仲裁程序之保全措施──以商務仲裁為中心

Abstract

仲裁乃基於當事人之合意，將紛爭交由法院以外之中立第三人裁斷之裁判外紛爭解決機制，當事人透過締結仲裁協議行使程序選擇權，排除國家法院對當事人間實體法律爭議之管轄權。由於仲裁程序具有專業性、迅速性、秘密性、程序任意性等優點，於解決私人間因商業交易關係所生之爭議，十分受歡迎。仲裁協議之當事人，若於仲裁判斷作成前有妨礙最終仲裁判斷之實現的行為，或採取阻撓仲裁程序進行之舉動，此時需有確保最終仲裁判斷得確實實現，或維護仲裁程序進行之保全措施，仲裁制度始得謂一有效之紛爭解決機制。 現今先進國家就仲裁程序之保全措施，多採「仲裁庭與法院合作型」，即仲裁庭與法院皆有權對仲裁之爭議作成保全措施。就仲裁庭而言，2006年修正UNCITRAL模範法對保全措施之要件、類型、程序及效力設有全面且詳細之規範，其中關於保全措施執行之規定，明文承認仲裁庭核發之保全措施，無論是否係以「仲裁判斷」的形式被作成，皆得被國家法院執行，並仿效仲裁判斷之執行而採「執行宣告模式」，要求國家法院以同意執行為原則，拒絕執行為例外，可謂更加堅定了友善仲裁之立場；就法院而言，當事人向法院請求作成保全措施，及法院核准該保全措施，皆不當然違反仲裁協議，惟未避免法院過度介入仲裁而有悖於當事人選擇以仲裁解決紛爭之意思，法院作成保全措施之權限應立於輔助地位，而僅於仲裁庭力有未逮之特殊情形，始對仲裁之爭議作成保全措施。 本文首先藉由分析2006年修正UNCITRAL模範法之規範內容與修法歷程、他國仲裁法及國際上重要仲裁機構之仲裁規則，並耙梳比較法上相關的學說見解，建構商務仲裁程序中保全措施之全體樣貌，再回頭檢視於我國現行仲裁法，以及2021年仲裁法修正草案之規範下，仲裁庭與法院對仲裁之爭議作成保全措施之權限，以及仲裁庭所為保全措施之要件、類型、程序與效力。 依本文之見，雖然現行仲裁法僅有第39條允許仲裁協議之當事人得向法院聲請假扣押或假處分，但其實當事人亦得向法院聲請為定暫時狀態處分與證據保全等措施。又，雖現行法並無明文規定，惟仲裁庭仍有權作成保全措施，甚至於特殊情形，得不通知一造當事人亦不賦予其表示意見之機會，便依一造程序作成保全措施。且可透過解釋論將仲裁庭所為保全措施解釋為一種「仲裁判斷」，而使其得被法院執行，以確保保全措施之效力被貫徹。 2021年之仲裁法修正草案參考修正模範法，對仲裁庭作成之保全措施設下詳細的規定，甚至將修正模範法未處理之緊急仲裁人制度亦納入規範範圍，並承認緊急仲裁人所為之緊急措施的可執行性。依其規定，仲裁庭所得為之保全措施類型多樣，足以涵蓋諸如「不起訴假處分」、「暫時性給付」、「仲裁程序費用擔保」與「證據保全」等在比較法上較具爭議之保全措施。本文對修正草案之內容基本上抱持肯定態度，認為其有助於我國仲裁法制與國際接軌，惟關於一造程序措施，本文認為不適合直接繼受修正模範法「急速處置」之規定，蓋其規定之配套措施及無法執行之效果，難以達成一造程序措施所追求之快速保護。 因無論在現行法或修正草案之規定下，仲裁庭皆有權作成保全措施，故雖然二者皆無明文規定，但法院應限於⑴需向第三人作成保全措施、⑵需作成具有強制力的措施，或⑶法院作成保全措施將較由仲裁庭作成更具效率之特殊情況，始有必要作成保全措施介入仲裁，否則法院應類推適用妨訴抗辯之規定駁回債權人之聲請；如聲請人聲請者為證據保全，則法院應以欠缺證據保全之「必要性」為由駁回之。

Interim measures are essential to arbitration when one of the parties takes actions such as dissipating assets to make the final arbitral award meaningless, or acts in a manner that might frustrate the arbitration proceedings pending the final award. Nowadays, most jurisdiction recognize that both the arbitral tribunal and the national court have the power to issue interim measures concerning disputes that are submitted to arbitration. As for the tribunal-ordered interim measures, the revised UNCITRAL model law in 2006 provides comprehensive and detailed provisions regulating the standards, types, procedures and effects of such measures. Among which the most worth mentioning provisions are the ones that expressly state that tribunal-ordered measures, regardless of whether or not issued in the form of “arbitral award”, may be enforced by national courts. The model law adopts the “exequatur model” concerning the enforcement of tribunal-ordered measures, which makes refusing of enforcement an exception rather than a principle. As for court-ordered interim measures, parties of an arbitration agreenment requesting an interim measure from a court, or the court granting such a measure, are not necessarily held an infringement of the arbitration agreement. However, in order to avoid excessive interference from national courts in arbitration, only in exceptional circumstances can court-ordered interim measures be justified. This thesis analyzes the content of the revised UNCITRAL model law and looks into its travaux préparatoires to fully understand the context of the revision concerning interim measures. This thesis also studies arbitral legislation of other countries, arbitration rules of important international arbitration institutions, and scholarly opinions to draw a clear picture of interim measures in commercial arbitration. The aim of this thesis is to figure out the relationship between arbitral tribunals and courts regarding the issuance of interim measures in respect of disputes submitted to arbittation, as well as the standards, types, procedures and effects of tribunal-ordered interim measures, under the current arbitration law of Taiwan and the draft of the revised arbitration law in 2021. In this author’s view, despite the lack of regulations concerning tribunal-ordered measures, tribunals are still empowered to issue interim measures under the current arbitration law in Taiwan. As for court-ordered measures, not only can national courts in Taiwan issue provisional attachments and provisional injunctions pursuant to Art.39 of the current arbitration law in assistance of arbitration, but they can also carry out early-stage disclosure of evidence according to Art.368 of the civil procedure code. And because both the tribunal and the court are entitled to order interim measures, the court should restrain such power to exceptional circumstances, which are cases in which ⑴interim measures directed to a third party are necessary, ⑵ the applicant is in need of measures that have coersive power, or ⑶it would be more efficient for a court to issue such measures than for an arbitral tribunal to order one. The draft of the revised arbitration law is basically modeled after the 2006 UNCITRAL model law and even takes a further step to include provisions regarding measures issued by emergency arbitrators. Under the draft, the types of tribunal-ordered measures are so diverse that even controversial measures such as “anti-suit injunction” and “security for costs” fall within the discretionary power of the tribunal. This author holds a positive attitude towards most of the content of the draft except for the provisions concerning ex parte measures, ie, the “preliminary order”. This author finds that the fact that preliminary orders are unenforceable by national courts may make them meaningless and thus the draft should not have inherited them from the model law.