譯者｜陳佳瑋 華東政法大學
一審｜陳飛越 愛丁堡大學
二審｜Ellen Chen 康奈爾大學
編輯｜鄭梓萱 澳門科技大學LL.B.
Izzy 美國西北大學LL.M.
責編｜Susan 中國政法大學
感謝本文作者 Dr. Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit
(陳博文博士)的翻譯授權
An anti-suit injunction in support of an arbitration agreement in light of the EU Sanction against Russia
Bank A vs. Bank B 案件：
香港法院禁訴令否認
遵守歐盟制裁構成國家行為影響
On 24th September 2024, Mimmie Chan J handed down the judgment of the Court of FirstInstance of the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Bank A v Bank B [2024] HKCFI 2529. In this case, the Plaintiff (Bank A) with its base of operation in Germany was under the supervision of the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin). Its majority shareholder was the Defendant (Bank B) who held 99.39% shares. In turn, the Defendant was a Russian bank whose majority shareholder was the Government of the Russian Federation.
2024年9月24日，陳美蘭法官（Judge Mimmie Chan）作出香港特別行政區高等法院原訟法庭對於A銀行訴B銀行案（Bank A v Bank B [2024] HKCFI 2529）的判決。在本案中，原告銀行（A銀行）的總部位於德國，受到德國聯邦金融監管局（BaFin）的監管。A銀行主要股東為持有99.39%股份的被告（B銀行）。被告（B銀行）是一家俄羅斯銀行，其主要股東是俄羅斯聯邦政府。
Between the predecessor of Plaintiff (as, at the time before the court in Hong Kong, the Plaintiff bank was already in voluntary liquidation) and Defendant, there existed an ISDA agreement dated 23 July 2023. Following the war between Russia and Ukraine which broke out in February 2022, Germany followed the “Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine” which Article 2 provides:
原告的前身（在香港法院進行審理時，原告已處於自願清算狀態）與被告於2023年7月23日簽訂了國際掉期及衍生工具協會協議（ISDA agreement）。在俄羅斯和烏克蘭於2022年2月爆發戰爭後，德國遵循了歐盟《2014年3月17日理事會條例(EU) 269/2014：關於對破壞或威脅烏克蘭領土完整、主權和獨立的行動採取限制性措施》（Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 of 17 March 2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine），該條例第2條規定：
“1. All funds and economic resources belonging to, owned, held or controlled by any natural persons or natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them as listed in Annex I shall be frozen.
2. No funds or economic resources shall be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for the benefit of natural persons or natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them listed in Annex I.”
“1、附件一所列任何自然人或與其有關聯的自然人或法人、實體或機構屬於、擁有、持有或控制的一切資金和經濟資源應被凍結。
2、不得直接或間接向附件一所列自然人或與其有關聯的自然人或法人、實體或團體提供或為其利益利用資金或經濟資源。”
（圖片來源於網路）
As a result, BaFin barred Plaintiff from making payments or other transfers of assets to companies, including Defendant. Moreover, it also barred Plaintiff from accepting new deposits, granting loans, or making payments to Russian borrowers. The defendant was subsequently listed in the Annex I of the EU Regulation. On that same day, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Termination and Settlement Agreement (TSA) under which Plaintiff was to pay Defendant EUR 112, 634, 610. The TSA contained a choice of the English law clause and an arbitration clause for any dispute to be resolved by the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC) arbitration.
因此，德國聯邦金融監管局禁止原告向包括被告在內的公司付款或進行其他方式的資產轉移。此外，它還禁止原告向俄羅斯借款方接受存款、發放貸款或進行付款。被告此後被列入前述歐盟條例的附件一中。同日，原告與被告簽訂了《終止與和解協議》（TSA），根據該協議，原告將向被告支付112,634,610歐元。《終止與和解協議》包含了選擇英國法作為仲裁法的法律適用條款及選擇香港國際仲裁中心（HKIAC）解決任何爭議的仲裁條款。
After the defendant was added to Annex I, BaFin denied the defendant’s right to vote in the plaintiff’s meetings and also barred the plaintiff from taking any instructions from the defendant. Defendant tried to demand payment from Plaintiff according to the TSA but Plaintiff denied that, citing the infeasibility due to the EU Regulation.
