INSOLVENCY ML AND GUIDE_EC
Correct misalignment Change languages order
INSOLVENCY ML AND GUIDE V1808156A.pdf (English)INSOLVENCY ML AND GUIDE V1808155.docx (Chinese)
UNCITRAL UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAWV.18-08155 /4 ii
UNITED NATIONS贸易法委员会
UNCITRAL Model Law on  Recognition and Enforcement of  Insolvency-Related Judgments  with Guide to Enactment联合国国际贸易法委员会 贸易法委员会 关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法
Further information may be obtained from:附颁布指南 联合国 可向贸易法委员会秘书处索取进一步资料:
UNCITRAL secretariat, Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, AustriaUNCITRAL secretariat, Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria
Telephone: (+43-1) 26060-4060 Telefax: (+43-1) 26060-5813 Internet: uncitral.un.org Email: uncitral@un.org电话:(+43-1) 26060-4060 网址:www.uncitral.org 传真:(+43-1) 26060-5813
UNCITRAL  Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of  Insolvency-Related Judgments  with Guide to Enactment电子邮箱:uncitral@uncitral.org 联合国国际贸易法委员会 贸易法委员会
UNITED NATIONS  Vienna, 2019关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法
UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW附颁布指南 联合国 2019年,维也纳
ii说明
© United Nations, April 2019.联合国文件用英文大写字母附加数字编号。
All rights reserved.凡提及这种格式的编号,即指联合国某一文件。
hTe designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do  not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat  of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or  area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or  boundaries.©2019年1月,联合国。 版权所有。 本出版物所用名称及其材料的编制方式并不意味着联合国秘书处对于任何国家、领土、城市或地区或其当局的法律地位或对于其边界或界限的划分表示任何意见。
Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations  Oifce at Vienna.出版单位:联合国维也纳办事处,英文、出版和图书馆科。
NOTE目录
Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with ifgures.第一部分.
Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document.贸易法委员会关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法
序言 第1条. 适用范围 第2条. 定义
UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No.第3条.
E.19.V.8 ISBN 978-92-1-130371-1 eISBN 978-92-1-047839-7我国的国际义务
iii第4条.
Contents有管辖权的法院或权力机关
Part one.第5条.
UNCITARL Model Law on Recognition and   Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments授权在另一国家就我国作出的与破产有关的判决采取行动
3第6条.
Preamble其他法律下规定的进一步协助
3第7条.
Article 1.公共政策的例外
Scope of application第8条.
4解释
Article 2.第9条.
Deifnitions与破产有关判决的效力和可执行性
4第10条.
Article 3.原判国的复审对承认和执行的影响
International obligations of this State第11条. 寻求获得承认和执行与破产有关的判决的程序 第12条.
5临时救济
Article 4.第13条.
Competent court or authority决定承认和执行与破产有关的判决
5第14条.
Article 5.拒绝承认和执行与破产有关判决的理由
第15条. 同等效力 第16条. 可分性 第X条.
Authorization to act in another State in respect of an   insolvency-related judgment issued in this State依据[此处插入索引提示,提及我国关于《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》第21条的颁行立法]承认与破产有关的判决 第二部分. 贸易法委员会关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法颁布指南
5一.
Article 6.《示范法》的目的和起源
Additional assistance under other lawsA. 《示范法》的目的
5B.
Article 7.《示范法》的起源
C. 准备工作和通过 二. 《颁布指南》的目的 三.
Public policy exception示范法作为协调各国法律的一个工具
5A.
Article 8.《示范法》适当并入到现有国内法中
InterpretationB. 术语的使用
6四.
Article 9.《示范法》的主要特征
A. 适用范围 B. 所涵盖的判决类别 C.
Effect and enforceability of an insolvency-related judgment本《示范法》与《跨国界破产示范法》的关系
6五.
Article 10.逐条评述
标题 序言 第1条. 适用范围 第2条.
Effect of review in the originating State on   recognition and enforcement定义 第3条. 我国的国际义务
6第4条.
Article 11.有管辖权的法院或权力机关
Procedure for seeking recognition and   enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment第5条. 授权在另一国家就我国作出的与破产有关的判决采取行动
6第6条.
Article 12.其他法律下规定的进一步协助
Provisional relief第7条. 公共政策的例外 第8条.
7解释
Article 13.第9条.
Decision to recognize and enforce an   insolvency-related judgment与破产有关判决的效力和可执行性
7第10条.
Article 14.原判国的复审对承认和执行的影响
Grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement   of an insolvency-related judgment第11条. 寻求获得承认和执行与破产有关判决的程序 第12条.
8临时救济
Article 15.第13条.
Equivalent effect决定承认和执行与破产有关的判决
10第14条.
Article 16.拒绝承认和执行与破产有关判决的理由
Severability第15条. 同等效力 第16条.
10可分性
Article X.第X条.
Recognition of an insolvency-related judgment under  [insert a cross-reference to the legislation of this State enacting article 21  of the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency]依据[此处插入索引提示,提及我国关于《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》第21条的颁行立法]承认与破产有关的判决 六. 贸易法委员会秘书处的协助
10A.
iv协助起草立法
Part two.B.
Guide to Enactment of the UNCITARL Model Law on   Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments关于以《示范法》为基础的立法的解释参考资料
11附件
I.附件一.
Purpose and origin of the Model Law大会2018年12月20日第73/200号决议
11附件二.
A. Purpose of the Model Law联合国国际贸易法委员会的决定
11贸易法委员会
B. Origin of the Model Law关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法 附颁布指南
11第一部分
C. Preparatory work and adoption贸易法委员会 关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法 序言
141.
II.本法的目的是:
Purpose of the Guide to Enactment(a) 为承认和执行与破产有关的判决而建立关于权利和补救措施的更大确定性;
16(b)
III.避免破产程序的重叠;
A model law as a vehicle for harmonization of laws(c) 确保及时和在良好成本效益基础上承认和执行与破产有关的判决;
17(d)
A. Fitting the Model Law into existing national law促进不同法域之间在与破产有关的判决方面的礼让及合作;
17(e)
B. Use of terminology保全破产财产并达到其价值最大化;
18以及
IV.(f)
Main features of the Model Law在已根据《跨国界破产示范法》颁布立法的情况下,对该项立法加以补充。
222.
A. Scope of application本法的意图不是为了:
22(a)
B. Types of judgment covered限制我国法律中那些允许承认和执行与破产有关的判决的法律条款;
22(b)
C. Relationship between the Model Law and the MLCBI取代《跨国界破产示范法》的颁行立法或限制该项立法的适用;
23(c)
V. Article-by-article remarks适用于在颁布国承认和执行本国作出的与破产有关的判决;
26或者
Title(d)
26适用于破产程序的启动程序判决。
Preamble第1条.
26适用范围
Article 1.1.
Scope of application本法适用于一国作出的与破产有关的判决在另一国寻求获得承认和执行。
282.
Article 2.本法不适用于[……]。
Deifnitions第2条.
29定义
Article 3.在本法中: (a)
International obligations of this State“破产程序”指依照与破产有关的法律实施的集体司法程序或行政程序,包括临时程序,在这一程序中,为达到重整或清算目的,债务人的资产和事务由法院或当初由法院监控或监督;
36(b)
Article 4. Competent court or authority“破产管理人”指在破产程序中被授权管理债务人资产或事务的重整或清算,或者被授权担任破产程序代表的人或机构,包括临时任命的人或机构;
37(c)
Article 5. Authorization to act in another State  in respect of an insolvency-related judgment  issued in this State“判决”指由法院,或者如果行政决定具有与法院决定同等效力的话,还有行政机关所颁布的任何决定,不论其称谓如何。 在本定义中,决定包含法令或法院令,以及关于成本和费用的裁定。 在本法中,临时保全措施不视作判决;
39(d)
Article 6.“与破产有关的判决”:
㈠ 是指满足下列条件的判决: a.
Additional assistance under other laws作为破产程序的结果产生的,或实质上与破产程序相关联,不论该项破产程序是否已经完结;
40以及
Article 7.b.
Public policy exception是在该项破产程序启动时或启动后作出的;
41而且
Article 8.
Interpretation不包括破产程序的启动程序判决。
42第3条.
Article 9.我国的国际义务 1.
Effect and enforceability of an   insolvency-related judgment我国作为一方同另一国或多国签订任何条约或其他形式的协定后对我国产生义务而本法与之相冲突的,以该条约或协定的规定为准。 2. 当有一项关于承认或执行民事和商事判决的现行有效条约且该条约适用于某项判决时,本法不适用于该项判决。
43第4条.
Article 10.有管辖权的法院或权力机关
Effect of review in the originating State on   recognition and enforcement本法中提到的与破产有关的一项判决的承认和执行职能应由[此处具体指明颁布国负责履行这些职能的一个或多个法院或一个或多个权力机关]履行,并由受理作为抗辩理由或附带问题提出的承认问题的任何其他法院履行。
45第5条.
Article 11.授权在另一国家就我国作出的与破产有关的判决采取行动
Procedure for seeking recognition and enforcement   of an insolvency-related judgment[此处写入根据颁布国法律负责管理重整或清算的人或机构的名称]被授权在适用的外国法律允许的情况下在该另一国家就我国作出的与破产有关的判决采取行动。
46 v第6条.
Article 12.其他法律下规定的进一步协助
Provisional relief本法概不限制法院或[此处写入根据颁布国法律负责管理重整或清算的人或机构的名称]根据我国其他法律提供进一步协助的权力。
50第7条.
Article 13.公共政策的例外
Decision to recognize and enforce an   insolvency-related judgment在遵照本法采取的行动将明显违反我国公共政策,包括违反我国程序公正的基本原则情况下,本法概不阻止法院拒绝采取这一行动。
52第8条.
Article 14.解释
Grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement   of an insolvency-related judgment对本法作出解释时,应考虑到其国际渊源以及促进其统一适用和遵守诚信的必要性。
54第9条.
Article 15.与破产有关的判决的效力和可执行性
Equivalent effect一项与破产有关的判决只有当其在原判国具有效力时才应当获得承认,并且只有当其在原判国可以执行时,才应当加以执行。
64第10条.
Article 16.原判国的复审对承认和执行的影响
Severability.1.
66 Article X. Recognition of an insolvency-related  judgment under [insert a cross-reference to the legislation  of this State enacting article 21 of the UNCITARL Model Law  on Cross-Border Insolvency] 67一项与破产有关的判决如果是原判国的复审内容或如果在该国寻求普通复审的时限尚未期满,则可以推迟或拒绝对该项判决给予承认或加以执行。 在这类情况下,法院还可以规定以提供其所确定的担保作为予以承认或执行的条件。
VI.2.
Assistance from the UNCITARL secretariat根据第1款作出的拒绝并不妨碍以后提出申请承认或申请执行该项判决。
69第11条.
A. Assistance in dratfing legislation寻求获得承认和执行与破产有关的判决的程序
691.
B. Information on the interpretation of legislation  based on the Model Law破产管理人或根据原判国法律有权就一项与破产有关的判决寻求获得承认和执行的其他人,可在我国寻求该项判决获得承认和执行。 承认问题也可作为抗辩理由或附带问题提出。
692.
Annexes Annex I. General Assembly Resolution 73/200 of 20 December 2018根据第1款寻求与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的,应向法院提交下列材料: (a) 与破产有关的该项判决的正式副本证明;
71以及
Annex II.(b)
Decision of the United Nations Commission on  International Trade Law任何必要的证明文件,说明与破产有关的该项判决在原判国具有效力和可予以执行,包括关于该项判决尚待进行任何复审的信息;
73
UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments with Guide to Enactment(c) 在无(a)项和(b)项所述证明时,可为法院所采信的关于这些事项的任何其他凭证。
33.
Part one法院可要求将依据第2款提交的文件翻译成我国的一种官方语言。
UNCITRAL4.
Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments法院有权推定依据第2款提交的文件为真实文本,不论其是否经过认证。
Preamble5.
1. hTe purpose of this Law is:所寻求的承认和执行行动针对的任何对方当事人均享有申述的权利。
第12条. 临时救济 1.
(a) To create greater certainty in regard to rights and remedies for recognition  and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments;自寻求承认和执行与破产有关的判决之时至作出决定之前,在急需救济以保留该项与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的可能性情况下,法院可根据破产管理人或第11条第1款规定的有权寻求承认和执行的其他人的请求,给予临时性的救济,包括:
(b) To avoid the duplication of insolvency proceedings;(a) 对于该项与破产有关的判决针对的任何当事人,中止有关其任何资产的处分;
(c) To ensure timely and cost-effective recognition and enforcement of insolvency-  related judgments;或者 (b) 在该项与破产有关的判决的范围内,酌情给予其他法定的或衡平法上的救济。
(d) To promote comity and cooperation between jurisdictions regarding insolvencyrelated judgments;2. [此处写入(或提及颁布国现行规定的)关于通知的规定,包括是否需要根据本条发出通知。 3.
(e) To protect and maximize the value of insolvency estates;除非经由法院延期,根据本条给予的救济在就承认和执行该项与破产有关的判决作出决定时即告终止。
and第13条.
(f) Where legislation based on the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border  Insolvency has been enacted, to complement that legislation.决定承认和执行与破产有关的判决 在不违反第7条和第14条的情况下,与破产有关的判决符合下列条件的,应当获得承认和执行: (a)
2. hTis Law is not intended:满足第9条关于有效性和可执行性的要求的;
(a) To restrict provisions of the law of this State that would permit the recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment;(b) 寻求该项与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的人是第2条(b)项所指的破产管理人,或者是根据第11条第1款有权寻求该项判决获得承认和执行的其他人; (c)
(b) To replace legislation enacting the UNCITARL Model Law on  Cross-Border Insolvency or limit the application of that legislation;所提申请满足第11条第2款的诸项要求; 以及 (d)
(c) To apply to the recognition and enforcement in the enacting State of an  insolvency-related judgment issued in the enacting State;寻求承认和执行是向第4条所述的法院提出的,或承认问题是在这类法院上以抗辩方式或作为附带问题产生的。
or第14条.
(d) To apply to the judgment commencing the insolvency proceeding.拒绝承认和执行与破产有关的判决的理由
4 Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments with Guide to Enactment除第7条列明的理由外,在下列情况下,也可拒绝承认和执行与破产有关的判决:
Article 1.(a)
Scope of application启动了程序并作出判决,而所针对的对方当事人:
1. hTis Law applies to the recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related  judgment issued in a State that is different to the State in which recognition and  enforcement is sought.㈠ 未充分提前得到已启动该程序的通知,因而不能够作出抗辩安排,除非在原判国法律允许对通知事宜提出异议的情况下,该当事人在原判法院出庭陈述案情但并未对通知事宜提出异议; 或者
2. hTis Law does not apply to [...].㈡ 虽得到已启动该程序的通知,但通知的方式与我国关于文件送达的基本原则不符;
Article 2.(b)
Deifnitions判决是通过欺诈方式获得的;
For the purposes of this Law:(c)
(a) “Insolvency proceeding” means a collective judicial or administrative proceeding, including an interim proceeding, pursuant to a law relating to insolvency in  which proceeding the assets and affairs of a debtor are or were subject to control or  supervision by a court or other competent authority for the purpose of reorganization  or liquidation; (b) “Insolvency representative” means a person or body, including one appointed on an interim basis, authorized in an insolvency proceeding to administer the  reorganization or the liquidation of the debtor’s assets or affairs or to act as a representative of the insolvency proceeding; (c) “Judgment” means any decision, whatever it may be called, issued by a court  or administrative authority, provided an administrative decision has the same effect  as a court decision. For the purposes of this deifnition, a decision includes a decree  or order, and a determination of costs and expenses. An interim measure of protection is not to be considered a judgment for the purposes of this Law;
(d) “Insolvency-related judgment”:判决与我国就相同当事人之间的一项争议作出的判决不相一致; (d)
(i) Means a judgment that: a. Arises as a consequence of or is materially associated with an  insolvency proceeding, whether or not that insolvency proceeding  has closed;判决与另一国此前就相同当事人之间同一事由作出的判决不相一致,而此前的判决符合在我国获得承认和执行的必要条件; (e) 承认和执行判决将干扰对债务人破产程序的管理,包括与可在我国获得承认或执行的中止令或其他法院令发生冲突;
(f) 该项判决: ㈠
and b. Was issued on or atfer the commencement of that insolvency proceeding;对全体债权人的权利产生实质性影响,例如判定了是否应当确认一项重整或清算计划,是否应当准予债务人解除责任或解除债务,或是否应当核准一项自愿或庭外重组协议;
and以及 ㈡
(ii) Does not include a judgment commencing an insolvency  proceeding.在作出判决的程序中,债权人和其他利益关系人的利益,包括债务人的利益,未得到充分保护;
Part one.(g)
Model Law 5原判法院未能满足以下其中任何一项条件:
Article 3.
International obligations of this State法院在该项判决针对的当事人明确表示同意的基础上行使管辖权;
1.
To the extent that this Law conlficts with an obligation of this State arising  out of any treaty or other form of agreement to which it is a party with one or  more other States, the requirements of the treaty or agreement prevail.法院在该项判决针对的当事人服从管辖权的基础上行使管辖权,即在原判国法律规定的时限内被告在法院就案情提出争辩,但未对管辖权或行使管辖权提出异议,除非根据该法律规定,对管辖权的这种异议将显然不会成功; ㈢ 法院以我国法院可据以行使管辖权的依据行使管辖权;
或者 ㈣
2. hTis Law shall not apply to a judgment where there is a treaty in force concerning the recognition or enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, and  that treaty applies to the judgment.法院行使管辖权的依据并非与我国法律不相一致; [根据《跨国界破产示范法》颁布了立法的国家似宜颁布(h)项。
Article 4.(h)
Competent court or authority hTe functions referred to in this Law relating to recognition and enforcement of an  insolvency-related judgment shall be performed by [specify the court, courts, authority or authorities competent to perform those functions in the enacting State] and by any other  court before which the issue of recognition is raised as a defence or as an incidental  question. Article 5. Authorization to act in another State in respect of an insolvency-related judgment issued in this State A [insert the title of the person or body administering a reorganization or liquidation under the law of the enacting State] is authorized to act in another State with respect  to an insolvency-related judgment issued in this State, as permitted by the applicable foreign law. Article 6. Additional assistance under other laws Nothing in this Law limits the power of a court or a [insert the title of the person or body administering a reorganization or liquidation under the law of the enacting State] to provide additional assistance under other laws of this State.
Article 7. Public policy exception Nothing in this Law prevents the court from refusing to take an action governed  by this Law if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy, including the fundamental principles of procedural fairness, of this State.根据[此处写入颁布国关于实施《跨国界破产示范法》的法律名称],原判国的破产程序不可能或者将不可能获得承认,而该项判决即来自该国,除非: ㈠ 在根据[此处写入颁布国关于实施《跨国界破产示范法》的法律名称]获得承认或本可获得承认的程序中,破产管理人参加了在原判国进行的程序,深入到该程序所涉诉由的实质性案情评判;
Article 8.以及
Interpretation
In the interpretation of this Law, regard is to be had to its international origin and to  the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith.该项判决仅涉及在原判国启动该程序时位于原判国的资产。 第15条. 同等效力
Article 9.1.
Effect and enforceability of an insolvency-related judgment An insolvency-related judgment shall be recognized only if it has effect in the originating State and shall be enforced only if it is enforceable in the originating State.根据本法得到承认或可予执行的与破产有关的判决应被赋予[其在原判国]或[如属我国法院作出该项判决时其本可以具有]的同样效力。
Article 10.{§1} 2.
Effect of review in the originating State on recognition and enforcement如果与破产有关的该项判决规定的救济是我国法律所没有的,则该项救济应尽可能调整为在效力上与原判国法律规定同等但不超过其限度的救济。 第16条.
1.可分性
Recognition or enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment may be postponed or refused if the judgment is the subject of review in the originating State  or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review in that State has not expired.在对与破产有关的判决中可分开的部分寻求获得承认和执行时,或根据本法该项判决只有该部分可以获得承认和执行时,应当对该部分给予承认和执行。 根据《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》颁布了立法的国家将会注意到,有些判决可能会对是否可根据该《示范法》第21条承认和执行判决造成疑惑。 因此,各国似宜考虑颁布如下规定:
In  such cases, the court may also make recognition or enforcement conditional on  the provision of such security as it shall determine.第X条. 依据[此处插入索引提示,提及我国关于 《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》第21条的颁行立法]
2.承认与破产有关的判决
A refusal under paragraph 1 does not prevent a subsequent application for  recognition or enforcement of the judgment.尽管之前有任何相反的解释,但依据[此处插入索引提示,提及我国关于《跨国界破产示范法》第21条的颁行立法]可以提供的救济包括承认和执行判决。
Article 11.第二部分
Procedure for seeking recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment贸易法委员会 关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的
示范法颁布指南 一. 示范法的目的和起源 A. 《示范法》的目的
1.1.
An insolvency representative or other person entitled under the law of the originating State to seek recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment  may seek recognition and enforcement of that judgment in this State. hTe issue of  recognition may also be raised as a defence or as an incidental question.2018年通过的《贸易法委员会关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法》,是为了协助各国以一套关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的条款框架充实国内法,这将有助于进行跨国界破产程序,同时也是对《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》(《跨国界破产示范法》)的补充。
2.B.
When recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment is  sought under paragraph 1, the following shall be submitted to the court:《示范法》的起源 2. 关于这一主题的工作在部分上是源自某些司法裁决,{§2} 这些裁决导致了不确定性,不明确在《跨国界破产示范法》所规定的承认程序方面,一些法院是否能够承认和执行外国破产程序过程中作出的判决,例如交易的撤销程序中作出的判决,理由是《跨国界破产示范法》第7条和第21条都没有规定必要的授权。
(a) A certiifed copy of the insolvency-related judgment;另外,外国法院的裁决可能判定《跨国界破产示范法》缺乏对于承认和执行与破产有关判决的明确授权,有人担心,
and (b) Any documents necessary to establish that the insolvency-related judgment  has effect and, where applicable, is enforceable in the originating State, including  information on any pending review of the judgment;在那些立法以《跨国界破产示范法》关于国际效力的第8条为基础的国家中,这些裁决可能被视为具有说服力的典据。 3. 对《跨国界破产示范法》适用和解释上的这些担心,以及普遍缺乏一项可适用的国际公约或其他制度处理承认和执行与破产有关的判决,{§3} 还有现存文书中不包括关于破产事项的判决,{§4} 这些情况导致了2014年向贸易法委员会提出建议,希望制定关于承认和执行与破产有关判决的示范法或示范立法条文。
or4.
(c) In the absence of evidence referred to in subparagraphs (a) and (b), any  other evidence on those matters acceptable to the court.关于承认和执行判决的法律在人员和资产可轻易跨国界转移的当今世界上可以说正变得日益重要。 虽然总的趋势是在承认外国判决方面更为宽松,但在条约中反映的则是规定在特定主题领域给予这种承认(例如关于家庭事务、运输及核事故的公约),并且在条约和国内法中反映为对承认而作出的例外从较为狭义的角度加以解释。
3. hTe court may require translation of documents submitted pursuant to  paragraph 2 into an oifcial language of this State.在适用的国内制度下,一些国家将是仅仅依据条约制度执行外国判决,而另一些国家执行外国判决则或多或少如同本国判决那样。 在这两种立场之间,许多国家还有不同的做法。
4. hTe court is entitled to presume that documents submitted pursuant to  paragraph 2 are authentic, whether or not they have been legalized. 5.5. 关于从更广义上处理承认和执行判决问题的国际制度,1992年海牙国际私法会议(海牙会议)开始就民商事案件跨国界诉讼国际私法的两个关键方面开始工作:法院的国际管辖权和国外判决的承认和执行(“判决项目”)。 这项工作的重点是替代1971年《关于承认和执行民商事外国判决的公约》。
Any party against whom recognition and enforcement is sought has the right  to be heard.这导致了2005年6月30日的《关于选择法院协议的公约》(2005年《选择法院公约》),该公约于2015年10月1日生效。
Article 12.关于拟定一项全球判决公约的进一步工作于2015年开始。
Provisional relief{§5}
1.6.
From the time recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment  is sought until a decision is made, where relief is urgently needed to preserve the  possibility of recognizing and enforcing an insolvency-related judgment, the court  may, at the request of an insolvency representative or other person entitled to seek  recognition and enforcement under article 11, paragraph 1, grant relief of a provisional nature, including:破产裁决一般排除在海牙会议的文书之外,理由是,例如,这些事项可能被视为非常专业化,最好由专门的国际安排处理,或者可能被视为与公法问题紧密交织在一起。 例如,1971年《关于承认和执行民商事外国判决的海牙公约》第1条第5款规定,本公约不适用于“破产、和解或类似程序的问题,包括其中可能产生的涉及债务人行为有效性的裁决。 2005年《选择法院公约》第2条第2(e)项规定,公约不适用于“破产、和解及类似事项”。
(a) Staying the disposition of any assets of any party or parties against whom  the insolvency-related judgment has been issued;在开展工作拟定一项全球判决公约时沿用了这种做法,另外还排除了“金融机构的解散”。 {§6}
or7.
(b) Granting other legal or equitable relief, as appropriate, within the scope of  the insolvency-related judgment.在海牙会议的文本中,{§7} “破产”一词的用意是涵盖个人的破产和丧失偿债能力的公司实体的结业或清算。 不涵盖非破产原因的公司结业或清算,这一点在其他条款中阐述。
2. [Insert provisions (or refer to provisions in force in the enacting State) relating to notice, including whether notice would be required under this article.]这一过程是由债权人还是由破产人或破产实体本身启动或进行,或者是否有法院的参与,这一点并不重要。 “和解”一词系指债务人可能与债权人就延期偿付债务或解除这些债务达成协议的程序。 “类似的程序”一词涵盖广泛的其他各种方法,从而破产人或破产实体可以获得协助以在继续经营的同时恢复偿债能力。
3.{§8}
Unless extended by the court, relief granted under this article terminates when a  decision on recognition and enforcement of the insolvency-related judgment is made. Article 13.8. 很少有国家拥有专门针对与破产有关判决的承认和执行制度。 即使在拥有这类制度的国家中,所涵盖的范围也可能并不包括可在广义上被认为与破产程序有关的所有法院令。
Decision to recognize and enforce an insolvency-related judgment Subject to articles 7 and 14, an insolvency-related judgment shall be recognized  and enforced provided:{§9} 例如,在一个国家,对债权人或第三方作出的判决可判定破产财产主张的财产权、判给第三方损害赔偿或宣布一项财产转移无效,这类判决可被视作与破产有关的判决,因为是对抗式程序的结果并且需要送达原诉文件。
(a) hTe requirements of article 9 with respect to effect and enforceability are met;同样在这个国家,有些法院令是确认一项重整计划的,准予破产解除债务的,或者认可或驳回对破产财产提出的债权的,这些都不被认为是与破产有关的判决,即使这些法院令可能具备作为一项判决的其中某些特征。 9.
