Delta Law Expat Services Desk ｜ Supreme People's Court 最高人民法院, Guiding Case No. 201, released 2022-12-30
- Case name 案例名称：德拉甘·可可托维奇诉上海恩渥餐饮管理有限公司、吕恩劳务合同纠纷案 (Dragan Kokotovic v. Shanghai Enwo Catering Management Co., Ltd. and Lu En, services contract dispute)
- Case number 案例编号：最高人民法院指导性案例 201 号，审判委员会讨论通过，2022 年 12 月 27 日发布
- Effective judgment 生效裁判：一审（2020）沪 0104 民初 1814 号，上海市徐汇区人民法院；二审（2020）沪 01 民终 3346 号，上海市第一中级人民法院
- Keywords 关键词：民事/劳务合同/《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》/国际单项体育组织/仲裁协议效力
- Provisions cited officially 官方载明的相关法条：《中华人民共和国涉外民事法律关系适用法》第 18 条；《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》第 1 条第 1 款、第 2 款（官方写法照录）
- Why this case 为什么选它：『我的合同写着争议归一个境外机构管，我在中国还有没有地方说理？』——这是外籍雇员、教练、顾问、独立承包人最常问的一句。官方发布文本载明本案原告为塞尔维亚籍教练员，一审、二审均由上海法院审理，并经最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过发布为指导性案例。
1. The facts as officially published 基本案情
2017年1月23日，上海聚运动足球俱乐部有限公司（以下简称聚运动公司）与原告塞尔维亚籍教练员Dragan Kokotovic(中文名：德拉甘·可可托维奇)签订《职业教练工作合同》，约定德拉甘·可可托维奇作为职业教练为聚运动公司名下的足球俱乐部提供教练方面的劳务。2017年7月1日，双方签订《解除合同协议》，约定《职业教练工作合同》自当日终止，聚运动公司向德拉甘·可可托维奇支付剩余工资等款项。
On 2017-01-23 a Shanghai football club company signed a professional coaching contract with the claimant, a Serbian coach, who was to supply coaching services to the club. On 2017-07-01 the two sides signed a termination agreement ending the coaching contract that day, with the club to pay the coach the balance of the wages and other sums due.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
因聚运动公司未按照约定支付相应款项，德拉甘·可可托维奇向球员身份委员会申请解决案涉争议。球员身份委员会于2018年6月5日作出《单一法官裁决》，要求聚运动公司自收到该裁决通知之日起30日内向德拉甘·可可托维奇支付剩余工资等款项。……之后，聚运动公司变更为上海恩渥餐饮管理有限公司（以下简称恩渥公司），吕恩为其独资股东及法定代表人。……恩渥公司和吕恩在提交答辩状期间对人民法院受理该案提出异议，认为根据《解除合同协议》第5.2条约定，案涉争议应当提交国际体育仲裁院仲裁，人民法院无管辖权，请求裁定对德拉甘·可可托维奇的起诉不予受理。
When the club did not pay, the coach applied to the sports body's internal committee, which issued a single-judge decision on 2018-06-05 ordering payment within thirty days of notice. The club was later converted into a catering management company whose sole shareholder and legal representative was an individual. During the period for filing a defence, the company and that individual objected to the court taking the matter, arguing that clause 5.2 sent the dispute to sports arbitration and that the court had no jurisdiction.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
Two features of the sequence matter to any foreign national holding a similar contract. The dispute-resolution wording was two-tier: an industry body first, and an offshore arbitral institution only where that body had no jurisdiction. And the counterparty changed identity between the decision and the suit. Neither feature is unusual in coaching, consultancy or independent-contractor arrangements signed with a Chinese entity.
It is worth being precise about what the foreign claimant already held before coming to court: a written decision from the industry body, obtained through the very procedure the contract pointed to, ordering payment within a fixed period. What the coach did not hold was anything a Chinese court could execute. That gap — a favourable outcome offshore, no enforceable title onshore — is the practical problem the published case addresses, and it is the same gap faced by any expatriate who wins before a professional association, a trade body or an internal grievance panel abroad and then discovers the money sits with an entity in China.