在被告被新增到前述條例的附件一後，德國國家金融管理局否決了被告在原告公司會議上的投票權，並禁止原告接受被告的任何指示。被告試圖根據《終止與和解協議》要求原告付款，但原告以歐盟條例導致支付不可進行為由拒絕了被告。
The defendant hence commenced proceedings before the courts in Russia. Among other things, the Russian Court granted a ‘Freezing Order’ prohibiting any transfer of securities that Plaintiff had in its account with Defendant’s bank. The plaintiff’s attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the Russian Court based on the arbitration clause contained in the TSA was unsuccessful. Hence, on 27 October 2023, the plaintiff sought an interim anti-suit junction from the court in Hong Kong.
因此，被告在俄羅斯法院提起訴訟。此外俄羅斯法院還發布了一項凍結令，禁止原告轉移其在被告銀行賬戶中的任何證券。原告根據終止與和解協議中包含的仲裁條款對俄羅斯法院管轄權提出的異議未能得到支援。因此，原告於2023年10月27日請求香港法院釋出臨時禁訴令。
Regardless of the interim anti-suit injunction, the defendant commenced again the proceedings in Russia where the Russian Court issued an anti-suit injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from continuing any proceedings in Hong Kong, and subsequently the defendant obtained another injunction prohibiting the plaintiff from initiating arbitration proceedings at the HKIAC.
無視了臨時禁訴令的存在，被告再次在俄羅斯啟動訴訟程式，俄羅斯法院簽發了一份禁訴令，禁止原告繼續在香港的訴訟程式。隨後被告取得了另一份禁令，禁止原告在香港國際仲裁中心啟動仲裁程式。
（圖片來源於網路）
In late 2023, the Russian Court gave judgment in favor of the defendant to seek the settlement payment under the TSA and granted the final injunction restraining the plaintiff from pursuing the HKIAC arbitration.
在2023年底，俄羅斯法院做出了支援被告根據《終止與和解協議》請求原告支付和解款項的判決，並作出了限制原告向香港國際仲裁中心提起仲裁的最終禁令。
The plaintiff hence came to the court in Hong Kong seeking a final injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing or continuing any proceedings in Russia. The defendant resisted that by raising the arguments based on Article 19 and Article 13 of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China (Adopted at the Third Session of the Seventh National People’s Congress on 4 April 1990 Promulgated by Order No. 26 of the President of the People’s Republic of China on 4 April 1990 Effective as of 1 July 1997) (hereinafter the “Basic Law”) (which is effectively a mini-constitution for Hong Kong) SAR):
原告因此向香港法院尋求最終禁令以限制被告繼續在俄羅斯進行或繼續進行任何訴訟程式。被告援引在香港起到憲法性功能的《香港特別行政區基本法》（the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China）的第十三條和第十九條提出了異議抗辯：
“Article 13
*The Central People’s Government shall be responsible for the foreign affairs relating to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China shall establish an office in Hong Kong to deal with foreign affairs.
The Central People’s Government authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to conduct relevant external affairs on its own in accordance with this Law.
第十三條
中央人民政府負責管理與香港特別行政區有關的外交事務。
中華人民共和國外交部在香港設立機構處理外交事務。
中華人民共和國授權香港特別行政區依照本法自行處理有關的對外事務。
Article 19
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be vested with independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication.
The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have jurisdiction over all cases in the Region, except that the restrictions on their jurisdiction imposed by the legal system and principles previously in force in Hong Kong shall be maintained.
*The courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have no jurisdiction over acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs. The courts of the Region shall obtain a certificate from the Chief Executive on questions of fact concerning acts of state such as defence and foreign affairs whenever such questions arise in the adjudication of cases. The certificate shall be binding on the courts. Before issuing such a certificate, the Chief Executive shall obtain a certifying document from the Central People’s Government.”
