中国国际贸易促进委员会共同海损理算暂行规则(附英文)

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-06-17 11:08:20   浏览:8475   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

中国国际贸易促进委员会共同海损理算暂行规则(附英文)

中国国际贸易促进委员会


中国国际贸易促进委员会共同海损理算暂行规则(附英文)

(简称北京理算规则)

为了在平等互利的基础上,正确地进行共同海损理算,以增强各国人民的友好关系,促进国际贸易与海洋运输的发展,中国国际贸易促进委员会制定本暂行规则,并设立海损理算处。

第一条 共同海损的范围
在海上运输中,船舶和货物等遭遇自然灾害、意外事故或其他特殊情况,为了解除共同危险,采取合理措施所引起的下列特殊损失和合理的额外费用,属于共同海损:
一、为了抢救船舶和货物等而造成的船、货等合理损失。
二、船舶驶入避难港的额外费用,在避难港额外停留期间的港口费用,以及事后载有原货物驶出的额外费用。
三、船舶由于驶往避难港而延长航程和在避难港额外停留期间支付的船员工资和给养,以及消耗的燃料和物料的费用。
四、救助费用、抢卸和重装货物等的费用以及其他额外费用。
由于本航程中的意外事故,为了安全地完成航程必须修理时,船舶在修理港合理停留期间必须支付的港口费用、船员工资和给养、消耗的燃料和物料费用,以及由于修理而卸载、重装和移动船上货物等所引起的费用和损失,在当前情况下可列入共同海损。
为了节省原应列入共同海损的费用而支付的费用,可以作为代替费用列入共同海损,这些费用,除经船、货双方同意的以外,不得超过被节省的费用。
除以上三款所列的损失和费用外,其他一切间接损失,包括由于迟延所引起的一切损失和费用,都不属于共同海损。

第二条 共同海损理算的原则
进行共同海损理算的原则是:在调查研究的基础上,明确责任,实事求是、公平合理地处理各项损失和费用的补偿和分摊。
提出共同海损理算要求的一方和其他有关各方,有举证的责任,证明其提出的损失或费用根据本规则的规定可列入共同海损。
对作为共同海损提出理算的案件,如果构成案件的事故确系运输契约一方不能免责的过失所引起,则不进行共同海损理算,但可根据具体情况,通过协商另作适当处理。

第三条 共同海损损失金额的计算
船舶、货物和运费的共同海损损失金额,按照下列标准计算:
一、船舶的损失金额,按照损失部分实际支付的合理修理费用(包括临时性修理费用、合理扣减后的换新费用)计算。如果船舶损失部分尚未进行修理,则按必要修理的合理估计费用计算。燃料、物料等损失按实际价值计算。
二、货物的损失金额,按照损失部分的到岸价格,减除由于损失无需支付的运费。如果遭受损失的残货已经出售,而受损程度无法确定,则按该货物的到岸价格与出售净得金额之间的差额计算。
三、运费的损失,按照货物遭受损失而引起的运费损失金额,减除由于损失无需支付的营运费用计算。

第四条 共同海损的分摊
共同海损的损失和费用,由各受益方根据各自的分摊价值比例分摊。
分摊价值按照下列标准计算:
一、船舶分摊价值,按照船舶在航程终止时的当地完好价值减除不属于共同海损的损失金额计算;或按照船舶在航程终止时的当地实际价值加上共同海损的损失金额计算。
二、货物分摊价值,按照货物的到岸价格,减除不属于共同海损的损失金额和承运人承担风险的运费计算。
未经申报的货物或谎报的货物,应按实际价值参加分摊;如果这些货物遭受损失,不得列入共同海损。
旅客行李和个人物品,除特殊情况外,不参加共同海损分摊。
三、运费分摊价值,按照承运人承担风险并于事后收得的运费,根据共同海损事故发生时尚未完成的航程,作相应比例的扣减,加上列入共同海损的运费损失金额计算。

第五条 利息和手续费
对共同海损的损失和费用,给予年利百分之七的利息。利息计算至共同海损理算书编就之日为止。
对垫付的共同海损费用,除船员工资、给养、燃料、物料外,给予百分之二的手续费。