(b) hTe person seeking recognition and enforcement of the insolvency-related  judgment is an insolvency representative within the meaning of article 2, subparagraph (b), or another person entitled to seek recognition and enforcement of  the judgment under article 11, paragraph 1;有一个区域的制度规定,对“直接来自于破产程序并与之紧密相关的判决”给予承认和执行。 被认为属于这一类别的判决包括涉及如下方面的判决:{§10} 撤销权诉讼、与破产法有关的关于董事和高管人员个人赔偿责任的诉讼; 关于某一债权优先权的诉讼;
(c) hTe application meets the requirements of article 11, paragraph 2;破产管理人与债务人之间就是否将某一资产列入破产财产中而发生的争议;
and批准重整计划;
(d) Recognition and enforcement is sought from a court referred to in article 4,  or the question of recognition arises by way of defence or as an incidental question  before such a court.解除剩余债务; 关于破产管理人完全在执行破产程序基础上承担的损害赔偿责任的诉讼; 债权人为废除破产管理人关于承认另一债权人债权的决定而提起的诉讼;
Article 14.以及破产管理人根据特定的破产法特权而提出的债权。
Grounds to refuse recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment In addition to the ground set forth in article 7, recognition and enforcement of an  insolvency-related judgment may be refused if:被认为不属于这一类别的判决包括:{§11} 由破产管理人提出的和对破产管理人提出的但在无破产程序的情况下也可能发生的诉讼; 与破产相关的刑事诉讼程序; 为追回债务人占有的财产而提出的诉讼;
(a) hTe party against whom the proceeding giving rise to the judgment was  instituted:依照一般法律为判定某一债权法定有效性或债权额度而提出的诉讼;
(i) Was not notiifed of the institution of that proceeding in suifcient  time and in such a manner as to enable a defence to be arranged,  unless the party entered an appearance and presented their case  without contesting notiifcation in the originating court, provided  that the law of the originating State permitted notiifcation to be contested;拥有资产分离权的债权人提出的债权; 拥有分别受偿权的债权人(有担保债权人)提出的债权; 以及并非由破产管理人而是由法定继承人或受让人提出的撤销权诉讼。
or10.
(ii) Was notiifed in this State of the institution of that proceeding in a  manner that is incompatible with the rules of this State concerning  service of documents;《示范法》拟涵盖的判决示例在下文“第2条说明”(第60段)中作进一步讨论。
(b) hTe judgment was obtained by fraud;C. 准备工作和通过 11.
(c) hTe judgment is inconsistent with a judgment issued in this State in a dispute  involving the same parties;2014年,委员会授权第五工作组(破产法)制定示范法或示范立法条文,就承认和执行与破产有关的判决作出规定。
(d) hTe judgment is inconsistent with an earlier judgment issued in another  State in a dispute involving the same parties on the same subject matter, provided  the earlier judgment fulifls the conditions necessary for its recognition and enforcement in this State;{§12} 2014年12月至2018年5月期间进行了《示范法》的谈判,工作组共举行了八届会议(第四十六至五十三届),每届会议都拨出部分时间专门用于该项目的工作。 12. 2018年6月25日至7月13日在维也纳举行的贸易法委员会第五十一届会议期间进行了案文草案的最后谈判。
(e) Recognition and enforcement would interfere with the administration of the  debtor’s insolvency proceedings, including by conlficting with a stay or other order  that could be recognized or enforced in this State;贸易法委员会于2018年7月2日以协商一致方式通过了《示范法》(见附件二)。 {§13} 除贸易法委员会的60个成员国之外,31个观察员国家和34个政府间组织和非政府组织的代表参加了委员会和工作组的审议工作。 随后,大会通过了2018年12月20日第73/200号决议(见附件一),对贸易法委员会完成和通过《示范法》表示赞赏。
(f) hTe judgment:二. 《颁布指南》的目的 13.
(i) Materially affects the rights of creditors generally, such as determining  whether a plan of reorganization or liquidation should be conifrmed, a discharge of the debtor or of debts should be granted or a voluntary  or out-of-court restructuring agreement should be approved;《颁布指南》的用意是提供《示范法》的背景和解释说明。 这些信息的主要对象是各国政府的行政部门和制定必要立法修订案的立法人员,但也可以对负责解释和适用《示范法》的人员,例如法官,还有文本的其他使用者,例如从业人员和学术界等,提供有益的深入认识。 这些信息还可帮助各国考虑哪些可能的条文可针对具体国情作适当调整。
and14.
(ii) hTe interests of creditors and other interested persons, including the  debtor, were not adequately protected in the proceeding in which  the judgment was issued;本《指南》由第五工作组第五十二届会议(2017年12月)和第五十三届会议(2018年5月)进行了审议。
(g) hTe originating court did not satisfy one of the following conditions:以工作组这两届会议对《示范法》进行的审议和作出的决定以及委员会第五十一届会议最后确定和通过《示范法》时进行的审议和作出的决定为基础编写而成。 三.
(i) hTe court exercised jurisdiction on the basis of the explicit consent  of the party against whom the judgment was issued;示范法作为协调各国法律的一个工具 15. 示范法是向各国建议并入国内法的立法案文。
(ii) hTe court exercised jurisdiction on the basis of the submission of  the party against whom the judgment was issued, namely that that  party argued on the merits before the court without objecting to  jurisdiction or to the exercise of jurisdiction within the time frame  provided in the law of the originating State, unless it was evident  that such an objection to jurisdiction would not have succeeded  under that law;示范法与国际公约不同,不要求颁布国通知联合国或其他可能也颁布了示范法的国家。 但是,大会核准《示范法》时所作的决议请已在使用本《示范法》的国家向委员会作出相应通报(见附件一)。 A.
(iii) hTe court exercised jurisdiction on a basis on which a court in this  State could have exercised jurisdiction;《示范法》适当并入到现有国内法中 16. 《示范法》的范围局限于承认和执行与破产有关的判决,目的是作为颁布国现有法律的一个组成部分加以施行。
or17.
(iv) hTe court exercised jurisdiction on a basis that was not incompatible  with the law of this State;一国在把示范法案文并入国内法律制度时,可修改或选择不纳入其中的某些规定。
[States that have enacted legislation based on the UNCITARL Model Law on CrossBorder Insolvency might wish to enact subparagraph (h).]在公约的情况下,缔约国对统一案文进行修改的可能性(通常称作“保留意见”)受到的局限大得多; 特别是,贸易法公约通常完全禁止保留意见,或仅允许特定的保留意见。
(h) hTe judgment originates from a State whose insolvency proceeding is not  or would not be recognizable under [insert a reference to the law of the enacting State giving effect to the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency], unless:而另一方面,当一国准备颁布统一案文作为国内法之前,可能希望对案文进行各种修订,在这些情况下,示范法的内在灵活性则特别理想。 尤其是当统一案文与国内法院和诉讼程序制度密切相关时,即可能需要进行一些修订。
(i) hTe insolvency representative of a proceeding that is or could have  been recognized under [insert a reference to the law of the enacting State giving effect to the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency]  participated in the proceeding in the originating State to the extent  of engaging in the substantive merits of the cause of action to which  that proceeding related; and18. 这种使《示范法》能够作适当调整而适用于颁布国法律制度的可能性,在使用上应当适当考虑到文本统一解释的必要性(见下文第8条说明),以及在与破产有关的事务中采用现代的、普遍可以接受的国际做法对颁布国可以带来的益处。 进行修订意味着通过示范法实现的协调统一程度和确定性可能比公约的情况差些。
(ii) hTe judgment relates solely to assets that were located in the originating State at the time the proceeding in the originating State  commenced.因此,为了达到满意的协调统一程度和确定性,各国在将《示范法》并入本国法律制度时似宜尽可能少作改动。
10 Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments with Guide to Enactment这一做法不仅将有助于尽可能使国内法律对外国使用者具有更大的透明度和可预见性,还将有助于促进破产程序之间的合作,因为不同国家的法律将趋同或极其相似;
Article 15.有助于降低程序费用,因为对判决给予承认的效率更高;
Equivalent effect并且有助于在跨国界情况下增进破产判决待遇的一致性和公平性。
1.19.
An insolvency-related judgment recognized or enforceable under this Law  shall be given the same effect it [has in the originating State] or [would have had  if it had been issued by a court of this State].虽然《示范法》指出了可拒绝承认和执行一项判决的具体理由,但也保留了在压倒一切的公共政策考虑基础上而对可根据《示范法》采取的任何行动加以排除或限制的可能性(第7条),尽管预计公共政策的例外并不常用。 B.
1术语的使用
2.20.
If the insolvency-related judgment provides for relief that is not available under  the law of this State, that relief shall, to the extent possible, be adapted to relief  that is equivalent to, but does not exceed, its effects under the law of the originating State.《示范法》没有使用仅仅为某些法域和法律传统所熟悉的术语,因此为避免混淆,而是沿用了贸易法委员会其他法规文本的做法,编制新的术语,并附有明确的含义。 因此,《示范法》采用术语“与破产有关的判决”,并依靠其他术语,例如“破产管理人”和“破产程序”,这些是在贸易法委员会其他破产法规文本中形成的。 当所使用的表达方式可能各国有别时,《示范法》不是使用某个特定的术语,而是在方括号内以楷体(中文本)指明该词的含义,并提请国内法起草人使用适当的词语。
Article 16.21.
Severability Recognition and enforcement of a severable part of an insolvency-related judgment  shall be granted where recognition and enforcement of that part is sought, or where  only that part of the judgment is capable of being recognized and enforced under  this Law.使用术语“与破产有关的判决”是为了避免将那些可能涉及特定国家或地区所用某些特定术语和词语的判例法混同用于《示范法》。 “作为破产程序的结果产生的或实质上与之相关联”一语用于描述判决与破产程序之间的关系,而不是上文第9段提及的短语,该短语是特定区域法律中的关键术语,相关法院对其给予了特定的解释。 “破产”
[States that have enacted legislation based on the UNCITARL Model Law on CrossBorder Insolvency will be aware of judgments that may have cast doubt on whether judgments can be recognized and enforced under article 21 of that Model Law.22. 因为认识到不同的法域对“破产程序”一词的涵盖范围可能有不同的概念,所以《示范法》并不对“破产”一词进行定义。 但是,按《示范法》中的用法,“破产程序”指针对处于严重财务困境或破产的债务人启动的各类集体程序,目的是将该债务人作为一个商业实体加以清算或重整。
States may therefore wish to consider enacting the following provision:]以解散实体为目标而对非破产实体进行结业清理的司法或行政程序,以及不属于第2条(a)项范围内的其他外国程序,都不是《示范法》范畴的破产程序。
Article X. Recognition of an insolvency-related judgment under  [insert a cross-reference to the legislation of this State enacting article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency]当某一程序为若干目的服务,包括非破产实体的结业清理,只有在债务人发生破产或处于严重财务困境的情况下,该程序才属于《示范法》第2条(a)项的范畴。 《示范法》中“破产”一词的用法,与贸易法委员会其他破产法规文本特别是《跨国界破产示范法》和《贸易法委员会破产法立法指南》(《立法指南》)中该词的用法相一致。
Notwithstanding any prior interpretation to the contrary, the relief available under  [insert a cross-reference to the legislation of this State enacting article 21 of the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency] includes recognition and enforcement of a  judgment.{§14} 23. 应当注意到,在一些法域中,“破产程序”这一表达方式具有严格的狭窄含义,因为例如可能仅仅指涉及公司或类似法人的集体程序,或仅指针对自然人的集体程序。
1  hTe enacting State may wish to note that it should choose between the two alternatives provided in square brackets.《示范法》中“破产”一词的用法无意作出此种区分,因为《示范法》是为了适用于在处理自然人债务人和法人债务人破产事务的外国程序中作出的相关判决。
An explanation of this provision is provided in the Guide to Enactment in the notes to article 15.如果在颁布国,“破产”一词可能被误解为指特定一类集体程序,那么应当使用另一个词指《示范法》所涵盖的程序。
11“国家”/“原判国”
Part two24.
Guide to Enactment of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments《示范法》通篇使用了“我国”一词,指颁布《示范法》的实体(即颁布国)。
I. Purpose and origin of the Model Law对该词的理解应是指国际意义上的国家,而不是指例如联邦制度国家的一个领土单位。
A. Purpose of the Model Law《示范法》还通篇使用了“原判国”这一词语,指作出与破产有关的判决的国家。
1. hTe UNCITARL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of InsolvencyRelated Judgments, adopted in 2018, is designed to assist States to equip their laws  with a framework of provisions for recognizing and enforcing insolvency-related judgments that will facilitate the conduct of cross-border insolvency proceedings and  complement the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the MLCBI). B. Origin of the Model Law 2. hTe work on this topic had its origin, in part, in certain judicial decisions 1 that led to uncertainty concerning the ability of some courts, in the context of  recognition proceedings under the MLCBI, to recognize and enforce judgments  given in the course of foreign insolvency proceedings, such as judgments issued in  avoidance proceedings, on the basis that neither article 7 nor 21 of the MLCBI  explicitly provided the necessary authority. Moreover, there was a concern that  decisions by foreign courts determining the lack of such explicit authority in the  MLCBI for recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments might 1  For example, Rubin & Anor. v. Euroifnance SA, [2012] UKSC 46 (on appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 895 and
[2011] EWCA Civ 971);“承认和执行”{§15}
CLOUT case No. 1270.25.
See also decision of the Supreme Court of Korea of  25 March 2010 (case No.: 2009Ma1600). have been regarded as persuasive authority in those States with legislation based  upon article 8, MLCBI, which relates to international effect.《示范法》提及“承认和执行”与破产有关的判决时一般是将之作为一个单独的整体概念,尽管有些条款对承认和执行有所区分。 使用“承认和执行”一语不应当被视作在不需要执行的情况下还要求执行所有那些获得承认的判决。 26.
3. hTose concerns about the application and interpretation of the MLCBI together  with the general absence of an applicable international convention or other regime  to address the recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments2 and  the exclusion of judgments relating to insolvency matters from the instruments that  do exist,在一些国内法下,承认和执行是分别两种程序,可能属于不同的法律处理。 例如,在一些联邦制法域,是否承认可能由国家法律判定,而是否执行则由一个领土单位或联邦制下划分的一个单位的法律处理。 获得承认后,即可能具有使外国判决成为本国判决的效力,从而随后可以根据本国法律加以执行。
3 led to the proposal to UNCITARL in 2014 to develop a model law or model legislative provisions on the recognition and enforcement of insolvencyrelated judgments.因此,虽然执行可能首先取决于外国判决获得承认,但却是更进一步的措施。 在一些国家中可能会造成混淆,不清楚是否可以通过单独一项申请而同时达到这两个目的,或是否要求分别提出两项申请。
4. hTe law of recognition and enforcement of judgments is arguably becoming  more and more important in a world in which movement across borders, of both  persons and assets, is increasingly easy.《示范法》并未具体阐明这一程序上的要求,但对于执行问题可能具有特别关系的条文,应当加以注意,例如,第10条,其中提及有条件的承认或执行。 27. 对于有些判决,可能加以承认就够了,而不需要执行,例如,对于权利的声明或一些非金钱判决来说,例如解除债务人的债务或判决被告不欠原告任何钱款的情况。
Although there is a general tendency towards  more liberal recognition of foreign judgments, it is relfected in treaties requiring  such recognition in speciifc subject areas (e.g., conventions relating to family matters, transportation and nuclear accidents) and in a narrower interpretation of the  exceptions to recognition in treaties and domestic laws. Under applicable national  regimes, some States will only enforce foreign judgments pursuant to a treaty regime,  while others will enforce foreign judgments more or less to the same extent as local  judgments. Between those two positions there are many different national  approaches. 5. With respect to an international regime dealing more generally with recognition  and enforcement of judgments, in 1992, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (the Hague Conference) commenced work on two key aspects of private  international law in cross-border litigation in civil and commercial matters: the  international jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments abroad (the Judgments Project). hTe focus of that work was to replace the  1971 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in  Civil and Commercial Matters.
It led to the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice  of Court Agreements (2005 Choice of Court Convention), which entered into  force on 1 October 2015.接案国可能只要承认这一判决即可,如果原告还将再次以同样的诉由向该法院起诉被告,则已经作出的承认将足以驳回案件。
Further work to develop a global judgments convention  commenced in 2015.因此,虽然在执行之前必须有承认,但承认并非总是同时附带执行或随后加以执行。 “有管辖权的法院或权力机关”
6.28.
Insolvency decisions are typically excluded from the Hague Conference instruments, on the grounds, for example, that those matters may be seen as very如第2条项(c)项所述,《示范法》设想可由原判国的法院或行政机关作出判决,前提是行政机关作出的决定具有与法院裁定同样的效力。
2  Existing regimes are largely regional in focus, e.g., Latin America, the European Union and the Middle East.这一用法与《跨国界破产示范法》中“法院”定义的第一部分(第2条(c)项指称“司法或其他权力机关”){§16} 和《立法指南》(术语表,第8段)相一致。
See UNCITARL document A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.126, para. 6.29.
3  hTe 1971 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters and the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, both of which were developed by  the Hague Conference on Private International Law. 4  Information on the work of the Hague Conference can be found at: https://www.hcch.net.此外,第4条设想,接案国负责履行《示范法》关于承认和执行职能的主管机构可以是法院或该国指定的行政机关。 为便于参考,《示范法》使用“法院”一词指这一机关。 如果根据第4条指定的机构是一行政机关,则颁布国不妨考虑在其涉及接案国时将“法院”一词替换为“机关”。
Part two.本《指南》中提及的文件
Guide to Enactment 1330. (a) “《跨国界破产示范法》”:《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》(1997年);
specialized and best dealt with by speciifc international arrangements, or as closely  intertwined with issues of public law.(b) “《颁布指南和解释》”:经修订后并由委员会于2013年7月18日通过的《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法颁布指南和解释》; (c)
Article 1, subparagraph 5, of the 1971 Hague  Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and  Commercial Matters, for example, provides that the convention does not apply to  “questions of bankruptcy, compositions or analogous proceedings, including decisions which may result therefrom and which relate to the validity of the acts of the  debtor.”“《实践指南》”:《贸易法委员会跨国界破产合作实践指南》(2009年); (d) “《立法指南》”:《贸易法委员会破产法立法指南》(2004年),包括第三部分:破产企业集团的处理(2010年)和第四部分:临近破产期间董事的义务(2013年);
Article 2, subparagraph 2 (e), of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention  provides that it does not apply to “insolvency, composition and analogous matters”.  hTat approach is followed in the work to develop a global judgments convention,  with the additional exclusion of “resolution of ifnancial institutions”. 7. In the context of the Hague Conference texts, 6 the term “insolvency” is intended to cover both the bankruptcy of individual persons and the winding up or liquidation  of corporate entities which are insolvent. It does not cover the winding up or  liquidation of corporations for reasons other than insolvency, which is addressed  in other provisions. It does not matter whether the process is initiated or carried  out by creditors or by the insolvent person or entity itself with or without the  involvement of a court. hTe term “composition” refers to procedures in which the  debtor may enter into agreements with creditors in respect of a moratorium on the  payment of debts or on the discharge of those debts. hTe term “analogous proceedings”  covers a broad range of other methods in which insolvent persons or entities can be  assisted to regain solvency while continuing to trade.
8.(e)
Very few States have recognition and enforcement regimes that speciifcally  address insolvency-related judgments. Even in States that do have such regimes,  they may not cover all orders that might broadly be considered to relate to insolvency proceedings. 8 In one State, for example, judgments against a creditor or third party determining rights to property claimed by the insolvency estate, awarding  damages against a third party, or avoiding a transfer of property can be considered  insolvency-related judgments as they are the result of an adversarial process and  have required service of the documents originating the action. In that same State,  orders conifrming a plan of reorganization, granting a bankruptcy discharge or allowing or rejecting a claim against the insolvency estate are not considered insolvencyrelated judgments, even if those orders may have some of the attributes of a  judgment. 5 See art. 2, subpara. 1(e) of the dratf convention of May 2018. hTis additional exclusion refers to the new legal  framework enacted in various jurisdictions under the auspices of the Financial Stability Board to prevent the  failure of ifnancial institutions.
6 Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements: Explanatory Report by Trevor Hartley and  Masato Dogauchi, para. 56.“《司法角度的审视》”:《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法:司法角度的审视》(2013年增订版); (f) 2005年《选择法院公约》:海牙国际私法会议2005年6月30日的《选择法院协议公约》;
7 For example, chapter 11 of the United States Federal Bankruptcy Code and Part II of the United Kingdom  Insolvency Act 1986.以及 (g) Hartley/Dogauchi报告:Trevor Hartley和Masato Dogauchi关于2005年《选择法院公约》的解释报告。
四. 《示范法》的主要特征 A. 适用范围 31.
8 See UNCITARL document A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.126, para. 16.《示范法》适用于在另一国进行的程序中作出的并寻求在颁布国获得承认和执行的与破产有关的判决。
9. One regional regime provides for the recognition and enforcement of judgments that “derive directly from and are closely linked to the insolvency proceedings”.该范围将包括作出判决的程序和该项判决所相关的破产程序同在另一国进行的情形。 也将包括判决在另一国作出但该项判决所相关的破产程序在颁布国进行而颁布国是该项判决所寻求获得承认和执行的当地国的情形。
Judgments held to fall into that category have included those concerning: 9 avoidance actions, insolvency law-related lawsuits on the personal liability of directors  and oifcers;换句话说,虽然该项判决必须是颁布国以外其他国家作出的,但该项判决所相关的破产程序的所在地并不重要,可以是一项外国程序,也可以是一项在颁布国进行的本国程序。 B. 所涵盖的判决类别
lawsuits concerning the priority of a claim;32. 一项外国判决需要具有某些特征才能属于《示范法》涵盖的范畴。
disputes between an insol vency representative and debtor on inclusion of an asset in the insolvency estate;这些特征是,首先,作为(按第2条(a)项定义的)破产程序的结果产生的,或实质上与之相关联;
approval of a reorganization plan;其次,是在该项破产程序启动时或启动后作出的(第2(d)项)。
discharge of residual debt; actions on the insolvency  representative’s liability for damages, if exclusively based on the carrying out of the  insolvency proceedings;该定义不包括破产程序的启动程序判决,如序言第2(d)项(见下文第45段)和第2条d㈡项(见下文第62段)所示。 就《示范法》而言,临时保全措施不被认作判决(见下文第54-55段)。 33.
action by a creditor aiming at the nulliifcation of an insolvency representative’s decision to recognize another creditor’s claim;产生“与破产有关的判决”结果的诉由可由不同的当事方提出追索,包括当破产管理人决定不予追索该项诉由时由获得法院批准的债权人提出追索,或如果破产管理人根据适用的法律指定了诉由时,由被指定持有该项诉由的当事方加以追索。
and claims by  an insolvency representative based on speciifc insolvency law privilege.在这两种情况下,判决也都必须是根据《示范法》可以执行的。 34.
Judgments  held not to fall into that category have included:下文提供了可以属于“与破产有关的判决”定义范围内的各类判决的一些示例,供颁布国参考;
10 actions by and against an insol vency representative which would also have been possible without the insolvency  proceedings;所列清单无意作为穷尽的列举(见下文第60段)。 C. 本《示范法》与《跨国界破产示范法》的关系
criminal proceedings in connection with insolvency;35. 本《示范法》的主题事项与《跨国界破产示范法》的主题事项相关联。
an action to  recover property in the possession of the debtor;这两个法规文本使用了类似的术语和定义(例如“破产程序”的定义借鉴了《跨国界破产示范法》的“外国程序”定义);
an action to determine the legal  validity or amount of a claim pursuant to general laws;《示范法》中重复了《跨国界破产示范法》的一些一般条款;
claims by creditors with a  right for segregation of assets;{§17} 序言{§18} 具体提到《示范法》与《跨国界破产示范法》之间的关系。
claims by creditors with a right for separate satisfaction  (secured creditors);如下文(第45段)所述,序言明确指出,本《示范法》并非意在取代《跨国界破产示范法》的颁行立法。
and an avoidance action ifled not by an insolvency representative but by a legal successor or assignee.已经颁布或正在考虑颁布《跨国界破产示范法》的国家,似宜注意到关于这两部法规互补性质的如下指导说明。
10.36.
Examples of judgments to be covered by the Model Law are discussed further  below in the notes on article 2 (para. 60).《跨国界破产示范法》适用于对所指明的外国破产程序的承认(即那些为“外国程序”定义所涵盖那类程序,这些程序可根据第2条被视为外国主要程序或外国非主要程序)。
C. Preparatory work and adoption 11. In 2014, the Commission gave Working Group V (Insolvency Law) a mandate  to develop a model law or model legislative provisions to provide for the recognition  and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments.其他类型的破产程序,例如那些以资产所在地作为依据启动的程序,或那些非集体程序(按《颁布指南和解释》第69-72段所作的解释),则不属于根据《跨国界破产示范法》符合条件可获得承认的那些类型的程序。 37.
