此外，原告没有在审理期间质疑委员会的管辖权，这一事实不影响原告在 撤销诉讼中援引相同的辩护理由。
In addition, the fact that the claimant did not challenge the board's jurisdiction, during the hearing did not preclude the claimant from invoking the same defence in the setting aside proceedings.
在书面声明中提出缺乏管辖权的辩护理由就足够了。
It was sufficient that the defence of lack of jurisdiction was raised in the written statements.
判例569：《仲裁示范法》第28（1）条；第31（2）条；第35（1）条；第36（1）（a）（四）条；第36（1）（b）（二）条
Case 569: MAL 28 (1); 31 (2); 35 (1); 36 (1) (a) (iv); 36 (1) (b) (ii)
2001年6月8日
8 June 2001
[关键词：适用的法律；仲裁裁决；裁决；法律的选择；执行；公共秩序；程序；公共政策；合理裁决]
[keywords: applicable law; arbitral awards; award; choice of law; enforcement; ordre public; procedure; public policy; reasoned awards]
原告和被告签订的租船合同产生了争议，该合同规定依据设在汉堡的德国海事仲裁协会的规则进行仲裁。
The dispute arose out of a charter-party entered into by the claimant and the respondent, providing for arbitration under the rules of the German Maritime Arbitration Association (GMAA) in Hamburg.
在原告根据基于《仲裁示范法》第35至第36条的《德国民事诉讼法典》第1060条申请宣布对其有利的裁决可以执行时，被告提出几个辩护理由，但全都被驳回。
When the claimant applied to have the award rendered in its favour declared enforceable according to § 1060 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter ZPO), based on articles 35-36 MAL, the respondent raised several defences, all of which were rejected.
法院认为，仲裁庭没有忽视当事人双方选择的法律，因此，不能根据基于《仲裁示范法》第34（2）（a）（四）条的《民事诉讼法典》第1059条第（2）款第1项对裁决提出质疑。
The Court held that the arbitral tribunal did not ignore the law chosen by the parties, and that the award could thus not be challenged pursuant to § 1059 (2) Nr. 1 lit. d ZPO, based on article 34 (2) (a) (iv) MAL.
在显然基于德国法律——这是当事人双方为了管制争议的是非曲直而明确选择的法律——的裁决中仅仅提及英语中的“滞期损害赔偿” 概念并不构成适用不同的法律。
The mere reference to the English concept of “damages for detention” in an award clearly based on German law—which was expressly chosen by the parties to govern the merits of the dispute—did not constitute the application of a different law.
在解释德国法律时依赖外国法律概念不仅是允许的，而且也是仲裁中的常见做法。
The reliance on foreign legal concepts in the interpretation of German law was not only permissible, but also common practice in arbitration.
此外，租船合同本身载有“滞期损害赔偿”词语。
Moreover, the charter-party itself contained the phrase “damages for detention.” Furthermore, state courts must refrain from a revision au fond, i.e. from an examination of the substantial correctness of the application of the law chosen by the parties, their power being limited to verifying whether the said law was applied at all.
进一步讲，州法院决不能revision au fond，即不能审查适用当事人双方选择的法律实质上是否正确，其权力局限于核查该法律是否得到应用。
Moreover, the charter-party itself contained the phrase “damages for detention.” Furthermore, state courts must refrain from a revision au fond, i.e. from an examination of the substantial correctness of the application of the law chosen by the parties, their power being limited to verifying whether the said law was applied at all.
出于同样的理由，法院拒绝能够以据称基于《仲裁示范法》第34（2）（b）（二）条的《民事诉讼法典》第1059条第（2）款第2项b目意义中的公共秩序受到侵犯为由而质疑该裁决。
For the same reasons the Court denied that the award could be challenged on the basis of an alleged infringement of the ordre public in the sense of § 1059 (2) Nr. 2 lit. b ZPO, based on article 34 (2) (b) (ii) MAL.
法院认为，被告的获得审理权没有因为据称在裁决的推理过程中对被告的基本论点讨论得不彻底而受到侵犯。
In the Court's view, the respondent's right to be heard was not infringed through the allegedly incomplete discussion of the respondent's essential arguments in the reasoning of the award.
根据《民事诉讼法典》第1059条第（2）款第1项d目和第2项b目，只有基于《仲裁示范法》第31（2）条的《民事诉讼法典》第1054条第（2）款要求的推理完全缺乏内容、没有意义或与决定相反，换言之，等于完全没有推理，这种辩护理由才可以使用。
According to § 1059 (2) Nr. 1 lit. d and Nr. 2 lit. b ZPO, such a defence is only available where the reasoning as required under § 1054 (2) ZPO, based on article 31 (2) MAL, is totally lacking content, senseless or contrary to the decision, amounting, in other words, to a complete lack of reasoning.
本争议不属于这种情况。
That was not the case in the present dispute.
此外，并没有要求仲裁庭讨论当事人双方提出的所有问题。
The tribunal was not required, in addition, to discuss all issues raised by the parties.
据称令人惊讶的仲裁庭结论没有侵犯《民事诉讼法典》第1059条第（2）款第2项b目意义中的获得审理权。
The alleged surprise findings of the tribunal did not constitute a violation of the right to be heard in the sense of § 1059 (2) Nr. 2 lit. b ZPO.
在仲裁程序中也必须遵守《民事诉讼法典》第139条和第278条第（3）款中规定的通知当事人双方的义务，但这只能取决于当事人双方的协议，或者在仲裁庭处理的论点与诉讼结果相关的情况下，当事人双方对仲裁庭的结果感到惊讶时。
The duty to inform the parties provided for by §§ 139 and 278 (3) ZPO had to be observed also in the arbitral proceedings, but only upon agreement by the parties or if the parties were otherwise surprised by the tribunals findings, to the extent that the arguments dealt with by the tribunal were relevant for the outcome of the proceedings.
现在处理的争议不属于这种情况。
That was not the case in the dispute at hand.
仲裁庭只解释了当事人双方签订的个别协议，并不要求它就其推理事先发出通知。
The arbitral tribunal had only interpreted individual agreements entered into by the parties and it was not required to give prior notice concerning its reasoning.
判例570：《仲裁示范法》第16（1）条；第34（2）（a）（一）条
Case 570: MAL 16 (1); 34 (2) (a) (i)
德国：汉萨同盟高等法院（汉堡）
Germany: Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht (Hamburg)
2002年8月30日
30 August 2002