第六条 共同海损担保
为了保证分摊共同海损,经有关方的要求,各分摊方应提供共同海损担保。共同海损担保,可以提供可靠的担保函,也可以提供保证金。如果提供保证金,除各有关方另有协议者外,应交由理算处以保管人的名义存入银行。保证金的使用,由理算处决定。保证金的提供、使用或退还,不影响各分摊方的最终分摊责任。

第七条 共同海损时限
为了维护各有关方的利益,尽快完成共同海损案件的理算,各有关方在共同海损事故发生后应及时办理必要的事项,并按照下列期限宣布共同海损和向理算处提供有关材料:
一、宣布共同海损:船舶在海上发生事故,不迟于到达第一个港口后的四十八小时;船舶在港内发生事故,不迟于事故发生后的四十八小时。
二、提供有关材料:有关共同海损事故和损失的证明材料,在有关方收到后一个月以内,但全部材料不迟于航程结束后一年。
如有特殊情况,在上述期限内向理算处提出理由,经理算处同意,可以适当延长。
如果有关方不按上述规定办理,理算处可以根据情况,不予理算;或根据已有材料进行理算。

第八条 共同海损理算的简化
为了减轻各有关方的负担,提高工作效率,共同海损理算应尽量简化,避免繁琐的手续和计算;理算书应力求简明扼要,便于执行。
对于案情简单的案件,可以作简易理算。
对于共同海损金额较小的案件,经征得主要有关方的同意,可以不进行理算。

INTERIM RULES FOR GENERAL AVERAGE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CHINA COUNCIL FPROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE (KNOWN AS BEIJING RULES FORADJUSTMENT, FOR SHORT)

Important Notice: (注意事项)
英文本源自中华人民共和国务院法制局编译, 中国法制出版社出版《中华人民共和国涉外法规汇编》(1991年7月版). 当发生歧意时, 应以法律法规颁布单位发布的中文原文为准.
This English document is coming from the "LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE
PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA GOVERNING FOREIGN-RELATED MATTERS" (1991.7)
which is compiled by the Brueau of Legislative Affairs of the State
Council of the People's Republic of China, and is published by the China
Legal System Publishing House.
In case of discrepancy, the original version in Chinese shall prevail.

Whole Document (法规全文)
INTERIM RULES FOR GENERAL AVERAGE ADJUSTMENT OF THE CHINA COUNCIL FOR THE
PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE KNOWN AS BEIJING RULES FOR
ADJUSTMENT, FOR SHORT
(Promulgated on January 1, 1975)
With a view to dealing properly with general average adjustment on the
basis of equality and mutual benefit so as to enhance friendly relations
among peoples of different countries and promote the development of
international trade and marine transport, the China Council for the
Promotion of International Trade has formulated the present Interim Rules
and set up the Department for Average Adjustment.

Article 1 Scope of general average.
The following extraordinary loss of damage and reasonable extra expenses
arising from measures properly taken for relieving a ship, cargo, etc.
from common danger caused by natural calamities, accidents and/or other
extraordinary circumstances in marine transport shall fall within the
scope of general average:
1. loss of damage reasonably caused to the ship, cargo, etc. for rescuing
the same from danger;
2. extra expenses incurred by the ship for entering a port of refuge, port
charges incurred during the extra period of the ship's staying in a port
of refuge and extra expenses for the ship's leaving the port of refuge
subsequently with her original cargo;
3. crew's wages and maintenance incurred as well as fuel and stores
consumed during the prolongation of the voyage occasioned by the ship
proceeding to a port of refuge and during the extra period of the ship's
stay in a port of refuge;
4. salvage expenses, expenses for forced discharge and reloading of the
cargo, etc. and other extra expenses.
Where the ship needs repairs for the safe completion of the voyage in
consequence of damage caused by an accident during the voyage, the port
charges, crew's wages and maintenance and fuel and stores necessarily
incurred or consumed during the reasonable period of detention of the ship
in the port of repair, as well as the expenses and loss or damage arising
from such discharging, reloading and handling on board of the cargo, etc.
as are required for the repairs, may under the present circumstances be
admitted as general average.
Where any expense is incurred to save another expense which would have
been admissible in general average, such expense may be allowed in general
average as a substituted expenses. Unless otherwise agreed upon by and
between the ship and cargo interests, the amount so allowable shall not
exceed the amount of the expense saved. With the exception of loss or
damage and expenses referred to in the above three paragraphs, any other
indirect loss, including loss or damage and expenses through delay, shall
not fall within the scope of general average.

