Beijing 4th Intermediate People’s Court released the annual report on judicial review of commercial arbitration (2019-2021) (full text translation available now)
By Maximilian (Zheng) HAN, Partner

On the morning of March 24, 2022, the Beijing 4th Intermediate Court held a press conference to publicly release the Annual Report on Judicial Review of Domestic Commercial Arbitration (2019-2021). The white paper shows that from 2019 to 2021, the number of domestic arbitration judicial review cases accepted by the Court has significantly increased year by year. In 2021, 968 cases were received with a year-on-year increase of 28% over the whole year of 2020. The reasons for the application of the parties to set aside arbitration awards and to confirm the validity of the arbitral agreements are diversified. According to statistics, among the 2,039 cases concluded in the past three years, a total of 1,699 applications by the parties were rejected, accounting for 83.3%. The arbitral tribunal ruled that 11 cases were re-arbitrated, accounting for 0.54%, a total of 4 cases of setting aside of arbitral awards, accounting for 0.20%, and a total of 3 cases of invalidation of arbitral agreements, accounting for 0.15%.

Since the Beijing 4th Intermediate Court has the centralized jurisdiction over arbitration judicial review cases in Beijing, it has continuously regulated the arbitration judicial review procedures, unified the arbitration judicial review standards, and effectively played the role of the judiciary in supporting and supervising arbitration. Jin Mao Law Firm hereby provides the industry with a translation of the full text for reference, so that practitioners can keep abreast of the latest developments in judicial review of arbitration in China.

Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court
Annual Report on Judicial Review of Domestic Commercial Arbitration
（2019-2021）

Arbitration is an important part of China's diversified dispute resolution mechanism and social governance system, and is also one of the elements of a market-oriented and rule-of-law international business environment. The healthy development of arbitration cannot be separated from judicial supporting and supervision. The judicial review of arbitration of the people's court is an important form of judicial supervision of arbitration. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee pointed out that it is necessary to "improve the arbitration system and enhance the public credibility of arbitration." The spirit of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and all previous plenary sessions of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and Mr. Jinping XI's thoughts on the rule of law have put forward new requirements for the modernization of the country's governing system and governing ability, the overall promotion of the rule of law at home and abroad, and the construction of a new system with a higher level of open economy system, which has pointed out the direction for China's judicial review of arbitration. In order to promote the professional trial of arbitration judicial review cases and serve the construction of the business environment in the capital, Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court has centralized jurisdiction over Beijing arbitration judicial review cases in accordance with the Provisions on the Jurisdiction of Cases of Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court issued by Beijing Higher People's Court on February 2, 2018. Since the Beijing Arbitration Judicial Review Case was centrally governed, the Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court has adhered to the guidance of Jinping XI's socialist thought with Chinese characteristics in the new era, thoroughly penetrated Jinping XI's thought of the rule of law, focused on the construction of a diversified resolution mechanism for commercial disputes, constantly regulated the arbitration judicial review procedure, unified the arbitration judicial review standard(s), promoted the improvement of the arbitration system and the enhancement of the arbitration public credibility, and helped to legislate a more friendly arbitration legal environment and jointly contributing to the construction of Beijing's "two zones" and the optimization of the business environment in the capital.

I. The general situation of judicial review of domestic commercial arbitration in Beijing No.4 Intermediate People's Court

(A) The number of cases received has increased significantly. According to statistics, since 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2021，a total of 2,192 cases were received; since 1 April 2019 to 31 December 2019, 468 cases were received, including 313 applications for setting aside of arbitral awards, and 155 cases were filed for confirmation of the validity of arbitral agreements. In 2020, 756 cases were received, including 508 applications for setting aside of arbitral awards and 248 cases for confirmation the validity of arbitral agreements. In 2021, 968 cases were received, including 662 applications for setting aside arbitral awards and 306 applications for confirmation of validity of arbitral agreements. The total caseloads increased by 28% compared to 2020.

