論排除仲裁地司法審查協議與《歐洲人權公約》第6.1條的一致性——以歐洲人權法院Tabbane v.Switzerland案為例

Compatibility between Agreement for Excluding Judicial Review of Arbitral Seat and Art. 6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights——Taking the Tabbane v. Switzerland Case Rendered by ECt HR as an Example

隨著國際商事仲裁中雙重司法監督機制的日漸式微，''非當地化理論''由此興起并處在不斷的發展過程中，越來越多的國家在法律上允許非本國當事人協議排除或放棄仲裁地的撤銷權，但這類棄權協議是否潛在地違反了《歐洲人權公約》第6.1條所規定的根本程序性權利，一直是理論上的爭議焦點。司法實踐中，2016年歐洲人權法院在Tabbane v.Switzerland案中認定，棄權協議不會構成對《歐洲人權公約》第6.1條的根本違反。究其原因，一方面是有效的棄權協議必須符合嚴格的形式要求和實質條件;另一方面是當事人仍然有權獲得其他司法救濟，其根本程序性權利不會受到實質性減損。不過對于體育、消費、雇傭、投資等具有特殊性質的爭議，棄權協議不具有適用的余地。

"With the gradual decline of double judicial review mechanism in international commercial arbitration,delocalization theory then comes to emerge,and stays in the course of continuous development.More and more countries set out the provision permitting non-domestic parties to exclude or waive the right of arbitral seat to annul arbitral awards,but whether this kind of waiver agreement potentially violates the fundamental procedural rights stipulated in Art.6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights is always the focus of dispute in theory.In judicial practice,European Court of Human Rights in 2016 adjudicated in the Tabbane v.Switzerland case that the waiver agreement did not substantially violate Art.6.1 of European Convention on Human Rights.The reasons behind it are that,on one hand,a valid waiver agreement must conform to the strict formal requirements and substantive conditions; on the other hand,parties could still get access to other judicial remedies,so their fundamental procedural rights will not be substantially undermined.However,as for those disputes with special nature,such as sports,consumption,labor and investment,waiver agreements do not have any room to apply."