11 hTe Model Law was negotiated between December 2014 and May 2018, the Working Group having devoted a part  of each of the eight sessions (forty-sixth to iftfy-third) to work on the project.相比之下,本《示范法》范围较为狭窄,涉及的是承认和执行与破产有关的判决,即那些与破产程序(按第2条(a)项的定义)有必要关系的判决(按第2条(d)项的定义)。
12. hTe ifnal negotiations on the dratf text took place during the iftfy-ifrst session  of UNCITARL, held in Vienna from 25 June to 13 July 2018.如果特定的判决所相关的破产程序不符合这一定义,则该项判决将不是可根据《示范法》获得承认和执行的与破产有关的判决。
UNCITARL adopted  the Model Law by consensus on 2 July 2018 (see annex II). 12 In addition to the破产程序的启动程序裁定是《跨国界破产示范法》的承认制度的主题,就本《示范法》而言,这些程序特别排除在“与破产有关的判决”定义之外。
60  States members of UNCITARL, representatives of 31 observer States and  34  inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations participated in the{§19} 但是应当指出,鉴于第16条关于可分性的规定,在破产程序的启动程序判决中可能包括可根据《示范法》获得承认和执行的其他法院令(见下文第58段)。
9 hTese judgments relate to decisions under the European Council (EC) Regulation No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000  on insolvency proceedings.38. 如同《跨国界破产示范法》一样,本《示范法》确立了用于寻求跨国界承认的框架,但这里所指的是与破产有关的判决。
See UNCITARL document A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.126, para. 21 for case citations.这一框架力求确立一种明确而简单的步骤,避免不必要的复杂性,例如对于认证的要求。
10 Ibid., para. 22. 11 Oifcial Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-ninth Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/69/17), para. 155. 12 Ibid., Seventy-third session, Supplement No. 17 (A/73/17), para. 131.{§20} 如同《跨国界破产示范法》的类似条款(第19条),本《示范法》也允许临时救济令,以便在提出申请承认和执行之后至法院作出裁定之前这段时间保留承认和执行与破产有关判决的可能性。
deliberations of the Commission and the Working Group. Subsequently, the General  Assembly adopted resolution 73/200 of 20 December 2018 (see annex I), in which it  expressed its appreciation for UNCITARL ifnalizing and adopting the Model Law.如同《跨国界破产示范法》一样,本《示范法》也力求就承认和执行程序的结果确立明确性,从而如果提供了相关文件,所作判决符合定义要求以及在原判国对于有效性和可执行性的要求,并且申请承认和执行的人是适当的当事人,而且没有充分理由或无理由拒绝给予承认和执行的,那么在这些条件下,该项判决应当获得承认和执行。
II.39.
Purpose of the Guide to Enactment 13. hTe Guide to Enactment is designed to provide background and explanatory  information on the Model Law. hTat information is primarily directed to executive  branches of Government and legislators preparing the necessary legislative revisions, but may also provide useful insight for those charged with interpretation and  application of the Model Law, such as judges, and other users of the text, such as  practitioners and academics. hTat information might also assist States in considering which, if any, of the provisions might need to be adapted to address particular  national circumstances.如下文逐条评述更为详细的讨论所述,《示范法》包括一则任择条文,允许当与破产有关的判决出自一个其破产程序(破产程序指满足《示范法》所使用的该术语定义的破产程序)不能或者将不可能在《跨国界破产示范法》下获得承认的国家时拒绝承认该判决。 按照《跨国界破产示范法》的术语,该破产程序可能不被承认,因为该国既不是破产债务人的主要利益中心所在地,也不是债务人营业所的所在地(即破产程序既不是主要程序,也不是非主要程序)。 《跨国界破产示范法》中的不承认破产程序的原则在本《示范法》第14条(h)项中得到确认,该项条文是供已经颁布(或正在考虑颁布)《跨国界破产示范法》的国家考虑的一则可选条款。
14. hTe present Guide was considered by Working GroupVat its iftfy-second  (December 2017) and iftfy-third (May 2018) sessions.(h)项的实质内容还规定了这项一般原则的例外情形。
It is based on the Working  Group’s deliberations and decisions on the Model Law at those sessions and of the  Commission in ifnalizing and adopting the Model Law at its iftfy-ifrst session. III.例外情形允许即使一项判决的原判国的破产程序根据《跨国界破产示范法》不能获得承认或者将不会获得承认亦可承认该判决,条件是:㈠判决仅涉及位于原判国的资产; 以及㈡满足某些条件。 例外情形还便于为破产财产追回额外资产并解决涉及这些资产的争议。
A model law as a vehicle for harmonization of laws《跨国界破产示范法》不提供对于承认破产程序方面的此种例外情形(下文第117-120段详述)。
15.40.
A model law is a legislative text recommended to States for incorporation into  their national law.本《示范法》和《跨国界破产示范法》中都包括了一项要求,必须保护债权人和其他利益关系人的利益,包括债务人的利益,但在不同的场合下。
Unlike an international convention, a model law does not require  the State enacting it to notify the United Nations or other States that may have  also enacted it.《跨国界破产示范法》要求给予承认的法院在根据《跨国界破产示范法》(第22条)给予、修订或终结临时救济或酌情救济的时候,确保这些利益得到考虑。
However, the General Assembly resolution endorsing the Model Law  invites States that have used the Model Law to advise the Commission accordingly  (see annex I).按《颁布指南和解释》所述,这一要求依据的理念是应当平衡兼顾可能给予外国代表的救济和可能受到该项救济影响的人的利益。
A. Fitting the Model Law into existing national law{§21} 《示范法》的关注重点较为狭窄;
16. With its scope limited to recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related  judgments, the Model Law is intended to operate as an integral part of the existing  law of the enacting State. 17.只有当第14条(f)项造成有理由拒绝给予承认和执行时,这种保护的问题才具有相关意义,因为在产生某些类型的判决的程序中,这些利益没有得到充分的保护。 这些情况包括例如所作判决是确认重整计划的。
In incorporating the text of a model law into its legal system, a State may  modify or elect not to incorporate some of its provisions.正如下文进一步讨论的那样(见第108-109段),理由根据是第14条(f)项指明的那些类型的判决直接影响到债权人和其他利益关系人集体的权利。
In the case of a convention, the possibility of changes being made to the uniform text by the States parties  (normally referred to as “reservations”) is much more restricted; in particular, trade  law conventions usually either totally prohibit reservations or allow only speciifed  ones. hTe lfexibility inherent in a model law, on the other hand, is particularly  desirable in those cases when it is likely that the State would wish to make various  modiifcations to the uniform text before it would be ready to enact it as a national  law. Some modiifcations may be expected, in particular, when the uniform text is  closely related to the national court and procedural system. 18. hTe lfexibility that enables the Model Law to be adapted to the legal system  of the enacting State should be utilized with due consideration for the need for  uniformity in its interpretation (see notes on article 8 below) and for the beneifts  to the enacting State of adopting modern, generally acceptable international practices  in insolvency-related matters. Modiifcation means that the degree of, and certainty  about, harmonization achieved through a model law may be lower than in the case  of a convention. hTerefore, in order to achieve a satisfactory degree of harmonization  and certainty, States may wish to make as few changes as possible when incorporating  the Model Law into their legal systems. hTat approach will not only assist in making  national law as transparent and predictable as possible for foreign users.
It will also contribute to fostering cooperation between insolvency proceedings, as the laws  of different States will be the same or very similar;虽然关于解决当事双方争议的其他类型与破产有关的判决可能也影响到债权人和其他利益关系人,但这些影响一般是间接的(例如,通过该项判决对破产财产的规模大小造成影响)。
reducing the costs of proceedings because of greater eifciency in the recognition of judgments;在这些情况下,认为不需要另外对第三方利益是否受到充分保护进行分析,这可能导致不必要的诉讼和拖延。 41.
and improving  consistency and fairness of treatment of insolvency judgments in the cross-border  context.本《示范法》与《跨国界破产示范法》之间关系的另一个要素涉及第X条,该条是关于对《跨国界破产示范法》第21条的解释。
19. While the Model Law indicates speciifc grounds upon which a judgment may  be refused recognition and enforcement, it also preserves the possibility of excluding or limiting any action that may be taken under the Model Law on the basis of  overriding public policy considerations (article 7), although it is expected that the  public policy exception would be rarely used.第X条是已经颁布了(或正在考虑颁布)《跨国界破产示范法》的国家似宜考虑的另一则可选条款。 根据第X条提供的澄清,为支持一项已获得承认的外国程序(主要程序和非主要程序都包括在内)而在《跨国界破产示范法》第21条下可以酌情提供的救济应当解释为包括承认和执行一项判决,尽管可能有任何相反的解释。 五.
B. Use of terminology逐条评述
20.标题
Rather than using terminology familiar to only some jurisdictions and legal  traditions and thus to avoid confusion, the Model Law follows the approach of  other UNCITARL texts of developing new terms with deifned meanings. Accordingly, the Model Law introduces the term “insolvency-related judgment” and relies  upon other terms, such as “insolvency representative” and “insolvency proceeding”  that were developed in other UNCITARL insolvency texts. Where the expression  used is likely to vary from country to country, the Model Law, instead of using a  particular term, indicates the meaning of the term in italics within square brackets  and calls upon the dratfers of the national law to use the appropriate term. 21. hTe use of the term “insolvency-related judgment” is intended to avoid confusion as to the application to the Model Law of jurisprudence that may relate to  particular terms or phrases used in speciifc States or regions. hTe phrase “arises as  a consequence of or is materially associated with” is used to describe the connection between the judgment and an insolvency proceeding, rather than the phrase  referred to in paragraph 9 above, which is key terminology in a particular regional  law and has been given a speciifc interpretation by relevant courts. “Insolvency”
22.“《示范法》”
Acknowledging that different jurisdictions might have different notions of  what falls within the term “insolvency proceedings”, the Model Law does not deifne  the term “insolvency”. However, as used in the Model Law, “insolvency proceeding”  refers to various types of collective proceedings commenced with respect to a  debtor that is in severe ifnancial distress or insolvent, with the goal of liquidating  or reorganizing that debtor as a commercial entity. A judicial or administrative  proceeding to wind up a solvent entity where the goal is to dissolve the entity and  other foreign proceedings not falling within article  2, subparagraph (a) are not insolvency proceedings within the scope of the Model Law. Where a proceeding  serves several purposes, including the winding up of a solvent entity, it falls under  article 2, subparagraph (a) of the Model Law only if the debtor is insolvent or in  severe ifnancial distress. hTe use of the term “insolvency” in the Model Law is  consistent with its use in other UNCITARL insolvency texts, speciifcally the MLCBI  and the UNCITARL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (the Legislative Guide).
23.42.
It should be noted that in some jurisdictions the expression “insolvency proceedings” has a narrow technical meaning in that it may refer, for example, only to  collective proceedings involving a company or a similar legal person or only to  collective proceedings against a natural person. No such distinction is intended to  be drawn by the use of the term “insolvency” in the Model Law, since the Model Law  is designed to be applicable to foreign judgments related to proceedings addressing  the insolvency of both natural and legal persons as the debtor. If, in the enacting  State, the word “insolvency” may be misunderstood as referring to one particular  type of collective proceeding, another term should be used to refer to the proceedings  covered by the Law. “State”/“originating State” 24. hTe words “this State” are used throughout the Model Law to refer to the  entity that enacts the Model Law (i.e., the enacting State). hTe term should be  understood as referring to a State in the international sense and not, for example,  to a territorial unit in a State with a federal system. hTe words “originating State”  are also used throughout the Model Law to refer to the State in which the insolvencyrelated judgment was issued.
“Recognition and enforcement” 14 25. hTe Model Law generally refers to “recognition and enforcement” of an insolvencyrelated judgment as a single concept, although there are some articles where a  distinction is made between recognition on the one hand and enforcement on the  other.如果颁布国决定把《示范法》的条文并入一部现有的国内法规,那么所颁布的条文标题必须作相应的调整,在不同条款中出现的“法律”一词将需要由适当的词语取代。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第35-36段
Use of the phrase “recognition and enforcement” should not be regarded as  requiring enforcement of all recognized judgments where it is not required.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第40-41段 A/CN.9/956 序言
26.1.
Under some national laws, recognition and enforcement are two separate processes  and may be covered by different laws.本法的目的是: (a) 为承认和执行与破产有关的判决而建立关于权利和补救措施的更大确定性;
In some federal jurisdictions, for example,  recognition may be subject to national law, while enforcement is subject to the law of(b) 避免破产程序的重叠; (c)
13 MLCBI, Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, paras. 48–49;确保及时和在良好成本效益基础上承认和执行与破产有关的判决;
Legislative Guide, Introd., glossary, para.(d)
12(s):  “‘Insolvency’: when a debtor is generally unable to pay its debts as they mature or when its liabilities exceed the  value of its assets.”促进不同法域之间在与破产有关的判决方面的礼让及合作; (e) 保全破产财产并达到其价值最大化;
14 See paras. 78-79 below for further explanation of the meaning of the term “recognition and enforcement”.以及 (f) 在已根据《跨国界破产示范法》颁布立法的情况下,对该项立法加以补充。
a territorial or sub-federal unit. Recognition may have the effect of making the foreign  judgment a local judgment that can then be enforced under local law. hTus while  enforcement may presuppose recognition of a foreign judgment, it goes beyond  recognition. Confusion may be caused in some States as to whether both can be  achieved through a single application or whether two separate applications are  required. hTe Model Law does not speciifcally address that procedural requirement,  but provisions that might be of speciifc relevance to the issue of enforcement  should be noted, for example, article 10 which refers to conditional recognition or  enforcement. 27. In the case of some judgments, recognition might be suifcient and enforcement  may not be needed, for example, for declarations of rights or some non-monetary  judgments, such as the discharge of a debtor or a judgment determining that the  defendant did not owe any money to the plaintiff. hTe receiving court may simply  recognize that ifnding and, if the plaintiff were to sue the defendant again on the  same claim before that court, the recognition already accorded would be enough  to dispose of the case. hTus, while enforcement must be preceded by recognition,  recognition need not always be accompanied or followed by enforcement.
“Competent court or authority”2. 本法的意图不是为了:
28.(a)
As indicated in article 2, subparagraph (c), the Model Law envisages that a  judgment can be issued by a court or an administrative authority in the originating  State, provided that a decision issued by an administrative authority has the same  effect as a court decision. hTis usage is consistent with the ifrst part of the deifnition  of “court” in the MLCBI (art.  2, subpara.限制我国法律中那些允许承认和执行与破产有关的判决的法律条款; (b) 取代《跨国界破产示范法》的颁行立法或限制该项立法的适用;
(e) referring to “a judicial or other  authority”),(c) 适用于在颁布国承认和执行本国作出的与破产有关的判决;
15 and the Legislative Guide (glossary, para. 8).或者 (d) 适用于破产程序的启动程序判决。
29.43.
Moreover, article  4 contemplates that the body competent to perform the  functions of the Model Law with respect to recognition and enforcement in the  receiving State may be either a court or administrative authority, as designated by  that State.起草的序言第1段是为了简明阐述《示范法》的基本政策目标。 行文的用意并不是为了设定实体权利,而是为了对《示范法》的使用者提供一个总体方向,并帮助加以解释。 44.
For ease of reference, the Model Law uses the word “court” to refer to  that authority.有些国家不习惯在立法中列入关于立法所依据的政策的序言说明,但这些国家仍可考虑在法规的正文或在另一项文件中列入关于《示范法》序言所载各项目标的说明,以便为法律的解释提供实用的参照。
In the event that the body designated under article 4 is an administrative authority, the enacting State may wish to consider replacing the word  “court”, where it refers to the receiving State, with the word “authority”.45. 关于承认破产程序的国内其他一些立法也可能阐述关于承认与破产有关判决的问题,包括例如颁布了《跨国界破产示范法》的情况(另见第14条(h)项和第X条),而序言的第2段就是为了澄清《示范法》与这些国内法之间关系的某些问题。
15 It might be noted that the use of the term “court” in the Model Law is not limited by the second part of  the deifnition in the MLCBI i.e., the words “competent to control or supervise a foreign proceeding”, for the  reasons given in para. 52 below.序言第1段(f)项强调,本《示范法》意在补充《跨国界破产示范法》,而第2段(a)项则建立在这种互补性之上,确认本《示范法》绝非意在限制适用这些其他法律,第2段(b)项则澄清,本《示范法》的目的不是要取代《跨国界破产示范法》的颁行立法或限制该项立法的适用。 第2段(c)项涉及《示范法》第1条,并澄清案文范围不涵盖承认和执行颁布国作出的与破产有关的判决。
Documents referred to in this Guide序言第2段(d)项确认,本《示范法》并非意在适用于破产程序的启动程序判决。
30.贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
(a) “MLCBI”: UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997);A/73/17,第116段
(b) “Guide to Enactment and Interpretation”: Guide to Enactment and Interpretation of the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, as revised  and adopted by the Commission on 18 July 2013;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第48段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
(c) “Practice Guide”: UNCITARL Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation (2009);A/CN.9/903,第16、58、76段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
(d) “Legislative Guide”: UNCITARL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law  (2004), including part three: treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency (2010)  and part four: obligations of directors in the period approaching insolvency (2013);A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第37-39段 A/CN.9/931,第14-15段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第42-44段
(e) “Judicial Perspective”: UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency: hTe Judicial Perspective (updated 2013);A/CN.9/937,第15-16段 A/CN.9/955,第10段
(f) 2005 Choice of Court Convention: Hague Conference on Private International Law Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements;A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2 第1条. 适用范围
and1.
(g) Hartley/Dogauchi report: Explanatory Report on the 2005 Choice of  Court Convention by Trevor Hartley and Masato Dogauchi.本法适用于一国作出的与破产有关的判决在另一国寻求获得承认和执行。
IV.2.
Main features of the Model Law本法不适用于[……]。
A. Scope of application第1款 46.
31. hTe Model Law applies to an insolvency-related judgment that was issued in  a proceeding taking place in a State other than the enacting State in which recognition and enforcement is sought. hTat scope would include the situation where both  the proceeding giving rise to the judgment and the insolvency proceeding to which  it relates are taking place in another State.第1条第1款确认,本《示范法》是为了处理在一国(即《示范法》颁布国)承认和执行另一国作出的与破产有关判决的问题,也就是在跨国界情形下的承认和执行问题。 虽然《示范法》适用的判决必须是所寻求承认和执行的当地国以外另一国作出的,但应当指出,该项判决所涉及的破产程序可以发生在所寻求承认和执行的当地国;
It would also include the situation in  which the judgment was issued in another State, but the insolvency proceeding to  which the judgment relates is taking place in the enacting State in which recognition and enforcement is sought.没有要求该程序必须发生在另一国家。 该项判决也可以涉及同时在一个以上国家对同一个债务人进行的多重破产程序。 第2款
In other words, while the judgment must be issued  in a State other than the enacting State, the location of the insolvency proceeding  to which the judgment relates is not material, and it can be either a foreign proceeding or a local proceeding taking place in the enacting State. B. Types of judgment covered47. 第1条第2款指明,颁布国可以决定排除某些类型的判决,例如那些引起公共政策考虑的判决,或其他特定的法律制度所适用的判决。 举例来说,这可能包括关于外国税收债权的判决、破产相关事项或家庭法事项的引渡判决,或者与被排除在《示范法》之外的实体(如银行和保险公司等)有关的判决。
32. To fall within the scope of the Model Law, a foreign judgment needs to possess  certain attributes. hTese are, ifrstly, that it arises as a consequence of or is materially  associated with an insolvency proceeding (as deifned in art. 2, subpara. (a)) and,  second, that it was issued on or atfer the commencement of that insolvency proceeding (art. 2, subpara. (d)). hTe deifnition does not include the judgment commencing an insolvency proceeding, as noted in the preamble, subparagraph 2(d)  (see para. 45 below) and in article 2, subparagraph (d)(ii) (see para. 62 below). An interim measure of protection is not to be considered a judgment for the purposes of the Model Law (see paras. 54-55 below). 33. hTe cause of action giving rise to an “insolvency-related judgment” may have  been pursued by various parties, including a creditor with approval of the court,  based upon the insolvency representative’s decision not to pursue that cause of  action or, if the cause of action was assigned by the insolvency representative in  accordance with the applicable law, by the party to whom it was assigned. In both  instances, the judgment must be otherwise enforceable under the Model Law.
34. For the information of enacting States, a number of examples of the types of  judgment that might fall within the deifnition of “insolvency-related judgment” are  provided below;为了使以本《示范法》为基础的国内法对外国使用者具有更高的透明度,第2款中似宜提及排除在法律范围之外的情形。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116段
the list is not intended to be exhaustive (see para. 60 below).A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130
C. Relationship between the Model Law and the MLCBIA/CN.9/835,第49-53段
35. hTe subject matter of the Model Law is related to that of the MLCBI.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864,第55-60段
Both  texts use similar terminology and deifnitions (e.g., the deifnition of “insolvency  proceeding” draws upon the deifnition of “foreign proceeding” in the MLCBI);A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870,第32段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143
a  number of the general articles of the MLCBI are repeated in the Model Law;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[1]
16 and the Preamble 17 refers speciifcally to the relationship between the Model Law and the MLCBI. hTe Preamble, as noted below (para. 45), clariifes that the Model Law  is not intended to replace legislation enacting the MLCBI.A/CN.9/898,第11段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903,第16、59-63段
States that have enacted  or are considering enacting the MLCBI may wish to note the following guidance  on the complementary nature of the two texts. 36. hTe MLCBI applies to the recognition of speciifed foreign insolvency proceedings (that is, those that are a type of proceeding covered by the deifnition of “foreign  proceeding” and can be considered to be either a foreign main or a foreign nonmain proceeding under article 2). Other types of insolvency proceeding, such as  those commenced on the basis of presence of assets or those that are not a collective  proceeding (as explained in paras. 69–72 of the Guide to Enactment and Interpretation) do not fall within the types of proceeding eligible for recognition under  the MLCBI. 37. hTe Model Law, in comparison, has a narrower scope, addressing the recognition  and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments, that is, judgments that bear the  necessary relationship (as deifned in art. 2, subpara. (d)), to an insolvency proceeding  (as deifned in art. 2, subpara. (a)). If the insolvency proceeding to which the speciifc  judgment relates does not satisfy that deifnition, the judgment would not be an  insolvency-related judgment capable of recognition and enforcement under the  Model Law. hTe decision commencing the insolvency proceeding, which is the  subject of the MLCBI’s recognition regime, is speciifcally excluded from the deifnition  of “insolvency-related judgment” for the purposes of the Model Law.
18 However, it should be noted that, in view of the severability provision in article 16, thereA/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第40-41段
16 MLCBI, arts. 3 (para. 1) to 8.A/CN.9/931,第16段
17 Preamble, subpara. 2(b)), as well as article 14, subparagraph (h) and article X (discussed below, see  paras. 126-127).A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第45-46段 A/CN.9/937,第17段 A/CN.9/955,第11段
18 Preamble, subpara. 2(d) and art. 2, para. (d)(ii) (see paras. 45 and 62 below).A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
第2条. 定义 在本法中: (a)
may be other orders included in a judgment commencing an insolvency proceeding  that could be subject to recognition and enforcement under the Model Law (see  para. 58 below).“破产程序”指依照与破产有关的法律实施的集体司法程序或行政程序,包括临时程序,在这一程序中,为达到重整或清算目的,债务人的资产和事务由法院或当初由法院监控或监督;
38.(b)
Like the MLCBI, the Model Law establishes a framework for seeking crossborder recognition, but in this case of an insolvency-related judgment. hTat framework seeks to establish a clear, simple procedure that avoids unnecessary complexity,  such as requirements for legalization.“破产管理人”指在破产程序中被授权管理债务人资产或事务的重整或清算,或者被授权担任破产程序代表的人或机构,包括临时任命的人或机构;
19 Like the analogous article in the MLCBI(c)
(art. 19), the Model Law also permits orders for provisional relief to preserve the  possibility of recognizing and enforcing an insolvency-related judgment between  the time recognition and enforcement are sought and the time the court issues its  decision. Like the MLCBI, the Model Law also seeks to establish certainty with  respect to the outcome of the recognition and enforcement procedure, so that if the  relevant documents are provided, the judgment satisifes the deifnitional requirements and those for effectiveness and enforceability in the originating State, the  person seeking recognition and enforcement is the appropriate person and there  are insuifcient or no grounds for refusing recognition and enforcement, the judg ment should be recognized and enforced. 39. As discussed in more detail in the article-by-article remarks below, the Model Law  includes an optional provision that permits recognition of an insolvency-related  judgment to be refused when the judgment originates from a State whose insolvency proceeding (being an insolvency proceeding that met the deifnition of that  term as used in the Model Law) is not or would not be susceptible of recognition  under the MLCBI. Under the terms of the MLCBI, the insolvency proceeding may  not be recognizable because that State is neither the location of the insolvency debtor’s  centre of main interests (COMI) nor of an establishment of the debtor (i.e., it is  neither a main nor a non-main proceeding). hTat principle of non-recognition of  insolvency proceedings under the MLCBI is acknowledged in article 14, subparagraph (h) of the Model Law, which is an optional provision for consideration by  States that have enacted (or are considering enacting) the MLCBI. hTe substance  of subparagraph (h) also provides an exception to that general principle. hTe exception  permits recognition of a judgment, notwithstanding its origin in a State whose  insolvency proceeding is not or would not be recognizable under the MLCBI, provided: (i) the judgment relates only to assets that were located in the originating  State;
and (ii) certain conditions are met. hTe exception could facilitate the recovery of additional assets for the insolvency estate, as well as the resolution of disputes  relating to those assets.“判决”指由法院,或者如果行政决定具有与法院决定同等效力的话,还有行政机关所颁布的任何决定,不论其称谓如何。 在本定义中,决定包含法令或法院令,以及关于成本和费用的裁定。 在本法中,临时保全措施不视作判决;
(d) “与破产有关的判决”: ㈠ 是指满足下列条件的判决: a.
Such an exception with respect to the recognition of insolvency proceedings is not available under the MLCBI (discussed further below,  paras. 117-120).作为破产程序的结果产生的,或实质上与破产程序相关联,不论该项破产程序是否已经完结;
以及 b. 是在该项破产程序启动时或启动后作出的; 而且 ㈡
19 See the discussion on legalization in paras. 88-91 below.不包括破产程序的启动程序判决。 (a)项“破产程序”
40.48.