Figure 1

Figure 2

(B) the grounds for the parties' application(s) are diversified. The grounds for the parties to apply for setting aside arbitral awards basically cover all the grounds for setting aside as provided for in Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, including the absence of an arbitral agreement between the parties, exceeding the scope of the arbitral agreement, violation of legal procedures, concealment of evidence sufficient to affect matter of justice, forgery of evidence, violation of the public interest, and substantive issues related to the dispute involved in the case. Among them, the highest proportion of the issues raised by the applicant(s) that the arbitration procedure violates the legal procedure and challenges the merits in arbitration, and the second highest proportion of the issues raised by the applicant(s) is that the other party conceals evidence that is sufficient to affect matter of justice, and forges evidence. The main grounds for applying for confirmation of the validity of the arbitral agreements include the invalidity of arbitral agreement, the non-conclusion of arbitral agreement, the unclear agreement of the arbitration institution, the agreed jurisdiction clause being an arbitrable or litigable clause, and the non-legally binding effect of the arbitral agreement on the parties.

Figure 3

Figure 4

(C) to respect and support arbitration on the basis of effective judicial supervision.

From April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021, a total of 2,039 cases were closed, and a total of 1,699 applications were rejected after review, accounting for 83.3%. If it is found that a total of 17 applications did not meet the acceptance requirements after the cases were filed and were dismissed by rulings, accounting for 0.83%; A total of 305 applications were withdrawn by the parties or dealt with according to withdrawn application(s), accounting for 15%; Ruling the arbitral tribunal to re-arbitrate 11 cases, accounting for 0.54%; A total of 4 arbitral awards were setting aside, accounting for 0.196%, and 3 arbitral agreements were confirmed to be invalid, accounting for 0.147%.

Table 1

Figure 5

The judicial review of arbitration respects the will of the parties to arbitrate, upholds the principle of being in favor of confirmation of the validity of arbitral agreements, and supports the parties to choose arbitration to resolve disputes. In 2020, two arbitral agreements were finally confirmed as invalid, and in 2021, one arbitral agreement was confirmed as invalid.

The cases of applying for setting aside of an arbitral award shall be reviewed in strict accordance with the grounds stipulated in Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, and shall follow the statutory requirement of judicial review. There were two cases in which the arbitral awards were setting aside in 2020 and 2 cases as well in 2021.

Figure 6

Figure 7

(D) Actively explore more flexible handling methods. Actively explore flexible handling methods in the arbitration judicial review process. For example, when the people's court finds out that there are problems in the arbitration procedure in cases of application for setting aside an arbitral award, it first actively communicates with the relevant arbitration institution, considers suggesting the arbitral tribunal to re-arbitrate, gives the arbitral tribunal opportunity to make up the defect(s) in the procedure, rectify the errors in the award, and efficiently solves the dispute.

In the trial of the case of applying for confirmation of an arbitral agreement, it was found that the arbitration institution was not agreed clearly, the people's court would exercise its judicial initiative, strengthen communication with both parties in litigation, guide both parties to re-reach an arbitral agreement or a litigation clause, to save time and cost, and fundamentally to solve the problem of unclear jurisdiction agreement between both parties.

(E) to conclude the case fairly and efficiently, significantly reducing the handling period. According to Article 59 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the time limit for the people's court to try cases under judicial review of arbitration is 2 months. In the judicial practice, our court concluded application cases for setting aside an arbitral award in an average of 45 days, and concluded the application cases for confirmation of validity of an arbitral agreement in an average of 40 days. Our Court efficiently concluded cases applying for confirmation of the validity of arbitral agreements, cases applying for setting aside an arbitral award, and promoted the acceleration of the arbitration proceedings, the enforcement procedure of arbitration, which is conducive to the parties' timely settlement of disputes and the improvement of the business environment.

(F) to further regulate the handling procedures, and fully protect the litigation rights of the parties.

