|
发布时间： 2023-3-7 供稿人：周显峰 争议摘要
最高人民法院《关于审理行政协议案件若干问题的规定》(下称《行政协议司法解释》)于2020年1月1日实施。该司法解释中对行政协议的定义及其对行政协议可仲裁性的否定将如何影响政府与社会资本合作协议(PPP协议)约定的仲裁条款？在本文中，我们将结合2020年北京市第四中级人民法院就某PPP协议的可仲裁性的裁定，对近期相关司法实践进行实证分析。 基本案情 某县人民政府(甲方)与某实业有限公司(乙方)签订国际旅游度假区景区PPP项目协议(下称《PPP协议》)，约定该项目采取政府和社会资本合作(PPP)模式，甲方主要负责项目监管及为乙方提供土地使用权等外部保障条件，乙方须通过注册成立项目公司负责项目的融资、建设、运营等。 2019年，甲方根据《PPP协议》第20.2条约定的仲裁条款，以乙方未在《PPP协议》解除后恢复原状和赔偿损失为由，向某仲裁委员会申请仲裁。此后，乙方向北京市第四中级人民法院请求确认《PPP协议》仲裁条款无效。 乙方主张：根据《行政协议司法解释》第1条，行政机关为了实现行政管理或者公共服务目标，与公民、法人或者其他组织协商订立的具有行政法上权利义务内容的协议，属于《行政诉讼法》规定的行政协议。 根据该规定，《PPP协议》显属行政协议：首先，《PPP协议》约定甲方(某县人民政府)的义务包括：(1)完成项目立项、规划、设计等政府审批手续；(2)负责项目实施范围内的征地拆迁和补偿工作；(3)优先于老城区安排该项目的建设指标；(4)根据项目开发进度、位置及时配置合法用地等义务，这些内容均属于法律授予行政机关的行政管理职权。其次，《PPP协议》所涉开发项目属于大型生态环境保护、旅游度假项目，属于“政府特许经营项目”，具有公共服务属性。由于《PPP协议》属于行政协议，依照《行政协议司法解释》第26条规定，“行政协议约定仲裁条款的，人民法院应当确认该条款无效”。 甲方辩称：(1)《PPP协议》为民事合同，一方主体为行政机关的协议不必然是行政协议，政府在市场交易情形下，与自然人、法人具有平等交易主体资格；(2)《PPP协议》目的是为实现经济价值，而非为实现行政管理，其本质是以财产权益为核心内容构建的等价有偿法律关系；(3)《PPP协议》的内容非双方在行政法上的权利义务，双方之间并不存在行政管理关系，双方的合同是基于等价有偿置于市场交易框架下的行为；(4)《PPP协议》的内容为返还已支付的现金，具有明显的民事纠纷特点。 裁判观点 本案争议焦点包括：(1)《PPP协议》是否属于行政协议；(2)《PPP协议》约定的仲裁条款是否有效。法院认定《PPP协议》属于民事合同，具有可仲裁性，约定仲裁条款有效，理由如下： 第一，《PPP协议》是否属于行政协议，涉案争议是否属于行政争议，应当根据协议的具体内容和当事人的争议事项及仲裁请求进行判断。 第二，从《PPP协议》的内容来看，乙方在订立合同及决定合同内容等方面享有充分的意思自治。协议的签订遵循了平等自愿、等价有偿的原则。有关双方的权利义务和违约赔偿等协议约定体现了当事人协商一致的合意，为当事人设定的是民事权利义务，而非行政法上的权利义务。因此，《PPP协议》的性质应属平等主体之间的民商事协议，而非行政协议。 第三，从甲方向仲裁机构提出的仲裁请求和双方争议事项来看，并未针对行政机关的具体行政行为。就本案纠纷而言，双方当事人处于平等的法律地位，可以提起仲裁解决。因此，本案争议具有可仲裁性，不属于依法应当由行政机关处理的行政争议。 案例简评 在本案中，审理法院将《PPP协议》认定为民商事协议，即并非所有的政府与社会资本合作协议(PPP协议)都属于行政协议，只有符合《行政协议司法解释》第1条规定的PPP协议才属于行政协议。 同时，本案还表明了法院在评判PPP协议是否属于行政协议的思路，即主要从PPP协议的具体内容和当事人的争议事项及仲裁请求这两方面进行判断。PPP协议的具体内容主要看行政机关的相对方是否与行政机关处于平等主体地位，以及合同设立的权利义务是否属于行政法上的权利义务；当事人的争议事项与仲裁请求则主要看是否针对的是行政机关的具体行政行为。 Arbitrability of PPP Agreement and its Relationship with Administrative Agreement On 1 January 2020, Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Agreement Cases came into force. This article examines how the definition of administrative agreements and the denial of their arbitrability will affect the arbitration clause in a public-private partnership (PPP) agreement. Of particular interest is the ruling on the arbitrability of a PPP agreement decided by the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court in 2020. FACTS OF THE CASE The people’s government of a county (Party A) and an industrial limited company (Party B) signed a project agreement for an international tourist resort, agreeing to adopt a PPP model. Party A would be mainly responsible for supervising the project and securing external conditions such as land use rights, while Party B would register and establish a project company responsible for the financing, construction and operation of the project. In 2019, in accordance with article 20.2 of the PPP agreement, Party A sought arbitration on the grounds that Party B had failed to restore the original state and compensate for losses after the cancellation of the agreement. Party B applied to the court to invalidate the arbitration clause under the agreement. Party B argued that according to article 1 of the judicial interpretation, an agreement entered into by an administrative authority with any citizen, legal person or other organisation through negotiation, containing rights and obligations under the administrative laws, to achieve the purposes of administration or public service, would be an administrative agreement under the Administrative Procedure Law. The PPP agreement therefore was an administrative agreement for the following reasons: First, it said that the obligations of Party A included: completion of government approval procedures for the establishment, planning and design of the project; land requisition, relocation and compensation within the scope of the project; arranging the construction index of the project to ensure its smooth development; and allocating the land in a timely and lawful manner based on the progress and location of the project, all of which fall within the functions and powers of the administrative authority granted by the law. Second, the PPP agreement concerned the development of a