A requirement for protection of the interests of creditors and other interested  persons, including the debtor, is included in both the Model Law and the MLCBI,  but in different situations. hTe MLCBI requires the recognizing court to ensure  that those interests are considered when granting, modifying or terminating provisional or discretionary relief under the MLCBI (art. 22). As the Guide to Enactment  and Interpretation explains, the idea underlying that requirement is that there  should be a balance between relief that might be granted to the foreign representative  and the interests of the persons that may be affected by that relief. 20 hTe Model Law is more narrowly focused; the issue of such protection is relevant only in so far as  article 14, subparagraph (f) gives rise to a ground for refusing recognition and  enforcement where those interests were not adequately protected in the proceeding  giving rise to certain types of judgment. hTose include, for example, a judgment  conifrming a plan of reorganization. As discussed further below (see paras. 108–109),  the rationale is that the types of judgment speciifed in article 14, subparagraph (f)  directly affect the rights of creditors and other stakeholders collectively.
Although  other types of insolvency-related judgment resolving bilateral disputes between  parties may also affect creditors and other stakeholders, those effects are typically  indirect (e.g., via the judgment’s effect on the size of the insolvency estate).本定义借鉴了《跨国界破产示范法》关于“外国程序”的定义。 {§22} 凡符合第2条(a)项定义的与破产程序有关的判决,即属于本《示范法》的范畴。
In those  circumstances, a separate analysis of the adequate protection of third-party interests  is not considered to be necessary and could lead to unnecessary litigation and delay.破产程序是否属于定义范围内,所要求的特征包括如下:集体性质的司法或行政程序; 原判国与破产有关的法律依据;
41.债权人集体参与的机会;
Another element of the relationship between the Model Law and the MLCBI  concerns article X, which addresses the interpretation of MLCBI, article 21.债务人的资产和事务由法院或另一个官方机构监控或监督; 以及以债务人的重整或清算作为程序的目的。
Article X  is a further optional provision that States that have enacted (or are considering  enacting) the MLCBI may wish to consider.一项程序如要被视为“破产程序”,必须具备所有这些要素。
Pursuant to the clariifcation provided  by article X, the discretionary relief available under MLCBI, article 21 to support  a recognized foreign proceeding (covering both main and non-main proceedings)  should be interpreted as including the recognition and enforcement of a judgment,  notwithstanding any interpretation to the contrary.定义提及资产“由……或当初由……监控”,是为了处理如下这类情形:例如,在寻求承认与破产有关的判决时,破产程序已经结束; 或者程序开始时,所有资产已根据预定的整套重整计划移交,而资产虽然已不再受到监控,但程序仍在进行中(另见下文关于“与破产有关的判决”的定义说明)。
20 See Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, paras. 196–199.49.
V. Article-by-article remarks一项程序是否被视作“破产程序”,《颁布指南和解释》对所需要素作了详细解释。
Title{§23}
“Model Law”(b)项“破产管理人”
42.50.
If the enacting State decides to incorporate the provisions of the Model Law  into an existing national statute, the title of the enacted provisions would have to  be adjusted accordingly, and the word “Law”, which appears in various articles,  would have to be replaced by the appropriate phrase. Discussion in UNCITARL and the Working Group A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 35–36 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 40–41 A/CN.9/956本定义借鉴了《跨国界破产示范法》关于“外国代表”的定义{§24} 和《立法指南》中关于“破产管理人”的定义。 {§25} 按《立法指南》所述,{§26} 各国破产法使用了一些不同的称谓指称负责管理破产程序的人,其中包括“管理人”、“受托人”、“清算人”、“监管人”、“接管人”、“财产临时监护人”、“官员”或“司法管理人”或“专员”。
(c) To ensure timely and cost-effective recognition and enforcement of  insolvency-related judgments;本《示范法》所使用的“破产管理人”一语是指承担广义上可以履行一系列职能的人,对不同类型程序中的不同职能不作区分。
(d) To promote comity and cooperation between jurisdictions regarding  insolvency-related judgments;破产管理人可以是个人,或在某些法域中,可以是公司或其他单独的法律实体。
(a) To restrict provisions of the law of this State that would permit the  recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment;第2条(b)项确认,破产管理人可以是被授权在破产程序中管理这些程序的人,如果是在颁布国以外的国家进行的程序中,“破产管理人”可能还包括专门为代表这些程序而被授权的人。
43.51.
Paragraph 1 of the Preamble is dratfed to provide a succinct statement of the  basic policy objectives of the Model Law.《示范法》并未规定破产管理人必须由法院授权,因此,定义的范围足够广泛,可包括由法院以外的特别机构可能作出的任命。
It is not intended to create substantive  rights, but rather to provide a general orientation for users of the Model Law and  to assist with its interpretation. 44.同时还包括临时作出的任命。 将这种任命包括在内是为了反映许多国家的经常或甚至是通常的做法,这就是在“临时”或“暂时”的基础上启动破产程序。 这些程序除被称作临时之外,符合第2条(a)项“破产程序”定义的所有其他必要条件。
In States where it is not customary to include in legislation an introductory  statement of the policy on which the legislation is based, consideration might nevertheless be given to including a statement of the objectives contained in the Preamble  to the Model Law either in the body of the statute or in a separate document, in  order to provide a useful reference for interpretation of the law. 45. Paragraph 2 of the Preamble is intended to clarify certain issues concerning  the relationship of the Model Law to other national legislation dealing with the  recognition of insolvency proceedings that might also address the recognition of  insolvency-related judgments, including, for example, the MLCBI where it has  been enacted (see also art. 14, subpara. (h) and article X). Subparagraph 1(f) of  the Preamble emphasizes that the Model Law is intended to complement the  MLCBI, while subparagraph 2(a) builds upon that complementarity, conifrming  that nothing in the Model Law is intended to restrict the application of those other  laws and subparagraph 2(b) clariifes that the Model Law is not intended to replace  legislation enacting the MLCBI or to limit the application of that legislation. Subparagraph 2(c) relates to article 1 of the Model Law and clariifes that the text does  not cover recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment issued  in the enacting State.
Subparagraph 2(d) of the Preamble conifrms that the Model  Law is not intended to apply to a judgment commencing an insolvency proceeding.这些程序常常在被临时指定的人的管理下作为“临时”程序进行数周或数月,只有在后来某个时候法院才发布命令,确认在非临时的基础上继续进行这些程序。
A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 48(b)项中的定义足够广泛,包括破产程序启动后的留任债务人。 (c)项“判决”
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, paras. 16, 58, 76 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 37–39 A/CN.9/931, paras. 14–15 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 42–44 A/CN.9/937, paras. 15–16 A/CN.9/955, para. 10 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2 Paragraph 1 46.52. 《示范法》关于什么构成判决采用了广义的定义,在第2条(c)项的第二句中解释了这个词可能包括什么。 重点是放在法院作出的判决上,法院一般可能被描述为行使司法职能的权力机关;
Article 1, paragraph 1, conifrms that the Model Law is intended to address  the recognition and enforcement in one State (i.e., the State enacting the Model  Law) of an insolvency-related judgment issued in a different State i.e., in a crossborder context.如果行政机关的决定具有与法院裁定同样的效力,那么也包括由行政机关作出的决定。 把行政机关包括在本《示范法》内与《跨国界破产示范法》的做法一样,是因为一些破产制度由专门的机关管理,在破产程序中这些机关作出的决定应当在视同司法裁定的基础上获得承认。
While the judgment to which the Model Law applies must be issued  in a State other than the State in which recognition and enforcement is sought, it  should be noted that the insolvency proceeding to which that judgment is related  could be taking place in the State in which recognition and enforcement are sought;《示范法》并不要求与破产有关的判决必须由破产管辖权专职法院作出,因为并不是所有国家都有这种专职法院,在许多情况下,《示范法》所涵盖的判决可能是由一个无这种权限的法院所作出的。 着重点放在“与破产有关的”判决上,也是对这种做法的支持。 出于这些原因,“法院”一词的用法故意比《跨国界破产示范法》和《立法指南》中该词的用法更加广义。
there is no requirement that that proceeding be taking place in another State. hTe  judgment could also be related to a number of insolvency proceedings concerning  the same debtor that are taking place in more than one State concurrently. 47. Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates that the enacting State might decide to exclude  certain types of judgment, such as those raising public policy considerations or  where other speciifcally designated legal regimes are applicable. hTose might include,  for example, judgments concerning foreign revenue claims, extradition for insolvencyrelated matters, family law matters or judgments relating to entities excluded from  the Model Law, such as banks and insurance companies. With a view to making the national law based on this Model Law more transparent for the beneift of  foreign users, exclusions from the scope of the law might usefully be mentioned  in paragraph 2. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, paras. 49–53  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, paras. 55–60  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 32  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [1] A/CN.9/898, para. 11 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, paras. 16, 59–63 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 40–41 A/CN.9/931, para. 16  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 45–46  A/CN.9/937, para. 17 A/CN.9/955, para. 11 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2
b.{§27}
Was issued on or atfer the commencement of that insolvency  proceeding;53. 文中增加了提及法院成本和费用的词语,以便把法院费用令的执行范围局限于那些与可根据《示范法》获得承认和执行的判决相关的情况。
and54.
Subparagraph (a) “Insolvency proceeding”对于《示范法》而言,临时保全措施不应当被视作判决。
48. hTis deifnition draws upon the deifnition of “foreign proceeding” in the  MLCBI.《示范法》并没有就“临时措施”一词所指的是什么下定义。
21 A judgment will fall within the scope of the Model Law if it is related to an insolvency proceeding that meets the deifnition in article 2, subparagraph (a).  hTe attributes required for that proceeding to fall within the deifnition include  the following: judicial or administrative proceeding of a collective nature;在国际上,关于什么构成临时、暂时、保全或预防措施,很少存在相关的定义,对于这些措施应当如何定性,法律制度各有不同。 55. 临时措施可能为两个主要目的服务:在判定审理的问题之前保持现状,并提供保证资产的初步手段,从而可以使用这些资产满足最终的判决。
basis in  insolvency-related law of the originating State;此外,这些措施可能有某些共同的特征;
opportunity for involvement of  creditors collectively;例如,措施是临时性质的,可以紧急申请,或可以单方面颁布。
control or supervision of the assets and affairs of the debtor  by a court or another oifcial body;但是,如果向被申请人发出了这些措施的法院令后被申请人有机会出庭和申请取消该命令但该命令被法院确认的,则可能不再被视作暂时或临时措施。
and reorganization or liquidation of the debtor  as the purpose of the proceeding. For a proceeding to be considered an “insolvency  proceeding” it must possess all of these elements. hTe deifnition refers to assets  that “are or were subject to control” to address situations such as where the insolvency proceeding has closed at the time recognition of the insolvency-related judgment is sought or where all assets were transferred at the start of a proceeding  pursuant to a pre-packaged reorganization plan and while the assets are no longer  subject to control, the proceeding remains open (see also notes with respect to the  deifnition of “insolvency-related judgment” below). 21 MLCBI, art. 2(a): (a) “‘Foreign proceeding’ means a collective judicial or administrative proceeding in a  foreign State, including an interim proceeding, pursuant to a law relating to insolvency in which proceeding the  assets and affairs of the debtor are subject to control or supervision by a foreign court, for the purpose of reorganization or liquidation.” 49. A detailed explanation of the elements required for a proceeding to be considered an “insolvency proceeding” is provided in the Guide to Enactment and  Interpretation.
2256.
Subparagraph (b) “Insolvency representative”由于法律的运作而可能适用的法律效力,例如依据关于破产的相关法律在启动破产程序时自动适用的中止措施,在没有进一步的法院令情况下,不得被视作《示范法》意义上的判决。
50. hTis deifnition draws upon the deifnition of “foreign representative” in MLCBI 23 and “insolvency representative” in the Legislative Guide. 24 As noted in the Legislative Guide, 25 insolvency laws refer to the person responsible for administering insol vency proceedings by a number of different titles, including “administrators”, “trustees”, “liquidators”, “supervisors”, “receivers”, “curators”, “oifcial” or “judicial  managers” or “commissioners”. hTe term “insolvency representative” is used in the  Model Law to refer to the person fuliflling the range of functions that may be  performed in a broad sense without distinguishing between those different functions in different types of proceeding. hTe insolvency representative may be an  individual or, in some jurisdictions, a corporation or other separate legal entity. Article 2, subparagraph (b) recognizes that the insolvency representative may be a  person authorized in insolvency proceedings to administer those proceedings and,  in the case of proceedings taking place in a State other than the enacting State, the  “insolvency representative” may also include a person authorized speciifcally for  the purposes of representing those proceedings. 51. hTe Model Law does not specify that the insolvency representative must be  authorized by a court and the deifnition is thus suifciently broad to include appoint ments that might be made by a special agency other than the court. It also includes  appointments made on an interim basis. Such appointments are included to relfect  the practice in many countries of otfen, or even usually, commencing insolvency  proceedings on an “interim” or “provisional” basis.
Except for being labelled as  interim, those proceedings meet all the other requisites of the deifnition of “insolvency proceeding” in article 2, subparagraph (a).(d)项“与破产有关的判决” 57. 《示范法》涵盖的判决类型是那些可被视作由破产程序(按第2条(a)项的定义)的结果产生的或在实质上与之相关联的判决,并且这些判决是在该项破产程序启动时或启动后由法院或相关的行政机关作出的。
Such proceedings are otfen conducted for weeks or months as “interim” proceedings under the administration of  persons appointed on an “interim” basis, and only at some later time would the  court issue an order conifrming the continuation of the proceedings on a与破产有关的判决将包括该项判决中提供的或执行该项判决时所要求的衡平法上的任何救济,其中包括确立推定的信托关系,但不包括判决中的实行任何刑事处罚的成分(尽管第16条可能能够把刑事处罚的部分与判决的其他部分划分开来)。 58. 破产程序的启动程序决定是《跨国界破产示范法》下专门论述的承认主题,而按《示范法》定义(d)㈡项所作确认,《示范法》不涵盖这类决定。
22 Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, paras. 69–80.可以指出,如果需要承认程序启动决定,那么情况很可能是也需要《跨国界破产示范法》下可以提供的救济。
23 MLCBI, art. 2(d): “‘Foreign representative’ means a person or body, including one appointed on an interim  basis, authorized in a foreign proceeding to administer the reorganization or the liquidation of the debtor’s assets  or affairs or to act as a representative of the foreign proceeding.”但是,《示范法》的确涵盖在启动破产程序时作出的判决,如破产管理人的任命,以及关于支付员工债权和继续保持员工应享福利、留用和支付专业人员、接受或拒绝尚未执行的合同以及使用现金抵押品和启动后融资的判决或法院令。 这些被视为与破产有关的判决,因为是作为启动破产程序后的结果产生的,并且是属于这一用语定义范畴的判决。 59.
24 Legislative Guide, Introd., subpara. 12(v): “‘Insolvency representative’: a person or body, including one appointed  on an interim basis, authorized in insolvency proceedings to administer the reorganization or the liquidation of  the insolvency estate.”第2条(d)项“与破产有关的判决”定义中㈠a分项的最后半句措词是“不论该项破产程序是否已经完结”,这句话阐明,与破产有关的判决如果是在其所相关的程序结束后作出的,也仍然可以被视作《示范法》意义上的与破产有关的判决。
25 Ibid., part two, chap. III, para. 35.例如,在一些法域,重整计划的确认被认为是程序的结束,而在重整计划获得法院核准和确认之后,仍可以提出撤销权诉讼。
non-interim basis. hTe deifnition in subparagraph (b) is suifciently broad to include  debtors who remain in possession atfer the commencement of insolvency  proceedings.对于破产程序的结束,各国破产法做法上各有不同,如《立法指南》第二部分第六章第16-19段讨论的那样。 60. 以下列表并非意在详尽无遗,其中列举了可被视作与破产有关的判决的一些判决类型:
Subparagraph (c) “Judgment” 52. hTe Model Law adopts a broad deifnition of what constitutes a judgment,  explaining what the term might include in the second sentence of article 2, subparagraph (c). hTe focus is upon judgments issued by a court, which might generally  be described as an authority exercising judicial functions or by an administrative  authority, provided a decision of the latter has the same effect as a court decision. Administrative authorities are included in the Model Law, as they are in the  MLCBI, on the basis that some insolvency regimes are administered by specialized  authorities and decisions issued by those authorities in the course of insolvency  proceedings merit recognition on the same basis as judicial decisions. hTe Model  Law does not require an insolvency-related judgment to have been issued by a  specialized court with insolvency jurisdiction, since not all States have such specialized courts and there are many instances in which a judgment covered by the  Model Law could be issued by a court that did not have such competence. hTis is  also supported by the focus upon “insolvency-related” judgments. For those reasons, the use of the word “court” is intentionally broader than the use of that word  in both the MLCBI and the Legislative Guide. 53. hTe reference to costs and expenses of the court has been added to restrict  the enforcement of costs orders to those given in relation to judgments that can  be recognized and enforced under the Model Law.
54.(a)
Interim measures of protection should not be considered to be judgments for  the purposes of the Law. hTe Model Law does not deifne what is intended by the  term “interim measures”.所作判决涉及破产财产的资产构成和处分,例如某一资产是否是破产财产的一部分,是否应当移交给破产财产,或者是否由破产财产作了适当(或不适当)的处分; (b)
In the international context, few deifnitions of what constitute interim, provisional, protective or precautionary measures exist and legal  systems differ on how those measures should be characterized.所作判决判定一项涉及债务人或其破产财产资产的交易是否因为其破坏了债权人公平待遇原则(优惠交易)或不适当减少了破产财产的价值(估值过低的交易)而应当予以撤销;
55.(c)
Interim measures may serve two principal purposes: to maintain the status  quo pending determination of the issues at trial and to provide a preliminary means  of securing assets out of which an ultimate judgment may be satisifed.所作判决判定债务人的代表或董事应当对债务人破产时或临近破产期间采取的行动负责,并且根据《立法指南》第四部分,关于这一责任的诉由是按照关于破产的法律可以由债务人的破产财产或代表债务人的破产财产提出追索的;
In addition,(d)
26 Ibid., Introd., para. 8: For purposes of simplicity, the Legislative Guide uses the word “court” in the same  way as art. 2, subpara. (e), of MLCBI to refer to “a judicial or other authority competent to control or supervise”  insolvency proceedings.所作判决判定债务人是否欠有或被欠有一笔款项或者(a)项或(b)项未涵盖的其他任何履约行为。 颁布国将需确定这一类别是否应延及所有这类判决,而无论诉由何时产生。
An authority which supports or has speciifed roles in insolvency proceedings, but which  does not have adjudicative functions with respect to those proceedings, would not be regarded as within the  meaning of the term “court” as that term is used in the Guide.虽然可以认为破产程序启动前产生的诉由与破产程序有充分关联,因为该诉由是在该程序过程中所追索的,并且可能对该程序产生影响,但也可以认为,就这一诉由作出的判决原本是在破产程序启动前即可由债务人所获得的,或法院针对债务人而作出的,因此,这种判决缺乏与破产程序足够的实质性关联。
MLCBI, art. 2 subpara. (e), provides: “(e) ‘Foreign  court’ means a judicial or other authority competent to control or supervise a foreign proceeding.”各颁布国还似宜考虑到其他国际文书中对此类判决的处理方法; (e) 所作判决㈠确认或变更重组计划或清算计划;
they may share certain characteristics;㈡准予解除债务人责任或债务; 或㈢核准自愿或庭外重组协议。
for example, they are temporary in nature,  they may be sought on an urgent basis, or they may be issued on an ex parte basis.第㈢项所述的那类协议一般不由破产法管理,而是可以通过非正式谈判达成,以处理共同合意修改所有参与的债权人的债权问题。
However, if an order for such measures is conifrmed atfer the respondent has been  served with the order and had the opportunity to appear and seek the discharge  of the order, it may cease to be regarded as a provisional or interim measure.在《示范法》中,所指的是最终提交法院在正式程序中,例如在《立法指南》所述的那类快速程序中,加以批准的那些协议; {§28} 以及
56.(f)
Legal effects that might apply by operation of law, such as a stay applicable  automatically on commencement of insolvency proceedings pursuant to the relevant law relating to insolvency, may not, without additional court orders, be considered a judgment for the purposes of the Model Law.在债务人的董事位于另一法域的情况下,所作判决是规定对该董事进行审查。 61. 导致判决的诉由不一定必须由债务人或其破产管理人提出追索。
Subparagraph (d) “Insolvency-related judgment”“诉由”应当作广义解释,指诉讼的事由。
57. hTe types of judgment to be covered by the Model Law are those that can be  considered to arise as a consequence of or that are materially associated with an  insolvency proceeding (as deifned in art. 2, subpara. (a)) and that are issued by a  court or relevant administrative authority on or atfer the commencement of that  insolvency proceeding. An insolvency-related judgment would include any equitable  relief, including the establishment of a constructive trust, provided in that judgment  or required for its enforcement, but would not include any element of a judgment  imposing a criminal penalty (although article 16 may enable the criminal penalty  to be severed from other elements of the judgment). 58. hTe decision commencing an insolvency proceeding is speciifcally the subject  of recognition under the MLCBI and is not covered by the Model Law, as conifrmed by subparagraph (d)(ii) of the deifnition. It might be noted that should  recognition of the commencement decision be required, it is most likely to be in  circumstances where the relief available under the MLCBI is also required. hTe  Model Law does, however, cover judgments issued at the time of commencement  of insolvency proceedings, such as appointment of an insolvency representative,  judgments or orders addressing payment of employee claims and continuation of  employee entitlements, retention and payment of professionals, acceptance or  rejection of executory contracts, and use of cash collateral and post-commencement ifnance. hTey would be considered insolvency-related judgments on the basis  that they arise as a consequence of the commencement of the insolvency proceedings and are judgments that fall within the deifnition of that term. 59. hTe words at the end of the deifnition of “insolvency-related judgment” in  article 2, subparagraph (d)(i) a, “whether or not that insolvency proceeding has  closed”, clarify that an insolvency-related judgment issued atfer the proceeding to  which it relates has closed, can still be considered an insolvency-related judgment  for the purposes of the Model Law.
In some jurisdictions, for example, actions for avoidance may be pursued atfer a reorganization plan has been approved and conifrmed by the court, where that conifrmation is considered to be the conclusion  of the proceedings.破产管理人可能已决定不提出诉讼,而是指定由一个第三方提出,或允许由债权人获得法院批准后提出。
Insolvency laws take different approaches to conclusion of  insolvency proceedings, as discussed in the Legislative Guide, part two, chapter VI,  paragraphs 16–19. 60. hTe following list, which is not intended to be exhaustive, provides some  examples of the types of judgment that might be considered insolvency-related  judgments: (a) A judgment dealing with constitution and disposal of assets of the insolvency estate, such as whether an asset is part of, should be turned over to, or was  properly (or improperly) disposed of by the insolvency estate; (b) A judgment determining whether a transaction involving the debtor or assets  of its insolvency estate should be avoided because it upset the principle of equitable  treatment of creditors (preferential transactions) or improperly reduced the value of  the estate (transactions at an undervalue); (c) A judgment determining that a representative or director of the debtor is  liable for action taken when the debtor was insolvent or in the period approaching  insolvency, and the cause of action relating to that liability was one that could be  pursued by or on behalf of the debtor’s insolvency estate under the law relating to  insolvency, in line with part four of the Legislative Guide;
(d) A judgment determining whether the debtor owes or is owed a sum or any  other performance not covered by subparagraph (a) or (b).只要最后形成的任何判决也是按《示范法》可以执行的那类判决的话,那么诉由如果是由另一方提出追索的,这一事实并不影响该项判决可以获得承认或加以执行的属性。
Enacting States will need  to determine whether this category should extend to all such judgments regardless  of when the cause of action arose. While it might be considered that a cause of action  that arose prior to the commencement of the insolvency proceedings was suifciently  linked to the insolvency proceeding, as it was being pursued in the context of, and  could have an impact on, that proceeding, it might also be considered that a judgment  on such a cause of action could have been obtained by or against the debtor prior  to the commencement of the insolvency proceeding and, thus, lacked a suifciently  material association with the insolvency proceedings. Enacting States may also wish  to have regard to the treatment of such judgments under other international  instruments; (e) A judgment (i) conifrming or varying a plan of reorganization or liquidation,  (ii) granting a discharge of the debtor or of a debt, or (iii) approving a voluntary or  out-of-court restructuring agreement. hTe types of agreement referred to in subparagraph  (iii) are typically not regulated by the insolvency law and may be reached  through informal negotiation to address a consensual modiifcation of the claims of  all participating creditors. In the Model Law, the reference is to such agreements that are ultimately referred to the court for approval in formal proceedings, such as an  expedited proceeding of the type addressed in the Legislative Guide;
27 and62.
(f) A judgment for the examination of a director of the debtor, where that  director is located in a third jurisdiction.如上文所述,(d)㈡项确认,定义中不包括破产程序的启动程序决定,因为这是《跨国界破产示范法》下的承认制度的主题。
61. hTe cause of action leading to the judgment need not necessarily be pursued  by the debtor or its insolvency representative.然而,如上所述,启动破产程序时作出的其他决定,例如关于任命破产管理人的决定,并不排除在《示范法》之外。
“Cause of action” should be interpreted  broadly to refer to the subject matter of the litigation. hTe insolvency representative  may have decided not to pursue the action, but rather to assign it to a third party  or to permit it to be pursued by creditors with the approval of the court. hTe fact  that the cause of action was pursued by another party will not affect the recognizability or enforceability of any resulting judgment, provided it is of a type otherwise  enforceable under the Model Law. 62. Subparagraph (d)(ii), as noted above, conifrms that the deifnition does not  include the decision commencing an insolvency proceeding on the basis that it is  the subject of a recognition regime under the MLCBI. However, other decisions  made at the time of commencement of an insolvency proceeding, as noted above,  such as the decision appointing the insolvency representative, are not excluded from  the Model Law. Recognition of that appointment, for example, is otfen a critical factor  in demonstrating that the insolvency representative has standing to apply for recognition and enforcement of the judgment (art. 11) or for relief associated with such  recognition and enforcement (art. 12).