Article 11 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases of Judicial Review of Arbitration" stipulates that when the people's court tries a case of judicial review of arbitration, it shall form a collegial bench and inquire the parties concerned. At present, the relevant laws and judicial interpretations have no further provisions on the procedures for handling arbitration judicial review cases. The procedure for handling arbitration judicial review cases in our court adopts the form of the undertaking judge's inquiry and reviewed by the judges of the collegial bench. In order to ensure the standardization of the review procedure, the procedure flow of the ordinary procedure of first instance is used for reference. The undertaking judge carries out court investigations, evidence adducing and cross-examination, court debates, final statements, etc. However, as the trial period for such cases is only 2 months, the time limit for adducing evidence is relatively flexible.

II. the Beijing 4th Intermediate People's Court's approach for domestic commercial arbitration judicial review cases and the standards of judgment

(A) the cases of applying for confirmation of the validity of an arbitral agreement

1. Typical Issues in People's Court's Ruling Not to Accept

(1) The arbitration institution has made a decision on the validity of the arbitral agreement. According to Article 20.2 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 3 of the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Confirmation of the Validity of arbitral agreements (Fa Shi [1998] No.27) and Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the people's court shall meet the following conditions when accepting a party's application for confirmation of the validity of an arbitral agreement: firstly, an objection should has been raised before the first hearing of the arbitral tribunal; secondly, the arbitration institution has not made a decision thereon. The ways for the arbitration institution to exercise competence-competence power include: the arbitration institution makes a decision directly; Because the arbitration case involves issue(s) subject to substantive trial, the arbitration institution authorizes the arbitral tribunal to handle the objection to the validity of the arbitral agreement together with the substantive issue(s).

The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practice: First, according to the above-mentioned legal provisions, the arbitration institution has made a decision on the validity of the arbitral agreement in response to the application of the parties, and the parties have submitted an application to the people's court to confirm the validity of the arbitral agreement, and the people's court will not accept it. Second, the arbitration institution has not dealt with any jurisdictional objection raised by the parties, and the people's court shall accept the application filed by the parties to confirm the validity of the arbitral agreement.

(2) The validity of the arbitral agreement was determined by effective judgment documents. The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practice: In the case of applying for confirmation of the validity of an arbitral agreement, after review, the effective judgment document(s) of another case involves the confirmation of the validity of the arbitral agreement in this case. The people's court should not repeatedly confirm the validity of the same arbitral agreement. Therefore, such cases do not meet the acceptance conditions, and the people's court will not accept them.

(3) In the civil litigation, the parties raise the objection of jurisdiction on the ground that there is an arbitral agreement. The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practice: If a defendant in a civil litigation objects to a court's acceptance of a civil case on the grounds of existing a written arbitral agreement, the court has the power to review and determine the validity of the arbitral agreement. If a party applies to a people's court for confirmation of validity of the same arbitral agreement, the people's court shall not accept it.

2. Typical Problems of the People's Court in Confirming the Invalidation of arbitral agreements

In the cases of applying for confirmation of the invalidity of an arbitral agreement, the parties' application does not only include the application for confirmation of the invalidity of the arbitral agreement, but also may include the absence of an arbitral agreement between the two parties and that the arbitral agreement has no legal effect on them.

According to the provisions of Article 16 of the Minutes of the National Court Symposium on Foreign Commercial and Maritime Trials on December 31, 2021, when a dispute arises between the parties as to whether an arbitral agreement is concluded, effective, invalid and whether to bind a specific party, the parties apply to the people's court for confirmation, and the people's court shall accept the dispute as a case for confirmation of the validity of the arbitral agreement, and make a ruling on the request of the parties. In the current judicial practice, the judging view also believes that whether the arbitral agreement between the two parties is concluded, invalid, and is binding on a specific party or not, will affect the resolution method of the dispute, which is a preliminary issue to be resolved. The above-mentioned disputes belong to the dispute of applying for confirmation of invalidity of the arbitral agreement in a generalized sense.

