查看更多請點擊欄目圖片

2025年5月14日，上海國際商事法庭經審查，依法支持上海國際經濟貿易仲裁委員會（上海國際仲裁中心）提交的一項以仲裁庭臨時措施為依據的調查取證申請，并開具調查令協助仲裁調取證據。該案為全國法院首次以調查令形式支持國際商事仲裁臨時措施，彰顯上海法院對國際仲裁的協同保障作用。

本案涉及一家中國香港公司與一家外國公司、一家中國江西公司的跨境數據服務合同糾紛。仲裁爭議核心在于，需通過識別各方交易代表人身份，判定合同是否在當事人之間成立。由于交易代表人信息僅系微信號，當事人無法自行查證賬號注冊信息等資料，故向仲裁庭提出調查取證申請。仲裁機構向第三方出具協助調查函，但遭拒，導致取證受阻，案件審理陷入僵局。

依據上海國際仲裁中心《仲裁規則》中有關國際仲裁臨時措施規定，仲裁庭經審查認為該申請調查的信息系該案關鍵證據，對于案件事實認定具有重要作用，遂正式作出臨時措施（Interim Measures）決定，同意申請人的調查取證申請，并由仲裁機構通過上海法院國際商事“一站式”平臺向上海國際商事法庭提出調查令申請，并隨附仲裁庭決定和當事人有關材料。

上海國際商事法庭經審查認為：第一，申請協助調查的證據與案件具有關聯性，系案涉仲裁糾紛的必要證據；第二，當事人及仲裁庭經過努力與嘗試均不能自行收集該項證據；第三，仲裁庭按照仲裁規則及國際商事仲裁通行做法作出的臨時措施決定符合正當程序，且仲裁庭根據審理仲裁案件的情況就是否采取臨時措施提出的意見，可以作為人民法院審查開具調查令的重要參考。

據此，上海國際商事法庭經審查后，根據《上海市高級人民法院關于開具調查令協助仲裁調查取證的辦法（試行）》的相關規定開具了調查令，以協助仲裁當事人調查取證。

臨時措施是國際商事仲裁的基本制度之一，是指在仲裁程序開始之前或進行期間，為了防止當事人轉移財產、毀滅證據等不當行為出現，由仲裁庭采取的臨時性保護措施，包括財產保全、證據保全和行為保全等類型。臨時措施對于保障仲裁程序有序開展、準確查明事實，保障仲裁裁決執行意義重大。由當事人就審理中無法自行調取的重要證據向仲裁庭申請作出臨時措施，是國際仲裁的通行做法。在最新的營商環境評估指標體系中，世界銀行也明確將“法律框架是否允許法院命令采取臨時措施以支持仲裁”作為全球營商環境的“最佳實踐”。

為推進仲裁友好型法治環境建設，作為對標世行對中國開展新一輪營商環境評估的專家調查樣本城市，上海于2023年出臺《上海市推進國際商事仲裁中心建設條例》（以下簡稱《條例》）。該《條例》第二十一條規定，當事人可以向仲裁庭申請臨時措施，仲裁庭可以根據仲裁案件情況提出意見后提交有管轄權的本市人民法院，由人民法院依法審查后作出裁定并執行。

上海國際商事法庭通過對以仲裁庭臨時措施為依據的調查取證申請的審查并簽發調查令，正是對上述條例規定的具體實施。

相比以往仲裁庭向法院轉交當事人申請，仲裁庭的臨時措施決定可以作為仲裁庭意見，有助于法院快速全面了解案情，進而對是否準予申請作出判定。通過這種方式，也將以《聯合國國際貿易法委員會國際商事仲裁示范法》（UNCITRAL MODEL LAW）為代表的國際仲裁規則中“法院協助取證”（Court Assistance in Taking Evidence）的內容轉化為可操作的國內司法程序，實現了仲裁司法保障措施與國際仲裁通行做法有效銜接。

這一實踐不僅為同類案件提供了可復制的解決路徑，也通過規范、透明的審查機制，促進了仲裁與司法的良性互動。

人民法院參考仲裁庭作出的臨時措施決定對當事人的調查取證或證據保全申請進行審查，體現了對國際仲裁的友好態度，有利于提高仲裁司法審查質量和效率，增強國際商事主體對上海法治化營商環境的信心，以高水平司法保障助力打造面向全球的亞太仲裁中心。

On May 14, 2025, the Shanghai International Commercial Court, upon review, granted judicial support for an evidence collection application submitted by the Shanghai International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (Shanghai International Arbitration Center), which was based on interim measures issued by the arbitral tribunal. The Court issued an investigation order to assist with the collection of evidence for the arbitration. This case marks the first instance in Chinese courts which supports the interim measures of international commercial arbitration in the form of an investigation order, highlighting the coordinated and supportive role of Shanghai’s courts in advancing international arbitration.