A/73/17, paras. 116 and 125–126 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, paras. 54–60 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, paras. 61–70 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.140, paras. 3–5 A/CN.9/870, paras. 53–60 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [2]–[13] A/CN.9/898, paras. 48–60 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, paras. 16, 64–73, 77 (para. 68 is relevant to the history and evolution  of the deifnition of the term “insolvency-related judgment”)例如,承认这一任命常常是一个重要的因素,表明破产管理人有资格申请该项判决获得承认和执行(第11条),或者申请与这种承认和执行相关联的救济(第12条)。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116和125-126段
27 Legislative Guide, part two, chap. IV, section B.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第54-60段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 42–56 A/CN.9/931, paras. 17–18 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 47–61 A/CN.9/937, paras. 18–20 A/CN.9/955, paras. 12–15 A/CN.9/956, Add.1 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2A/CN.9/864,第61-702段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.140,第3-5段
63.A/CN.9/870,第53-60段
Article 3, paragraph 1, expressing the principle of supremacy of international  obligations of the enacting State over domestic law, has been modelled on similar  provisions in other model laws prepared by UNCITARL, including the MLCBI. 28 64. Article 3, paragraph 2, provides that where there is a treaty in force for the  enacting State and that treaty applies to the recognition and enforcement of civil  and commercial judgments, if the judgment in question falls within the terms of  the treaty, then the treaty should cover its recognition and enforcement, rather  than the Model Law. hTe article conifrms that the treaty will prevail only when it  has entered into force for the enacting State and applies to the judgment in question. Binding legal obligations issued by regional economic integration organizations that  are applicable to members of that organization might be treated as obligations  arising from an international treaty. hTis provision can also be adapted in national  law to refer to binding international instruments with non-State entities, where  such instruments could apply to the recognition and enforcement of insolvencyrelated judgments.
65.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143
In some States binding international treaties are self-executing.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[2]-[13] A/CN.9/898,第48-60段
In other States,  however, those treaties, with certain exceptions, are not self-executing as they  require domestic legislation in order to become enforceable law.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第16、64-73、77段(第68段阐述关于“与破产有关的判决”一词的定义的历史和演变)
In view of theA/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
28 See for example, Guide to Enactment and Interpretation, paras. 91–93.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第42-56段 A/CN.9/931,第17-18段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第47-61段
normal practice of the latter group of States with respect to international treaties  and agreements, it might be inappropriate or unnecessary to enact article 3 or it  might be appropriate to enact it in a modiifed form. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, para. 71 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, paras. 61–63 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [14]–[15] A/CN.9/898, paras. 13–17 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, paras. 17–20, 78 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 57–59 A/CN.9/931, para. 19 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 62–64  A/CN.9/937, para. 21 A/CN.9/955, para. 16 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2 hTe functions referred to in this Law relating to recognition and enforcement of  an insolvency-related judgment shall be performed by [specify the court, courts, authority or authorities competent to perform those functions in the enacting State] and by any  other court before which the issue of recognition is raised as a defence or as an  incidental question. 66. hTe competence for the judicial functions dealt with in the Model Law may  lie with different courts and authorities in the enacting State and the enacting State  would tailor the text of the article to its own system of such competence. hTe value  of article 4, as enacted in a given State, would be to increase the transparency and  ease of use of the legislation for the beneift of, in particular, foreign insolvency  representatives and others authorized under the law of the originating State to seek  recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment. If, in the enacting State, any of the functions relating to recognition and enforcement of an insolvencyrelated judgment are performed by an authority other than a court, the State would  insert in article 4, and in other appropriate places in the enacting legislation, the  name of the competent authority.
67. In deifning jurisdiction in matters mentioned in article 4, the implementing  legislation should not unnecessarily limit the jurisdiction of other courts in the  enacting State.A/CN.9/937,第18-20段 A/CN.9/955,第12-15段 A/CN.9/956、Add.1和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
In particular, as the article makes clear, the issue of recognition may  be raised by way of defence or as an incidental question in a proceeding in which  the main issue for determination is not that of recognition and enforcement of  such a judgment. In those cases, that issue may be raised in a court or authority  other than the body speciifed in accordance with the ifrst part of article 4. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, para. 71 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 64  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [16]–[17] A/CN.9/898, paras. 18–20 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, para. 21  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 60–61 A/CN.9/931, para. 20 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 65–66  A/CN.9/937, para. 22 A/CN.9/956 68. hTe intent of article 5 is to ensure insolvency representatives or other authorities appointed in insolvency proceedings commenced in the enacting State are  authorized to act abroad with respect to an insolvency-related judgment. An enacting State in which insolvency representatives are already equipped to act in that  regard may decide to forgo inclusion of article 5, although retaining that article  would provide clear statutory evidence of that authority and assist foreign courts  and other users of the law.
69.第3条.
Article 5 is formulated to make it clear that the scope of the power exercised  abroad by the insolvency representative would depend upon the foreign law and  courts.我国的国际义务 1. 我国作为一方同另一国或多国签订任何条约或其他形式的协定后对我国产生义务而本法与之相冲突的,以该条约或协定的规定为准。
Action that the insolvency representative appointed in the enacting State  may wish to take in a foreign State will be action of the type dealt with in the  Model Law, such as seeking recognition or enforcement of an insolvency-related  judgment or associated relief. hTe authority to act in that foreign State will not  depend on whether it has enacted legislation based on the Model Law. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, para. 71 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 65 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [16] A/CN.9/898, para. 21 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, para. 22 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 62–63 A/CN.9/931, para. 20 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 67–68  A/CN.9/937, para. 23 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2 70. hTe purpose of the Model Law is to increase and harmonize the cross-border  assistance available in the enacting State with respect to the recognition and  enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment. However, since the law of the  enacting State may, at the time of enacting the Law, already have in place various  provisions under which a foreign insolvency representative could obtain that  assistance and since it is not the purpose of the Law to replace or displace those  provisions to the extent they provide assistance that is additional to or different  from the type of assistance dealt with in the Model Law, the enacting State may  consider whether article 6 is needed to make that point clear.
ArticleXis also  relevant in this regard in so far as it provides clariifcation as to the scope of MLCBI,  article 21 and the relief that should be available under that article.2. 当有一项关于承认或执行民事和商事判决的现行有效条约且该条约适用于某项判决时,本法不适用于该项判决。 63.
As article 6 does  not specify to whom the relief is available, it follows from article 11 that any person  entitled to apply for recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment could also seek additional assistance under article 6.第3条第1款阐述的是颁布国国际义务优先于国内法的原则,这款规定以贸易法委员会制定的其他示范法(包括《跨国界破产示范法》在内)中类似的条文为原型。 {§29} 64.
A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, para. 71 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 66 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [16] A/CN.9/898, para. 21 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, para. 23 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, para. 64第3条第2款规定,如果有一项条约对颁布国发生效力,该条约适用于民商事判决的承认和执行,并且如果该项判决属于条约规定的范围内,那么条约而不是本《示范法》应当适用于该项判决的承认和执行。 该条确认,只有在条约对颁布国生效后并且适用于该项判决时,才以条约为准。
A/CN.9/931, para. 21 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, para. 69  A/CN.9/937, para. 23 A/CN.9/956区域经济一体化组织颁布的对组织成员适用的具有约束力的法律义务,可作为国际条约产生的义务处理。
71. hTe notion of public policy is grounded in national law and may differ from  State to State.这一规定也可在国内法中作相应调整,在具有约束力的国际文书适用于与破产有关判决的承认和执行的情况下,指称与非国家实体订立的这类文书。 65. 在一些国家,具有约束力的国际条约自动执行。
No uniform deifnition of that notion is attempted in article 7.但在另一些国家,这些条约除某些例外,并非自动执行,因为需要有国内立法才能够成为可执行的法律。
72. In some States, the expression “public policy” may be given a broad meaning  in that it might relate in principle to any mandatory rule of national law.鉴于后面这类国家对国际条约和协定的通常做法,也许不宜或不需要颁布第3条,或者似宜按修订后的形式加以颁布。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116段
In many  States, however, the public policy exception is construed as being restricted to  fundamental principles of law, in particular constitutional guarantees;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第61段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135
in those  States, public policy would only be used to refuse the application of foreign law,  or the recognition of a foreign judicial decision or arbitral award, when to do so  would contravene those fundamental principles. 73. hTe purpose of the expression “manifestly”, which is also used in many other  international legal texts as a qualiifer of the expression “public policy” (including  the MLCBI), is to emphasize that the public policy exception should be interpreted  restrictively and that article 7 is only intended to be invoked under exceptional  circumstances concerning matters of fundamental importance for the enacting  State. In some States, that may include situations where the security or sovereignty  of the State has been infringed. 74. hTe second part of the provision referring to procedural fairness is intended  to focus attention on serious procedural failings. It was dratfed to accommodate  those States with a relatively narrow concept of public policy (and which treat  procedural fairness and natural justice as being distinct from public policy) that  may wish to include language about procedural fairness in legislation enacting the  Model Law. hTe addition of this language is not intended to suggest that the  approach to public policy in the Model Law differs in any way from that of the  MLCBI or that the idea of procedural fairness would not be included under the  public policy exception in MLCBI, article 6.
29 For relevant cases under the MLCBI see, for example, the Judicial Perspective, section III.B.5 “hTe ‘public  policy’ exception”.A/CN.9/864,第71段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870,第61-63段
A/73/17, paras. 116 and 127–128 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 67 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/898, para. 21 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [18]–[19] A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, para. 24 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 65–69  A/CN.9/931, para. 22 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 70–74  A/CN.9/937, para. 23 A/CN.9/955, para. 17 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[14]-[15] A/CN.9/898,第13-17段
75.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
A provision similar to the one contained in article 8 appears in a number of  private law treaties (e.g., art. 7, para. 1, of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (Vienna, 1980)).A/CN.9/903,第17-20、78段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第57-59段
30 It has been recognized that such a provision would also be useful in a non-treaty text, such as a model  law, on the basis that a State enacting a model law would have an interest in its  harmonized interpretation.A/CN.9/931,第19段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第62-64段 A/CN.9/937,第21段
Article 8 is modelled on the corresponding article of  the MLCBI.A/CN.9/955,第16段 A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
76.第4条.
Harmonized interpretation of the Model Law is facilitated by the Case Law  on UNCITARL Texts (CLOUT) information system, under which the UNCITARL  secretariat publishes abstracts of judicial decisions (and, where applicable, arbitral  awards) that interpret conventions and model laws emanating from UNCITARL  (for further information about the system, see para. 129 below).有管辖权的法院或权力机关 本法中提到的与破产有关的一项判决的承认和执行职能应由[此处具体指明颁布国负责履行这些职能的一个或多个法院或一个或多个权力机关]履行,并由受理作为抗辩理由或附带问题提出的承认问题的任何其他法院履行。 66.
30 United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1498, No. 25567.《示范法》所述的司法职能权限可能分散在颁布国的不同法院和机关,颁布国将需要按其本国的这类权限制度调整本条的行文。
A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, para. 71 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 68 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [16] A/CN.9/898, para. 22 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, para. 25 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 70–71 A/CN.9/931, para. 23 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 75–76  A/CN.9/937, para. 24 A/CN.9/956/Add.2国家颁布了第4条之后,其价值将在于提高立法的透明度和使用上的便利性,这一点特别有助于外国破产管理人和根据原判国法律授权的寻求与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的其他人。 如果在颁布国,涉及承认和执行与破产有关判决的任何职能是由法院以外另一机关实施的,那么该国应当在第4条中和颁行立法的其他适当之处写入拥有该权限的机关的名称。
77.67.
Article 9 provides that a judgment will only be recognized if it has effect in  the originating State, and will only be enforced if it is enforceable in the originating  State.在界定第4条所述事项的管辖权时,实施法律不应当对颁布国其他法院的管辖权作不必要的限制。 特别是,正如本条所指明的,在程序中判定的主要问题可能不是关于该项判决的承认和执行,在这样的程序中,承认的问题可能以抗辩理由的方式或作为一个附带问题提出。
Having effect generally means that the judgment is legally valid and operative.在这些情况下,这一问题可能在根据第4条前半句指定的机构以外的另一法院或机关提出。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
If it does not have effect, it will not constitute a valid determination of the parties’  rights and obligations.A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第61段
It is possible that a judgment is effective in the originating  State without being enforceable because, for example, it has been suspended pending the outcome of an appeal (this is addressed in article 10). If a judgment does  not have effect or is not enforceable in the originating State or if it ceases to have  effect or be enforceable in the originating State, it should not be recognized or  enforced (or continue to be recognized or enforced) in another State under the  Model Law. hTe question of effect and enforceability must thus be determined by  reference to the law of the originating State, recognizing that different States have  different rules on ifnality and conclusiveness of judgments. 78. hTis discussion raises the distinction between recognition of a judgment and  its enforcement. As noted above (see paras. 25–27), recognition means that the  receiving court will give effect to the originating court’s determination of legal  rights and obligations relfected in the judgment. For example, if the originating  court held that the plaintiff had, or did not have, a certain right, the receiving court  would accept and recognize that determination.
Enforcement, on the other hand,  means the application of the legal procedures of the receiving court to ensure compliance with the judgment issued by the originating court.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864,第71段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
A decision to enforce  the judgment must, for the purposes of the Model Law, be preceded or accompanied by recognition of the judgment.A/CN.9/870,第64段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[16]-[17]
79.A/CN.9/898,第18-20段
In contrast, recognition need not be accompanied or followed by enforcement.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第21段
For example, if the originating court held that one party had an obligation to pay  money to another party or that one party had a certain right, the receiving court  may simply recognize that ifnding of fact, without any issue of enforcement arising. If the cause of action giving rise to that judgment was pursued again in the receiving State, recognition of the foreign judgment would be suifcient to dispose of the  application. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, paras. 69, 72 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [20]–[21] A/CN.9/898, paras. 23–24 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, paras. 26–27 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 72–75 A/CN.9/931, paras. 24–26 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 77-79  A/CN.9/937, para. 25 A/CN.9/955, para. 18 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2 80. hTe use of the word “review” in article 10 might have different meanings  depending on national law; in some jurisdictions, it might initially include both  the possibility of a review by the issuing court, as well as review by way of an  appeal to an appellate court.
For example, an originating court may have a short  period before an appeal is made to a higher court in which to review its own judgment;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第60-61段 A/CN.9/931,第20段
once the appeal is made, the originating court no longer has that ability.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第65-66段
Both situations would be covered by the use of the word “review”.A/CN.9/937,第22段 A/CN.9/956 第5条.
“Ordinary review”  describes, in some legal systems, a review that is subject to a time limit and conceived  as an appeal with a full review (of facts and law).授权在另一国家就我国作出的 与破产有关的判决采取行动 [此处写入根据颁布国法律负责管理重整或清算的人或机构的名称]被授权在适用的外国法律允许的情况下在该另一国家就我国作出的与破产有关的判决采取行动。
It differentiates those cases from  “extraordinary” reviews, such as an appeal to a court of human rights or internal  appeals for violation of fundamental rights.68. 第5条的用意是确保破产管理人或在颁布国启动的破产程序中任命的其他机关被授权就与破产有关的判决在国外采取行动。 颁布国如果已经授权破产管理人在这方面采取行动,可以决定不包括第5条在内,但保留该条将可提供关于这一授权的明确法定依据,并有助于外国法院和法律的其他使用者。
81.69.
Article 10, paragraph 1, provides that if the judgment is the subject of review  in the originating State or if the time limit for seeking ordinary review has not  expired, the receiving court has the discretion to adopt various approaches to the  judgment.第5条在措词上是为了表明,破产管理人在国外行使权力的范围将取决于外国的法律和法院。 颁布国任命的破产管理人似宜在外国采取的行动将是《示范法》阐述的那类行动,例如,寻求获得承认和执行与破产有关的判决或相关的救济。
For example, it can refuse to recognize the judgment;在该外国行事的授权将不取决于该国是否颁布了以《示范法》为基础的立法。
postpone recognition  and enforcement until it is clear whether the judgment is to be aifrmed, set aside  or amended in the originating State;贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130
proceed to recognize the judgment, but postpone enforcement;A/CN.9/835,第61段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135
or recognize and enforce the judgment. hTis lfexibility allows  the court to deal with a variety of different situations, including, for example, where  the judgment debtor pursues an appeal in order to delay enforcement, where the  appeal may otherwise be considered frivolous or the judgment may be provisionally enforced in the originating State. If the court decides to recognize and enforce  the judgment notwithstanding the review or to recognize the judgment but postpone enforcement, the court can require the provision of some form of security  to ensure that the relevant party is not prejudiced pending the outcome of the  review. If the judgment is subsequently set aside or amended or ceases to become  effective or enforceable in the originating State, the receiving State should rescind  or amend any recognition or enforcement granted in accordance with relevant procedures established under domestic law. 82. If the court decided to refuse recognition and enforcement because of the  pending review, that decision should not prevent a new request for recognition and  enforcement once that review had been determined.
Refusal in that situation would  mean dismissal without prejudice. hTis is addressed by article 10, paragraph 2.A/CN.9/864,第71段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870,第65段
A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, paras. 69, 72 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [20]–[21] A/CN.9/898, paras. 23–24 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, paras. 26-27 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 76–77 A/CN.9/931, paras. 24–26 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 80–82  A/CN.9/937, para. 25 A/CN.9/955, para. 19 A/CN.9/956A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[16] A/CN.9/898,第21段
1. An insolvency representative or other person entitled under the law of the  originating State to seek recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related  judgment may seek recognition and enforcement of that judgment in this State.  hTe issue of recognition may also be raised as a defence or as an incidental  question.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903,第22段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
3. hTe court may require translation of documents submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 into an oifcial language of this State.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第62-63段 A/CN.9/931,第20段
4. hTe court is entitled to presume that documents submitted pursuant to paragraph 2 are authentic, whether or not they have been legalized.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第67-68段 A/CN.9/937,第23段 A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
83.第6条.
Article 11 establishes the conditions for applying for recognition and enforcement  of an insolvency-related judgment in the enacting State, as set out in paragraph 2,  and the core procedural requirements.其他法律下规定的进一步协助 本法概不限制法院或[此处写入根据颁布国法律负责管理重整或清算的人或机构的名称]根据我国其他法律提供进一步协助的权力。 70.
Article 11 provides a simple, expeditious  structure to be used for obtaining recognition and enforcement.《示范法》的目的是在承认和执行与破产有关的判决方面增加和协调颁布国可以提供的跨国界协助。
Accordingly, in  incorporating the provision into national law, it is desirable that the process not  be encumbered with requirements additional to those already included.但是,鉴于颁布国在颁布《示范法》时,本国法律中可能已经有各种规定使外国破产管理人可以获得这种协助,而且《示范法》的目的也不是替代或取代那些所提供的协助为补充或有别于《示范法》所述那类协助的条文规定,因此,颁布国可考虑第6条是否需要指明这一点。
84. Recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment can be sought  by either an insolvency representative or a person authorized to act on behalf of  an insolvency proceeding within the meaning of article 2, subparagraph (b).第X条也与这方面相关,因为其中指明了《跨国界破产示范法》第21条的范围和在该条下应当可以提供的救济。 因为第6条没有指明可以向谁提供救济,所以从第11条来看,凡有权申请与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的人,也都可以根据第6条寻求进一步的协助。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
It may  also be sought by any person entitled under the law of the originating State to seek  such recognition and enforcement.A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第61段
Such a person might include a creditor whose  interests are affected by the judgment. hTe second sentence of paragraph 1 repeats  article 4, noting that the question of recognition may also be raised by way of  defence or as an incidental question in the course of a proceeding.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864,第71段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
In such cases,  enforcement may not be required.A/CN.9/870,第66段
Where the issue arises in those circumstances,  the requirements of article 11 should be met in order to obtain recognition of the  judgment.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[16] A/CN.9/898,第21段
Moreover, the person raising the question in that manner should be a  person referred to in the ifrst sentence of article 11, paragraph 1. 85.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903,第23段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
Article 11, paragraph 2, lists the documents or evidence that must be produced  by the party seeking recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第64段 A/CN.9/931,第21段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第69段
Subparagraph 2(a) requires the production of a certiifed copy of the judgment.A/CN.9/937,第23段 A/CN.9/956 第7条.
What constitutes a “certiifed copy” should be determined by reference to the law  of the State in which the judgment was issued.公共政策的例外 在遵照本法采取的行动将明显违反我国公共政策,包括违反我国程序公正的基本原则情况下,本法概不阻止法院拒绝采取这一行动。 71.
Subparagraph 2(b) requires the provision of any documents necessary to satisfy the condition that the judgment  is effective and enforceable in the originating State, including information as to any  pending review of the judgment (see para. 81), which could include information  concerning the time limits for review. While the Model Law does not provide for  recognition of the decision commencing the insolvency proceeding to which the  judgment is related, it is desirable that a copy of that judgment be provided to the  recognizing court as evidence of the existence of the insolvency proceeding to  which the judgment is related. It is not intended, however, that where a copy of  that judgment is provided in support of the application for recognition and enforcement, a receiving court should evaluate the merits of the foreign court’s decision  commencing that proceeding. 86. In order to avoid refusal of recognition because of non-compliance with a mere  technicality (e.g., where the applicant is unable to submit documents that in all  details meet the requirements of art. 11, subparas. 2(a) and (b)), subparagraph (c)  allows evidence other than that speciifed in subparagraphs 2(a) and (b) to be taken  into account. hTat provision, however, does not compromise the court’s power to  insist on the presentation of evidence acceptable to it.
It is advisable to maintain  that lfexibility in enacting the Model Law.公共政策的概念建立在国内法基础上,可能因国而异。 第7条并不试图给出这一概念的统一定义。
87.72.
Paragraph 3 entitles, but does not compel, the court to require a translation  of some or all of the documents submitted under paragraph 2.在有些国家,“公共政策”一词可能有着广泛的含义,因为在原则上可能涉及国内法的任何强制性规则。
If that discretion is  compatible with the procedures of the court, it may facilitate a decision being made  on the application at the earliest possible time if the court is in a position to consider the request without the need for translation of the documents. 88. hTe Model Law presumes that documents submitted in support of recognition  and enforcement need not be authenticated in any special way, in particular by  legalization: according to article 11, paragraph 4, the court is entitled to presume  that those documents are authentic whether or not they have been legalized. “Legalization” is a term otfen used for the formality by which a diplomatic or  consular agent of the State in which the document is to be produced certiifes the  authenticity of the signature, the capacity in which the person signing the document  has acted and, where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp on the document. 89. It follows from article 11, paragraph 4, (according to which the court “is entitled to presume” the authenticity of documents submitted pursuant to paragraph 2) that the court retains discretion to decline to rely on the presumption of authenticity in the event of any doubt arising as to that authenticity or to conclude that  evidence to the contrary prevails. hTis lfexible solution takes into account the fact  that the court may be able to assure itself that a particular document originates  from a particular court even without it being legalized, but that in other cases the  court may be unwilling to act on the basis of a foreign document that has not been  legalized, in particular when documents emanate from a jurisdiction with which it  is not familiar. hTe presumption is useful because legalization procedures may be  cumbersome and time-consuming (e.g., because in some States they involve various authorities at different levels).
Nevertheless, a State requiring legalization of  documents such as those provided under article 11 is not prevented by the terms  of the article from extending that requirement to the Model Law.但是在许多国家,公共政策的例外被解释为仅限于法律的根本原则,特别是宪法上的保障; 在这些国家,只有在违背这些基本原则时,才以公共政策为由拒绝适用外国法律或拒绝承认外国司法裁定或仲裁裁决。 {§30}
90.73.
In respect of the provision relaxing any requirement of legalization, the question  may arise whether it is in conlfict with the international obligations of the enacting  State.“明显”一词也在许多其他国际法律文件中(包括《跨国界破产示范法》)作为“公共政策”一词的修饰语使用,其目的是为了强调,公共政策的例外在解释上应当有限制性,第7条的用意是只有在涉及对颁布国具有根本重要性的事项的特殊情况下才可加以援引。
Several States are parties to bilateral or multilateral treaties on mutual recognition and legalization of documents, such as the Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents of 1961在一些国家,这可能包括国家安全或主权受到侵犯的情形。 74. 条文的第二部分提及程序公正,这是为了重点关注程序上的严重缺陷。
31 adopted under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and providing  speciifc, simpliifed procedures for the legalization of documents originating from  signatory States.起草这一规定是为了照顾到公共政策的概念较为狭窄的那些国家(这些国家将程序公正和自然公正作为有别于公共政策的原则区别对待),这些国家似宜将关于程序公正的措词纳入《示范法》的颁行立法。
In many instances, however, the treaties on legalization of documents, like letters rogatory and similar formalities, leave in effect laws and regulations that have abolished or simpliifed legalization procedures;增加这些措词,目的并不是表明《示范法》对公共政策的处理方式与《跨国界破产示范法》的方式有任何不同,或程序公正的理念不包括在《跨国界破产示范法》第6条公共政策的例外下。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116和127-128段
therefore, a conlfict  is unlikely to arise.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
For example, as stated in article 3, paragraph 2, of the abovementioned convention:A/CN.9/870,第67段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/898,第21段
“However, [legalisation] cannot be required when either the laws, regulations,  or practice in force in the State where the document is produced or an agreement between two or more Contracting States have abolished or simpliifed it,  or exempt the document itself from legalisation.”A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[18]-[19] A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148
91.A/CN.9/903,第24段
According to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Model Law, if there is still a conlfict  between domestic law enacting the Model Law and a treaty or other formal, binding  agreement, the treaty or other agreement will prevail.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第65-69段 A/CN.9/931,第22段
92. Article 11, paragraph 5, establishes the right of the party against whom the  relief provided in the judgment is sought to be heard on the application for recognition and enforcement.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第70-74段 A/CN.9/937,第23段 A/CN.9/955,第17段
To ensure that the right is meaningful and can be enforced,A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2 第8条. 解释
31United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 527, No. 7625.对本法作出解释时,应考虑到其国际渊源以及促进其统一适用和遵守诚信的必要性。 75.
the party against whom that relief is sought will require notice of the application  for recognition and enforcement and of the details of the hearing. hTe Model Law  leaves it up to the law of the enacting State to determine how that notice should  be provided.类似于第8条所载规定的条款亦在若干私法条约中出现(如《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》第7条1款)。 {§31} 人们认识到,在像示范法这样的非条约文本中,这样一项规定也是有益的,因为颁布示范法的国家也希望对示范法有统一的解释。 第8条以《跨国界破产示范法》相应的条款为原型。
A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, paras. 62–63 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, paras. 72–75 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, paras. 70–71 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [22]–[25] A/CN.9/898, paras. 25–26 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, paras. 28–32 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 78–86 A/CN.9/931, paras. 27–29 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 83–92  A/CN.9/937, para. 26 A/CN.9/955, para. 20 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.276. 贸易法委员会法规判例法(法规判例法)资料系统有助于《示范法》的协调统一解释,在该系统下,贸易法委员会秘书处公布司法裁定(以及酌情而定,还有仲裁裁决)的摘要,解释贸易法委员会制定的各项公约和示范法(关于该系统的进一步详情,见下文第129段)。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
93.A/73/17,第116段
Article 12 deals with “urgently needed” relief that may be ordered at the discretion of the court and is available from the moment recognition is sought, until a  decision on recognition and, if appropriate, enforcement is made. hTe rationale for  making such relief available is to preserve the possibility that if the judgment is  recognized and enforced, assets will be available to satisfy it, whether they are assets  of the debtor in the insolvency proceeding to which the judgment relates or of the  judgment debtor. hTe urgency of the measures is alluded to in the opening words  of paragraph 1. Subparagraph 1(a) restricts the stay to the disposition of assets of  any party against whom the judgment was issued. Subparagraph 1(b) provides for  other relief, both legal and equitable, to be granted provided it is within the scope  of the judgment for which recognition is sought. As dratfed, paragraph 1 should  be lfexible enough to encompass an ex parte application for relief, where the law  of the enacting State permits a request to be made on that basis. hTis deferral to  the law of the enacting State is also relfected in the notice provisions contained in  paragraph 2. 94. hTe laws of many States contain requirements for notice to be given (either  by the insolvency representative upon the order of the court or by the court itself)  when relief of the type mentioned in article 12 is granted, except where it is sought  on an ex parte basis (if that is permitted in the enacting State).