The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practice: one party applies for the invalidity of an arbitral agreement on the ground that both parties have not signed a contract and thus have not signed an arbitral agreement. The people's court shall accept the case, according to Article 19.1 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 10.2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the arbitration clause is independent. In the case of applying for confirmation of the validity of the arbitral agreement, the people's court does not review whether the contract is concluded, but it needs to review whether the parties have an mutual intention to submit the dispute to an arbitration institution for resolution. If the evidence submitted by the parties is not sufficient to prove that both parties have reached a mutual intention on the arbitral agreement, the people's court shall therefore decide that the arbitral agreement is not concluded.

(B) the application for setting aside an arbitral award

1. Typical Problems in the Dispute of "Whether the parties have an arbitral agreement"

(1) Whether the successor of the legal rights under the arbitral agreement is bound by the arbitral agreement. The ways to deal with the typical problems in the trial practice: First, the applicant claims to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that there is no arbitral agreement with the successor of the arbitral agreement. In accordance with Article 8 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Certain Questions in Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, if the parties enter into an arbitral agreement and then merge or separate, the arbitral agreement shall be valid for the successor(s) of their rights and obligations. If a party deceased after entering into an arbitral agreement, the arbitral agreement should be valid for the successor(s) who inherit her rights and obligations in the arbitration matters, unless otherwise agreed by the parties when entering into the arbitral agreement. Therefore, the people's court does not uphold the applicant's claim to set aside the arbitral award on the ground that there is no arbitral agreement with the successor of the arbitral agreement.

Second, the claimant claims to set aside the arbitral award on the ground that there is no arbitral agreement with an insurance company. Provided that the insured and the party responsible for the accident signed a contract in advance and reached an arbitral agreement, as of the occurrence of the insurance accident, the insurance company will be entitled to the right of subrogation after its settlement, and the insurance company will have the right to recover from the party responsible for the accident. Is the arbitral agreement signed by the insured and the party responsible for the accident binding on the insurance company that has obtained the right of subrogation? The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practice: the right of insurance subrogation is a legal transfer of creditor's rights. According to Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Applicable to the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, if the creditor's rights and debts are transferred in whole or in part, the arbitral agreement is valid for the assignee(s), unless the parties have agreed otherwise, or the assignee expressly objects to arbitral agreement when transferring the debts, or she does not know of a separate arbitral agreement. The arbitral agreement reached by the insured and the party responsible for the accident is binding on the insurance company. If the applicant to set aside an arbitral award on the ground that there is no arbitral agreement with the insurance company, the people's court will not uphold it.

(2) Whether the guarantee contract is governed by the arbitral agreement under the main contract. The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practice: the guarantor claims to set aside the arbitral award on the ground that there is no arbitral agreement with the creditor, the arbitration clause is agreed in the main contract, and the arbitration clause is not explicitly agreed in the guarantee contract. As to whether the guarantee contract is bound by the arbitration clause of the main contract, the people's court shall deal with it in different circumstances:

First, if the debtor provides a guarantee with his own property or the guarantor is a singing party of the main contract, the main contract contains an arbitration clause, the guarantee contract contains no arbitration clause, and there is no explicit agreement to apply the arbitration clause in the main contract, unless the parties expressly agree to exclude the application of the arbitration clause in the main contract, the arbitration clause in the main contract can also be considered to be binding on the guarantee contract. The guarantor claims to set aside the arbitral award on the ground that there was no arbitral agreement in the guarantee contract, the people's court will not uphold it.

Second, the third party provides guarantee with its own property for the main contract or the guarantor is not a signing party of the main contract, the main contract contains an arbitration clause, the guarantee contract contains no arbitration clause, and the guarantee contract contains no explicit agreement to be bound by the arbitration clause of the main contract, the arbitration clause of the main contract cannot be regarded as binding on the guarantee contract. If the guarantor claims to set aside the arbitral award on the ground that there is no arbitral agreement in the guarantee contract, the people's court shall uphold it.

