實質問題的解決作出了指示，並安排在2月初舉行聽證會。
Barclays applied to the English court for an ASI to prevent VEB from taking any steps to further its claim before the Russian court and an AEI to prevent VEB from enforcing any substantive order made by the Russian court in relation to VEB's claim.
巴克萊銀行向英國法院申請了反訴訟禁令，以阻止VEB採取任何措施進一步向俄羅斯法院提出索賠，並申請了反執行禁令，以阻止VEB執行俄羅斯法院就其索賠作出的任何實質性命令。
（圖片源自網路）
Decision on the interim applications
中期申請裁定
In its decision following the without notice interim hearing, the Court noted that, as per the decision in The Angelic Grace, in order to grant an ASI, it needed to be satisfied to a high degree of probability that there was an arbitration or exclusive jurisdiction agreement between the parties. If that hurdle was overcome, then the ASI would generally be granted unless there were strong reasons which would make the order inappropriate.
在無通知臨時聽證會之後的裁決中，法院指出，根據“天使恩典”案的裁決，若要授予反訴訟禁令，當事人之間需存在仲裁或專屬管轄權協議的高度可能性。如果克服了這個障礙，那麼反訴訟禁令通常會被批准，除非有強有力的理由使該禁令不合適。
The judge was "entirely satisfied" that an arbitration agreement applied here. Although VEB had submitted that the arbitration agreement was governed by Russian law, the Court held that it was governed by English law, because English law governed the substantive agreement, and that the law of an arbitration agreement "will almost invariably be held to be the same as the governing law of the substantive agreement". The judge also rejected as "unarguable" VEB's contention that the asymmetric provision invalidated the dispute resolution agreement as a whole, because English law gives effect to asymmetric arrangements of this sort and the clause was in any event irrelevant here because it only applied to disputes referred to arbitration by VEB.
法官“完全認同”仲裁協議適用於此。雖然VEB提出仲裁協議受俄羅斯法律管轄，但法院認為它受英國法律管轄，因為英國法律管轄實體協議，仲裁協議的法律“幾乎總是被認為與實體協議的管轄法律相同”。法官還以“無可辯駁”為由駁回了VEB的論點，即不對稱條款使爭議解決協議整體無效；因為英國法律認定這種不對稱安排有效，而且基於它只適用於由VEB方提交仲裁的爭議，該條款在任何情況下都與本案無關。
The judge also dismissed VEB's suggestion that it would be unable to obtain substantive justice in England and Wales because of the sanctions regime.
法官還駁回了VEB的一項意見，即由於制裁制度，它將無法在英格蘭和威爾士獲得實質性的正義。
In relation to the application for an AEI, the Court held that there could be no sensible objection to an AEI in light of the terms of the agreement and the terms of the ASI that it proposed to grant.
就反執行禁令而言，法院認為，基於協議條款和法院擬作出的反訴訟禁令條款，無法對反執行禁令提出合理的反對。
（圖片源自網路）
Decision on the return date
複審裁定
On the return date, VEB argued that the arbitration agreement had become inoperative or alternatively incapable of performance by reason of frustration and should not be enforced. VEB submitted that the practical effect of the sanctions that had been imposed on it was to provide obstacles to VEB's access to justice and to render the performance of the arbitration agreement so radically different from that which had been envisaged when the original contract was concluded that it was frustrated.
在複審裁定中，VEB辯稱仲裁協議因其受到制裁而失效或無法履行，故不應強制履行。VEB主張，制裁的實際效果為其獲取司法救濟帶來了障礙，並使仲裁協議的履行與原合同訂立時設想的情形存在根本不同，因此協議失效。
In support of this contention, VEB relied on (i) alleged difficulties securing legal representation (ii) alleged problems paying legal and LCIA fees and (iii) the inability of witnesses and party representatives to attend a hearing in person. The Court rejected VEB's contentions and made the interim order permanent.
為支援其主張，VEB提出了(i) 獲得法律代理的困難 (ii) 支付法律費用和倫敦國際仲裁院費用的問題 (iii) 證人及當事人代表出席聽證會的困難。法院駁回了VEB的這些主張，並將中期命令轉為終局命令。
On the question of legal representation, the Court found that whilst the pool of lawyers potentially available to represent VEB in both Moscow and England had shrunk significantly following the imposition of sanctions, VEB was still able to find both specialist solicitors and leading counsel to represent it at the hearing. There were also other reported cases involving sanctioned entities in the Commercial Court. The "cab rank" rule for barristers also continued to apply, regardless of the existence of sanctions.
法官在法律代理問題上認為，儘管制裁實施後，能夠為VEB提供代理服務的莫斯科及英國律師大幅減少，但VEB仍能夠找到專業律師及頂尖大律師為其代理聽證。法院還提到，其他涉及受制裁實體的案件也已在商業法院審理。此外，英格蘭大律師的“計程車站原則”仍然適用，不論是否存在制裁。
（圖片源自網路）
As for paying legal and LCIA fees, the evidence was that it was still possible for international payments to be made by VEB, and the LCIA had confirmed that it has a general licence to accept payments in respect of arbitrations.