第十九條
香港特別行政區享有獨立的司法權和終審權。
香港特別行政區法院除繼續保持香港原有法律制度和原則對法院審判權所作的限制外，對香港特別行政區所有的案件均有審判權。
香港特別行政區法院對國防、外交等國家行為無管轄權。香港特別行政區法院在審理案件中遇有涉及國防、外交等國家行為的事實問題，應取得行政長官就該等問題發出的證明檔案，上述檔案對法院有約束力。行政長官在發出證明檔案前，須取得中央人民政府的證明書。
（圖片來源於網路）
Mimmie Chan J summarised the rule concerning the anti-suit injunction which has been established through authorities in Hong Kong at [34]:
陳美蘭法官在判決書第34段總結了香港地區有關禁訴令的規則：
“Foreign proceedings initiatied in breach of an arbitration agreement will ultimately be restrained by the grant of an injunction, unless there are strong reasons shown to the contrary … For contractual anti-suit injunctions, the courts have emphasized that there is no need to prove that the arbitral tribunal is the most convenient forum … Nor is there need for the Court to feel diffidence in granting the injunction, or to exercise the jurisdiction sparingly and with great caution, for fear of giving an appearance of undue interference with proceedings of a foreign court. The restraint is directed against the party which has promised not to bring the proceedings otherwise than in accordance with the arbitration agreement, and effect should ordinarily be given to the agreement in the absence of strong reasons for departing from it…”
“違反仲裁協議而提起的外國訴訟程式最終將受到作出禁令的限制，除非有可對抗的有力理由……就依據契約的禁訴令而言，法庭強調無需證明仲裁庭是最方便的機構……法庭在作出禁令時既無需感到缺乏信心，也無需因擔心被視為是對外國法院程式的不當干預而極其謹慎地行使管轄權。該限制是針對已承諾除依據仲裁協議啟動仲裁之外不另行提起訴訟的一方，在沒有充分理由背離該協議的情況下，通常應使該協議生效……”
So far as the argument based on the act of state in Article 19 of the Basic Law is concerned, the judge found there was no proof that the defendant was a state entity despite its majority shareholder being the Government of the Russian Federation. Neither the defendant’s argument that Germany was somehow involved in the plaintiff convinced the judge because, as she found in [50], Bafin was a regulatory authority. Its act was not that of the state.
就基於《基本法》第19條下國家行為而提出的抗辯而言，法官認為沒有證據表明被告是一個國家實體，儘管其主要股東為俄羅斯聯邦政府。被告關於德國政府在某種程度上關聯原告的抗辯也沒有說服法官，因為正如她（法官）在判決書第50段所主張的那樣，德國國家金融監管局是一個監管機構。它的行為不是國家的行為。
Since there is no doubt about neither party in the case, there is no basis to obtain the certificate from the Chief Executive according to the third paragraph of Article 19 of the Basic Law (citing the Court of Final Appeal in Democratic Republic of Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC (No 1) (2011) 14 HKCFAR 95).