The change of corporate identity deserves a second look as well. The published facts record a conversion of the original club company into a catering management company held by a single individual. Nothing in the official text suggests the claim was thereby extinguished; the action proceeded against the renamed company and against that individual as a co-defendant. For contract drafting, the lesson is narrow but useful: identify the counterparty by unified social credit code rather than by trading name, and keep the corporate registry extract you relied on at signing.
2. The official holding 裁判要旨（官方原文）
1.国际单项体育组织内部纠纷解决机构作出的纠纷处理决定不属于《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》项下的外国仲裁裁决。
2.当事人约定，发生纠纷后提交国际单项体育组织解决，如果国际单项体育组织没有管辖权则提交国际体育仲裁院仲裁，该约定不存在准据法规定的无效情形的，应认定该约定有效。国际单项体育组织实际行使了管辖权，涉案争议不符合当事人约定的提起仲裁条件的，人民法院对涉案争议依法享有司法管辖权。
Point 1: a dispute decision made by the internal dispute-resolution organ of an international single-sport body is not a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention. Point 2: where the parties agree to submit disputes to that body first and to sports arbitration only if the body lacks jurisdiction, the agreement is valid absent a ground of invalidity under the governing law; but where the body has in fact exercised jurisdiction and the dispute therefore does not meet the agreed condition for commencing arbitration, the people's court has judicial jurisdiction over it.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
上海市徐汇区人民法院于2020年1月21日作出（2020）沪0104民初1814号民事裁定，驳回德拉甘·可可托维奇的起诉。……上海市第一中级人民法院经审理，并依据《最高人民法院关于仲裁司法审查案件报核问题的有关规定》第八条规定层报上海市高级人民法院、最高人民法院审核，于2022年6月29日作出（2020）沪01民终3346号民事裁定，一、撤销上海市徐汇区人民法院（2020）沪0104民初1814号民事裁定；二、本案指令上海市徐汇区人民法院审理。
……现球员身份委员会已经受理案涉争议并作出《单一法官裁决》，即本案争议已由国际足联行使了管辖权。因此，本案不符合案涉仲裁条款所约定的将争议提交国际体育仲裁院进行仲裁的条件，该仲裁条款不适用于本案，不能排除一审法院作为被告住所地人民法院行使管辖权。
The first-instance court dismissed the action on 2020-01-21. The appellate court, after reporting the arbitration-agreement question upward for review under article 8 of the Supreme People's Court provisions on reporting arbitration judicial-review cases, set that ruling aside on 2022-06-29 and directed the first-instance court to hear the matter. Its reasoning: because the sports body had already accepted and decided the dispute, the agreed condition for going to sports arbitration was not met, so the arbitration clause did not apply and did not displace the jurisdiction of the court at the defendant's domicile.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
The holding turns on a distinction that is easy to miss when reading a contract: whether the clause is valid, and whether the clause is engaged. The official reasoning answers the first question yes and the second question no. Validity was assessed under Swiss law because the clause named no governing law of its own; engagement failed on the facts because the industry body had already taken the matter.
Read as a rule rather than as a result, that gives a two-step reading order for any offshore dispute clause a foreign national signs in China. Step one asks which law decides whether the clause is good at all, and the answer is not automatically the law chosen for the contract as a whole. Step two asks whether the clause, assumed good, actually reaches the dispute in front of you — which depends on any condition the parties themselves wrote into it. A clause that routes disputes to forum B only where forum A lacks competence is a conditional clause, and the condition has to be tested against what actually happened, not against what the parties expected to happen.
The appellate route is also instructive. The official text records that the arbitration-agreement question was reported upward through the provincial high court to the Supreme People's Court before the appellate ruling issued. A foreign party should therefore expect a jurisdictional fight of this kind to take real time, and should plan limitation periods and any preservation application on that assumption rather than on the timetable of an ordinary first-instance case.
3. Practical guidance 律师实务提示
First, the timing gate. Under 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十八条, a party who raises no jurisdictional objection and instead files a defence on the merits or a counterclaim is treated as having accepted the court's jurisdiction. The objection window is the period for filing the defence — the official release records that 本案 the defendants raised theirs 「在提交答辩状期间」. Miss it and the argument is spent, however strong the clause.