large-scale eco-environmental tourism and leisure time project, making it a “government concession project” with the nature of public service. Thus, the PPP agreement was an administrative agreement, and according to article 26 of the judicial interpretation, if an administrative agreement stipulates an arbitration clause, it should be deemed invalid. Party A, on the other hand, argued that the PPP agreement was a civil contract. An agreement in which one party is an administrative authority is not necessarily an administrative agreement, and in the case of market transactions, a government would have the same status as any natural or legal person; the agreement had the purpose of realising not administrative management, but economic value, and its essence was to establish an equally-weighted legal relationship focusing on property rights; in terms of content, the agreement did not relate to the parties’ rights and obligations under the administrative laws, and their relationship was not one of administrative management. Their contract, an act under the market transaction framework and the principle of compensation of equal value, ought to be viewed as a civil contract; and the content of the PPP agreement was to return the cash paid, providing the dispute with evident civil characteristics. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Focal points of the dispute included: whether the PPP agreement was an administrative agreement, and the validity of its arbitration clause. In the end, the court determined that the agreement should be a civil contract with arbitrability. Therefore, the arbitration clause shall also be valid. The main reasons were as follows: First, the question of whether the PPP agreement was an administrative one and whether the dispute was administrative should be judged according to the specific contents of the agreement, the disputed matters between the parties, and the arbitration claims. Second, in terms of the content of the PPP agreement, Party B enjoyed full autonomy of will when concluding the agreement and negotiating its clauses. The agreement was executed following the principles of equality, voluntariness, and compensation of equal value. Clauses on the rights and obligations of the parties and compensation for breach of contract demonstrated a consensus reached by the parties through negotiation. Their rights and obligations were of a civil, not administrative nature. Therefore, the PPP agreement was deemed a civil and commercial agreement by and between parties with equal status in nature, rather than an administrative agreement. Third, in terms of the arbitration claims made by Party A to the arbitration institution and the disputed matters between the parties, the application did not target any administrative act of the administrative authority. Regarding the dispute, both parties had equal legal status and may apply for arbitration. Therefore, the dispute was arbitrable and was not a dispute that should be dealt with by the administrative authority in accordance with the law. OBSERVATIONS In this case, the court identified the PPP agreement as a civil and commercial agreement. Therefore, PPP agreements are not necessarily administrative, and only those that conform to the provisions of article 1 of the judicial interpretation shall be deemed as such. The case also revealed the reasoning of the court in determining whether a PPP agreement is administrative. Courts usually make a judgment from two aspects: the specific content of the PPP agreement, and the dispute matters and arbitration claims of the parties. With respect to the former, courts mainly consider whether the administrative authority and its counterparty have an equal status, and whether the rights and obligations established by the agreement fall under the administrative laws. As to the latter, it is crucial to determine whether the disputed matter and arbitration claims target any specific administrative act of the administrative authority. 作者简介 作者 | 北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心仲裁员周显峰 本文刊载于《商法》2022年12月/2023年1月刊。如欲阅读电子版，欢迎浏览《商法》官网 |
|
|