(3) Whether to acknowledge the parties' implicit acceptance of jurisdiction of an arbitration clause. The way to deal with typical problems in trial practice: one party claims to set aside the arbitral award on the ground that "there is no arbitral agreement between the two parties". However, the court found out after hearing that the party participated in the arbitration procedure, or the arbitral tribunal effectively served and she received the notice of arbitration, but did not raise any objection to the arbitration jurisdiction. The people's court will not uphold it.

An arbitral agreement is the cornerstone for the parties to accept the arbitration jurisdiction. The people's court shall conduct judicial review on whether there is an arbitral agreement between the parties. On the one hand, from the substantive view, whether there is a factual basis for a valid arbitral agreement between the parties; On the one hand, from the procedural view, according to Article 27.1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the parties did not raise any objection to the validity of the arbitral agreement during the arbitration proceeding, and the people's court will not uphold to application of setting aside the arbitral award or raising a plea of non-enforcement on the ground that the arbitral agreement was invalid after the arbitral award was made. The arbitration rules also have provisions that implicitly recognize arbitration jurisdiction. For example, Article 6 of the Arbitration Rules of the Beijing Arbitration Commission stipulates that if a party has any objection to the existence, validity of the arbitral agreement or the jurisdiction of the arbitration case, it may raise its jurisdiction objection to the Beijing Arbitration Commission. Objections to jurisdiction shall be made in writing before the first hearing. If the parties agree to try the case in writing, objections shall be made in writing before the expiry of the time limit for first response. If the parties fail to raise any objection to the jurisdiction in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, it shall be deemed as a recognition of the jurisdiction of the Beijing Arbitration Commission over the arbitration case. Our Court not only reviews and judges whether there is an arbitral agreement between the two parties from the substantive perspective, but also reviews whether the parties recognize the jurisdiction of arbitration from the procedural perspective.

2. Typical Problems in the Dispute of "Arbitration Commission Has No Power to Arbitrate"

(1) Whether the agreement between the two parties is an administrative agreement. The way to deal with typical problems in judicial practices: Some applicants claim to the court that similar disputes such as "Land Development Compensation Agreement" and "Agreement on the Transfer of State-owned Land Use Rights" were administrative disputes, while some applicants claim that the party of the agreement is an administrative organ. The disputes involved were administrative disputes and the arbitral tribunal had no jurisdiction. As stipulated in Article 3 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, the following disputes cannot be arbitrated: (2) Administrative disputes that should be dealt with by administrative organs according to law. If the dispute between the parties is an administrative dispute, the arbitral tribunal shall have no jurisdiction. In the process of judicial review of arbitration, the people's court needs to distinguish administrative agreements and civil contracts. The biggest difference between administrative agreements and civil contracts is that entering into a contract between the administrative organ with a administrative counter-party as a exerciser of public power, is not a market transaction in nature, but still a way of exercising administrative power. Articles 1 and 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases clearly define the connotation and scope of administrative agreements. Administrative agreements include four elements: The first is the subject element, one party is the administrative organ; The second is the essential element of purpose, which must be to achieve the objectives of administration and public service; The third is the content elements, the content of the agreement must have the content of rights and obligations in administrative law; The fourth is the element of intention, that is, both parties to the agreement must agree. Based on the analysis of the above elements, the people's court makes a distinction between the nature of the agreements involved in the case and then judges whether the arbitral tribunal has the right to try the disputes involved.

(2) Whether the arbitral tribunal has jurisdiction after the parties enter into bankruptcy proceedings.

The way to deal with typical problems in trial practice: the applicant claims to set aside an arbitral award to the court on the ground that one party should be under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and the arbitral tribunal has no jurisdiction. According to Article 21 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China, after the people's court accepts the bankruptcy application, the civil litigation concerning the debtor can only be brought to the people's court that accepted the bankruptcy application filed. However, the centralized jurisdiction of the court accepting the bankruptcy application cannot exclude the agreement on arbitration jurisdiction between the two parties, and the arbitral tribunal has the right to arbitrate according to the arbitral agreement.

