Delta Law Expat Services Desk ｜ Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院, typical case batch released 2026-04-16
- Case name 案例名称：丹麦某公司与福建某企业申请承认与执行国际行业协会仲裁裁决案 (application by a Danish company for recognition and enforcement of a trade association arbitral award against a Fujian enterprise)
- Case number 案例编号：最高人民法院《第三批涉外商事海事调解典型案例》案例三，2026 年 4 月 16 日发布，本批共 6 件
- Effective judgment 生效裁判：官方发布文本未载明案号；官方载明受理法院为福建省福州市中级人民法院
- Keywords 关键词：官方案例标题载明「精准查明域外法律，实现仲裁与调解的有机衔接」
- Provisions cited officially 官方载明的相关法条：官方发布文本只载明适用《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》（官方案例文本简称《纽约公约》）与仲裁地英国的法律，未载明任何中国国内法条号；本页所引条号均为现行规则提示
- Why this case 为什么选它：Foreign claimants ask two separate questions about a Chinese enforcement file: will the award be recognised, and how much of the money will actually arrive. This published case answers the second one, with figures.
1. The facts as officially published 基本案情
2019年，丹麦某公司与福建某企业签订协议，约定由福建某企业向丹麦某公司供应500吨秘鲁粗鱼油。后因福建某企业无法提供符合合同约定标准的货物，遂将丹麦某公司已支付的货款全额退还。2020年，丹麦某公司以福建某企业未能履行合同为由，向合同约定的国际油、油籽和油脂协会（FOSFA）提起仲裁申请，要求福建某企业赔偿货物差价及利息等损失。2023年3月，该协会在英国伦敦裁决福建某企业需向丹麦某公司支付41.95万美元的违约损害赔偿金及利息，并承担全部裁决费用。由于福建某企业未履行裁决义务，2024年6月，丹麦某公司依据《纽约公约》，向福建省福州市中级人民法院申请承认和执行该仲裁裁决。
In 2019 a Danish company and a Fujian enterprise agreed that the enterprise would supply 500 tonnes of Peruvian crude fish oil. The enterprise was unable to supply goods meeting the contract standard and returned the price the Danish company had paid, in full. In 2020 the Danish company commenced arbitration before the Federation of Oils, Seeds and Fats Associations (FOSFA), the forum named in the contract, claiming the price difference on the goods and interest. In 2023-03 the association issued an award in London requiring the enterprise to pay USD 419,500 in damages for breach plus interest and to bear all the costs of the award. The enterprise did not perform, and in 2024-06 the Danish company applied to the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court in Fujian Province for recognition and enforcement of the award under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Look at the timeline before anything else. On the official account the agreement was signed in 2019, arbitration was commenced in 2020, the award was issued in 2023-03, and the enforcement application was filed in 2024-06. The official text does not record when performance broke down. What it does record is a span of roughly five years between the agreement and the courthouse door in China, none of which had yet produced a payment.
Look also at what the seller had already done: it returned the price in full. The arbitration was therefore not about recovering the money paid but about the difference in the price of the goods and the interest — a claim that is real, but smaller and more arguable than a debt claim. A claimant in that position is carrying a long file, a modest principal sum and a counterparty that has already shown it will not pay voluntarily.
2. The official holding 裁判要旨（官方原文）
一是以“专业”立信，精准查明并适用英国法。本案为承认与执行外国仲裁裁决案件，需适用《纽约公约》及仲裁地英国的法律，判断仲裁程序是否合法、仲裁裁决应否承认与执行。为此，当事人委托英国法律专家就英国《1996年仲裁法》、FOSFA仲裁规则出具法律意见书。合议庭为准确理解与适用域外法律，线上咨询外国法律专家意见，明晰仲裁程序的合法性问题。
First, establishing credibility through expertise by ascertaining and applying English law precisely. The case concerned recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, requiring application of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards and of the law of England as the seat, in order to judge whether the arbitral procedure was lawful and whether the award should be recognised and enforced. The parties instructed English legal experts to give a legal opinion on the English Arbitration Act 1996 and the FOSFA arbitration rules. To understand and apply the foreign law accurately, the panel additionally consulted foreign law experts online and clarified the question of the lawfulness of the arbitral procedure.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Two routes to foreign law were used at once: an expert opinion procured by the parties, and a separate consultation by the panel. For a foreign claimant that is a useful signal about where the work sits. The award is your document, but the lawfulness of the procedure that produced it is a question of the law of the seat, and it will be examined on material that someone has to supply.