Article 2 Principle of adjusting general average.
The principle of general average adjustment is the ascertainment of
liability on the basis of investigation and study and dealing with the
compensation for and contribution to various losses and expenses fairly,
reasonably and in a truth-seeking way.
The onus of proof shall be upon the party applying for general average
adjustment as well as the other parties concerned to show that their
respective loss or damage and expenses claimed for are allowable as
general average according to the provisions of the Rules.
If the event giving rise to a claim submitted for adjustment as general
average is due to a fault of one of the parties to the contract of
affreightment, for which he is not entitled to exemption from liability,
no general average adjustment shall be proceeded with, but the case may be
otherwise appropriately dealt with through consultation according to the
circumstances involved.

Article 3 Computation of amount of general average loss or damage.
The amount to be admitted as general average for loss or damage to the
ship, cargo and freight shall be computed on the following basis:
1. The amount allowable for loss or damage to the ship shall be computed
in accordance with the actual reasonable cost of repairing such damage,
including cost of temporary repairs and of replacements subject to
reasonable deductions in respect of "wear and tear" Where no repairs have
been effected, computation shall be made in accordance with the reasonably
estimated cost of necessary repairs. The amount allowable for loss of or
damage to fuel and stores, etc. shall be computed on the basis of their
actual values.
2. The amount allowable for loss of or damage to the cargo shall be
computed on the basis of the CIF value, less the freight which would have
been incurred but for such loss or damage. Where the cargo so damaged is
sold and it is impossible to ascertain the extent of the damage, the
amount shall be computed on the basis of the difference between the CIF
value and the net proceeds of sale.
3. The amount allowable for loss of freight shall be computed on the basis
of the freight lost owing to the loss of, or damage to, the cargo, less
the operating costs of the ship, which would have been incurred but for
such loss of damage.

Article 4 Contribution to general average.
General average loss or damage and expenses shall be contributed to by the
benefited interests in proportion to their respective contributory values.
The contributory value shall be computed on the following basis:
1. The contributory value of the ship shall be computed either in
accordance with the value of the ship in sound condition at the time and
place of the termination of the voyage, less the amount of loss or damage
not allowable in general average, or in accordance with the actual net
value of the ship at the time and place of the termination of the voyage,
plus the amount allowable in general average.
2. The contributory value of the cargo shall be computed on the basis of
the CIF values, less the amount of loss or damage not allowable in general
average and the freight at the risk of the carrier.
Undeclared or falsely declared cargo shall contribute on the actual value,
but loss of or damage to such cargo, if any, shall not be admitted as
general average. Passengers' luggage and personal effects shall not
contribute to general average except under extraordinary circumstances.
3. The contributory value of the freight shall be computed on the basis of
the freight at the risk of the carrier and subsequently earned, subject to
a deduction corresponding to the extent of the voyage still uncompleted at
the time of the accident giving rise to general average, plus the amount
of loss of freight allowable in general average.


Article 5 Interest and commission.
Interest shall be allowed on general average loss or damage and expenses
at the rate of 7% per annum until the date of the completion of the
general average adjustment.
A commission of 2% shall be allowed on general average expenses other than
crew's wages and maintenance and fuel and stores.

Article 6 General average security.
The contributing parties shall, at the request of the parties concerned,
provide a security to ensure the contribution to general average. Such
security may be in the form of a reliable letter of guarantee or a cash
deposit. Where a cash deposit is provided, the same shall be paid into an
account in a bank in the name of the Department for Average Adjustment
unless otherwise agreed upon by and between the parties concerned. Any use
of the cash deposit shall be decided by the Department for Average
Adjustment. The provision, use and refund of the cash deposit shall be
without prejudice to the ultimate liability of the contributing parties.

Article 7 Time limit of general average.
For the purpose of safeguarding the interests of all parties concerned and
completing the adjustment of general average as promptly as possible, all
parties shall, upon the occurrence of the accident giving rise to general
average, do everything necessary in time and declare general average and
provide the Department for Average Adjustment with relevant materials
within the following time limits:
1. Declaration of General Average
Within 48 hours upon the ship's arrival in the first port after the
accident, if it has occurred at sea, or within 48 hours after the
accident, if it has occurred in a port.
2. Provision of relevant materials For documentary evidence pertaining to
the occurrence of general average and general average loss or damage,
within one month after receipt thereof by the claiming party, but all
materials shall in any case be provided within one year of the completion
of the voyage.
In case of extraordinary circumstances the above time limits may be
appropriately extended, provided a reason for extension has been given
within the respective time limits to the Department for Average Adjustment
and its approval obtained. In case of failure to observe the above
stipulations on the part of any of the parties concerned, the Department
for Average Adjustment may either decline to proceed with adjustment or
adjust the case on the basis of the materials in its possession.