Case Background: Challenges in Evidence Collection in a Cross-Border Contract Dispute

This case involves a cross-border dispute over a data services contract between a Hong Kong company, a foreign company, and a Jiangxi company. The core issue lies in determining whether a valid contract was formed between the parties by identifying the identities of the transaction representatives of all parties. As the only available information about these representatives was their WeChat IDs, the parties were unable to independently investigate the account registration details and other related information. Consequently, they submitted an application to the arbitral tribunal for assistance in evidence collection.

The arbitral tribunal issued an investigation letter requesting evidence assistance to a third party, but the request was refused, resulting in obstacles to evidence collection and causing the arbitration proceedings to reach an impasse.

Arbitral Tribunal: Issuance of Interim Measures in This International Commercial Arbitration

Pursuant to the provisions on interim measures in international arbitrations under the Arbitration Rules of the Shanghai International Arbitration Center, the arbitral tribunal, upon review, determined that the requested information constituted key evidence for establishing the facts of the case. Accordingly, the tribunal issued a formal decision granting interim measures, approving the parties’ application. The arbitral institution, through the Shanghai Court’s “One-Stop” International Commercial Dispute Resolution Platform, submitted this application to the Shanghai International Commercial Court for a court investigation order, enclosing the tribunal’s decision and relevant materials from the parties.

Judicial Support: Court Issued Investigation Order After Legal Review

Upon review, the Shanghai International Commercial Court found that: Firstly, the requested evidence was relevant to the case and constituted necessary evidence for resolving the arbitration dispute. Secondly, after reasonable efforts and attempts, neither the parties nor the arbitral tribunal were able to obtain the evidence independently. Thirdly, the arbitral tribunal’s decision to grant interim measures in accordance with the arbitration rules did follow the due process and this kind of way was widely accepted in international practices. Moreover, the tribunal’s opinion on whether interim measures should be granted serves as an important reference for the people’s court when deciding whether to issue an investigation order. Accordingly, after conducting its review and pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Measures of the Shanghai High People’s Court on Issuing Investigation Orders to Assist in Arbitration Evidence Collection (Trial Implementation), the Shanghai International Commercial Court issued an investigation order to assist the parties in obtaining evidence for the arbitration.

Significance: A Practical Model of Judicial-Arbitration Collaboration in Support of International Arbitration

The interim measure is one of the fundamental mechanisms in international commercial arbitration. It refers to a temporary protective measure taken by the arbitral tribunal before or during the arbitration proceedings to prevent parties from engaging in misconduct such as asset dissipation, destruction of evidence, or other actions that may impair the arbitral process. These measures may include asset preservation, evidence preservation, and injunctions. Interim measures play a critical role in ensuring the orderly conduct of arbitration proceedings, the accurate ascertainment of facts, and the effective enforcement of arbitral awards. It is a common practice in international arbitration for parties to apply to the arbitral tribunal for interim measures in order to obtain crucial evidence that cannot be accessed through their own efforts during the proceedings. In the latest business environment evaluation system, the World Bank has clearly identified that whether the legal framework allows the court to grant interim measures to support arbitration is a "best practice" in the global business environment.

To promote the development of an arbitration-friendly and law-based business environment, Shanghai—as a sample city for expert surveys under the World Bank’s new round of business environment assessment in China—enacted the Regulations of Shanghai Municipality on Promoting the Construction of the International Commercial Arbitration Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) in 2023. Article 21, Paragraph 2 of the Regulations provides that parties may apply to the arbitral tribunal for interim measures. Based on the specific arbitration cases, the tribunal may submit an opinion and refer the matter to a competent people’s court in Shanghai, which shall review the application in accordance with the law, render a ruling, and enforce it accordingly.

By reviewing the evidence collection application based on interim measures issued by the arbitral tribunal, the Shanghai International Commercial Court issued an investigation order accordingly, which serves as a specific implementation sample of the above-mentioned Regulations. Compared with the previous practice where arbitral tribunals merely forwarded a party’s application to the court, the tribunal’s interim measures decision now serves as its formal opinion, enabling the court to gain a quicker and more comprehensive understanding of the case and to determine whether to grant the application accordingly. And in this way, the content of "Court Assistance in Taking Evidence" in international arbitration rules represented by the UNCITRAL MODEL LAW has been transformed into a workable domestic judicial procedure, effectively connecting the judicial guarantee measures for arbitration with the common practices of international arbitration. This practice not only provides a replicable solution for similar cases, but also promotes constructive interaction between arbitration and the judiciary through a standardized and transparent review process.The people's court reviews the application for investigation, evidence collection or preservation by referring to the decision on interim measures made by the arbitration tribunal. This reflects a friendly attitude towards international arbitration, which is conducive to improving the quality and efficiency of judicial review of arbitration, enhancing the confidence of international commercial entities in Shanghai's rule-of-law-based business environment, and helping to build an Asia-Pacific arbitration center facing the world with high-level judicial guarantees.

文：李超

翻譯：施明宇 王黎園

校對：聶妍鏵

值班編輯：郭葭