論財產事件之國際審判管轄合意

國際審判管轄之約定，有助於當事人預先安排各種訴訟風險，事先決定將來具有審判管轄權之法院，使其具有可預見性、明確性及維持程序安定性。然而，我國實務和學說對於國際審判管轄合意之法律基礎、要件、解釋、和效力，存在歧異見解。為了解決上述問題，本文整理我國實務和學說見解，並參酌歐盟布魯塞爾第1號之1規則、2005年海牙法院管轄合意公約、及2012年日本民事訴訟法修正，從民事訴訟法保障當事人之程序選擇權及弱勢者之程序利益出發，嘗試提出個人見解與建議，期能解決國際審判管轄合意之相關法律爭議，以減少當事人和法院之勞力、時間、費用，及貫徹適時審判請求權之要求。關於我國法院之國際審判管轄合意，在法律基礎方面，民事訴訟法第182條之2第1項但書已明文承認當事人得合意由我國法院審判管轄；另一方面，關於外國法院之國際審判管轄合意，由於國際審判管轄合意亦屬程序選擇契約，與國內合意管轄具有類似性，故得類推適用民事訴訟法第24條加以承認。關於國際審判管轄合意之要件，本文認為除民訴法、勞動事件法合意管轄之相關規定外，不應增加其他非民訴法之要件，例如：約定之外國法院須承認當事人得以合意定管轄法院、該外國法院之判決我國亦承認其效力、合意法院與紛爭需具有關連性等，限制國際審判管轄合意之成立。關於國際審判管轄合意之解釋，本文認為首先應探求當事人之真意，其次在當事人意思表示不明時，在當事人締約能力對等時，原則上應解釋為專屬的審判管轄合意，確保審判管轄權具有可預見性；另一方面，在當事人締約能力不對等時，原則上則應解釋為併存的審判管轄合意，保障弱勢當事人接近使用法院之機會。關於國際審判管轄合意之效力，其客觀範圍，應探求當事人就將來紛爭發生可預見之範圍，判斷本案訴訟是否受合意之效力所及；關於主觀範圍，則得類推適用民事訴訟法第401條規定，判斷第三人是否受合意之效力所及。在立法論上，應修法明文規定國際審判管轄合意之要件及效力，以杜爭議。關於合意之要件，應比照民事訴訟法第24條國內合意管轄規定，並參考民訴法第270條之1第3項但書規定，於合意有「顯失公平」不在此限。關於合意之效力則明定，除當事人明白約定為非專屬管轄者外，否則原則上具有專屬、排他性質。此外，在應保障弱勢當事人（例如：消費者或勞工）之情形，得參酌比較法，在有國際審判管轄合意之情形，不論是否以定型化契約條款成立，皆明文限制當事人得成立合意之時點，或得合意之法院，以保障弱勢當事人平等接近使用法院之機會。最後，就國際審判管轄合意之爭議，因國際審判管轄權之存在為訴訟要件之一，不宜爭執過久，應於程序早期階段盡速處理，以貫徹適時審判請求權之要求，且就上開解釋論之爭議，為避免法律適用之突襲，法院應闡明國際審判管轄合意之審酌要素，給予當事人陳述意見之機會，以保障當事人之實體利益和程序利益。

關鍵字

國際審判管轄合意；國際審判管轄權；程序選擇權；布魯塞爾第1號之1規則；海牙法院管轄合意公約；平成23年法律第36號

並列摘要

In civil and commercial matters, by arranging the benefits and risks of litigation, parties can consent to the international forum-selection clauses in advance to decide which court can resolve the dispute in the future, so that the international judicial jurisdiction can be predictable, and certain. However, under judicial practice and the doctrine in Taiwan, there are several different opinions related to the legal fundament, the validity requirements, interpretation, and effect of an international forum-selection clause. To solve the controversies mentioned above, this thesis attempts to provide personal insights and suggestions from the viewpoints of Code of Civil Procedure, protection of right to procedure options and disadvantaged parties’ procedural interests, through summarizing judicial opinions and the doctrine in Taiwan. By means of a comparative study of Brussels Ia Regulation, the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, and the amendment of Japan Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 36 of 2011), so that parties and the court can decrease the waste of labor, time and costs, and implement the timely trial. In terms of recognizing the legal fundament of an international forum-selection clause, parties can consent to have the subject matter adjudicated by the R.O.C. court under Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure Article 182-2; on the other side, parties can consent to have the subject matter adjudicated by a foreign court by analogy Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure Article 24. In terms of the validity requirements, except for related regulations under Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure and Labor Incident Act, the court should not add other validity elements not included under above-mentioned laws to limit the validity of an international forum-selection clause. In terms of the interpretation, first the real intention of the parties must be sought. When the real intention of the parties is not clear, if the parties have equal bargaining power, the clause should be assumed to have the exclusive effect; on the other hand, if the parties have asymmetric bargaining power, the clause should be assumed to have the non-exclusive effect in order to protect disadvantaged parties’ procedural interests. In terms of the effect, the predictable disputes of the parties must be sought, to determine to what extent the disputes of parties should be objectively bound by the clause. In addition, whether the third parties are bound by the clause or not can be determined by analogy Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure Article 401. This thesis suggests that the amendment of Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure related to an international forum-selection clause in the future should be explicitly stipulate that the validity elements are same as Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure Article 24, the clause is exclusive, and the clause should not be manifestly unfair. However, in order to protect disadvantaged parties’ procedural interests, referring to foreign laws, Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure can be explicitly stipulate the timing that parties can establish an international forum-selection clause, or the court that parties can choose. Finally, regarding to the controversies of the international forum-selection clauses, since the international judicial jurisdiction is one of the requirements of litigation, the court should resolve the related claim as soon as possible in early period of the proceeding, to implement the requirement of timely trial. In addition, in order to prevent surprising judgment resulting, the court shall elucidate which elements will be considered, and may provide opportunities for both parties to state their opinions, so as to protect parties’ substantial and procedural interests.