關於支付法律費用和倫敦國際仲裁院費用的問題，證據表明VEB仍然可以進行國際支付，且倫敦國際仲裁院已確認其擁有接受仲裁費用的通用許可。
VEB had submitted that its witnesses would have difficulties attending in-person hearings and that remote participation would not be fair. The judge commented that the use of remote hearings is now firmly established and has been found to operate well in both the Commercial Court and international arbitration. In this particular case, given that the issues between the parties were largely legal in nature, remote attendance by both parties was unlikely to lead to injustice or unfairness.
VEB主張其證人出席現場聽證存在困難，遠端參與將會顯得不公平。法官指出，遠端聽證現已廣泛應用，並且在商業法院及國際仲裁中運作良好。在本案中，由於雙方爭議主要是法律問題，雙方遠端出席不太可能導致不公正或不公平。
In summary, the evidence put forward by VEB came "nowhere near" establishing that the conduct of an LCIA arbitration as a sanctioned entity would be so radically different from how the parties envisaged the arbitration would be conducted at the time of contracting. Although performance may have been more onerous, there was no practical impediment of such a nature or degree as to amount to a denial of access to justice or frustration.
總之，法院認為VEB提出的證據“遠遠沒有”證明作為受制裁實體在倫敦國際仲裁院進行仲裁與當初訂立合同時設想的仲裁方式存在如此根本性的差異。儘管履行可能更加困難，但沒有任何實質性的障礙構成對司法救濟的阻礙或協議失效。
The judge also noted that the risk of sanctions was not unforeseen at the time of contracting – indeed the parties had amended their Agreement in 2019 in response to the risk of sanctions.
法官還指出，制裁風險在訂立合同時並非不可預見的風險——事實上，雙方已於2019年修訂協議，以應對制裁風險。
Comment
評論
This is another pragmatic decision from the English Court, which demonstrates that it will employ all available tools to uphold arbitration agreements when parties are faced with a deliberate breach of contract. The Court will have regard to the wider picture when deciding whether to grant ASIs and AEIs – in this case, the Court placed weight on the need to uphold UK sanctions in circumstances where VEB was seeking to circumvent them by commencing proceedings in Russia.
這是英國法院做出的另一項務實的裁決，其表明當涉案方面臨故意違約時，法院將利用所有可用的工具來維護仲裁協議。在決定是否授予反訴訟禁令和反執行禁令時，法院將考慮更廣泛的情況-本案中，在 VEB 試圖透過在俄羅斯啟動訴訟程式來規避英國制裁的情況下，法院對維持英國制裁的必要性給予了重視。
Although such orders may be ignored by Russian parties and the Russian court, ASIs and AEIs may nonetheless provide some protection against the enforcement of Russian judgments in third country jurisdictions (as the Court noted in its decision following the interim hearing).
雖然俄羅斯當事人和俄羅斯法院可能不理會這些命令，但反訴訟禁令和反執行禁令仍可提供一些保護，防止俄羅斯判決在第三國司法管轄區被執行(正如法院在臨時聽審後的決定中指出的那樣)。
參考資料
[1]https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/1074.html
[2]https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2024/225.html
[3]Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA v Pagnan SpA [1995] 1 Ll Rep 87 “Angelic Grace(天使恩典)”號船由巴拿馬公司Aggeliki Charis Compania Maritima SA(“Aggeliki”)根據租船合同租給義大利公司Pagnan SpA(“Pagnan”)。租船合同規定在倫敦進行仲裁。在與帕格南擁有的另一艘船相撞後，Aggeliki在倫敦提起了仲裁。帕格南在義大利提起訴訟。英國高等法院批准了一項反訴訟禁令，禁止帕格南在義大利法院提起訴訟。在上訴法院，Pagnan主張撤銷反訴訟禁令的理由，除其他外，義大利法院尚未確定其是否具有管轄權，英國法院應保持克制，因為義大利法院在任何情況下都有義務根據《紐約公約》第二條第(1)款和第二條第(3)款將雙方提交仲裁。上訴法院維持了駁回訴訟的禁令。它指出，《紐約公約》第二條第3款並未將專屬管轄權授予義大利法院。它還指出，《紐約公約》另一締約國的法院不會因禁止先前已簽訂合同不援引該法院管轄權的一方的反訴訟禁令而感到不快。在這項裁決中，法院規定了與授予反訴訟禁令有關的一般標準，以支援仲裁協議和專屬管轄權協議。https://newyorkconvention1958.org/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=877
[4]英國法及中國香港法下出租車站原則（Cab-rank rule）：只要當事人有能力支付律師費用，除利益衝突的情況外，執業大律師必須在接到案件後接受委聘。
https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/resource/cab-rank-rule-statement-of-the-four-bars.html
[5]原文連結：https://www.herbertsmithfreehills.com/notes/arbitration/2024-posts/English-Commercial-Court-rejects-novel-argument-that-LCIA-arbitration-agreement-frustrated-by-sanctions,-granting-anti-suit-and-anti-enforcement-injunctions-restraining-Russian-proceedings