三是以“共赢”息争，架起从对抗走向合作的桥梁。合议庭向丹麦某公司充分释明“承认裁决≠强制对抗”的司法导向，积极传递福建某企业的切实履约诚意。丹麦某公司被中国法院的专业精神与福建某企业的真诚态度所打动，同意将赔偿金额从41万余美元降至28万余美元，福建某企业当即全额支付和解款项，丹麦某公司向人民法院撤回申请，福建某企业从FOSFA“失信公告”名单移除，双方合作关系得以修复。
Third, ending the dispute through mutual benefit and building a bridge from confrontation to cooperation. The panel explained to the Danish company the judicial approach that recognition of an award is not the same thing as coercive confrontation, and conveyed the Fujian enterprise's genuine willingness to perform. The Danish company agreed to reduce the compensation from over USD 410,000 to over USD 280,000; the enterprise paid the settlement sum in full immediately; the Danish company withdrew its application to the court; the enterprise was removed from the FOSFA list of publicly announced defaulters; and the commercial relationship between the two was repaired.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
本案为承认与执行外国仲裁裁决案件。人民法院秉持案结事了的司法理念，从“程序审查者”到“纠纷终结者”的身份转变，主动组织双方开展调解，不仅助力国内民营企业修复国际商誉、轻装上阵，也高效保障外方当事人的合法权益，实现双方利益的平衡共赢。
The published note records the case as one of recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, in which the court moved from the role of reviewer of the procedure to that of terminator of the dispute, organising mediation on its own initiative, helping the domestic private enterprise repair its international commercial reputation while efficiently protecting the lawful rights and interests of the foreign party.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
The published figures are the part worth studying. A reduction from over USD 410,000 to over USD 280,000 is roughly a third of the claim given up. In exchange, on the official account, the claimant received immediate payment of the settlement sum in full, the withdrawal of a file opened in 2024-06, and the removal of the counterparty from a trade association's list of publicly announced defaulters.
That last point is the commercially interesting one. The default listing was not a remedy obtained from any court; the official text records it as a listing held by the industry body. Whatever weight it carried here, a listing of that kind operates on a counterparty's ability to trade in future rather than only on its balance sheet today, which is why it is worth identifying and pricing before a negotiation rather than during one.
3. Practical guidance 律师实务提示
Know what withdrawing an application does and does not cost you. Under 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三百零四条, an award made outside China is recognised and enforced by an intermediate people's court on application, handled under the treaties China has concluded or acceded to, or on the basis of reciprocity. Withdrawal ends that application; it does not cancel the award. A claimant who settles for less is trading time and enforcement risk, not the underlying right — and that framing is worth stating expressly in the settlement document.
Budget for proving the lawfulness of the seat procedure, not just for filing the award. The official account records expert material on the law of the seat coming from two directions at once. Treat an opinion on the seat's arbitration statute and on the institutional rules as a normal line item in a China enforcement budget rather than as a contingency, and prepare it before filing rather than after a challenge.
Price the non-monetary lever. A trade association default listing, a supplier blacklist or an industry announcement often matters more to the counterparty than the last tranche of cash. If you intend to give it up, make its release simultaneous with payment and record both in the same instrument, so that neither side performs first on trust.
Finally, keep the treaty point in view. 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十一条 provides that where an international treaty China has concluded or acceded to differs from that Law, the treaty applies, save for provisions on which China has declared a reservation. Neither provision was cited in the official release; both are set out here as current rules, and the scope of any reservation is a question to check on the facts of your own award.