Paragraph 2 is the  appropriate place for the enacting State to make provision for such notice where  it is required.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第61段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135
95.A/CN.9/864,第71段
Relief available under article 12 is provisional in that, as provided in paragraph 3,  it terminates when the issue of recognition and, where appropriate enforcement,  is decided, unless extended by the court. hTe court might wish to do so, for example,  to avoid a hiatus between any provisional measure issued before recognition and  any measure that might be issued on or atfer recognition. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, paras. 82–83 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [40] A/CN.9/898, para. 45 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, paras. 52–53  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 87–89 A/CN.9/931, para. 30 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 93–95  A/CN.9/937, para. 27 A/CN.9/956 and A/CN.9/956/Add.2 (a) hTe requirements of article 9 with respect to effectiveness and enforceability  are met; (b) hTe person seeking recognition and enforcement of the insolvency-related  judgment is an insolvency representative within the meaning of article 2, subparagraph (b), or another person entitled to seek recognition and enforcement of the  judgment under article 11, paragraph 1; 96. hTe purpose of article 13 is to establish clear and predictable criteria for recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment.
If (a) the judgment is anA/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
“insolvency-related judgment” (as deifned in art. 2, subpara. (d));A/CN.9/870,第68段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[16]
(b) the requirements for recognition and enforcement have been met (i.e., the judgment is effective and enforceable in the originating State under art. 9);A/CN.9/898,第22段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148
(c) recognition is sought  by a person referred to in article 11, paragraph 1, from a court or authority referred  to in article 4 or the question of recognition arises by way of defence or as an  incidental question before such a court or authority;A/CN.9/903,第25段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第70-71段
(d) the documents or evidence required under article 11, paragraph 2, have been provided;A/CN.9/931,第23段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第75-76段 A/CN.9/937,第24段
(e) recognition  is not contrary to public policy (art. 7);A/CN.9/956/Add.2 第9条. 与破产有关的判决的效力和可执行性
and (f) the judgment is not subject to any  of the grounds for refusal (art. 14), recognition should be granted.一项与破产有关的判决只有当其在原判国具有效力时才应当获得承认,并且只有当其在原判国可以执行时,才应当加以执行。
97.77.
In deciding whether an insolvency-related judgment should be recognized and  enforced, the receiving court is limited to the preconditions set out in the Model  Law.第9条规定,一项判决只有在原判国具有效力的才被承认,并且只有在原判国可以执行的,才能够获得执行。 具有效力一般意味着该项判决在法律上有效和可以操作。 如果没有效力,则不构成对当事方权利和义务的有效判定。
No provision is made for the receiving court to embark on a consideration  of the merits of the foreign court’s decision to issue the insolvency-related judgment  or issues related to the commencement of the insolvency proceeding to which the  judgment is related. Nevertheless, in reaching its decision on recognition, the receiving  court may have due regard to any decisions and orders made by the originating court  and to any information that may have been presented to the originating court.  hTose orders or decisions are not binding on the receiving court in the enacting  State, which is only required to satisfy itself independently that the insolvency -related  judgment meets the requirements of article 2. Nevertheless, the court is entitled  to rely, pursuant to the presumption in article 11, paragraph 4, on the information  in the certiifcates and documents provided in support of the request for recognition. In appropriate circumstances that information would assist the receiving court in  its deliberations. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 64 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, paras. 76–77 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 73 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [26]–[27] A/CN.9/898, paras. 27–29 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, para. 33  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 90–91
A/CN.9/931, para. 31 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 96–97  A/CN.9/937, paras. 28–29 A/CN.9/956一项判决可能在原判国有效但却不能加以执行,因为例如在等待上诉的结果期间被暂停执行(这一点在第10条阐述)。
(i) Was not notiifed of the institution of that proceeding in suifcient  time and in such a manner as to enable a defence to be arranged,  unless the party entered an appearance and presented their case without  contesting notiifcation in the originating court, provided that the law  of the originating State permitted notiifcation to be contested;如果一项判决在原判国不具有效力或不可以执行,或如果在原判国不再具有效力或不再可以执行,那么根据《示范法》就不应当在另一国获得承认或加以执行(或继续获得承认或加以执行)。 因此,认识到不同的国家对于判决的终局性和终结性有不同的规则,所以判定是否有效和可以执行的问题必须以原判国的法律为准。
or78.
(i) Materially affects the rights of creditors generally, such as determining  whether a plan of reorganization or liquidation should be conifrmed,  a discharge of the debtor or of debts should be granted or a voluntary  or out-of-court restructuring agreement should be approved;这一讨论提出了承认判决和执行判决这两者之间的区别。 如上所述(见第25-27段),承认即意味着接案法院对于在该项判决中反映的原判法院关于法定权利和义务的判定给予效力。 例如,如果原判法院认定原告享有或不享有某项权利,接案法院将认可和确认这一判定。
and States that have enacted legislation based on the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency might wish to enact subparagraph (h)另一方面,执行意味着适用接案法院的法律程序,以确保原判法院作出的判决得到遵守。 就《示范法》而言,关于执行该项判决的裁定必须首先以对于该项判决的承认为前提,或者必须同时附带对于该项判决的承认。 79.
(i) hTe insolvency representative of a proceeding that is or could have  been recognized under [insert a reference to the law of the enacting State giving effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency] participated in the proceeding in the originating State to  the extent of engaging in the substantive merits of the cause of action  to which that proceeding related;相比之下,给予承认并不需要同时附带或随后加以执行。 例如,如果原判法院认定一方当事人有义务支付另一方钱款,或一方当事人享有某项权利,那么接案法院可直接承认这一事实的判定,并不产生任何执行问题。 如果产生这一判决结果的诉由在接案国被再次提出追索,那么承认外国判决将足以驳回申请。
and贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
98.A/73/17,第116段
Article 14 sets out the speciifc grounds, in addition to the public policy ground  under article 7, on which recognition and enforcement of an insolvency-related  judgment might be refused. hTe list of grounds is intended to be exhaustive, so  that grounds not mentioned would not apply. As noted above, provided the judgment  meets the conditions of article 13, recognition is not prohibited under article 7, and the grounds set forth in article 14 do not apply, recognition of the judgment  should follow. By indicating that recognition and enforcement “may” be refused,  article 14 makes it clear that, even if one of the provisions of article 14 is applicable,  the court is not obliged to refuse recognition and enforcement. However, it might  be noted that in some legal traditions, once one of the grounds enumerated in  article 14 is found to exist, the court would not have that discretion and would  have to refuse recognition and enforcement of the judgment. In principle, the onus  of establishing one or more of the grounds set out under article 14 rests upon the  party opposing recognition or enforcement of the judgment.
Subparagraph (a) — notiifcation of proceedings giving rise to the insolvency-related judgment 99.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870,第69、72段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143
Article 14, subparagraph (a) permits the court to refuse recognition and enforcement if the defendant in the proceeding giving rise to the insolvency-related judgment was not properly notiifed of that proceeding.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[20]-[21] A/CN.9/898,第23-24段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
Two rules are involved: the ifrst,  in subparagraph (a)(i), is concerned with the interests of the defendant;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第26-27段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
the second,  in subparagraph (a)(ii), is concerned with the interests of the receiving State. 100.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第72-75段 A/CN.9/931,第24-26段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第77-79段
Subparagraph (a)(i) addresses failure to notify the defendant in suifcient  time and in such a manner as to enable a defence to be arranged. hTis provision  encompasses notiifcation not only of the fact of the institution of the proceedings,  but also of the essential elements of the claims made against the defendant in order  to enable a defence to be arranged. hTe use of the word “notiifed” has no technical  legal meaning, and simply requires the defendant to be placed in a position to  inform her or himself of the claim and the content of the documentation relating  to the institution of the proceedings. hTe test of whether notiifcation has been  given in suifcient time is purely a question of fact which depends on the circumstances of each case. hTe procedural rules of the originating court may afford guidance as to what might be required to satisfy the requirement, but would not be  conclusive. Unfamiliarity with the local law and language and problems in ifnding  a suitable lawyer may require a longer period than is prescribed under the law and  practice of the originating court. hTe notiifcation should also be effected “in such  a manner” as to enable the defendant to arrange a defence, which may require  documents written in a language that the defendant is unlikely to understand to  be accompanied by an accurate translation. hTe defendant would have to show not  merely that notice was insuifcient, but that the fact of insuifciency deprived them  of a substantial defence or evidence which, as a matter of certainty and not merely  of speculation, would have made a material difference to the outcome of the originating litigation. If that is not the case, it cannot be argued that the defendant was  not enabled to arrange a defence. 101. hTe rule in subparagraph (a)(i) does not apply if the defendant entered an  appearance and presented their case without contesting notiifcation, even if they  had insuifcient time to prepare their case properly. hTe purpose of this rule is to  prevent the defendant raising issues at the enforcement stage that they could have  raised in the original proceeding. In such a situation, the obvious remedy would  have been for the defendant to seek an adjournment of that proceeding.
If they failed  to do so, they should not be entitled to put forward the lack of proper notiifcation  as a ground for non-recognition of the ensuing judgment. hTis rule does not apply  if it was not possible to contest notiifcation in the court of origin.A/CN.9/937,第25段 A/CN.9/955,第18段 A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
102.第10条.
Subparagraph (a)(ii) addresses notiifcation given in a manner that was incompatible with rules of the receiving State concerning service of documents, but only  applies where the receiving State is the State in which that notiifcation was given.原判国的复审对承认和执行的影响 1. 一项与破产有关的判决如果是原判国的复审内容或如果在该国寻求普通复审的时限尚未期满,则可以推迟或拒绝对该项判决给予承认或加以执行。
Some States have no objection to the service of a foreign writ on their territory  without any participation by their authorities, as it is seen as a matter of conveying  information.在这类情况下,法院还可以规定以提供其所确定的担保作为予以承认或执行的条件。 2. 根据第1款作出的拒绝并不妨碍以后提出申请承认或申请执行该项判决。
A foreign person can serve a writ in those jurisdictions simply by  going there and handing it to the relevant person.80. 第10条使用的“复审”一词视国内法而定可能有不同的含义;
Other States, however, take a  different view, considering that the service of a writ is a sovereign or oifcial act and  thus service on their territory without permission is an infringement of sovereignty.在一些法域,可能在一开始同时包括由作出判决的法院进行复审以及由上诉法院对上诉进行复审的可能性。 例如,在向上级法院提出上诉之前,可能原判法院有一段短暂的期限可以复审本法院作出的判决;
Permission would normally be given through an international agreement laying  down the procedure to be followed.一旦提出上诉之后,原判法院将不能再这样做。 这两种情况都涵盖在“复审”一词的用法内。
Such States would be unwilling to recognize  a foreign judgment if the writ was served in a way that was regarded as an infringement of their sovereignty.“普通复审”在一些法律制度中描述的是有一定时间期限的复审,其设想是作为上诉(对事实和法律)进行充分的审查。
Subparagraph (a)(ii) takes account of this point of view  by providing that the court addressed may refuse to recognize and enforce the  judgment if the writ was notiifed to the defendant in the receiving State in a manner  that was incompatible with the rules of that State concerning service of documents.这种情况与“特别”复审不同,后者例如是向人权法院上诉,或在法域内对侵犯基本权利提出上诉。 81. 第10条第1款规定,如果该项判决是原判国复审的主题,或寻求普通复审的时限尚未期满,那么接案法院有权酌情对该项判决采取不同的处理方法。
Procedural irregularities that are capable of being cured retrospectively by the court  in the receiving State would not be suifcient to justify refusal under this ground.例如,可以拒绝承认该项判决; 推迟承认和执行,直到明确该项判决是否将在原判国得以维持、撤销或作出修订;
Subparagraph (b) — fraud可以对该项判决进行承认,但推迟执行;
103.或者是可以承认和执行该项判决。
Article 14, subparagraph (b), sets out the ground of refusal that the judgment  was obtained by fraud, which refers to a fraud committed in the course of the  proceedings giving rise to the judgment.这种灵活性允许法院应对各种不同的情形,包括例如败诉债务人为拖延执行而提出上诉,或上诉原本可被认为是毫无意义的,或者该项判决可能在原判国临时执行。 如果虽然仍在复审中但法院决定承认和执行该项判决,或承认判决但推迟执行,那么法院可要求当事人提供某种形式的保证金,以确保在复审得出最后结果之前,相关的当事人不受损害。
It can be a fraud, which is sometimes  collusive, as to the jurisdiction of the court.如果该项判决随后在原判国被撤销或作出修订或不再具有效力或不再可予执行,那么接案国应当取消或修订根据国内法确定的相关程序而给予的任何承认或执行。
More otfen, it is a fraud practised by  one party to the proceedings on the court or on the other party by producing false  evidence or deliberately suppressing material evidence.82. 如果因为有待复审所以法院决定拒绝承认和执行,那么这一决定不应当妨碍一旦这一复审作出判定后重新申请获得承认和执行。 在这种情况下,拒绝将意味着驳回但不影响实体再诉权利。
Fraud involves a deliberate  act;这一点在第10条第2款处理。
mere negligence does not suifce.贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
Examples might include where the plaintiff  deliberately served the writ, or caused it to be served, on the wrong address;A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870,第69、72段
where  the requesting party (typically the plaintiff) deliberately gave the party to be notiifed (typically the defendant) incorrect information as to the time and place of the  hearing;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143, A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[20]-[21] A/CN.9/898,第23-24段
or where either party sought to corrupt or mislead a judge, juror or witness, or deliberately conceal key evidence.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903,第26-27段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
While in some legal systems fraud may be  considered as falling within the scope of the public policy provision, this is not  true for all legal systems.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第76-77段 A/CN.9/931,第24-26段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第80-82段
Accordingly, this provision is included as a form of  clariifcation.A/CN.9/937,第25段 A/CN.9/955,第19段
Subparagraphs (c)–(d) — inconsistency with another judgmentA/CN.9/956 第11条. 寻求获得承认和执行与破产有关的判决的程序
104.1.
Article 14, subparagraphs (c) and (d), concern the situation in which there  is a conlfict between the judgment for which recognition and enforcement is  sought and another judgment given in a dispute between the same parties.破产管理人或根据原判国法律有权就一项与破产有关的判决寻求获得承认和执行的其他人,可在我国寻求该项判决获得承认和执行。 承认问题也可作为抗辩理由或附带问题提出。 2.
Both  subparagraphs are satisifed where the two judgments are inconsistent, but they  operate in different ways.根据第1款寻求与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的,应向法院提交下列材料: (a) 与破产有关的该项判决的正式副本证明;
105.以及 (b)
Article 14, subparagraph (c), is concerned with the case where the foreign  judgment is inconsistent with a judgment issued by a court in the receiving State.任何必要的证明文件,说明与破产有关的该项判决在原判国具有效力和可予以执行,包括关于该项判决尚待进行任何复审的信息; 或 (c)
In such a situation, the receiving court is permitted to give preference to a judgment  issued in its own State, even if that judgment was issued atfer the issue of the  inconsistent judgment in the originating court.在无(a)项和(b)项所述证明时,可为法院所采信的关于这些事项的任何其他凭证。 3. 法院可要求将依据第2款提交的文件翻译成我国的一种官方语言。
For this provision to be satisifed,  the parties must be the same, but it is not necessary for the cause of action or subject  matter to be the same;4. 法院有权推定依据第2款提交的文件为真实文本,不论其是否经过认证。 5.
the subparagraph is therefore broader than subparagraph (d).  hTe requirement that the parties must be the same will be satisifed if the parties  bound by the judgments are the same, even if the parties to the proceedings giving  rise to the judgment are different, for example, where one judgment is against a  particular person and the other judgment is against the successor to that person.所寻求的承认和执行行动针对的任何对方当事人均享有申述的权利。 83. 第11条在第2款中规定了在颁布国申请承认和执行与破产有关判决的条件,以及核心程序要求。
Under subparagraph (c), inconsistencies between the judgments occur when ifndings  of fact or conclusions of law, which are based on the same issues, are different.第11条提供了一种简单、快捷的结构用于获得承认和执行。 因此,在将本条规定并入国内法时,最好是除原已包括的要求之外,这一过程不会因另行增加的要求而受到拖累。
106.第1款
Article 14, subparagraph (d), concerns foreign judgments, where the judgment for which recognition and enforcement is sought is inconsistent with an earlier  judgment issued in another State.84. 一项与破产有关的判决申请获得承认和执行的,可以是破产管理人,或第2条(b)项所指的有权代表破产程序行事的人。 提出申请的也可以是根据原判国法律有权寻求这种承认和执行的任何人。
In that situation, a judgment may be refused  recognition and enforcement only if: (a) it was issued atfer the conlficting judgment,  so that priority in time is a relevant consideration;这些人可以包括利益受到判决影响的债权人。 第1款第二句重述了第4条,指出承认的问题也可以在程序的过程中以抗辩方式或作为附带问题提出。 在这类情况下,可能不需要加以执行。
(b) the parties to the dispute  are the same;当这些情形中出现这一问题时,应当满足第11条的要求才能使判决获得承认。
(c) the subject matter is the same, so that the inconsistency goes to  the central issue of the cause of action;另外,以这种方式提出问题的人应当是第11条第1款第一句所指的人。 第2款 85.
and (d) the earlier conlficting judgment  fulifls the conditions necessary for recognition in the enacting State, whether under  this Law, other national law or a convention regime.第11条第2款列出了为一项与破产有关的判决寻求获得承认和执行的当事人所必须出示的文件或证据。 第2(a)项要求出示该项判决的正式副本证明。
Subparagraph (e) — interference with insolvency proceedings 107.什么构成“正式副本证明”,应当参照作出判决的当地国的法律判定。
Subparagraph (e) addresses the desirability of avoiding interference with the  conduct and administration of the debtor’s insolvency proceedings. hTose proceedings could be the proceeding to which the judgment is related or other insolvency  proceedings (i.e., concurrent proceedings) concerning the same insolvency debtor. While the concept of interference is somewhat broad, the provision gives examples  of what might constitute such interference. Inconsistency with a stay, for example,  would typically arise where the stay permitted the commencement or continuation  of individual actions to the extent necessary to preserve a claim, but did not permit  subsequent recognition and enforcement of any ensuing judgment. It could also  arise where the stay did not permit the commencement or continuation of such  individual actions and the proceeding giving rise to the judgment was commenced  atfer the issue of the stay (and was thus potentially in violation of the stay). Interference may also cover instances where recognition of the insolvency-related judgment  could upset cooperation between multiple insolvency proceedings or result in giving  effect to a judgment on a matter or cause of action that should have been pursued  in the jurisdiction of the insolvency proceeding (e.g., because the insolvency proceeding is the main proceeding or is taking place in the State in which the assets  that are the subject of the judgment are located).
However, this ground of interference should not be used as a basis for selective recognition of foreign judgments.第2(b)项要求提供任何必要的证明文件,以满足关于该项判决在原判国具有效力和可予执行的条件,包括关于对该项判决进行任何复审的信息(见第81段),其中可包括关于复审的时间期限的信息。
It would not be justiifed as the sole reason for denying recognition and enforcement  on the basis that, for example, it would deplete the value of the insolvency estate.虽然《示范法》并未规定承认与该项判决相关的破产程序的启动程序决定,但最好是向作出承认的法院提供一份该项判决书的副本,作为存在该项判决所相关的破产程序的证据。
Subparagraph (f) — judgments implicating the interests of creditors and other stakeholders但是,在为申请承认和执行提供了该项判决书的副本证明的情况下,其用意不是由接案法院评估外国法院启动程序决定正确与否。
108.86.
Subparagraph (f) would only apply to judgments that materially affect the  rights of creditors and other stakeholders, in the manner referred to in the subparagraph. hTe provision allows the receiving court to refuse recognition of such  judgments where the interests of those parties were not taken into account and  adequately protected in the proceeding giving rise to the judgment. hTe creditors  and other stakeholders referred to would only be those whose interests might be  affected by the foreign judgment.为了避免因为不符合一项简单的手续要求(例如,申请人不能提交在所有细节上都符合第11条第2款(a)项和(b)项要求的文件)而导致拒绝承认,(c)项允许考虑第2款(a)项和(b)项规定以外的其他证据。 但是,这项规定并不影响法院有权坚持必须出示其所能采信的证据。 在颁布《示范法》时,最好保留这种灵活性。
第3款 87.
A creditor whose interests remain unaffected by,  for example, a plan of reorganization or a voluntary restructuring agreement (e.g.,  because their claims are to be paid in full) would not have a right to oppose recognition and enforcement of a judgment under the provision.第3款授权但并非强迫法院要求将依据第2款提交的一些或所有文件加以翻译。 如果这一酌处权符合法院的程序,那么假如法院可以在文件不必翻译的情况下审议所提出的申请,则可便于尽早就这一申请作出裁定。 第4款
109.88.
Subparagraph (f) does not apply more generally to other types of insolvencyrelated judgment that resolve bilateral disputes between two parties.《示范法》推定,为获得承认和执行而提出的证明文件不必以任何特殊的方式加以认证,特别是外交认证:根据第11条第4款,法院有权推定这些文件是真实文本,不论其是否经过认证。
Even though  such judgments may also affect creditors and other stakeholders, those effects are  only indirect (e.g., via the judgment’s effect on the size of the insolvency estate).“认证”是正式手续上一个常用术语,文件所提交的对方国家的外交或领事官员以此证明签字的真实性、文件签字人的行为资格,以及在适用的情况下,还有文件上印章或图章的吻合性。
In those instances, permitting a judgment debtor to resist recognition and enforcement by citing third-party interests could unnecessarily generate opportunities for  wasteful relitigation of the cause of action giving rise to the judgment.89. 根据第11条第4款(按照该款,法院“有权推定”依据第2款提交的文件为真实文本),在对文件的真实性产生任何怀疑的情况下,法院保留酌情处理的权力,可拒绝依赖对这种真实性的推定,或者断定以相反的证据为准。
For example,  if a court in State A determined that the debtor owned a particular asset and issued  a judgment against a local creditor resolving that ownership dispute, and the insolvency representative then sought to enforce that judgment in State B, the creditor  should not be able to resist enforcement inBby raising arguments about the interests  of other creditors and stakeholders that are not relevant to that dispute.这种灵活的解决办法考虑到了实际情况,这就是法院能够在有些情况下确信某项文件即使未经过认证也是出自某一特定法院的,而在有些情况下,法院则可能不愿意根据未经认证的外国文件办理,特别是如果文件来自所不熟悉的法域的话。 这种推定之所以有用处,是因为认证程序可能繁琐而且费时(例如,因为在有些国家涉及不同级别的各种机关)。
Subparagraph (g) — basis of jurisdiction of the originating court尽管如此,一国要求文件通过认证的,例如第11条下规定的那样,并不因此条款的规定受到限制而无法将这一要求延伸到《示范法》。
110.90.
Article 14, subparagraph (g), permits refusal of recognition and enforcement  if the originating court did not satisfy one of the conditions listed in subparagraphs (i)  to (iv);于放宽任何认证要求的规定,可能会产生这是否与颁布国的国际义务相冲突的问题。 有几个国家是关于文件相互承认和认证的双边或多边条约缔约国,例如由海牙国际私法会议主持通过的1961年《废除要求认证外国公文的公约》,{§32} 该公约对来自签字国的文件的认证规定了具体的简化程序。
in other words, if the originating court exercised jurisdiction solely on a  ground other than the ones listed, recognition and enforcement may be refused.但是,在许多情况下,关于对调查委托书和类似手续等文件加以认证的条约,仍维持那些废除或简化认证手序的法律和条例继续有效; 因此,不大可能出现相互冲突的情况。
As such, subparagraph (g) works differently to the other subparagraphs of article 14,  each of which create a freestanding discretionary ground on which the court may  refuse recognition and enforcement of a judgment;例如,上述公约第3条第2款规定: “然而,如果在生成文件的国家的现行法律、规则或做法或一项两个或更多缔约国之间的协定已废除或简化了认证程序的,或是准许该文件免经认证的,即不得要求[进行认证]。 91.
under subparagraph (g), one  of the grounds must be met or recognition and enforcement of the judgment can  be refused.根据《示范法》第3条第1款,如果《示范法》与一项条约或其他有约束力的正式协定发生冲突,则以该条约或该项其他协定为准。
111.第5款
Subparagraph (g) can thus be seen as a broad exception, permitting refusal  on grounds of inadequate jurisdiction in the originating court (as determined by  the receiving court) with “safe harbours” that render the provision inapplicable if  the originating court satisifes any one of them. hTe originating court does not need  to have explicitly relied on or made ifndings regarding the relevant basis for jurisdiction, so long as that basis for jurisdiction existed at the relevant time. hTe originating court’s reliance on additional or different jurisdictional grounds does not  prevent one of the “safe harbours” from applying. 112. Subparagraph (g)(i) provides that the originating court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be seen as adequate if the judgment debtor explicitly consented to that  exercise of jurisdiction, whether orally or in writing. hTe consent could be addressed  to the court (e.g., the judgment debtor informed the court that no objections to  jurisdiction would be raised) or to the other party (e.g., the judgment debtor agreed  with the other party that the proceeding should be brought in the originating  court). hTe existence of explicit consent is a question of fact to be determined by  the receiving court. 113. Subparagraph (g)(ii) provides that the originating court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be seen as adequate if the judgment debtor submitted to the jurisdiction  of the originating court by presenting their case without objecting to jurisdiction Part two.
