康达业绩 | 本所周争平律师受中国客户委托联合意大利律师在米兰民事法院最终赢得一场国际经销及服务合同纠纷案

 “If the Regulation is not applicable, the question of the jurisdiction of the court seized must be resolved according to the principles of the lex fori (CJEC, 2000, Group Josi; recital 14 of the Regulation).”

    意大利国际私法制度（Law no. 218/1995）中民商事纠纷以被告住所地具有管辖权为原则。而合同纠纷中“被告住所地”的界定问题，又涉及到《布鲁塞尔法规》第7条特别规定，即合同纠纷可以由合同履行地法院管辖。但“合同履行地”的认定将根据合同性质为货物销售合同（"sale of goods"）还是服务提供合同（"provision of services" ）也会有所不同。根据欧洲法院的判例法，本案中双方的经销合同属于服务提供合同，应由合同服务应被提供地的法院管辖，即香港，而非意大利的法院。

 “....in the case of the provision of services, the place of performance consists of the place where the services should have been provided, identifiable according to the provisions of the contract, or, failing that, from the place of performance of the contract, or, again failing that, from the domicile of the supplier (CJEU, 2018, Saey Home & Garden).

    In the case in point, it should be repeated that EVA has its registered office in Hong Kong and has no permanent representative in Italy authorized to represent it in court pursuant to art. 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, in the absence of the applicability of the general criterion, the special criteria apply, including the forum for contractual obligations. As stated above, the writer considers preferable a hermeneutical option that qualifies the distribution contract under consideration as a provision of services and the place where the services should have been provided is Hong Kong, where the defendant is based, which should have provided, with exclusive rights, the distribution of the goods delivered.”

本案很好地体现了中国企业在面临国际仲裁或诉讼时，中外两地律师相互搭配与合作能够更好地维护客户的利益，达到理想的诉讼或仲裁结果。若完全依赖于外国律师，企业应诉的时间成本、沟通成本和经济成本都相对较高，效果还不明显；而中国律师+国外律师的组合，则能够更好地把握服务质量、提高服务效率。一方面，中国律师作为案件负责人和联系人，既可以精准理解和传递客户的要求、指令，同时也可以监督国外律师的服务质量，从而保证客户要求严格执行到位。另一方面，中国律师可以协助外国律师进行翻译与整理材料等工作，共同协商诉讼策略。国外律师既对客户负责、也对中国律师这一合作伙伴负责，且中国律师也对客户负责，不仅大大减少了诉讼成本，而且两地律师一同更好地为实现客户权益保驾护航，这样的模式将更有助于推进案件代理、取得圆满结果。

通过本案我们不难看出，中国律师在国际争议解决中的作用不容忽视，中国律师与外国律师的协同合作模式也将是企业寻求纠纷解决法律服务时的更优选择。