Second, the evidence you need to show that an offshore body's decision is not an arbitral award. Three items, assembled before you file: the body's own statutes and procedural rules; the decision itself, showing whether an appeal lies elsewhere; and material on how the decision is enforced. The official reasoning worked from exactly that kind of material — it cites 该案 「依据国际足联《球员身份和转会管理条例》第22条、第23条第4款之规定」.
Third, the boundary. A valid clause and an operative clause are separate questions. Where a clause has a condition precedent, check whether the condition has been satisfied before assuming a Chinese court is closed to you; the official reasoning found 本案 「不符合案涉仲裁条款所约定的将争议提交国际体育仲裁院进行仲裁的条件」. Where the clause names no governing law, validity is assessed under the law identified by 《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十八条 — the official release names that article as one of its 相关法条, writing the statute's name in a different word order. Draft accordingly: name the governing law of the clause itself.
4. What this means in your situation 把要点落到你的处境
第二百七十八条 当事人未提出管辖异议，并应诉答辩或者提出反诉的，视为人民法院有管辖权。
Article 278: where a party raises no objection to jurisdiction and files a defence on the merits or a counterclaim, the people's court is deemed to have jurisdiction.
Unofficial translation; the Chinese text as officially published prevails.
| What the official release holds | What it controls procedurally | What it means for you |
|---|---|---|
| An internal decision of a sports body is not a New York Convention award | Whether recognition and enforcement rules apply at all | Holding such a decision does not by itself give you an enforceable title in China |
| The clause was valid but its condition was not met | Whether the clause displaces the court | Read the condition precedent before concluding you cannot sue |
| Validity assessed under the law of the seat where the clause names none | Which system decides the clause's fate | Name the law governing the clause, not only the law governing the contract |
| Objection raised during the period for filing the defence | Whether the objection survives | Diarise the defence deadline the day service is effected |
- Misconception: a decision from a well-known international body is enforceable in China the way a foreign arbitral award is. In fact: the official 裁判要点 states that 官方案例 such a decision 「不属于《承认及执行外国仲裁裁决公约》项下的外国仲裁裁决」.
- Misconception: if the contract mentions offshore arbitration, a Chinese court will refuse the case. In fact: the official reasoning held the clause valid yet inapplicable, because 该案 「已由国际足联行使了管辖权」.
- Misconception: the counterparty changing its name and business wipes out the claim. In fact: the official 基本案情 records that 本案 「聚运动公司变更为上海恩渥餐饮管理有限公司」 and the proceedings continued against the renamed company and its sole shareholder.
- Misconception: you can raise jurisdiction whenever it suits you. In fact: 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十八条 ties the point to the defence period; the official release records the objection was made 「在提交答辩状期间」.
- ① 最高人民法院指导性案例 201 号《德拉甘·可可托维奇诉上海恩渥餐饮管理有限公司、吕恩劳务合同纠纷案》，最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过，2022 年 12 月 27 日发布，官网发布时间 2022-12-30，官方页 https://www.court.gov.cn/shenpan/xiangqing/384791.html 。
- ② 生效裁判：一审上海市徐汇区人民法院（2020）沪 0104 民初 1814 号；二审上海市第一中级人民法院（2020）沪 01 民终 3346 号。均为官方发布文本载明。
- ③ 本页引用：《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十八条，依《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于修改〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的决定》（2023 年 9 月 1 日第十四届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第五次会议通过，自 2024 年 1 月 1 日起施行）增加，现行有效，官方页 http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc/c2/c30834/202309/t20230901_431419.html 。
- Status and timing note 效力与时点提示：本案为最高人民法院指导性案例，依《最高人民法院关于案例指导工作的规定》发布，各级人民法院审判类似案件时应当参照；in English, a guiding case shall be referred to by courts at all levels when trying similar cases. 停止参照名单已核，核验日未见任何停止参照公告。《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十八条与《最高人民法院关于仲裁司法审查案件报核问题的有关规定》第八条系官方发布文本自身载明的条号，本页照其出处引述，未另取该两份文件的官方全文页；官方页对前者的名称写法为《中华人民共和国涉外民事法律关系适用法》，本页 .src 框内照录不订正。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百七十八条系官方发布文本未涉及的现行规则，本页仅作时点提示，不是本案的裁判依据。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。