既然案件中雙方的主體資格都沒有疑問，那麼也便沒有須按照《基本法》第十九條第三款向行政長官取得證明檔案的依據。（引用終審法院在美國FG公司訴剛果民主共和國案（Democratic Republic of Congo v FG Hemisphere Associates LLC）中的觀點）
（圖片來源於網路）
The judge then came to conclude in her ratio decidendi at [59] and [60]:
隨後法官在判決第59段和第60段總結了她的判決理由：
“In my judgment, what is pertinent is that the question for determination by the Court in this case is simply whether there is a valid and binding arbitration agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which covers the scope of the dispute between the two parties and the claims made by them in these proceedings and in the two sets of Russian proceedings, and whether to grant the injunctions on the Plaintiff’s application. It is trite, that the arbitration agreement contained in the Arbitration Clause is severable from and separate to the underlying TSA between the parties. Any illegality of the TSA, and any alleged impossbility to perform the TSA, cannot affect the validity and operation of the arbitration agreement. Nor does the impossibility of performance of any award obtained in the HK Arbitration affect the validity and enforceability of either the arbitration agreement, the HK Arbitration itself, or the award obtained …
“依據我的判斷，本案中法庭需要確定的問題只是原告和被告之間是否存在有效且有約束力的，涵蓋了雙方爭議以及他們在本訴訟程式和兩組俄羅斯訴訟程式中提出主張的範圍的仲裁協議，以及是否應授予原告其所申請的禁令。通常情況下，仲裁條款中所包含的仲裁協議是獨立的，並可以與當事人間的基礎性的終止與和解協議分割開來。任何違反《終止與和解協議》的行為，以及任何聲稱《終止與和解協議》履行不能的行為，都不影響仲裁協議的有效性和可執行性。在香港仲裁中獲得的任何裁決的履行不能也不會影響仲裁協議、香港仲裁本身或獲得的裁決的有效性和可執行性……
… It is simply not necessary for the Court to decide whether the issue and application of the EU Sanction confers a good answer to the Defendant’s claim for payment under the TSA, whether the Plaintiff can be excused from payment, and the effect of the EU Sanction on the TSA are all matters which go to the merits of the claim in the HK Arbitration, and it should not be forgotten that the Court does not consider the merits of the underlying dispute when it decides the Plaintiff’s claim for the injunctions – which are made solely on the basis of a valid arbitration agreement. This is also a reason to reject the Defendant’s assertion that by granting the injunctions to the Plaintiff, the Court is implementing or facilitating the EU Sanction. Any injunction which the Court grants in this case is to facilitate the arbitration agreement between the parties, and nothing else”.
…法庭並無必要判定歐盟制裁措施的釋出和適用對被告在《終止與和解協議》下的付款請求是否構成合理理由，是否原告可以被豁免付款，以及歐盟制裁對《終止與和解協議》的效力，這都是當事人在香港仲裁中所提出的實體請求，並且不能忘記法庭在裁定原告禁令請求時不應考慮潛在爭議的實體糾紛，它們完全基於有效仲裁協議而產生。這也構成了否定被告主張的理由，這一主張認為法庭授予原告禁令的行為是對歐盟制裁的促進或執行。然而，法庭在本案中所作出的任何禁令都是為了促進當事人雙方仲裁協議的履行，別無其他目的。”
The judge also denied that the EU Regulation is in any way contradictory to the public policy of Hong Kong or that of the People’s Republic of China since it does not affect the rights or property of any Chinese entity or Hong Kong entity.
陳美蘭法官也否定歐盟制裁與香港或中華人民共和國的公共政策存在任何牴觸情形，因為它並未影響任何中國或香港實體的財產或權利。
Overall, this is a fair case that the judge chose to uphold the effect of the arbitration agreement. It was somewhat curious that the parties agreed to the English law in the TSA agreement, knowing that, under the English law, the EU Regulation is likely to be effective. It is not known for what reason the Court in Russia found for the defendant regarding its entitlement to the payment under the TSA. For sure, a hard burden falls on arbitrators at the HKIAC (as per the TSA, the tribunal should consist of 3 arbitrators). There has been much discussion on the impact of any unilateral sanction upon arbitrators in recent years. Arbitrators will continue facing this challenge so long as the conflict remains, being that between Russia and Ukraine or that in the Middle East
總體而言，這是一起法官選擇支援仲裁協議效力的公正裁決。令人好奇的是當事雙方在明知英國法下歐盟制裁有較大可能有效的情況下，仍在《終止與和解協議》中就選擇英國法達成了一致。目前尚不清楚俄羅斯法院以何種理由認定被告在《終止與和解協議》下有權獲得付款。但可以肯定的是，相應的沉重負擔落在了香港國際仲裁中心的仲裁員身上（依據《終止與和解協議》，仲裁庭將由三名仲裁員組成）。近年來關於單邊制裁對仲裁員的影響存在著廣泛討論。仲裁員們將會持續面臨這一挑戰，只要衝突，無論是俄烏衝突還是中東衝突，持續存在。
原文連結：https://conflictoflaws.net/2024/an-anti-suit-injunction-in-support-of-an-arbitration-agreement-in-light-of-the-eu-sanction-against-russia/
本案判決原文：https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=163107&currpage=T