| 關 鍵 詞： |
FIDIC 條款；一般契約條款；工程師裁決；公序良俗；分離論；友好調解；平等原則；正當程序；仲裁協議；仲裁前置程序；仲裁契約；任意要件；妨訴抗辯；定型化契約；爭議；附合契約；非一般契約條款；契約自由；涉外仲裁條款；索賠程序；停止條件；強制調解；第三人裁決；程序正義；裁決權；訴訟要件；準據法；當事人自主；撤銷仲裁判斷之訴；管轄權 |
| 中文摘要： |
仲裁係根據當事人約定，將當事人間之爭議交由仲裁人作出公正判斷之程序。仲裁作成之後，依原商務仲裁條例第二十三條（現仲裁法第四十條）的規定，列有計十二款得提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴的情形，由我國法院近十年内所爲的判決中，可以歸納出三個最具爭議或矛盾的議題：一、前置程序與最後決定權的問題；二、仲裁判斷是否須附理由的問題；三、仲裁是否爲法律仲裁及衡平仲裁概念之澄清的問題。商務仲裁條例已於民國八十七年六月二十四日修正公布並更名爲仲裁法，然本文爲文時，尚未有依據新法所爲之判例或判決，故本文仍以舊法爲經，輔以目前工程仲裁中最具爭議性的「前置程序」問題爲緯，來探究適用原條例中所衍生的問題。至於其他的爭議問題，容另文再加以探討。
實務上，有於仲裁協議中約定，在將爭議提交仲裁前須經一「前置程序」。未經此前置程序，法院通常認爲當事人即得對他方提起撤銷仲裁判斷之訴。最高法院歷來判決皆首肯此一概念。將最高法院所作之判決作分頹後可知：預立此前置程序之一方當事人，皆爲政府機關；不免使人聯想，此現象是否有權力濫用之弊；且當事人在約定前置程序時，多對其内容恣意約定，缺乏一定的標準，造成名詞與概念不一致的情形，因而使其内涵無法精確掌握。依現行實務就前置程序實踐的情況，本文試將前置程序分爲四種類型，以分析其概念，並就可能爲仲裁前置程序規定起源之 FIDIC 條款加以比較其效力之異同；倘未踐行此程序，在 FIDIC 條款中及在我國實務上，其效力各爲如何？仲裁條款之效力是否應受當事人自主原則無限制之支配？有無定型化契約規範之適用？應否服膺程序正義？上述諸問題，皆嘗試於本文中闡述之。
另外，前置程序外觀上的最大功能在於簡化程序，但是實質上，迅速原本即爲仲裁的特色之一。倘承認仲裁，就無須再承認前置程序，否則反而會延緩整個程序的進行。前置程序在制度層面上，應歸屬於仲裁程序之要件，而非屬於仲裁程序的一部分，兩者之意義實應有所區別。本文之立場認爲前置程序爲任意要件，踐行與否，一任當事人之自由，不得作爲撤銷仲裁判斷之事由，苟非如此，前置程序之存在，則失其正面之意義。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
FIDIC condition；Standardized form；Decision of the engineer；Public order and good moral；Dichotomy between substance and procedure；Amicable settlement；Equality of treatment；Due process of law；Arbitration agreement；Arbitral preliminary proceedings；Arbitrary element；Defence of non-suit；Standard contract；Disputes；Adhesion contract；Non-standardized contractual terms；Freedom of contract；Provision of arbitration involving foreign elements；Claim proceeding；Condition precedent；Compulsory conciliation；Procedural due process；Decision power；Criteria of litigation；Governing law；Autonomy of the parties；Action for setting aside arbitral award；Jurisdiction |
| 英文摘要： |
Arbitration is a procedure that will commence pursuant to the parties’ agreement to deliver their disputes to an arbitrator or arbitrators; in turn, who will then render a fair decision thereof. After an arbitral decision is made, there exist twelve situations that any of the parties may bring an action to set aside the arbitral award in accordance with article 23 of the Commercial Arbitration Statute of Taiwan (currently under article 40 of the new Arbitration Law). Summarizing the cases decided by the Taiwan’s Supreme Court during the past decade, we can find out three most controversial or even self-conflicting issues：1. the problem related to the preliminary requirement preliminary proceedings in the construction project arbitration. The rest of the foregoing issues will have to be addressed in another paper.
In practice, the disputing parties may agree that certain preliminary proceedings be brought before their disputes can be submitted to arbitration. Without the commencement of such preliminary proceedings, the Taiwan courts often consider such violation as a ground for the other party to bring an action to set aside the rendered arbitral award, which has been affirmed by the Taiwan Supreme Court in these years. Categorizing said Supreme Court’s cases can draw to the following conclusion: The party that sues for setting aside the arbitral award by alleging this requirement of preliminary proceedings is the governmental agency, which interesting phenomenon may imply the great potentiality of power abuse; furthermore, when the parties form the contract, said terms and/or requirements are not clearly specified and thus will be subject to construction whenever disputes arise, Consequently, this results in certain uncertainty while application of the agreement is made. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the foregoing requirement procedure can be conceptualized into four categories in order to further analyze and compare same with the FIDIC condition，i.e., what the effect will be if the foregoing condition is not observed；should the doctrine of autonomy of the parties be governing; any applicability of the rule limiting standardized agreement；the observance the due process of law?...The authors seek to respond to the above questions in this article.
Apparently, the most powerful function of the foregoing required proceeding is to facilitate the procedure involved therein. But in substance, rapidity is one of the main features in arbitration. If the arbitration has been recognized, it is redundant to further adopt the preliminary proceedings since the entire arbitral proceedings would be otherwise delayed. As far as the preliminary proceeding is concerned on the aspect of the system level, instead of recognizing same as part of the arbitration proceedings it should be categorized as one element of the arbitration proceedings. The foregoing requirement of preliminary proceeding should be deemed as an arbitrary requirement, which implementation will be solely up to the autonomy of the party; hence, when not observed it is not one of the grounds of action for setting aside arbitral award.Or, its positive function will be sabotaged.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、緒言
貳、仲裁前置程序之概念
參、仲裁前置程序之分類
一、第三人裁決
二、雙方協議
三、行使請求權保全程序（索賠程序）
四、單方決定（混合型）
五、小結
肆、前置程序之效力
一、前置程序本身之效力
二、仲裁前置程序條款之效力
伍、制度機能上之檢討
一、當事人自主原則
二、定型化契約之問題
三、程序正義
四、從迅速之目的所作之檢討
五、妨訴抗辯之效力
陸、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|