涉及仲裁保密性的法院不公开庭审需满足必要性要求

2021年12月14日，英格兰和威尔士上诉法院就CDE vs NOP [2021] EWCA Civ 1908案作出判决。法院强调，英国民事诉讼规则第39条2款（3）项下有关保密信息（包括仲裁裁决的保密）的公开庭审例外需同时满足为确保适当的司法行政（secure the proper administration of justice）而不公开进行庭审的必要性。

1、背景介绍

本案被上诉人系原审的被告，其被指控策划了欺诈。同样的指控也指向了一个仲裁程序中的被申请人公司（X公司），而该公司被指与被上诉人存在某些关联。本案被上诉人（若干自然人）即在该仲裁程序中担任证人，而该仲裁庭则已作出裁决。

本案上诉人主张仲裁裁决约束被上诉人，因为被上诉人与仲裁程序中的被申请人X公司之间存在着利益关系（privity）。被上诉人则认为仲裁裁决对其不具有约束力，其与X公司之间并不存在利益关系，且本案中不能将仲裁裁决作为证据。对于该争议，法院将在2022年2月进行庭审，并将该争议称之为“利益关系申请”（"the privity application”）。

本案上诉人主张将仲裁裁决公开，其认为裁决中的主要事实认定与公共利益密切相关。被上诉人和X公司则主张该裁决具有保密性，其希望在确定“利益关系申请”之前裁决不被公开。如果上诉人的“利益关系申请”未能成立，则不能在本案中引用该裁决，且不能公开该裁决。被上诉人和X公司同意上诉人可以在“利益关系申请”审理的过程中使用该裁决，但无论如何该裁决不能被公开。

2、法院认定

本案涉及的争议问题是与仲裁裁决相关的内容在多大程度上可以被公开庭审。在案件原审过程当中，有关案件管理会议（case management conference, CMC）是否应当公开进行以及是否应当发布一项命令以保证经修订的索赔细节等文件不被公开的问题被提出。原审原告（上诉人）主张庭审应当根据通用的庭审公开原则来进行，原审被告（被上诉人）则拒绝公开进行庭审因为这将不可避免的公开仲裁裁决。原审法院则决定，至少在就该问题进行辩论的初期庭审应当不公开进行，最终整个庭审均未公开进行。此外，原审当事方的请求不仅包括案件管理会议是否应该公开审理，还包括尚未进行的“利益关系申请”是否同样应当公开审理。

原审法院作出临时裁定（ex temporejudgment），指出在当前裁决中其将保持仲裁裁决的保密性，但强调该决定不约束即决判决申请（summary judgment application）中的法官。原审法院还颁布命令（order），该命令显示，原告请求允许其修正诉请以引述仲裁裁决，并根据拟议的修正来申请即决判决。原审法院将该请求称为“预期的利益关系申请”（Intended Privity Application）。法院命令第一款确认，案件管理会议将不公开进行，但强调该立场并不必然适用于“预期的利益关系申请”（"This CMC, which refers to the contents of the Partial Final Award..., and any application heard today which refers to or necessitates reference to the contents of the LCIA Award, is heard in private. The Courts records that this is the position simply at this early stage after the recent issue of the LCIA Award and is not an indication that the same position will necessarily hold in due course whether in light of the Intended Privity Application or otherwise.”）。法院命令第二款确认，在未征得法院允许的情况下，任何一方均不得在公开的庭审程序当中援引仲裁裁决的任何内容（“For the time being no party shall, at any hearing in these proceedings not taking place in private, rely on or refer to any part of the contents of the LCIA Award without first seeking a determination from the Court as to whether and to what extent those proceedings ought to be conducted in private.”）。法院最终未就“预期的利益关系申请”是否应当公开庭审作出决定。

上诉人对原审法院颁布的命令提起上诉，认为法官未能合理的适用英国民事诉讼规则（Civil procedure Rules）第39条2款。民事诉讼规则第39条2款规定，庭审的基本原则是公开，但该款第3项规定了不公开进行庭审的情形，其中包括庭审涉及保密信息（“(1) The general rule is that a hearing is to be in public. A hearing may not be held in private, irrespective of the parties’ consent, unless and to the extent that the court decides that it must be held in private, applying the provisions of paragraph (3)...(3) A hearing, or any part of it, must be held in private if, and only to the extent that, the court is satisfied of one or more of the matters set out in sub-paragraphs (a）to (g) and that it is necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice –... (c) it involves confidential information and publicity would damage that confidentiality.”)。上诉人认为该款规定庭审的基本原则是公开，而原审法院未充分的考虑司法公开这一基本原则。上诉法院指出其在本案中将要考察两个主要问题，第一个是原审法院未公开进行案件管理会议是否正确？第二个是原审法院发布的关于不公开仲裁裁决（直至其认为应当公开）的命令是否正确？

在回答前述两个具体问题之前，法院首先面临的问题是庭审是否应该公开进行？上诉人认为原审法官未能适用民事诉讼规则第39.2款，而该款反映了司法公开的基本宪法原则。申请人还主张其“利益关系申请”的目的旨在通过适用一事不再理原则（issue estoppel）来执行仲裁裁决或者至少取得一项法律权利，而这两项均属于伦敦国际仲裁院（LCIA）仲裁规则第30.1款下的保密例外，因此公开进行庭审将不存在违反保密性的问题。此外，上诉人还认为原审法院未考虑或未充分考虑一系列的因素，包括对司法公开的克减不应当超过确保适当司法行政的必要范围，以及仲裁中很大的一部分已经为公众知晓等。被上诉人和X公司则认为原审法官的决定仅限制在案件管理会议和直至“利益关系申请”庭审前对仲裁裁决进行保密。此外，尽管司法公开原则所包含的公开庭审原则很重要，但民事诉讼规则第39.2款下有关庭审公开的例外情形也同等重要（"......the  decision actually made by the judge was limited to preserving the confidentiality of the award at the case management conference and until the hearing of the privity application, when the question of public or private would be looked at again......although the principle of open justice including the general rule that hearings should be in public is important, the exceptions to public hearings listed in CPR 39.2 are equally important.”）。其主张本案涉及法律保护的保密信息，公开庭审将破坏该保密性。因此不仅有必要在案件管理会议期间，而且有必要在“利益关系申请”中不进行公开审议以确保适当的司法行政。