Article 8 Simplification of adjustment of general average.
With a view to lightening the burden of all parties concerned and
improving working efficiency, the adjustment of general average shall be
made as simple as possible; unduly complicated procedures and calculations
shall be avoided; adjustment shall be made as clear and concise as
possible and easy to execute.
Summary adjustment may be applied in simple cases.
For cases in which the amount involved is small, adjustment may be
dispensed with if consent has been obtained from the principal parties
concerned.


下载地址: 点击此处下载
修改后的刑诉法和民诉法,进一步彰显了检察权的司法属性,这就要求检察机关必须牢固树立监督者更应该接受监督的权力观。笔者结合基层检察工作实践,就建立完善检察权运行制约和监督体系,提出以下建议:

一是搭建内部监督工作平台。在当前司法框架下,应以提高检察机关内生的确保自身良性发展的自治能力为前提,以强化侦、捕、诉、督一体化运行为内容,以增加检察执法办案透明度为目标,构建检察权运行制约监督的信息化管理平台。利用局域网、办公办案系统,增设案件监督管理、执法档案管理、检务公开等子项目,实现监督范围的全面覆盖。将案件考核评查结果、案后回访结果导入检察官执法档案库,实现执法行为规范化管理和执法人员精细化管理的无缝对接,形成立体化业务条块管理、系统化案件流程管理、规范化专业队伍管理相结合的“三位一体”工作格局。

二是完善内部监督组织架构。为贯彻落实高检院《关于加强检察机关内部监督工作的意见》,在“纪检、监察、督察”三位一体的内部监督组织架构之上,建议成立检务监督委员会(简称监委会),行使检察机关内部监督的最高决策权,讨论决定除检察长以外的检察人员述职述廉、举报、投诉及执法办案监督等事项。在监委会组成人选上,除专职检委会委员、纪检监察人员之外,吸纳学界专家、资深检察官、人大代表、政协委员、人民监督员、特约监督员等参加,淡化内部监督的行政化色彩,集中统筹内部监督各项职能,发挥内部监督的整体效能。

三是将外部监督引入内部监督。《人民检察院刑事诉讼规则(试行)》、《关于加强和改进刑事申诉检察工作的意见》进一步明确了控申检察部门承担着权利救济保障、司法活动监督、自身执法监督、社会矛盾化解等多种职能。控申检察部门的内部监督制约地位更加凸显,对有关司法救济方面的申诉受理、审查、处理等,进一步细化操作规定,明确办理规则、执法标准,从而可以有效地规范监督。

四是探索公开审查办案方式。在刑事诉讼的审查批捕、起诉阶段,除法律规定不得公开或不宜公开外,可以选择具有典型意义的案件,试行公开听取各方面意见的审查方式,为是否作出批捕、起诉决定提供参考;在办理刑事、民事申诉案件过程中,试行公开听证、公开息诉等,让公民有序参与司法,将外部监督引入内部监督,有力促进规范执法,赢得社会公信。

五是推动检察业务深度公开。加强检察门户网站的建设,方便诉讼当事人及其他参与人选择使用案件查询系统、公信评价系统、投诉举报等系统;收集案件当事人、辩护人、代理人等对案件的反馈意见,分析、研判和通报执法监督信息,发挥监督成果的借鉴或警示作用,打造“阳光检务”,使社会公众更直接地参与监督检察工作。

(作者分别为北京市丰台区人民检察院检察长、干部)