Guide to Enactment 61or the exercise of jurisdiction within any time frame applicable to such an objection, unless it was evident that such an objection would not have succeeded under  the law of the originating State.92. 第11条第5款规定,所寻求的判决提供救济时针对的对方当事人有权就关于承认和执行的申请进行申述。
In the above circumstances, the judgment debtor  cannot resist recognition and enforcement by claiming that the originating court  did not have jurisdiction. hTe method of raising the objection to jurisdiction is a  matter for the law of the originating State.为确保这项权利具有意义和可以执行,所寻求的救济针对的对方当事人将需要获得通知,被告知已提出了对承认和执行的申请,以及有关庭审的详情。 《示范法》规定由颁布国的法律来确定应当如何提供这种通知。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
A receiving court, in an appropriate case,  may make inquiries where matters giving rise to concern become apparent.A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第62-63段
114.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135
Subparagraph (g)(iii) provides that the originating court’s exercise of jurisdiction must be seen as adequate if exercised on a basis on which the receiving  court could have exercised jurisdiction if an analogous dispute had taken place in  the receiving State. If the law of the receiving State would have permitted a court  to exercise jurisdiction in parallel circumstances, the receiving court cannot refuse  recognition and enforcement on the basis that the originating court did not properly exercise jurisdiction. 115. Subparagraph (g)(iv) is similar to subparagraph (g)(iii), but broader. While  subparagraph (g)(iii) is limited to jurisdictional grounds explicitly permitted under  the law of the receiving State, subparagraph (g)(iv) applies to any additional jurisdictional grounds which, while not explicitly grounds upon which the receiving  court could have exercised jurisdiction, are nevertheless not incompatible with the  law of the receiving State. hTe purpose of subparagraph (g)(iv) is to discourage  courts from refusing recognition and enforcement of a judgment in cases in which  the originating court’s exercise of jurisdiction was not unreasonable, even if the  precise basis of jurisdiction would not be available in the receiving State, provided  that exercise was not incompatible with the central tenets of procedural fairness in  the receiving State.
Subparagraph (h) — judgments originating in certain StatesA/CN.9/864,第72-75段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
116. hTis subparagraph is an optional provision.A/CN.9/870,第70-71段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143
States that have or are considering  enacting the MLCBI might wish to consider adopting this provision.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[22]-[25] A/CN.9/898,第25-26段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
Nothing in  the provision would prevent a State that has not enacted (and does not plan to  enact) the MLCBI from adopting the approach of that subparagraph.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第28-32段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
117. hTe chapeau of article 14, subparagraph (h), establishes the key principle that  recognition of an insolvency-related judgment can be refused when the judgment  originates from a State whose insolvency proceeding is not or would not be susceptible of recognition under the MLCBI (e.g., because that State is neither the  location of the insolvency debtor’s COMI nor of an establishment). hTe language  of the chapeau does not require an insolvency proceeding to have actually commenced in the originating State, only that, were such a proceeding to commence in that State, recognition and enforcement could be refused if the proceeding would  not be susceptible of recognition. For example, an insolvency debtor has its COMI  in State A and an establishment in State B, but only a main proceeding in A has  commenced and no non-main insolvency proceeding has yet commenced in B. Some other litigation inBresults in an insolvency-related judgment that is relevant  to the insolvency estate. hTe insolvency representative from A wants to seek recognition or enforcement of the insolvency-related judgment fromBin State C,  which has enacted the Model Law and the MLCBI. hTe court inCwould see that  the judgment comes from a State whose insolvency proceeding would be recognizable under the MLCBI (i.e., the debtor has an establishment inBand a non-main  proceeding could thus be commenced), even though no such recognizable proceeding has yet commenced in B. hTe receiving court thus cannot refuse recognition  on the basis of article 14, subparagraph (h). 118. Subparagraph (h) relies upon the MLCBI framework of recognition of speciifc  types of foreign proceedings (i.e., main or non-main proceedings) and addresses  the situation of a judgment issued in a State that is not the location of either the  COMI or an establishment of the insolvency debtor, where the judgment relates  only to assets that were located in that State at the time the proceeding giving rise  to the judgment commenced.
In those circumstances, it may be useful for that  judgment to be recognized because, for example, it resolves issues of ownership  that are relevant to the insolvency estate and that could only be resolved in that  jurisdiction, rather than in the jurisdiction of the debtor’s COMI or establishment.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第78-86段 A/CN.9/931,第27-29段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第83-92段
By facilitating the recognition and enforcement of such judgments, the Model Law  could assist the recovery of additional assets for the insolvency estate, as well as  the resolution of disputes relating to those assets. hTe provision is nevertheless  designed to help ensure that the Model Law framework is not undermined by the  recognition and enforcement of judgments resolving issues that should have been  resolved in the State where the debtor has or had its COMI or an establishment. 119. Subparagraphs (h)(i) and (ii) outline two conditions that must be met in  order to establish an exception to the general principle of non-recognition. Subparagraph (h)(i) requires the insolvency representative of an insolvency proceeding  that is or could have been recognized under the law giving effect to the MLCBI in  the enacting State (i.e., the insolvency representative of a main or non-main proceeding) to have participated in the proceeding giving rise to the judgment, where that  participation involved engaging with the substantive merits of the cause of action  being pursued. For the purposes of this subparagraph, participation would mean  that the insolvency representative was a party to the proceedings as a representative  of the debtor’s insolvency estate or had standing to intervene in those proceedings  by appearing in court and making representations on the substantive merits of the  case. hTe proceedings might have been instituted by the insolvency debtor against  a third party or have been instituted against the debtor.
Many national procedural laws contemplate cases where a party who demonstrates a legal interest in the  outcome of a dispute between two other parties may be permitted by the court to  be heard in the proceedings.A/CN.9/937,第26段 A/CN.9/955,第20段 A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
120.第12条.
Subparagraph (h)(ii), which adds to the requirement in subparagraph (h)(i),  requires the judgment in question to have related solely to assets that were located  in the originating State at the time of commencement of the proceeding giving rise  to the judgment. With regard to the reference to “assets”, the broad deifnition of  “assets of the debtor” (meaning the insolvency debtor) in the Legislative Guide might be noted, even though it may not be applicable to all circumstances arising  under the current text. It may be suifciently broad to cover, for example, intel lectual property registered in the originating State where it is neither the debtor’s  COMI nor a State in which the debtor has an establishment. A/73/17, paras. 117–122 and 129 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, paras. 65–69 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864, paras. 76–77 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.140, paras. 6–9 A/CN.9/870, paras. 73, 76, 79 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, notes [28]–[37] A/CN.9/898, paras. 27–29 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148  A/CN.9/903, paras. 34–48, 79–82 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 92–114 A/CN.9/931, paras. 32–36 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 98–120  A/CN.9/937, paras. 30–32 A/CN.9/955, paras. 21–25 A/CN.9/956, Add.2 and Add.3 32 Legislative Guide, Introd., para. 12(b): “‘Assets of the debtor’: property, rights and interests of the debtor,  including rights and interests in property, whether or not in the possession of the debtor, tangible or intangible,  movable or immovable, including the debtor’s interests in encumbered assets or in third party-owned assets.”
2.临时救济
If the insolvency-related judgment provides for relief that is not available under  the law of this State, that relief shall, to the extent possible, be adapted to relief that  is equivalent to, but does not exceed, its effects under the law of the originating State.1. 自寻求承认和执行与破产有关的判决之时至作出决定之前,在急需救济以保留该项与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的可能性情况下,法院可根据破产管理人或第11条第1款规定的有权寻求承认和执行的其他人的请求,给予临时性的救济,包括: (a)
1 hTe enacting State may wish to note that it should choose between the two alternatives provided in square  brackets.对于该项与破产有关的判决针对的任何当事人,中止有关其任何资产的处分; 或者 (b)
An explanation of this provision is provided in the Guide to Enactment in the notes to article 15.在该项与破产有关的判决的范围内,酌情给予其他法定的或衡平法上的救济。
121.2.
Article 15, paragraph 1, provides that an insolvency-related judgment recognized and enforceable under the Model Law can be given one of two different  effects in the enacting State. Since States adopt different approaches to this question,  the Model Law provides that the enacting State can choose between giving the  judgment the same effect in the receiving State as it had in the originating State  (i.e., the effect in the originating State is exported to the receiving State) or the  same effect as it would have had if it had been issued in the receiving State (i.e.,  the effect would be equivalent to that of such a judgment issued in the receiving  State). hTe rationale of the ifrst choice, that the effect in the originating State is  extended to the receiving State, ensures that the judgment has, in principle, the  same effects in all States; the effect does not differ depending on the receiving  State. hTat effect is modiifed to some extent by paragraph 2, which does not oblige  the receiving State to provide a form of relief that is not available under its own  law. hTe rationale of the second choice is based upon maintaining equality, fairness  and certainty as between domestic and foreign judgments, as well as the practical  diifculties that a court in the enacting State may have in determining the precise  “effects” (such as claim or issue preclusion) of a judgment under the law of the  originating State. 122. Paragraph 2 provides that where the insolvency-related judgment provides  for relief that is not available or not known in the receiving State, the court should  provide a form of relief that has equivalent effects (as opposed to relief that is  merely “formally” equivalent), and give effect to the judgment to the extent permissible  under its national law. hTe receiving court is not required to provide a form of  relief that is not available under its national law, but is authorized, as far as is possible, to adapt the form of relief granted by the originating court to a measure  known in the receiving court, but not exceeding the effects the form of relief  granted in the judgment would have under the law of the originating State. hTis  provision enhances the practical effectiveness of judgments and aims at ensuring  the successful party receives meaningful relief.
123. Two types of situations can trigger this provision: ifrst, where the receiving  State does not know the relief granted in the originating State;[此处写入(或提及颁布国现行规定的)关于通知的规定,包括是否需要根据本条发出通知。 3. 除非经由法院延期,根据本条给予的救济在就承认和执行该项与破产有关的判决作出决定时即告终止。
and secondly, where  the receiving State knows a form of relief that is “formally”, but not “substantively”  equivalent. Although provisional measures are not to be considered insolvencyrelated judgments for the purposes of the Model Law (art. 2(c)), a stay preventing  a defendant from disposing of his or her assets may provide an illustration of how  this article operates, as such a stay can have in personam or in rem effects, depending on the jurisdiction. Where recognition of a stay issued by a State that characterizes stays as having in rem effects is sought in a State that only grants such orders in personam effects, article 15 would be satisifed by the receiving court enforcing  the stay with in personam effects. If the originating court issued a stay with only in personam effects and recognition was sought in a State whose national law granted  such a stay in rem effects, the receiving court would not comply with article 15 if  it enforced the stay with in rem effects in accordance with national law, since that  would go beyond the effects granted under the law of the originating State. A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, para. 78 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [38] A/CN.9/898, para. 43 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903, paras. 49, 83  A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 115–118 A/CN.9/931, paras. 37–38 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 121–123  A/CN.9/937, paras. 33–35 A/CN.9/955, paras. 26–27 A/CN.9/956
124.93.
Article 16 aims to increase the predictability of the Model Law and encourages reliance on the judgment in cases where recognition or enforcement of the  judgment as a whole might not be possible.第12条阐述在就承认以及酌情还有执行而作出裁定之前,法院可酌情命令给予的并在寻求获得承认的那一刻即可提供的“紧急需要”的救济。 提供这类救济的理由根据是保留下一步的可能性,这就是如果该项判决获得承认和执行,将有资产满足所需,无论这些资产是该项判决所相关的破产程序中的债务人资产,还是判决败诉的债务人的资产。
In those circumstances, the receiving  court should not be able to refuse recognition and enforcement of one part of the  judgment on the basis that another part is not recognizable and enforceable;第1款前导段中提到了措施的紧迫性,而第1(a)项则把中止行动局限于中止处置所作出的判决针对的任何对方当事人的资产。 第1(b)项则规定,如果在所寻求承认的判决的范围内,则可给予其他法定的和衡平法上的救济。
the  severable part of the judgment should be treated in the same manner as a judgment  that is wholly recognizable and enforceable.按目前的草案措词,在颁布国法律允许单方面申请救济的情况下,第1款应当足够灵活包含这种单方面的申请。 这种交由颁布国法律处理的做法也反映在第2款所载的通知规定中。 第2款
125.94.
Recognition and enforcement of the judgment as a whole might not be possible where some of the orders included in the judgment fall outside the scope of  the Model Law, are contrary to the public policy of the receiving State or, because  they are interim orders, are not yet enforceable in the originating State.许多国家的法律载有规定,要求在给予第12条所述的那类救济时(由破产管理人奉法院命令或者由法院本身)发出通知,除非(如果颁布国允许)这种救济是单方面寻求的。 如果要求发出通知,第2款是颁布国为此种通知作出规定的适当地方。 第3款
It may also  be the case that only some parts of the judgment are relevant to the receiving State.95. 根据第12条提供的救济是临时性的,因为按第3款规定,除非经由法院延期,这一救济在就是否承认以及酌情还有是否加以执行的问题作出裁定之时终止。
In such cases, the severable part of a judgment could be recognized and enforced,  provided that part is capable of standing alone. hTat would usually depend on  whether recognizing and enforcing only that part of the judgment would signiifcantly change the obligations of the parties.法院可能希望这样做,例如为了避免承认前发布的任何临时措施与承认之时或之后可能发布的任何措施之间出现中断情况。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116段
Where that question raises issues of  law, they would be determined by the law of the receiving State.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第61段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
A/73/17, para. 123 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835, para. 61 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870, paras. 80–81 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1, note [39] A/CN.9/898, para. 44 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, paras. 50–51 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, paras. 119–120 A/CN.9/931, para. 39A/CN.9/870,第82-83段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[40]
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 124–125  A/CN.9/937, para. 36 A/CN.9/956A/CN.9/898,第45段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
States that have enacted legislation based on the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency will be aware of judgments that may have cast doubt on whether judgments can be recognized and enforced under article 21 of that Model Law.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第52-53段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
States may therefore wish to consider enacting the following provision:A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第87-89段 A/CN.9/931,第30段
Article X. Recognition of an insolvency-related judgment under  [insert a cross reference to the legislation of this State enacting article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency]A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第93-95段 A/CN.9/937,第27段 A/CN.9/956和A/CN.9/956/Add.2
126.第13条.
As noted above (para. 2), an issue has arisen as to whether the relief available  under the MLCBI includes the recognition and enforcement of an insolvencyrelated judgment. hTe MLCBI provisions on relief (principally art. 21) make no  speciifc reference to recognition and enforcement of such a judgment. hTe purpose  of articleXis to make it clear to States enacting (or considering enactment of) the  MLCBI that the relief available under article 21 of the MLCBI includes recognition  and enforcement of an insolvency-related judgment and that such relief may therefore be sought under article 21. States enacting (or considering enactment of) the  MLCBI may thus rely upon articleXto achieve that purpose, irrespective of any  prior interpretations of article 21 to the contrary. hTe enactment of this provision  is not necessary in jurisdictions where the MLCBI is interpreted as covering the  recognition and enforcement of insolvency-related judgments. 127. Since articleXrelates to interpretation of the MLCBI, it is not intended that  it be included in legislation enacting this Model Law. To do so might lead to it being  overlooked by parties seeking to make use of the MLCBI or by courts interpreting  the MLCBI as enacted.
States wishing to enact this article should determine the  appropriate location.决定承认和执行与破产有关的判决 在不违反第7条和第14条的情况下,与破产有关的判决符合下列条件的,应当获得承认和执行:
It might, for example, be enacted as an amendment to the  legislation giving effect to the MLCBI.(a) 满足第9条关于有效性和可执行性的要求的; (b)
A/73/17, para. 116 A/CN.9/898, paras. 40–41 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903, paras. 54–57, 84–85 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151, para. 121 A/CN.9/931, paras. 40–41 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157, paras. 126–127  A/CN.9/937, paras. 37–38 A/CN.9/955, para. 28寻求该项与破产有关的判决获得承认和执行的人是第2条(b)项所指的破产管理人,或者是根据第11条第1款有权寻求该项判决获得承认和执行的其他人; (c) 所提申请满足第11条第2款的诸项要求;
VI.以及 (d)
Assistance from the UNCITRAL secretariat寻求承认和执行是向第4条所述的法院提出的,或承认问题是在这类法院上以抗辩方式或作为附带问题产生的。
A. Assistance in drafting legislation96. 第13条的目的是为承认和执行与破产有关的判决而规定可预见的明确标准。
128. hTe UNCITARL secretariat assists States with technical consultations for the  prepara tion of legislation based on the Model Law.如果(a)该项判决是“与破产有关的判决”(按第2条(d)项的定义); (b)符合对给予承认和执行所规定的要求(即根据第9条该项判决在原判国是具有效力和可予执行的);
Further information may be obtained  from the UNCITARL secretariat (mailing address: Vienna International Centre,  P.O. Box 500, 1400 Vienna, Austria;(c)寻求承认是由第11条第1款所述的人向第4条所述的法院或机关提出的,或承认问题是在该法院上或在该机关以抗辩方式或作为附带问题产生的;
telephone: (+43-1) 26060-4060;(d)提供了第11条第2款所要求的文件或证据的;
fax: (+43-1)  26060-5813;(e)给予承认后不违反公共政策(第7条);
email: uncitral@un.org;以及(f)该项判决不属于任何拒绝理由的范畴(第14条),那么应当给予承认。
Internet home page: uncitral.un.org).97. 在决定一项与破产有关的判决是否应当获得承认和执行时,接案法院受到《示范法》规定的先决条件的限制。
B. Information on the interpretation of legislation based on the Model Law接案法院何时开始审议外国法院为颁布与破产有关的判决而作出裁定的合理性,或何时开始审议与该项判决所涉破产程序的启动相关联的问题,条文中没有作出规定。
129. hTe Case Law on UNCITARL Texts (CLOUT) information system is used  for collecting and disseminating information on case law relating to the conventions and model laws developed by UNCITARL, including the Model Law. hTe  purpose of the system is to promote international awareness of those legislative  texts and to facilitate their uniform interpretation and application. hTe Secretariat  publishes abstracts of decisions in the six oifcial languages of the United Nations  and the full, original decisions are available, upon request. hTe system is explained  in a user’s guide available on the above-mentioned Internet home page of  UNCITARL. Annex I General Assembly Resolution 73/200 of 20 December 2018 Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law hTe General Assembly, Recalling its resolution 2205 (XXI) of 17 December 1966, by which it established the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law with a mandate  to further the progressive harmonization and uniifcation of the law of international  trade and in that respect to bear in mind the interests of all peoples, in particular  those of developing countries, in the extensive development of international trade,
Recognizing that effective insolvency regimes are increasingly seen as a means  of encouraging economic development and investment, as well as fostering entrepreneurial activity and preserving employment, Convinced that the law of recognition and enforcement of judgments is becoming  more and more important in a world in which it is increasingly easy for enterprises  and individuals to have assets in more than one State and to move assets across  borders, Considering that international instruments on the recognition and enforcement  of judgments in civil and commercial matters exclude insolvency-related judgments  from their scope, Concerned that inadequate coordination and cooperation in cases of crossborder insolvency, which lead to uncertainties associated with recognition and  enforcement of insolvency-related judgments, can operate as an obstacle to the fair,  eifcient and effective administration of cross-border insolvencies, reducing the  possibility of rescuing ifnancially troubled but viable businesses, making it more  likely that debtors’ assets would be concealed or dissipated and hindering reorganizations or liquidations that would be the most advantageous for all interested persons,  including the debtors, the debtors’ employees and the creditors, Convinced that fair and internationally standardized legislation on cross-border  insolvency that respects national procedural and judicial systems, as expressed by  the provisions of the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of InsolvencyRelated Judgments,
1 that is acceptable to States with different legal, social and eco nomic systems would contribute to the development of international trade and  investment,然而,接案法院在就承认判决作出裁定时,可能需要适当考虑到原判法院作出的任何裁定和发布的任何命令,以及当事方可能向原判法院提交的任何信息。
1. Expresses its appreciation to the United Nations Commission on  International Trade Law for ifnalizing and adopting the Model Law on Recognition  and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments 1 and its guide to enactment;这些命令或裁定对于颁布国的接案法院没有约束力,接案法院只需要独立判断,确信该项与破产有关的判决符合第2条的要求即可。 尽管如此,依据第11条第4款的推定,法院有权依凭申请承认时作为佐证而提交的证明和文件中所载的信息。 在适当情形下,这些信息将协助于接案法院进行审议。
2.贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
Requests the Secretary-General to transmit the text of the Model Law, together  with its guide to enactment, to Governments and other interested bodies;A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130 A/CN.9/835,第64段
3. Recommends that all States give favourable consideration to the Model Law  when revising or adopting legislation relevant to insolvency, bearing in mind the  need for internationally harmonized legislation governing and facilitating instances  of cross-border insolvency, and invites States that have used the Model Law to  advise the Commission accordingly;A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864,第76-77段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
4.A/CN.9/870,第73段
Also recommends that all States continue to consider implementation of  the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission  on International Trade Law. 2A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[26]-[27] A/CN.9/898,第27-29段
1 Oifcial Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-third Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/73/17), annex III.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/903,第33段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
2 Resolution 52/158, annex.A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第90-91段
Annex IIA/CN.9/931,第31段
Decision of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law At its 1080 th meeting, on 2 July 2018, the Commission adopted the following decision:A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第96-97段
hTe United Nations Commission on International Trade Law,A/CN.9/937,第28-29段 A/CN.9/956
Recalling General Assembly resolution 2205 (XXI) of 17 December 1966, in  which the Assembly established the United Nations Commission on International  Trade Law with the purpose of promoting the progressive harmonization and uniifcation of the law of international trade in the interests of all peoples, in particular  those of developing countries, Recognizing that effective insolvency regimes are increasingly seen as a means  of encouraging economic development and investment and of fostering entrepreneurial activity and preserving employment, Concerned that inadequate coordination and cooperation in cases of crossborder insolvency, including uncertainties associated with recognition and enforcement  of insolvency-related judgments, can operate as an obstacle to the fair, eifcient and  effective administration of cross-border insolvencies, reducing the possibility of  rescuing ifnancially troubled but viable businesses, making it more likely that debtors’  assets are concealed or dissipated and hindering reorganizations or liquidations  that would be the most advantageous for all interested persons, including the debtors,  the debtors’ employees and the creditors, Convinced that fair and internationally harmonized legislation on cross-border  insolvency that respects national procedural and judicial systems and is acceptable  to States with different legal, social and economic systems would contribute to the  development of international trade and investment, Appreciating the support for and the participation of intergovernmental and  invited non-governmental organizations active in the ifeld of insolvency law reform  in the development of a dratf model law on recognition and enforcement of insolvencyrelated judgments and its guide to enactment,
Expressing its appreciation to Working Group V (Insolvency Law) for its work  in developing the dratf Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of InsolvencyRelated Judgments and its guide to enactment,第14条. 拒绝承认和执行与破产有关的判决的理由 除第7条列明的理由外,在下列情况下,也可拒绝承认和执行与破产有关的判决:
1.(a)
Adopts the UNCITARL Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of  Insolvency-Related Judgments, as it appears in annex III to the report of the  United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on its iftfy-ifrst session, 1 and its guide to enactment, consisting of the text contained in A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,  with the amendments listed in document A/CN.9/955 and the amendments  adopted by the Commission at its iftfy-ifrst session;启动了程序并作出判决,而所针对的对方当事人: ㈠ 未充分提前得到已启动该程序的通知,因而不能够作出抗辩安排,除非在原判国法律允许对通知事宜提出异议的情况下,该当事人在原判法院出庭陈述案情但并未对通知事宜提出异议;
2或者 ㈡
虽得到已启动该程序的通知,但通知的方式与我国关于文件送达的基本原则不符; (b) 判决是通过欺诈方式获得的; (c) 判决与我国就相同当事人之间的一项争议作出的判决不相一致;
2.(d)
Requests the Secretary-General to publish the UNCITARL Model Law on  Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments and its guide to  enactment, including electronically, in the six oifcial languages of the United Nations,  and to disseminate it broadly to Governments and other interested bodies;判决与另一国此前就相同当事人之间同一事由作出的判决不相一致,而此前的判决符合在我国获得承认和执行的必要条件; (e) 承认和执行判决将干扰对债务人破产程序的管理,包括与可在我国获得承认或执行的中止令或其他法院令发生冲突;
3.(f)
Recommends that all States give favourable consideration to the UNCITARL  Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments  when revising or adopting legislation relevant to insolvency, and invites States that  have used the Model Law to advise the Commission accordingly;该项判决: ㈠ 对全体债权人的权利产生实质性影响,例如判定了是否应当确认一项重整或清算计划,是否应当准予债务人解除责任或解除债务,或是否应当核准一项自愿或庭外重组协议;
4.以及 ㈡
Also recommends that all States continue to consider implementation of  the UNCITARL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997).在作出判决的程序中,债权人和其他利益关系人的利益,包括债务人的利益,未得到充分保护; (g) 原判法院未能满足以下其中任何一项条件:
3
1 Oifcial Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-third Session, Supplement No. 17 (A/73/17). 2 Ibid., chapter V, subsection A.3.法院在该项判决针对的当事人明确表示同意的基础上行使管辖权; ㈡ 法院在该项判决针对的当事人服从管辖权的基础上行使管辖权,即在原判国法律规定的时限内被告在法院就案情提出争辩,但未对管辖权或行使管辖权提出异议,除非根据该法律规定,对管辖权的这种异议将显然不会成功;
3 General Assembly resolution 52/158, annex.㈢ 法院以我国法院可据以行使管辖权的依据行使管辖权; 或者
ISBN 978-92-1-130371-1㈣ 法院行使管辖权的依据并非与我国法律不相一致;
V.18-08156[根据《跨国界破产示范法》颁布了立法的国家似宜颁布(h)项。 (h) 根据[此处写入颁布国关于实施《跨国界破产示范法》的法律名称],原判国的破产程序不可能或者将不可能获得承认,而该项判决即来自该国,除非:
㈠ 在根据[此处写入颁布国关于实施《跨国界破产示范法》的法律名称]获得承认或本可获得承认的程序中,破产管理人参加了在原判国进行的程序,深入到该程序所涉诉由的实质性案情评判; 以及 ㈡ 该项判决仅涉及在原判国启动该程序时位于原判国的资产。
98. 除第7条规定的公共政策理由之外,第14条还规定了可拒绝承认和执行与破产有关判决的各项具体理由。 所列出的理由旨在作为一份无遗漏的完整清单,所以没有提及的理由将不适用。 如上所述,如果该项判决符合第13条的条件,而且根据第7条的规定承认判决不被禁止,并且第14条所列出的理由不适用,那么随后就应当承认该项判决。 第14条指出“可以”拒绝加以承认和执行,从而指明,即使第14条的规定只有其中一个条件适用,法院也无义务必须拒绝加以承认和执行。
然而,可以指出,在有些法律传统中,一旦发现存在第14条所列举的其中一项理由,法院即没有酌处权,并且必须拒绝承认和执行该项判决。 在原则上,确立第14条所列的其中一项或多项理由的责任在于反对承认或执行判决的当事方。 (a)项―关于产生与破产有关判决结果的原诉讼程序的通知 99. 如果在产生了与破产有关判决结果的诉讼程序中,被告没有得到关于该程序的适当通知,则第14条(a)项允许法院拒绝加以承认和执行。
在此涉及两项规则:第一,在(a)㈠项中,涉及被告的利益; 第二,在(a)㈡项中,关系到接案国的利益。 100. (a)㈠项阐述的是未能充分提前并以适当方式通知被告因而不能使其作出抗辩安排的情况。 这项规定所包含的通知不仅仅是关于启动程序的通知,还有对被告提出的诉讼基本内容的通知,以便使被告能够作出抗辩安排。
“通知”一词的用法没有具体的法定含义,仅仅是要求被告能够获知所提出的诉讼和与启动程序有关的那些文件的内容。 如何检验是否充分提前发出了通知,这完全是取决于每一具体案件情形的问题。 原判法院的程序规则可能有助于说明需要做到哪些方面才能满足这一要求,但这也不是绝对的。 不熟悉当地法律和语言,以及难以找到合适的律师,这些都可能需要比原判法院的法律和惯例所规定的时限更长的时间。
发出通知的“方式”还应当是能够使被告作出抗辩安排,这可能要求那些使用被告可能不懂的语言作成的文件附上准确的翻译。 被告所将需要表明的不仅仅是通知不充分,而且还有实际上这种不充分情形剥夺了他们进行实质性抗辩的机会,或者是被告原可提出证据作为确定的事实而不仅仅是猜测,这对于原判诉讼的结果将可能造成实质上的区别。 如果不是这样,则不可能争辩说没有能够使被告作出抗辩安排。 101.