法院指出，庭审必须是公开的，除非民事诉讼规则第39条2款3项下的某一条款适用，并且有必要进行不公开审理以确保适当的司法行政（proper administration of justice）。法院最终认为，本案需要考察众多的保密内容，使用匿名或采取其它保密措施并不切实际，并且公开庭审将背离庭审的目的，因此有必要不公开进行庭审以确保适当的司法行政（“It would have been impossible to conduct the appeal without referring to the matters whose confidentiality was in issue. It would not have been practicable to do so using anonymised names or taking other measures short of sitting in private. Too much information about the case is already in the public domain for this to have been effective. This was clearly a case where sitting in public would have defeated the object of the hearing and it was necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice.”）法院因此决定庭审将继续不公开进行，并裁定除非有进一步的命令，当事方身份和相关申请材料将不被公开，庭审过程也将不进行报道。

对于上诉法院提出的第一个具体问题，即原审法官不公开进行案件管理会议是否存在错误，上诉法院再次强调民事诉讼规则第39.2项下的公开庭审是一项基本原则。除第62.10项下的仲裁案件外，对该基本原则的背离都必须是基于第39.2项下的框架，也即满足第39.2 (a)-(g)项下的一种或多种情形，并且有必要进行不公开庭审以确保适当的司法行政（"Any departure from the general rule, leaving aside arbitration cases to which CPR 62.10 applies, must be justified within the framework set out in CPR 39.2. Thus a hearing may only take place in private if, and even then only to the extent that, the court is satisfied of one or more of the matters set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 3 and that it is necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice. Necessity is a demanding test.”）。法院指出案件管理会议的目标是就将来的程序问题给出指引，因此这将不可避免的引述原审原告提出的修改其诉讼请求以援引仲裁裁决的申请，以及其表达的请求法院作出即决裁决的意图，公开讨论这些问题将使得仲裁庭的裁决公之于众，因此这属于第39.2 (c)项下的例外情形（"The purpose of the case management conference was to give directions for the further conduct of the proceedings. Inevitably this required reference to the claimants’ application to amend their pleadings to rely on the award and their stated intention to make an application for summary judgment as a result......To have discussed these matters in public would inevitably have revealed what the arbitrators had decided which, despite previous publicity about the case and despite what had been said in the defendants’ pleadings, was not public knowledge. It was, therefore, a case where sub-paragraph (c) applies: the hearing involved confidential information and publicity would damage that confidentiality. However as CPR 39.2 makes clear, confidentiality is not a trumpcard.”）。但法院指出第39.2项下的保密性并非是唯一需满足条件，关键问题还是是否有必要进行不公开审理以确保适当的司法行政（”However as CPR 39.2 makes clear, confidentiality is not a trumpcard. The critical question, therefore, was whether it was necessary to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice.”）。法院指出，司法公开原则和仲裁裁决的保密性之间存在一定的冲突。在本案当中，有关该争议的讨论必须不公开进行，因为如果保密信息被公开，不管法院作出何种决定，该讨论都无意义了。因此法院认为有必要进行不公开审理以确保适当的司法行政（"The tension between the principle of open justice and the confidentiality of the award needed to be addressed. In the circumstances of this case, because of the publicity which had occurred, that debate could only take place in private. Otherwise the confidential information would be disclosed and the debate would be pointless, whatever the court decided. I would hold, therefore, that it was necessary for the judge to sit in private to secure the proper administration of justice while dealing with the question whether the award should be made public by being referred to at a public hearing of the case management conference in these proceedings”.）。

对于上诉法院提出的第二个具体问题，即原审法院发布的关于不公开仲裁裁决（直至其认为应当公开）的命令是否正确，上诉法院指出原审法院并未就“利益关系申请”是否应当进行不公开审议作出决定，而是将该问题留待以后再裁决。法院同意原审法院有关在发布进一步的命令之前不公开进行庭审的决定，因为考虑到诉讼请求等文件中援引了仲裁裁决，在缺乏任何命令的情况下该裁决很可能被公开，法院作出的该决定是必要且合理的（"It follows, in my judgment, that he was right to make orders designed to ensure that the award did not become public as a result of references being made to it in publicly available documents until such time as the question had been decided......That was a necessary and sensible course to take in circumstances where it was apparent that there were already references to the award in documents such as pleadings and skeleton arguments which, in the absence of any order, were likely to become public.”）。

3、结论与评价

上诉法院最终支持了原审法院有关不公开进行案件管理会议的决定，以及原审法院发布的关于不公开仲裁裁决（直至其认为应当公开）的命令。对于司法公开原则和仲裁裁决的保密性之间存在的冲突，上诉法院强调，英国民事诉讼规则第39条2款下的公开庭审是一项基本原则。除第62条10款项下有关仲裁请求（arbitration claim）的庭审外，对该基本原则的背离都必须是基于第39条2款下的框架，也即满足第39条2款 (a)至(g)项下的一种或多种例外情形。但第39条2款下的例外并非是唯一需满足条件，同时还要考察是否有必要进行不公开审理以确保适当的司法行政（secure the proper administration of justice）。