國際契約訴訟事件之債務履行地管轄－兼論國際裁判管轄之定性

國際裁判管轄權之決定，特別是針對特別管轄權，係依照法律關係的類型來決定於法庭地國之間的關聯性，準此，繫屬中的涉外民事訴訟之國際裁判管轄權基礎，倘非基於被告住所地國之一般管轄權，而係以特別管轄權為根據時，即有判斷法律關係性質之必要，換言之，在決定國際裁判管轄的階段，亦有進行定性之必要。原則上，國際裁判管轄定性之基準，應該依照國際民事訴訟法上獨自的概念決定之，而與國內法上的概念有所區隔。何謂國際民事訴訟上之「因契約涉訟」？國際民事訴訟上之「因契約涉訟」應與「因侵權涉訟」嚴格區分，凡對於非因當事人之約定而生之法定債務，均不應包括在「因契約涉訟」的概念之內。惟所謂國際民事訴訟上之「因契約涉訟」，仍應針對其適用之對象與射程範圍之限制，進行體系性的檢討。此外，涉外契約之國際裁判管轄，其適用的對象，不問契約上作為或不作為義務，亦不問訴訟提起的類型，對於給付、確認與形成訴訟皆有適用。亦包括契約究竟是否成立之爭執在內。惟其射程範圍，不包括因侵權行為所生之損害賠償債務，對於因債務不履行而轉化之損害賠償債務亦應有所限制，只有在當事人同時請求履行原來之契約債務時，始得在契約債務之履行地法院起訴。國際裁判管轄的決定，應依照當事人之間的公平、裁判的正當與程序的迅速等國際民事訴訟法上的法理決定之。於國際契約中倘若當事人之間訂有履行地之合意時，要無否定合意效力之特別情事時，應尊重當事人的合意。惟當事人之間無履行地之合意時，其履行地的決定應該依照現為國際社會的公約與國內立法所廣泛採用之「特徵性給付理論」，以當事人雙務契約中非金錢債務之一方債務為其特徵性之給付，質言之，於物之交易時，以物之給付地為履行地；交易內容為服務之提供時，則以服務的提供地為其履行地，由該地的法院具有國際裁判管轄權。又國際契約管轄與國際侵權行為管轄一樣，學理上稱之為管轄原因和本案請求原因事實競合之管轄類型。當法院之國際裁判管轄權基礎為此類型時，不應完全依照原告訴訟上之主張來判斷管轄權之有無，應要求原告對管轄原因事實之存在，負一定程度之舉證責任。法院決定管轄，固然應該依照原告所主張之事實為基礎，惟其所涉者究竟為何種法律關係，仍應由法院依照職權決定之，而非照單全收原告之主張，以避免原告之國際濫訴，導致法院不當之國際管轄，造成被告之國際應訴負擔。

關鍵字

國際契約管轄；涉外契約管轄；契約債務之履行地；特徵性給付理論；國際民事訴訟法；國際裁判管轄；法律關係的性質決定；本案原因事實與管轄原因事實的競合；管轄原因事實的舉證責任； 1968年布魯塞爾公約； 2001年布魯塞爾規則I

並列摘要

The main jurisdictional principle in Taiwanese Civil Procedure Law, protecting the defendant by forcing the plaintiff to bring the action in the defendant's forum domicilii, is subject to some important exceptions. Those exceptions give the plaintiff the option, to sue the defendant in the court of another forum other than his domicile. The base of jurisdiction used by special jurisdiction involve connections between the cause of action and the court on which jurisdiction is conferred. This jurisdictional principle applies both to the domestic and international jurisdiction to adjudicate.This freedom of plaintiff's choice is introduced in view of the existence in a particularly close relationship between a dispute and the court which may be most conveniently called upon to take cognizance of the matter. For example, Article 12 of Taiwanese Civil Procedure Law confers jurisdiction 'in matters relating to a contract' on 'the courts for the place of performance of the obligation'. This applies to contract in general.The concept of contractual dispute (”in matters relation to a contract”) should be interpreted autonomously on the principles of international civil procedure rules and does not depend on whether the relationship is classified as contractual in the domestic law. This means that there can be neither gaps nor overlapping between tort and contract. The classification of International jurisdiction on tort should be interoperated as a non-contractual liability.In ECJ case law, the place of performance has to be determined according to the private law referred to by the choice of law rules of the forum (Tessili Rule). However, the application of Tessili rule to a contract involving different obligations could result into a split of competence. This essay argues that to determine the place of performance on jurisdictional issue, it shall be presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the country where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract.