On April 9, 2019, the China International Commercial Court of the Supreme People's Court (CICC) released the news, as follows: "the First International Commercial Court held an official inquiry into three cases for confirming the validity of an arbitration agreement".

 

These three cases, all related to arbitration cases accepted by Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA), were the first group of cases accepted by the CICC according to the relevant rules since the establishment of the CICC and the Supreme People's Court's "one-stop" diversified international commercial dispute resolution mechanism.

 

The CICC directly reviews the validity of arbitration agreements in important international commercial cases accepted by international arbitration institutions. This innovative mechanism reduces the possible delay caused by a "multiple-tier" reporting system and enhances greatly the efficiency of international commercial dispute resolution. The mechanism also reinforces the transparency of judicial review and responds effectively to the needs of business and arbitration communities, reflecting the strong support from the Supreme People's Court and the CICC to international arbitration and contributing to a more international business environment under the rule of law and the construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area.

 

As an international arbitration institution in the Greater Bay Area, SCIA is incorporated into the Supreme People's Court's "one-stop" diversified international commercial dispute resolution mechanism. It will adhere to its core values (independence, impartiality and innovation) to promote the cooperation and integration of international arbitration in the Greater Bay Area and serve the Belt and Road initiative under the support of the CICC as well as the law and business communities.

 

Here is the link of the original Chinese news released by the CICC on its official website: 

 

The First International Commercial Court of the Supreme People's Court Held an Official Inquiry into Three Cases for Confirming the Validity of an Arbitration Agreement

 

On the morning of March 26, 2019, the First International Commercial Court held an inquiry into three cases for confirming the validity of an arbitration agreement [Case Codes are (2019) Zui Gao Fa Min Te No.1, No.2, No3 respectively] between the claimants Luck Treat Limited (domiciled at the British Virgin Islands), Beijing HKCTS Grand Metropark Hotel Management Co. Ltd., Shenzhen Metropark Jinghua Hotel Co. Ltd. and Newpower Enterprises (domiciled at the British Virgin Islands) and the respondent Shenzhen Zhong Yuan Cheng Business and Investment Holdings Co. Ltd. It was the first time that the CICC had inquired officially about parties in legal cases, and also the first time that the CICC had inquired about parties concerning judicial review of arbitration in accordance with Article 11 of the Supreme People's Court Provisions on Several Issues relating to the Trial of Cases Involving Judicial Review of Arbitration. After the Shenzhen Zhong Yuan Cheng Business and Investment Holdings Co. Ltd. submitted its dispute to SCIA, other parties concerned applied separately, before the arbitral tribunal's first hearing, to the Court to confirm that there was no arbitration clause between the parties. As these three cases in question were related, the collegial panel, after seeking the opinions of the parties, decided to hear these three cases in one inquiry.

 

The collegial panel is composed of five judges from the CICC, i.e. Judge Zhang Yongjian, Judge Gao Xiaoli, Judge Xi Xiangyang, Judge Ding Guangyu and Judge Shen Hongyu. Judge Zhang Yongjian of the CICC, the Person in Charge of the First International Commercial Court and the presiding judge of the collegial panel, has inquired about the attorneys entrusted by the parties together with Judge Xi Xiangyang of the CICC, member of the collegial panel. Attorneys of TianTong Law Firm and Horizon (Shenzhen) Law Firm entrusted by the Claimants and the Respondent respectively have fully expressed their views on the existence of the "main contract", the independence and validity of the arbitration clause and other matters, all focusing on the core issue—whether there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. At the beginning of the inquiry, all the parties expressly chose the law of the People's Republic of China to be applied for confirmation of the validity of the arbitration clause in the contract. The two judges also listened carefully to arguments presented by the attorneys citing international law, foreign law and case law, and paid close attention to English references submitted by the attorneys. At the end of the inquiry, both parties expressed their willingness to negotiate on the methods to settle the dispute.

 

This innovative mechanism—the CICC directly reviews the validity of arbitration agreements in important international commercial cases accepted by international arbitration institutions—reduces the possible delay caused by a "multiple-tier" reporting system and enhances greatly the efficiency of international commercial dispute resolution. The mechanism also reinforces the transparency of judicial review and responds effectively to the needs of business and arbitration communities.