最高人民法院关于是否裁定不予执行中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁裁决的复函

最高人民法院


最高人民法院关于是否裁定不予执行中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁裁决的复函

2006年1月23日 [2005]民四他字第45号

安徽省高级人民法院:
你院[2005]皖执他字第11号“关于能否裁定不予执行[2003]贸仲裁字第0138号仲裁裁决的请示”收悉。经研究,答复如下:
中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会依据深圳宝升竞高环保发展有限公司、合肥市市容环境卫生管理委员会(后变更为合肥市市容环境卫生管理局,以下简称市容管理局)、香港合升国际有限公司、合肥市进出口公司(后变更为合肥市进出口有限公司)以及美国Wildcat Mfg. co.,Inc.之间签订的《合肥市市容环境卫生管理委员会引进美国野猫公司城市生活垃圾处理设备及技术合同》中的仲裁条款作出[2003]贸仲裁字第0138号仲裁裁决后,市容管理局以仲裁裁决违反法定程序、主要证据未经当事人质证、认定事实的主要依据不足、适用法律错误等为由申请人民法院不予执行该裁决。因合同存在涉外和涉港因素,中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁庭就该纠纷所作出的裁决属于我国涉外仲裁裁决。根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》和《中华人民共和国仲裁法》关于涉外仲裁的规定,人民法院对仲裁庭就本案具体适用法律和有关事实认定无权进行审查,市容管理局提出的仲裁裁决认定事实的主要证据不足、适用法律错误的理由不应予以支持。
《中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则》(2000年)第四十条规定:“专家报告和鉴定报告的副本,应送给双方当事人,给予双方当事人对专家报告和鉴定报告提出意见的机会。任何一方当事人要求专家/鉴定人参加开庭的,经仲裁庭同意后,专家/鉴定人可以参加开庭,并在仲裁庭认为必要和适宜的情况下就他们的报告作出解释。”第四十一条规定:“当事人提出的证据由仲裁庭审定;专家报告和鉴定报告,由仲裁庭决定是否采纳。”该仲裁规则并未要求相关鉴定报告必须经开庭质证,仲裁庭有权对鉴定报告进行审查并决定是否采纳。在本案中,仲裁庭将鉴定报告分别送达双方当事人并要求其提出书面意见的做法既不违反仲裁规则也保证了双方当事人的程序权利。市容管理局的此项理由亦不应予以支持。
关于是否可以根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百六十条第二款的规定以裁决违背社会公共利益为由不予执行的问题。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百六十条第一款规定的抗辩理由主要是为了维护仲裁程序上的公平和正义,赋予当事人以司法上的救济权利,而第二款社会公共利益不仅是为了维护仲裁程序上的公平,而且还担负着维护国家根本法律秩序的功能。从本案情况来看,有关合同的签订与执行并不存在违背社会公共利益以至无法为我国法律秩序所容忍的情节。同时,有关设备闲置并非执行相关仲裁裁决产生的结果,以违背社会公共利益为由不予执行仲裁裁决缺乏依据。
综上,本案相关仲裁裁决应当予以执行。
此复

