2020年5月14日，在Tianjin Jishengtai Investment Consulting Partnership Enterprise v Huang [2020] FCA 767一案中，澳大利亚联邦法院（以下简称法院）认为，申请人所提交经中国公证处公证的仲裁裁决副本、相关协议副本及其相应的英文译本，符合《国际仲裁法》第9（1）条关于执行《纽约公约》裁决的要求，故支持了申请人所提出的执行裁决的申请。

一、背景介绍

本案涉及一份国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁庭于2018年9月3日所作裁决的执行。申请人根据《1974年国际仲裁法》第8（3）条申请执行裁决。

被申请人基于以下两个理由反对执行裁决：第一，被申请人依据《国际仲裁法》第9（1）（a）和（b）条，就裁决是否有经核正的副本（certified copy）以及据以作出裁决的原仲裁协议是否有经核正的副本提出疑义。第二，被申请人认为，申请人所要求的命令的形式与裁决的形式不同。（First, the respondent relies on ss 9(1)(a) and (b) of the International Arbitration Act to put in issue whether there is a duly certified copy of the award, and duly certified copies of the original arbitration agreements under which the award purports to have been made. Second, the respondent contends that the form of the orders which the applicant seeks do not reflect the form of the award.）

法院对该执行裁决的申请作出如下认定。

二、法院认定

《国际仲裁法》第8（3）条规定，除本部另有规定外，外国裁决可在本法院强制执行，如同该裁决是本法院的判决或命令一样。（Section 8(3) provides that, subject to this part, a foreign award may be enforced in this Court as if the award were a judgment or order of this Court.）

《国际仲裁法》第9条规定：

“（1）在根据本部寻求执行外国裁决的任何程序中，他或她应当向法院出示：

（1） In any proceedings in which a person seeks the enforcement of a foreign award by virtue of thisPart, he or she shall produce to the court:

（a）经妥为认证的裁决正本或经妥为核正的裁决副本；和

(a) the duly authenticated original award or aduly certified copy; and

（b）据以作出裁决的仲裁协议的正本或经妥为核正的副本。

(b) the original arbitration agreement under which the award purports to have been made or a duly certified copy.

（2）就第（1）款的目的而言，裁决应被视为已妥为认证，而裁决或协议的副本应被视为已妥为核证，如果

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), anaward shall be deemed to have been duly authenticated, and a copy of an awardor agreement shall be deemed to have been dly certified, if:

（a）据称裁决或协议视具体情况已由仲裁员，或当仲裁员为仲裁庭时由仲裁庭的成员认证或核正；

(a) it purports to have been authenticated or certified, as the case may be, by the arbitrator or, where the arbitrator is atribunal, by an officer of that tribunal, and it has not been shown to the court that it was not in fact so authenticated or certified; or

（b）或裁决或协议已以法院认可的其他方式认证或核正。

(b) it has been otherwise authenticated orcertified to the satisfaction of the court.

（3）如根据第（1）款出示的文件或其中一部分是用英文以外的语言写成，该文件或其中一部分（视具体情况）须随附经核证的英文译本。

(3) If a document or part of a document produced under subsection (1) is written in a language other than English,there shall be produced with the document a translation, in the English language, of the document or that part, as the case may be, certified to be a correct translation.

（4）就第（3）款的目的而言，译本须由作出裁决的国家的驻澳大利亚的外交或领事代理核证，或以法院认可的其他方式核证。

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a translation shall be certified by a diplomatic or consular agent in Australia of the country in which the award was made or otherwise to the satisfaction of the court.

（5）根据本条向法院出示的文件，只要出示，法院即可作为有关事项的初步证据予以接受。

(5) A document produced to a court in accordance with this section is, upon mere production, receivable by the court as prima facie evidence of the matters to which it relates.）

根据上述《国际仲裁法》的相关规定，法院接受申请人的如下意见：

 

（I have already referred above to the relevant provisions of the International Arbitration Act. In this regard, I accept the submissions for the applicant to the following effect:

（1）《纽约公约》适用于中国；

(1) the People’s Republic of China is acountry to which the Convention applies. In this regard, I refer to the s 10(1) certificate issued by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade which is annexed to an affidavit of Mr Shen;

（2）涉案裁决是《国际仲裁法》意义上的裁决，这一点没有争议；

(2) an arbitration agreement is defined to include a purported or apparent agreement. There is no dispute that the award is an award within the meaning of the Act;

（3）《联邦法院规则》第28.44条规定了原诉申请及证明文件的要求，该条规则已经得到遵守，这点看起来没有争议；

(3) rule 28.44 of the Federal Court Rules 2011(Cth) (the Federal Court Rules) sets out the requirements for the originating application and supporting documents. There appears to be no dispute that this rule has been complied with; and

（4）《联邦法院规则》第28.50条规定，如果一方当事人希望使用非英文文件，则必须向法院和其他诉讼当事人提供该文件的经核正的英文译本。在这方面，相关文件已经附有经核正的英文译本。

(4) rule 28.50 of the Federal Court Rules provides that a party who wants to rely on a document that is not in the English language must provide a certified English translation of the document to the Court and to any other party to the proceeding. In this regard, there are certified copies of the relevant documents translated into the English language.）

