全国首例！上海国际商事法庭开具调查令支持国际仲裁临时措施

查看更多请点击栏目图片

2025年5月14日，上海国际商事法庭经审查，依法支持上海国际经济贸易仲裁委员会（上海国际仲裁中心）提交的一项以仲裁庭临时措施为依据的调查取证申请，并开具调查令协助仲裁调取证据。该案为全国法院首次以调查令形式支持国际商事仲裁临时措施，彰显上海法院对国际仲裁的协同保障作用。

本案涉及一家中国香港公司与一家外国公司、一家中国江西公司的跨境数据服务合同纠纷。仲裁争议核心在于，需通过识别各方交易代表人身份，判定合同是否在当事人之间成立。由于交易代表人信息仅系微信号，当事人无法自行查证账号注册信息等资料，故向仲裁庭提出调查取证申请。仲裁机构向第三方出具协助调查函，但遭拒，导致取证受阻，案件审理陷入僵局。

依据上海国际仲裁中心《仲裁规则》中有关国际仲裁临时措施规定，仲裁庭经审查认为该申请调查的信息系该案关键证据，对于案件事实认定具有重要作用，遂正式作出临时措施（Interim Measures）决定，同意申请人的调查取证申请，并由仲裁机构通过上海法院国际商事“一站式”平台向上海国际商事法庭提出调查令申请，并随附仲裁庭决定和当事人有关材料。

上海国际商事法庭经审查认为：第一，申请协助调查的证据与案件具有关联性，系案涉仲裁纠纷的必要证据；第二，当事人及仲裁庭经过努力与尝试均不能自行收集该项证据；第三，仲裁庭按照仲裁规则及国际商事仲裁通行做法作出的临时措施决定符合正当程序，且仲裁庭根据审理仲裁案件的情况就是否采取临时措施提出的意见，可以作为人民法院审查开具调查令的重要参考。

据此，上海国际商事法庭经审查后，根据《上海市高级人民法院关于开具调查令协助仲裁调查取证的办法（试行）》的相关规定开具了调查令，以协助仲裁当事人调查取证。

临时措施是国际商事仲裁的基本制度之一，是指在仲裁程序开始之前或进行期间，为了防止当事人转移财产、毁灭证据等不当行为出现，由仲裁庭采取的临时性保护措施，包括财产保全、证据保全和行为保全等类型。临时措施对于保障仲裁程序有序开展、准确查明事实，保障仲裁裁决执行意义重大。由当事人就审理中无法自行调取的重要证据向仲裁庭申请作出临时措施，是国际仲裁的通行做法。在最新的营商环境评估指标体系中，世界银行也明确将“法律框架是否允许法院命令采取临时措施以支持仲裁”作为全球营商环境的“最佳实践”。

为推进仲裁友好型法治环境建设，作为对标世行对中国开展新一轮营商环境评估的专家调查样本城市，上海于2023年出台《上海市推进国际商事仲裁中心建设条例》（以下简称《条例》）。该《条例》第二十一条规定，当事人可以向仲裁庭申请临时措施，仲裁庭可以根据仲裁案件情况提出意见后提交有管辖权的本市人民法院，由人民法院依法审查后作出裁定并执行。

上海国际商事法庭通过对以仲裁庭临时措施为依据的调查取证申请的审查并签发调查令，正是对上述条例规定的具体实施。

相比以往仲裁庭向法院转交当事人申请，仲裁庭的临时措施决定可以作为仲裁庭意见，有助于法院快速全面了解案情，进而对是否准予申请作出判定。通过这种方式，也将以《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》（UNCITRAL MODEL LAW）为代表的国际仲裁规则中“法院协助取证”（Court Assistance in Taking Evidence）的内容转化为可操作的国内司法程序，实现了仲裁司法保障措施与国际仲裁通行做法有效衔接。

这一实践不仅为同类案件提供了可复制的解决路径，也通过规范、透明的审查机制，促进了仲裁与司法的良性互动。

人民法院参考仲裁庭作出的临时措施决定对当事人的调查取证或证据保全申请进行审查，体现了对国际仲裁的友好态度，有利于提高仲裁司法审查质量和效率，增强国际商事主体对上海法治化营商环境的信心，以高水平司法保障助力打造面向全球的亚太仲裁中心。

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.