附:
安徽省高级人民法院关于能否裁定不予执行[2003]贸仲裁字第0138号仲裁裁决的请示

2005年8月29日 [2005]皖执他字第11号

最高人民法院:
合肥市中级人民法院向我院请示的合肥市市容管理局申请不予执行中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会[2003]贸仲裁字第0138号仲裁裁决一案,我院就能否裁定不予执行该仲裁裁决亦存在不同意见,现向你院请示。
一、当事人基本情况
申请执行人深圳宝升竟高环保发展有限公司。
法定代表人胡朝平,董事长。
被执行人合肥市市容环境卫生管理局。
法定代表人阚道英,局长。
被执行人合肥市进出口有限公司。住所地,合肥市长江路512号。
二、仲裁裁决情况
1998年11月22日,卖方宝升公司、合升国际有限公司(2002年11月26日经营期限届满,其权利义务由宝升公司承受)与买方合肥市市容管理局(原合肥市市容卫生管理委员会)、合肥市进出口有限公司(原合肥市进出口公司)签订了“引进美国野猫公司城市生活垃圾处理设备及技术合同”。后双方在履行合同过程中发生争议,宝升公司、合升国际有限公司遂依据合同中约定的仲裁条款向中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会提起仲裁。仲裁庭于2001年12月16日开庭审理了本案。开庭后,仲裁庭依据市容管理局的申请聘请了有关专家就涉案设备进行了鉴定。2002年11月25日,专家出具了《关于合肥市北部垃圾处理厂引进美国野猫公司设备问题咨询报告》(以下简称《咨询报告》)。《咨询报告》结论:尚未发现上述单一设备的技术性能问题,该处理工艺未能生产出合格的有机复合肥料,原因可能是多方面的,有处理工艺和技术的选择问题,同时也有待于组织管理协调和工程运行机制等方面的进一步加强和不断完善。《咨询报告》送达后,市容管理局提出意见,认为专家仅对设备作出鉴定,只完成了鉴定的一半,而对重要的技术问题没有鉴定。仲裁庭于2003年6月2日作出裁决书,裁决被执行人向申请执行人偿付合同质量保证金 272120.20美元及自2001年1月1日起至实际支付之日止年利率5%的利息、101172元人民币仲裁费等。2003年12月24日,合肥市中级人民法院受理了申请人的执行申请,对本案立案执行。
三、被执行人提出不予执行仲裁裁决的主要理由、申请执行人的抗辩理由、合肥中院的处理意见
2004年3月25日,被执行人合肥市市容管理局向合肥中院提出裁定不予执行仲裁裁决的申请,理由有:(1)仲裁裁决严重违反法定程序,即仲裁裁决的主要证据《咨询报告》未经当事人质证便作为证据使用,违反了我国《仲裁法》第四十四条、第四十五条以及《民事诉讼法》第六十六条规定。 (2)仲裁裁决认定事实的主要证据不足,即《咨询报告》未明确不能生产出合格复合肥的原因到底是机械设备原因还是技术原因。(3)适用法律错误。故请求合肥中院依据我国《民事诉讼法》第二百一十七条第(三)、(四)项的规定,裁定不予执行。2005年6月17日,被执行人的委托代理人向我院递交了《深圳竞高公司申请执行仲裁裁决一案应属国内仲裁案件的报告》,强调本案的执行依据应属国内仲裁裁决。
2004年5月31日,合肥中院举行了执行听证,申请执行人宝升公司提出抗辩理由: (1)本案属于涉外仲裁案件,应当适用我国《民事诉讼法》第二百六十条的规定。市容管理局提出不予执行的请求不符合《民事诉讼法》第二百六十条所规定的情形。 (2)仲裁裁决没有违反法定程序。“证据应当开庭时出示,当事人可以质证”是针对国内仲裁程序所作的规定,该规定不适用涉外仲裁案件。综上,请求法院驳回市容管理局不予执行的申请。
合肥中院审委会一致意见,倾向于依照我国《民事诉讼法》第二百六十条第二款的规定,裁定不予执行仲裁裁决,并向我院请示。
四、我院处理意见
(一)合议庭的拟办意见
1.本案的执行依据属于涉外仲裁裁决。本案中,作为合同当事人之一的合升国际有限公司是在香港注册的法人,信用证的第一受益人也是合升国际有限公司,且涉案设备直接从国外进口,是典型的国际贸易法律关系。而且法释[2002]5号《最高人民法院关于涉外民商事案件诉讼管辖若干问题的规定》第五条规定:“涉及香港、澳门特别行政区和台湾地区当事人的民商事纠纷案件的管辖,参照本规定处理。”因此,本案属于涉外仲裁,人民法院在审查涉外仲裁裁决是否具有《民事诉讼法》第二百六十条第一款所列情形时,只进行程序性审查,不对其认定事实和适用法律是否错误进行审查。被执行人以仲裁程序违法,仲裁裁决认定事实和适用法律错误为由申请裁定不予执行,不能成立。
2.至于执行该仲裁裁决是否违背社会公共利益属事实问题,应当由合肥中院根据实际情况把握,并根据我国《民事诉讼法》第二百六十条及相关司法解释处理。
(二)院审判委员会的意见
我院审判委员会讨论后形成两种意见。少数人认为,本案仲裁裁决属于国内仲裁裁决,应当适用我国《仲裁法》第四十五条“证据应当开庭时出示,当事人可以质证”的规定,仲裁庭对作为主要定案依据的《咨询报告》未组织当事人进行质证,违反了法定程序,因此应当裁定不予执行。多数人即倾向性意见认为,本案仲裁裁决属于涉外仲裁裁决,但是国家投资1.05亿元的垃圾处理场因设备和技术问题闲置至今,执行该仲裁裁决显然违背社会公共利益,因此,应当依据我国《民事诉讼法》第二百六十条第二款裁定不予执行。
以上意见妥否,请批复。