4. What this means in your situation 把要点落到你的处境
第二百七十一条 中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约同本法有不同规定的，适用该国际条约的规定，但中华人民共和国声明保留的条款除外。
第三百零四条 在中华人民共和国领域外作出的发生法律效力的仲裁裁决，需要人民法院承认和执行的，当事人可以直接向被执行人住所地或者其财产所在地的中级人民法院申请。被执行人住所地或者其财产不在中华人民共和国领域内的，当事人可以向申请人住所地或者与裁决的纠纷有适当联系的地点的中级人民法院申请。人民法院应当依照中华人民共和国缔结或者参加的国际条约，或者按照互惠原则办理。
Article 271: where an international treaty concluded or acceded to by China provides differently from this Law, the treaty applies, except for provisions on which China has declared a reservation. Article 304: where an arbitral award made outside China and having legal effect needs to be recognised and enforced by a people's court, the party may apply directly to the intermediate people's court of the place where the person against whom enforcement is sought is domiciled or where that person's property is located; where neither the domicile nor the property is within China, the party may apply to the intermediate people's court of the place where the applicant is domiciled or of a place having an appropriate connection with the dispute; the people's court handles the matter in accordance with the international treaties China has concluded or acceded to, or on the basis of reciprocity.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
| What the official release records | What it turns on | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| Recognition and enforcement sought under the Convention | The treaty route, not domestic review of the merits | Prepare for a procedural examination, not a rehearing |
| Foreign law ascertained through two routes at once | Evidence about the law of the seat | Budget an opinion on the seat's statute and the institutional rules before filing |
| Compensation reduced from over USD 410,000 to over USD 280,000 | Time, collectability and reputation | Model the discount you would accept for immediate payment, before mediation starts |
| Payment in full, then withdrawal of the application | Sequence of performance | Tie release of the application to receipt of funds, not to a promise |
| Removal from the trade association default list | A non-monetary lever held by a third body | Do not surrender it separately or early; it is often the strongest term you hold |
- Misconception: a foreign award has to be re-litigated on the merits in China. In fact: the official 调解方法及结果 records that in 本案 the question was 「判断仲裁程序是否合法、仲裁裁决应否承认与执行」.
- Misconception: the court will find the foreign law for you. In fact: the official text records that in 该案 「当事人委托英国法律专家就英国《1996年仲裁法》、FOSFA仲裁规则出具法律意见书」, with the panel consulting experts in addition.
- Misconception: accepting less means the enforcement application failed. In fact: the official 典型意义 records that in 本案 the court moved 「从“程序审查者”到“纠纷终结者”」, and the reduced sum was paid in full immediately.
- Misconception: reputational listings are outside the negotiation. In fact: the official 调解方法及结果 records that in 该案 「福建某企业从FOSFA“失信公告”名单移除」 formed part of the outcome.
- The Chinese rules that apply to you
- Published cases involving foreign nationals
- Money, investment and tax for foreign nationals in China
- A Portuguese Shipowner Sued for Salvage in a Chinese Court: Language, Participation and the Bill (forthcoming in this batch)
- A Contract That Lived Only in WeChat: How a Bangladeshi Buyer Got the Money Back in Nanning (forthcoming in this batch)
- ① 最高人民法院《第三批涉外商事海事调解典型案例》案例三《丹麦某公司与福建某企业申请承认与执行国际行业协会仲裁裁决案》，2026 年 4 月 16 日发布，本批共 6 件，官方页 https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/497661.html 。
- ② 生效裁判：官方发布文本未载明案号；官方载明受理法院为福建省福州市中级人民法院，当事人只写「丹麦某公司」「福建某企业」，本页照录。
- ③ 本页引用《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十一条、第三百零四条。两条均为官方发布文本未涉及的现行规则，本页仅作提示，不是本案的裁判依据。依 2023 年 9 月 1 日通过、2024 年 1 月 1 日施行的修正合并本，官方页 http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/886331ece0f6611a370642e89f08c6.html 。
- ④ 《承认和执行外国仲裁裁决公约》：本页照录官方发布文本所用的简称《纽约公约》。本页未取得该公约的中文官方全文页，故只按官方案例文本转述其被适用这一事实，不引该公约任何条号。
- Status and timing note 效力与时点提示：本案为最高人民法院发布的典型案例，供审判参考，不具有指导性案例的参照效力；in English, it is published for reference and does not carry the effect of a guiding case. 官方发布文本未载明中国国内法条号，本页所引条号一律为现行规则提示。金额表述照录官方文本「从41万余美元降至28万余美元」，本页不自行换算精确差额。程序性事项 subject to the current published requirements of the accepting authority。
- 本页案例引自官方公开发布，非本所承办案件展示，不构成对具体个案的法律意见。This case is drawn from an official public release and is not a showcase of matters handled by this firm, and does not constitute legal advice on any specific case.
This article is general legal research and does not constitute legal advice; by law, a law firm may not guarantee case outcomes. 本文为一般性法律研究，不构成法律意见；依据法律规定，律所不得承诺办案结果。