3. Typical Problems in "arbitral tribunal Violates Legal Procedure"

(1) Whether the arbitral tribunal repeats the arbitration violates the principle of res judicate. The claimant applies for setting aside the arbitral award on the grounds that the arbitral tribunal repeats the arbitration, violated the principle of res judicate and violated the legal procedures. Judging from the domestic applications for setting aside arbitral awards accepted by our court, this court, with reference to the basic principle of "res judicate” in civil litigation and centering on the application of the arbitration applicant, examines whether the two arbitrations are the same parties, the same arbitration object, the same arbitration request and whether new facts arise, does not interfere with the substantive trial of the arbitration case, and judges through preliminary judicial review whether the arbitral tribunal repeats the arbitration, thus violating the legal procedures.

(2) Is there a violation of legal procedures in the service procedure? Both the Beijing Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules and the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission Arbitration Rules concerning the service procedures stipulate that if the service to the respondent is unsuccessful, the service shall be deemed to be effective if it is made at the last known address of the respondent. However, in the review process of our court, some cases had defects in service: First, the arbitral tribunal served the documents to a single address of the respondent in the arbitration. When the service was unsuccessful, the service was completed by notarization service only, and the confirmation of the last known address of the respondent was not completed. Second, the contact information and address provided by the arbitration claimant to the arbitral tribunal are not the effective address of the addressee, and some are even the own address and contact information of the arbitration claimant. The arbitral tribunal decided to complete the service upon receipt of the mail.

(3) The arbitration procedure involves the problem of "Mixture between Civil and Criminal Issues". In the domestic cases of setting aside arbitral awards accepted by the people's court, some cases involving public financial disputes involved criminal issues in the arbitration process, and the arbitral tribunal(s) failed to transfer them to the public security organ (police department), and rendered arbitral awards according to handling method of civil disputes. As far as civil litigation cases are concerned, the main basis for transferring civil cases involving criminal issues is Article 11 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Economic Criminal Suspects in the Trial of Economic Dispute Cases, which stipulates that if an economic criminal suspect does not belong to an economic dispute case after trial, the claim shall be dismissed and the relevant materials shall be transferred to the public security organ or the prosecution organ. However, the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China and Arbitration Rules do not stipulate that the dispute involves criminal factors, and the arbitral tribunal may refer the case to the public security organ for handling. In addition, arbitration rules only provide for the stay of the arbitration proceeding in principle, and do not explicitly refer to the stary of the trial when criminal cases concerned. According to the existing legal review procedures, the people's court cannot conclude that the arbitral tribunal has violated the legal procedures for the arbitration cases involving criminal factors that have not been suspended and transferred to the public security organ.

III. Suggestions and hints for further promoting the high-quality development of arbitration

(A) Suggestions to arbitration institutions

The people's court carried out judicial supervision over the arbitration procedure according to law, and found some procedural defects in the arbitration and the areas where the rules needed to be improved. Although the final review decision failed to reach the level of setting aside the arbitral award(s), the people's court, adhering to the concept of promoting the healthy development of arbitration, suggests rectifying the procedural defects and improving and optimizing the arbitration rules.

1. It is suggested that the arbitration rules clearly stipulate that the arbitration proceedings involving criminal cases should be suspended and transferred to the public security organ or the prosecution organ. First, the situation regarding the suspension of the trial shall be further clarified. If the identification of a criminal case and the outcome of the trial involve the identification of facts in an arbitration case, the trial should be suspended. The second is to strictly enforce the transfer procedure from the arbitration procedure to the public security organ, clarify the criteria for the transfer conditions, and carefully handle the relationship between the parties' consent to submit to arbitration jurisdiction and the transfer of jurisdiction by the arbitral tribunal concerning criminal factors. The procedure of suspending and the transfer of criminal stipulated by laws and arbitration rules is the basis for the court to exercise the judicial review power within its legal authority.