随后，法院对被申请人所提出的两个异议理由依次展开分析。

1. 妥为核正的副本

被申请人认为，申请人未按照《国际仲裁法》第9（1）条的要求提交经妥为核正的裁决副本，以及经妥为核正的据以作出裁决的仲裁协议的副本。法院拒绝接受该主张。从证据来看，相关文件已在中国公证。公证文书的条款显示：“所附仲裁裁决书副本……与仲裁裁决书正本一致。仲裁裁决的英文译本与中文正本一致。”

法院支持申请人的主张认为，该公证文书可以解释为，裁决正本已经出示给公证员且裁决的英文译本与中文正本一致。另外，申请人所依据的其他相关协议均附有公证员所出具的公证文书。因此，法院认为，这些经公证的材料足以证明第9（1）条的要求已得到满足。在这方面，法院根据《国际仲裁法》第9（5）条认为，一份文件只要提交给法院，法院就可将其作为与其有关事项的初步证据予以接受。（I accept the submission from the applicant that exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5 of themselves are sufficient evidence to satisfy the terms of s 9(1) of the International Arbitration Act. In this regard, I take into account s 9(5) of the International Arbitration Act to the effect that a document is, upon mere production to the Court, receivable by the Court as prima facie evidence of the matters to which it relates.）

2. 命令的形式

第二个争议事项与法院应当作出的命令的形式有关。裁决第1段规定，第一被申请人有义务支付一定数额，以便从申请人那里获得一定比例的股权。法院赞同被申请人的观点，即这部分裁决类似于具体履行的命令，但这并不意味着法院不应就相关款项作出判决。法院认为有必要作出相应命令，要求将有关股权转让给被申请人。法院作出指示让当事人就该命令的适当形式进行协商。（The second issue relates to the form of the orders which I should make.The issue is that paragraph 1 of the award provides that the first respondentis liable to pay a specific amount to acquire from the claimant a percentage stake in the second respondent to the arbitral award. I accept the submissions for the respondent that a part of the award in paragraph 1 is akin to an order for specific performance. I do not consider that this means I should not make an order for judgment in the relevant sum, but I consider that there needs to be a consequential order which would require the transfer of the relevant shares to the respondent. I will make a direction to the effect that the parties confer with a view to agreeing the appropriate form of the order.）

关于执行命令的适当形式，法院赞同申请人的观点认为，首先应根据《国际仲裁法》第8（3）条宣告申请人有权对被申请人执行该裁决，如同该裁决是法院的判决一样。

另外，申请人依据Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 206; 277 ALR 441案和Ye v Zeng (No 4) [2016] FCA 386请求将按2020年5月1日的官方汇率将外币兑换成澳元以执行裁决。在这方面，法院接受申请人的主张认为，在澳大利亚法院寻求判决并要求在澳大利亚执行裁决的情况下，裁决金额应当被转换为澳元。

此外，申请人请求法院按照中国所适用的或适当的利率，裁定给付裁决的付款期限（30天）届满之后的利息。在这点上，法院认为，由于裁决并未裁定给付任何利息，考虑到判决应当体现裁决条款的基本原则，在准予执行命令中裁定给付利息将实质性地背离裁决。因此，法院驳回了申请人关于给付利息的请求。

综上所述，法院支持了申请人所提出的执行裁决的申请，并指示当事人就准予执行命令的形式达成一致意见。命令的适当形式应当包括一项关于裁决可执行性的声明，裁决的金额以澳元体现，不允许给付利息，以及对费用作出一般命令。此外，必须制定相应的命令，规定按裁决的要求转让股权。（Accordingly, I will direct the parties to confer about the appropriate form of orders. The appropriate form of orders, as already indicated, should provide for a declaration as to the enforceability of the award and judgment in a sum in Australian dollars. There should be no allowance made for interest and the usual order for costs should be made. In addition, there must be formulated a consequential order which provides for the transfer of shares as the award requires.）

三、评论

《国际仲裁法》第9条规定：“（1）在根据本部寻求执行外国裁决的任何程序中，他或她应当向法院出示：（a）经妥为认证的裁决正本或经妥为核正的裁决副本；和（b）据以作出裁决的仲裁协议的正本或经妥为核正的副本。（2）就第（1）款的目的而言，裁决应被视为已妥为认证，而裁决或协议的副本应被视为已妥为核证，如果（a）据称裁决或协议视具体情况已由仲裁员，或当仲裁员为仲裁庭时，由仲裁庭的成员，认证或核正；或裁决或协议已以法院认可的其他方式认证或核正。（3）如根据第（1）款产生的文件或其中一部分是用英文以外的语言写成，该文件或其中一部分（视具体情况）须随附经认证的英文译本。（4）就第（3）款的目的而言，译本须由作出裁决的国家的驻澳大利亚的外交或领事代理核证，或以法院认可的其他方式核证。（5）根据本条向法院出示的文件，只要出示，法院即可作为有关事项的初步证据予以接受。

本案所提出的问题是，经中国公证处公证的裁决副本、仲裁协议副本以及相应的英文译本是否能够满足《国际仲裁法》第9（1）条的要求。澳大利亚联邦法院作出了肯定回答，认为“经中国公证处公证”属于法院“法院认可的其他方式”。