送达是仲裁中的重要程序事项。仲裁文书的有效送达关系仲裁当事人程序权利的及时行使。送达瑕疵将导致仲裁裁决被撤销或不予执行。2015年7月9日，江苏无锡中级人民法院在一起贸仲仲裁裁决的执行案件中对仲裁文书的送达问题进行了认定。

2014年，土耳其公司U将其与中国公司Z存在的货款争议提交贸仲仲裁。当年12月，贸仲做出了U公司胜诉的裁决。由于Z公司未及时履行该裁决，U公司向Z公司所在地的无锡中院申请强制执行裁决。Z公司不予执行的抗辩理由之一为其未收到参加仲裁的任何通知。Z公司称其从未实际收取到仲裁庭的任何函件，也未获得贸仲秘书局的任何通知，Z公司的住所地有多家公司经营，极有可能是其他人员收取了函件但并未转交给Z公司。 

无锡中院未支持Z公司的抗辩，认为仲裁委员会秘书局通过中国邮政快递（EMS）方式向Z公司的注册地址寄送了仲裁通知，且后续仲裁文书亦向Z公司的该住所地寄送并被签收，该寄送行为应视为有效。 

法院在认定仲裁送达问题时，并不看重仲裁当事人是否真正实际收到了仲裁文书，而是审查送达程序是否符合《仲裁规则》的规定且是否达到法律上有效送达的要求。 

按照该案所适用的 中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（贸仲）2012版《仲裁规则》第八条的规定，仲裁文件应寄送当事人自行提供或当事人约定的地址；当事人没有提供地址或当事人对地址没有约定的，按照对方当事人提供的地址寄送。仲裁文件送达至当事人最后一个为人所知的营业地、注册地、住所地、惯常居住地或通讯地址，即视为有效送达。 

本案中，Z公司并未参与仲裁程序，所有仲裁文书均送达至Z公司的注册地址。如果送达地址为Z公司最后一个为人所知的营业地址或其他合理地址，那么依据判决，向这一地址的送达如符合《仲裁规则》的规定，仍应视为有效送达。 

2015年，贸仲在其新施行的《仲裁规则》中进一步扩展了有效送达的情形，即公证送达、委托送达和留置送达在内的其他任何可以提供投递记录的送达方式，均可在向一方当事人无法直接送达的情况下由贸仲采用并被认定为有效送达。公证送达指委托公证处公证送达过程。在收件人明确拒绝接受直接送达的文件时，通常将文件留置在送达地址，即留置送达。该方式在诉讼程序中较为常见。

自2015年起，在以传统的特快专递方式无法将仲裁文书直接送达当事人时，经征询当事人的意见，贸仲在大多数案件中采取委托公证处送达的方式向当事人寄送仲裁文书并由公证处提供投递记录存卷备查。

DISPUTE DIGESTCIETAC

Service of documents in CIETAC arbitrations

The service of documents is an important procedural and practical matter. Whether documents have been properly served may have an impact on a party’s opportunity to present its case, and any irregularity in serving case documents on a party may potentially result in the arbitral award being set aside or declared not to be enforceable.

On 9 July 2015, the Jiangsu Wuxi Intermediate People’s Court made a ruling in a case where the responding party was resisting the enforcement of a CIETAC arbitral award, alleging that it had not been properly served. 

In 2014, a Turkish company, U, commenced a CIETAC arbitration case against Z, a Chinese company, seeking compensation for Z’s breach of contract. In December that year, the arbitral tribunal rendered a final award in U’s favour, ordering Z to pay compensation to U. Since Z did not voluntarily comply with the award, U turned to the court, seeking enforcement. 

Z opposed the enforcement application, arguing that it had not been given proper notice to take part in the arbitral proceedings. According to Z, it had not received any of the case documents from the arbitral tribunal, nor any communication from the CIETAC secretariat. Z also asserted that several companies conducted business at Z’s registered address, and that the other companies may therefore have received the case documents without forwarding them to Z. 

In its ruling, the court rejected Z’s arguments and determined that the award was enforceable. The court took into account that the CIETAC secretariat, by way of an express mail service, had sent the first notice of arbitration to Z’s registered address as provided by U, and that the other arbitration notices and documents had been sent in the same manner. Consequently, the court took the position that all case documents had been properly served in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules, and that Z had been fully notified of the arbitral proceedings. 

Based on the court’s ruling, the key issue is whether the service of documents is made in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules, and whether such service is effective as a matter of law. The argument that one party has not in fact received any documents may not be sufficient to resist enforcement of the award. 

According to article 8 of the CIETAC arbitration rules, all documents, notices and written material in relation to the arbitration shall be sent to the address provided by a party itself, or to the address agreed upon by the parties. If there is no such address, the documents shall be sent to such party’s address as provided by the other party. Any correspondence to a party shall be deemed to have been properly served on the party if sent to the addressee’s place of business, place of registration, domicile, habitual residence or mailing address. 

In this case, Z did not participate in the arbitral proceeding, and all the case documents were sent to its registered address as provided by U. Even if the address to which documents are sent is not the registered address, but the last known mailing address or other reasonable address, it should, based on the court’s ruling, still be deemed as proper as long as the service is made in accordance with the applicable arbitration rules. 

In its revised arbitration rules of 2015, CIETAC sets out examples of default mechanisms of serving documents in instances where the address of a party cannot be ascertained despite reasonable inquiries having been made by the other party. The default mechanisms listed in the revised article 8 of the arbitration rules are service through public notary, entrustment, retention and other means which can provide a record of the attempt of delivery. 

Service by a public notary involves a public notary certifying an attempted delivery by the arbitration institution. This can be used by way of further support for, or proof of, other methods of service. Service by retention means leaving the case documents at a party’s address, which is common practice in Chinese court litigation and is often used when the recipient refuses to accept service in person or by post. 

Any attempted delivery should be made through a method that can be recorded. In practice, since 2015, service by public notary is used in most of the cases administered by CIETAC where the documents relating to the arbitration cannot be delivered to the party directly.

作者：贸仲仲裁员及瑞典曼斯律师事务所 争议解决业务合伙人冉雅克（Jakob Ragnwaldh）； 原贸仲案件经理（2006-2015）及曼斯争议解决业务高级律师戴雯 

Jakob Ragnwaldh is an arbitrator at CIETAC and a partner at Mannheimer Swartling’s dispute resolution practice group; Dai Wen is a former case manager at CIETAC (2006-2015) and a senior associate in Mannheimer Swartling’s dispute resolution practice group