2. It is suggested to regulate the service procedures. The parties frequently apply for setting aside arbitral awards on the ground that the service procedure violates the legal procedure. After the court's review, the arbitration service procedure does have many defects. It is suggested that the arbitral tribunal further regulate the service procedure, fully explain the last known address of the addressee, review the address and contact information of the addressee provided by the applicant, regulate the way of notarization service, and cannot merely use notarization service as a means of effective service.

3. It is suggested to regulate the arbitrator disclosure rules. The Arbitration Rules further clarify the matters to be disclosed by the arbitrators, and the arbitrators shall strictly follow the disclosure procedures with prudence.

4. It is suggested to regulate the trial limit rules. According to the arbitration rules, the arbitral tribunal shall make a ruling within 4 months from the date of the formation of the arbitral tribunal. If there are special circumstances that need to be extended, the time limit may be appropriately extended with the approval of the Secretary General. In the judicial practice, the parties have more doubts about the problems such as the over-extension of the trial period and the irregular extension of the trial period in the arbitration cases. It is suggested that the arbitration rules should include specific circumstances for the extension of the trial period. The arbitral tribunal should regulate the operation of the extension of the trial period and inform the parties to the arbitration in a timely and effective manner, so as to avoid or reduce disputes arising from the indefinite extension of the trial period as far as possible.

(B) Suggestions to the parties

1. The parties shall understand the arbitration rules and sign the arbitral agreement reflectingly. In the process of judicial review of arbitration, some parties questioned the arbitral agreements and the arbitral awards, hoping that the court could supervise and review the substantive issues of arbitration. The fundamental reason is that some parties lack a clear legal understanding of the arbitration procedures and rules. In particular, the court reminded the parties that when signing the arbitral agreement, they should be clear about the legal effect of the arbitral agreement and the arbitral award, as well as the similarities and differences between arbitration and litigation and other dispute resolution methods, so as to avoid choosing the dispute resolution method against their own original intention due to their own inadequate understanding of the arbitration rules and procedures, thus eventually they have to seek to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests through judicial review procedures of arbitration.

2. The parties shall clearly record the service address and contact information in the contract. In the court judicial review of arbitration, the main reason for the problems in the service procedure(s) is that the address provided by the arbitration claimant is inconsistent with the address confirmed by the arbitration respondent. The two parties clearly agreed on the service address and contact information in advance, which can ensure that they receive the notice from the arbitration institution in time after the dispute occurs, participate in the arbitration procedure in time and protect the procedural rights from being damaged.

3. Avoid the abuse of arbitration judicial review procedures. In the course of the court's review, the following phenomena occurred: some applicants did not cooperate with the court's hearing procedure after filing the case, deliberately delaying the time; Some parties repeatedly apply for setting aside an arbitral award for the same one, and different parties apply for confirmation of the arbitral agreement for the same one, etc. In response to the above-mentioned malicious cases, the people's courts have respectively taken the following measures to regulate them: not to accept a case again, to speed up the review process, to criticize and educate in the writing, to send judicial suggestions and even to impose fines, and to guide the parties to correctly exercise their rights in accordance with the law.

(C) tips to the public

1. A correct understanding of the judicial review procedure of arbitration. The court judicial review of arbitration is mainly based on the provisions of Article 58 of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China. It is not the second instance or retrial procedure over the arbitral tribunal. The parties should launch the judicial review procedure restrainedly basing on questioning the substantive issues decided under the arbitral award.

2. Effective Prevention of Malicious launching of Arbitration Judicial Review Procedure. The malicious launching of the arbitration judicial review procedure is an attempt to delay the arbitration procedure and the arbitration enforcement procedure, which wastes the judicial resources, and damages the social credibility integrity construction and the business environment. For the parties who maliciously launching setting aside arbitral award procedure(s) and apply for confirmation of the validity of the arbitral agreement, the court will strengthen the identification of malicious Launching of the arbitration judicial review procedure and take effective measures to regulate it.

Translated by JIN MAO LAW FIRM