如果被告出庭陈述案情但未对通知事宜提出争辩,则即使他们没有充足的时间为他们的案件做好充分准备,(a)㈠项的规则也不适用。 这项规则的目的是防止被告在执行阶段提出他们当初可在原判程序中提出的问题。 在这种情况下,显而易见的补救办法将是被告当初寻求暂停进行该程序。 如果他们没有那样做,他们应当无权提出缺乏适当的通知作为理由而不承认随后的判决。 如果在原判法院不可能对通知事宜提出争辩,则本项规则不适用。
102. (a)㈡项阐述的情况是通知的方式不符合接案国关于送达文件的规则,这项规定仅适用于接案国是发出该项通知的当地国。 一些国家不反对在本国境内没有本国当局的任何参与而送达外国令状,因为这被看作是传送信息而已。 外国人在这些法域送达令状只需要前往并将令状交给相关的人即可。 但是另一些国家则持不同的观点,认为送达令状是一种主权行为或官方行为,因此,未经许可在境内这样做是对主权的侵犯。
通常是通过国际协定规定应当遵守的程序来给予许可。 如果送达令状的方式被认为是对主权的侵犯,那么这些国家是不愿意承认外国判决的。 (a)㈡项考虑到了这一观点,规定如果令状向接案国的被告通知的方式不符合该国关于送达文件的规则,则受理案件的法院可拒绝承认和执行这项判决。 程序上出现可以通过接案国法院事后加以补救的不合常规情况,不足以表明根据这一理由加以拒绝是正当的。 (b)项―欺诈
103. 第14条(b)项规定了通过欺诈方式获得该项判决而可加以拒绝的理由,规定所指的是在产生该项判决结果的程序进行过程中实施的欺诈。 这可以是涉及法院管辖权的欺诈,有时候这是共谋的。 比较常见的是程序的一方当事人通过提交虚假证据或故意隐瞒重大证据而对法院或对另一方当事人实行的欺诈。 欺诈涉及的是一种故意行为;
单纯疏忽还不够。 例如可包括原告故意向错误的地址发送令状,或造成令状发向错误的地址; 申请方(一般是原告)故意向接受通知的一方(一般是被告)提供不正确的开庭时间和地点信息; 或者其中任何一方试图贿赂或误导法官、陪审员或证人,或故意隐瞒关键证据。 虽然在一些法律制度中,欺诈可能被认为属于公共政策规定的范畴,但并非所有法律制度都这样。
因此,列入了本项规定作为一种澄清。 (c)-(d)项―与另一项判决不一致 104. 第14条(c)项和(d)项涉及的情况是所寻求获得承认和执行的判决与关于相同当事人之间一项争议所作出的另一项判决之间发生冲突。 如果两项判决不一致,即符合这两项条文的规定,但这两项条文在运作上角度不同。
105. 第14条(c)项涉及的是外国判决与接案国法院作出的判决不一致的情况。 在这种情形下,允许接案法院优先考虑其本国法院作出的判决,即使该项判决是在原判法院作出的不一致判决之后作出的。 为符合这项规定,当事方必须是相同的,但不一定是为了同样的诉由或事由。
因此,这项规定比(d)项范围广些。 如果受该项判决约束的当事方相同,即使在产生该项判决结果的诉讼程序中的当事方不同,例如一项判决是针对特定某个人的,另一项判决是针对该人的后续接替人的,那么也将符合关于必须是相同当事方的要求。 在(c)项下,当基于同样问题的事实认定或法律结论不同时,即发生判决不一致情况。 106. 第14条(d)项涉及的是寻求获得承认和执行的外国判决与先前另一国作出的判决不一致的情况。
在这种情况下,只有符合下列全部条件的判决,才可拒绝加以承认和执行:(a)该项判决是在相冲突的判决之后作出的,因此,时间上的优先顺序是一个相关的考虑因素; (b)争议的当事各方相同; (c)争议的事由相同,因此发生的不一致涉及诉由的核心问题; 以及(d)无论是根据本法、国内其他法律或公约的制度,相冲突的先前判决都符合在颁布国获得承认的必要条件。 (e)项―对破产程序的干扰
107. (e)项述及应当避免干扰债务人破产程序的进行和管理。 这些程序可以是该项判决所涉及的程序或针对同一破产债务人的其他破产程序(即并行程序)。 尽管这一干扰概念有些笼统,但本项条文举例说明了什么构成这种干扰。 例如,一般可能出现与中止令不一致的情况是,中止令允许启动或继续进行个别诉讼,其限度是为维护债权所需,但不允许对接着而来的任何判决随后加以承认和执行。
出现不一致的情况还可能是中止令不允许启动或继续进行这种个别诉讼,而产生该项判决结果的程序是在发出中止令之后启动的(因此,可能与中止令相违背)。 干扰的范围还可能涵盖的情形包括对该项与破产有关的判决给予承认将可能扰乱多个破产程序之间的合作,或导致就一项原本应当在破产程序法域内提出追索的事项或诉由(例如,因为该项破产程序是主要程序,或进行程序的国家是该项判决标的资产的所在地国家)而作出的判决给予其效力。 但是,这一干扰理由不应当被用作一个依据而有选择地承认外国判决。
例如因为将会使破产财产的价值耗尽而将此作为用以拒绝给予承认和执行的唯一理由是不正当的。 (f)项―涉及债权人和其他利益关系人利益的判决 108. (f)项仅适用于按本项所述方式对债权人和其他利益关系人的权利产生重大影响的判决。 如果在产生该项判决结果的程序中这些当事人的利益没有受到考虑和充分保护,那么本规定允许接案法院拒绝承认这类判决。
所称的债权人和其他利益关系人将仅仅是那些切身利益可能受到外国判决影响的人。 利益不受影响的债权人,例如重整计划或自愿重组协议不影响其利益的(例如,因为其债权将获得充分偿付),将无权根据本项规定对承认和执行判决提出反对。 109. (f)项并不从更广义上适用于解决双方当事人双边争议的其他类型与破产有关的判决。 即使这类判决可能也影响债权人和其他利益关系人,但这些影响仅仅是间接的(例如,通过该项判决对破产财产的规模大小造成影响)。
在这些情况下,如果允许判决败诉债务人通过援引第三方利益而抵制承认和执行的话,可能不必要地生成机会对产生该项判决的诉因再次进行诉讼从而造成资源浪费。 例如,如果A国的法院判定债务人拥有某一特定资产,并针对当地的一个债权人作出了判决,解决这一所有权争议,而破产管理人随后寻求在B国执行该项判决,那么该债权人不应当能够通过提出对该项争议不相干的其他债权人和利益关系人利益的争辩而抵制在B国加以执行。 (g)项―原判法院的管辖权依据 110.
如果原判法院没有满足㈠至㈣项所列的其中一项条件,第14条(g)项允许拒绝给予承认和执行; 换句话说,如果原判法院是根据所列那些理由以外的其他理由行使管辖权的,那么可拒绝给予承认和执行。 因此,(g)项的作用与第14条其他几项不同,其中每一项都确立了独立的酌情判定理由,法院可在此基础上拒绝承认和执行一项判决; 根据(g)项,必须符合其中一项理由,否则可以拒绝承认和执行判决。 111.
(g)项因此可被视作一种广义的例外,允许以(按接案法院所判定的)原判法院管辖权不充分为由而加以拒绝,条文中规定的“安全港”原则是,如果原判法院符合其中任何一条,则可以使这项规定不予适用。 只要相关时间内存在相关的管辖权依据,原判法院即不需要明确依赖于就该管辖权依据作出的裁定或者就该管辖权依据作出裁定。
原判法院依赖于其他或不同的管辖权理由,并不影响适用“安全港”的其中某项理由。 112. (g)㈠项规定,如果受到判决的债务人明确表示同意原判法院行使管辖权,则该法院行使管辖权必须被认为是适当的。 所述的同意可以是向法院表示的(例如,受到判决的债务人通知法院,不对管辖权提出反对),或向对方表示的(例如,受到判决的债务人与对方约定,应在原判法院提起诉讼程序)。 是否存在明确的同意是由接案法院判定的一个事实问题。
113. (g)㈠项规定,如果受到判决的债务人服从原判法院的管辖权,就其案情提出陈述,并在可以对管辖权或对行使管辖权提出反对的任何时限内没有提出这种反对,那么该法院行使管辖权必须被认为是适当的,除非显而易见这种反对按照原判国的法律不可能取得成功。 在上述情形下,受到判决的债务人不能通过声称原判法院不具有管辖权而抵制加以承认和执行。 对管辖权提出反对的方法是由原判国法律处理的事项。 如果引起关切的事项已经变得很明显,接案法院可在适当情况下进行查询。
114. (g)㈢项规定,如果原判法院行使管辖权的依据是假如类似的争议发生在接案国而接案法院也会行使这种管辖权的,那么原判法院行使管辖权就必须被视为是适当的。 如果在同样的情形下接案国法律会允许法院行使管辖权,那么接案法院便不能以原判法院没有正当行使管辖权为由而拒绝给予承认和执行。 115. (g)㈣项与(g)㈢项相类似,但范围更广些。
(g)㈢项局限于根据接案国法律所明确允许的管辖权理由,而(g)㈣项则适用于虽然不是接案法院可能行使管辖权的明确理由但并不与接案国法律不相符合的任何其他关于管辖权的理由。 (g)㈣项的目的是为了在原判法院行使管辖权并非不合理的情况下劝阻接案法院不要拒绝承认和执行判决,即使在接案国并不存在管辖权的确切依据,但只要行使管辖权并非与接案国关于程序公正的核心原则不相符合即可。 (h)项―源自某些国家的判决 116. 这是一项可选择的规定。
已经或正在考虑颁布《跨国界破产示范法》的国家似宜考虑采用这一规定。 本项条文概不阻止未颁布(并且也不计划颁布)《跨国界破产示范法》的国家采用本项所述的做法。 117. 第14条(h)项的前导句确立了关键的原则,这就是当根据《跨国界破产示范法》某一国家的破产程序不会被或将不会被承认(例如,因为该国既非破产债务人主要利益中心所在地也非其营业所的所在地)而该项与破产有关的判决又是来自该国时,可以拒绝承认该项判决。
前导句的措词并不要求破产程序已经实际上在原判国启动,而是只要求如果这一程序在该国启动的话,当该国程序将不可能被承认时,可以拒绝给予承认和执行。 例如,一个破产债务人在A国拥有其主要利益中心,在B国拥有一个营业所,但是仅仅在A国启动了主要程序,在B国则尚未启动非主要程序。 在B国的一些其他诉讼导致了涉及破产财产的一项与破产有关的判决。 A国的破产管理人想在C国寻求来自B国与破产有关的判决获得承认或执行,而C国则是本《示范法》和《跨国界破产示范法》的颁布国。
C国的法院将发现,该项判决的来源国是根据《跨国界破产示范法》其破产程序可以被承认的国家(即债务人在B国拥有营业所,因此可以启动一项非主要程序),即使在B国尚未启动这种可以获得承认的程序。
因此,接案法院不得根据第14条(h)项拒绝加以承认。 118. (h)项以《跨国界破产示范法》关于承认特定类别外国程序(即主要程序或非主要程序)的框架为依据,涉及的情况是既非破产债务人主要利益中心所在地也非其营业所所在地的国家作出的判决,该项判决仅仅涉及在产生判决结果的诉讼程序启动时位于该国的资产。
在这些情形下,该项判决似宜获得承认,因为例如该项判决解决了与破产财产有关的所有权问题,并且这一问题只能够在该法域解决,而不能在债务人主要利益中心或营业所所在地的法域解决。 《示范法》通过促进承认和执行这类判决,可以有助于为破产财产追回更多的资产,以及解决与这些资产有关的争议。 然而,这一条文的用意是为了帮助确保,当承认和执行解决问题的判决而这些问题本应当在债务人拥有或曾经拥有其主要利益中心或营业所的所在地国家得到解决时,这样的承认和执行不会影响《示范法》框架。
119. (h)㈠项和㈡项列出了为确立对于不予承认这一一般原则的例外情况而必须满足的两个条件。 (h)㈠项要求,根据颁布国关于《跨国界破产示范法》的颁行法律而可以或本应当可以获得承认的破产程序的破产管理人(即主要或非主要程序的破产管理人)必须是参加了产生该项判决结果的程序,而这种参加的程度是深入到所提诉由的实质性案情评判。 就本项规定而言,参加意味着破产管理人是诉讼程序的一方,作为债务人破产财产的代表,或有资格介入这些程序,出庭并就实质性案情进行陈述。
诉讼程序可能是破产债务人对第三方提起的,或诉讼程序是针对债务人提起的。 许多国家的诉讼程序法考虑到如下情况,即如果一方表明在另外两方之间争议结果上涉及其合法利益的,则法院可以允许该方在程序中进行陈述。 120. 作为对(h)㈠项要求的补充,(h)㈡项要求所述判决纯粹涉及在产生该项判决结果的程序启动时位于原判国的资产。
关于提及的“资产”二字,可以注意到《立法指南》中“债务人的资产”这一广义定义(其中债务人即指破产债务人),{§33} 即使可能不适用于目前案文下产生的所有情形。 范围可能足够广泛,从而涵盖例如在原判国注册的知识产权,而原判国既非债务人的主要利益中心所在国,也非债务人拥有营业所的当地国。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第117-122和129段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130
A/CN.9/835,第65-69段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.135 A/CN.9/864,第76-77段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.140,第6-9段
A/CN.9/870,第73、76、79段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[28]-[37] A/CN.9/898,第27-29段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第34-48、79-82段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第92-114段 A/CN.9/931,第32-36段
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第98-120段 A/CN.9/937,第30-32段 A/CN.9/955,第21-25段 A/CN.9/956、Add.2和Add.3 第15条.
同等效力 1. 根据本法得到承认或可予执行的与破产有关的判决应被赋予[其在原判国]或[如属我国法院作出该项判决时其本可以具有]的同样效力。 1
2. 如果与破产有关的该项判决规定的救济是我国法律所没有的,则该项救济应尽可能调整为在效力上与原判国法律规定同等但不超过其限度的救济。 1 颁布国似宜注意,对于方括号内提供的两则备选案文,应当二选一。 《颁布指南》在第15条的说明中提供了对这一规定的解释。
121. 第15条第1款规定,根据《示范法》得到承认或可予执行的与破产有关的判决在颁布国可被给予两种不同效力的其中一种。 鉴于各国对这个问题采取不同的做法,《示范法》规定,颁布国可以二选一,即在接案国对于该项判决给予与原判国同样的效力(即原判国的效力输出到接案国),或者给予如属接案国作出该项判决时其本可以具有的同样效力(即该效力将等同于接案国作出这一判决时所具有的效力)。 第一种选择的理论依据是原判国的效力延伸到接案国,确保原则上该项判决在所有国家具有同样的效力;
不因接案国不同而效力有别。 第2款对这一效力在某种程度上有所改动,其中不要求接案国提供根据其本国法律所不存在的救济形式。 第二种选择的理论依据是维持国内外判决之间的平等、公平和确定性,以及考虑到颁布国法院在根据原判国法律确定判决的确切“效力”时可能遇到的实际困难(如已决诉案或事项不再审理)。
122. 第2款规定,如果该项与破产有关的判决提供的救济是接案国所没有的或非其所知的,则法院应提供具有同等效力的救济形式(而不是仅仅“在形式上”同等的救济),并在国内法允许的范围内赋予该项判决效力。 规定并不要求接案法院提供根据其国内法所没有的救济形式,而是授权接案法院尽可能按其所知程度调整原判法院所给予的救济形式,但在效力上不超出根据原判国法律该项判决中所给予的救济形式。 这一规定增强了判决的实际效力,目的在于确保胜诉的当事方获得有意义的救济。 123.
两类情况可以引发援用这项规定:一,接案国并不了解原判法院所给予的救济情况; 二,接案国知道一种救济形式“在形式上”而非“在实质上”等同的情况。 虽然就《示范法》(第2条(c)项)而言,临时措施并不被认为是与破产有关的判决,但一项中止令防止被告处分其资产,即可说明本条是如何运作的,因为视法域而定,这类中止措施可以具有对人或对物的效力。
有些国家的中止措施属性是对物发生效力的,如果在仅给予中止令对人效力的国家寻求承认前面这类国家颁布的中止令,那么接案法院赋予对人的效力执行中止令即为达到了第15条的要求。 如果原判法院颁布的中止令只有对人的效力,但在那些国内法给予对物效力的国家寻求获得承认时,接案法院如果根据国内法赋予对物的效力执行中止令的话,则不符合第15条的规定,因为这样超出根据原判国法律所给予的效力范围。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138
A/CN.9/870,第78段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[38] A/CN.9/898,第43段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145
A/CN.9/903,第49、83段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第115-118段 A/CN.9/931,第37-38段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第121-123段 A/CN.9/937,第33-35段 A/CN.9/955,第26-27段 A/CN.9/956 第16条.
可分性 在对与破产有关的判决中可分开的部分寻求获得承认和执行时,或根据本法该项判决只有该部分可以获得承认和执行时,应当对该部分给予承认和执行。 124. 第16条的目标是增强《示范法》的可预见性,鼓励在不可能对整个判决给予承认或执行时仍旧依赖该项判决。 在这些情形下,接案法院不应当能够因为该项判决的一部分不能被承认和执行从而拒绝承认和执行判决的另一部分;
该项判决的可分开部分应当视如整体可以承认和执行的判决同样对待。 125. 在一些情况下,可能无法承认和执行整个判决,因为在判决中包含的有些法院令超出了《示范法》的范围,或者与接案国的公共政策相违背,或者因为是临时命令而尚不能在原判国加以执行。 也可能情况是该项判决中只有一些部分与接案国有关。 在这类情形下,一项判决的可分开部分如果能够单独成立,即可以获得承认和执行。
这通常取决于如果仅仅承认和执行判决的该部分是否将会严重改变当事各方的义务。 这个问题引起法律上的问题时,由接案国的法律判定。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论 A/73/17,第123段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.130
A/CN.9/835,第61段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.138 A/CN.9/870,第80-81段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.143/Add.1,说明[39]
A/CN.9/898,第44段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第50-51段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第119-120段 A/CN.9/931,第39段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第124-125段 A/CN.9/937,第36段 A/CN.9/956
根据《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》颁布了立法的国家将会注意到,有些判决可能会对是否可根据该《示范法》第21条承认和执行判决造成疑惑。 因此,各国似宜考虑颁布如下规定: 第X条. 依据[此处插入索引提示,提及我国关于 《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》
第21条的颁行立法]承认与破产有关的判决 尽管之前有任何相反的解释,但依据[此处插入索引提示,提及我国关于《跨国界破产示范法》第21条的颁行立法]可以提供的救济包括承认和执行判决。 126. 如上文(第2段)所述,产生的一个问题是根据《跨国界破产示范法》可以提供的救济是否包括承认和执行与破产有关的判决。 《跨国界破产示范法》关于救济的规定(主要是第21条)并没有具体提及承认和执行这类判决。
第X条的目的是向颁布(或考虑颁布)《跨国界破产示范法》的国家指明,《跨国界破产示范法》第21条下可以提供的救济包括承认和执行与破产有关的判决,因此,可以根据第21条寻求这种救济。 所以,颁布(或考虑颁布)《跨国界破产示范法》的国家可以依据第X条达到这一目的,而不论先前对第21条任何相反的解释。 一些法域将《跨国界破产示范法》解释为涵盖承认和执行与破产有关的判决,这些法域不需要颁布这一条款。 127.
鉴于第X条涉及对《跨国界破产示范法》的解释,因此,意图并不是将第X条列入本《示范法》的颁行立法。 那样做可能导致寻求援用《跨国界破产示范法》的当事方或对所颁布的《跨国界破产示范法》进行解释的法院忽略本条。 凡希望颁布本条的各国应确定其适当的放置之处。 例如,不妨颁布作为对《跨国界破产示范法》颁行立法的一项修订。 贸易法委员会和工作组的讨论
A/73/17,第116段 A/CN.9/898,第40-41段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.145 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.148 A/CN.9/903,第54-57、84-85段
A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.150 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.151,第121段 A/CN.9/931,第40-41段 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.156 A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157,第126-127段
A/CN.9/937,第37-38段 A/CN.9/955,第28段 六. 贸易法委员会秘书处的协助 A.
协助起草立法 128. 贸易法委员会秘书处通过提供技术咨询协助各国起草以《示范法》为基础的立法。 进一步资料可向贸易法委员会秘书处索取(邮政地址:Vienna International Centre,P.O.Box 500,A-1400 Vienna,Austria; 电话:(+43-1) 26060-4060;
传真:(+43-1) 26060-5813; 电子邮箱:uncitral@uncitral.org; 互联网主页:www.uncitral.org)。 B. 关于以《示范法》为基础的立法的解释参考资料
129. 贸易法委员会法规判例法(CLOUT)资料系统,用于收集和传播与贸易法委员会制定的公约和示范法相关的判例法信息,包括与本《示范法》相关的判例法信息。 该系统的目的是提高国际上对这些立法文本的认识,并促进对其加以统一解释和适用。 秘书处以联合国六种正式语文出版判决的摘要,并有完整的原始判决以备索取。
该系统在贸易法委员会上述互联网主页中的使用者指南加以解释。 附件一 2018年12月20日大会第73/200号决议 联合国国际贸易法委员会
关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法 大会, 回顾其1966年12月17日第2205(XXI)号决议设立联合国国际贸易法委员会,其任务是促进国际贸易法的逐渐协调和统一,并在这方面念及各国人民,尤其是发展中国家人民在国际贸易广泛发展中的利益, 认识到有效的破产制度日益被视为鼓励经济发展和投资并促进创业活动和保持就业的一种手段, 深信关于承认和执行判决的法律日益重要,因为当今世界上企业和个人在不止一个国家拥有资产以及跨国界转移资产越来越容易,
考虑到关于承认和执行民商事判决的国际文书将与破产有关的判决排除在其范围之外, 关切跨国界破产案件协调与合作不足,由此导致在承认和执行与破产有关的判决方面涉及种种不确定性,可能阻碍对跨国界破产进行公平、高效和有效的管理,从而减少挽救虽陷入财务困境但仍有存活力的企业的可能性,使得债务人的资产更有可能隐匿或散失,妨碍将对包括债务人、债务人雇员和债权人在内的所有利益相关人最为有利的重整或清算,
深信《关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法》A/73/17{§34} 条款所表达的尊重国内程序和司法制度并为法律、社会和经济制度不同的国家所接受的公平且符合国际标准的跨国界破产法律将有助于发展国际贸易和投资, 1. 表示赞赏联合国国际贸易法委员会完成并通过《关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法》1及其颁布指南; 2. 请秘书长向各国政府及其他有关机构转递《示范法》案文及其颁布指南;
3. 建议所有国家在修订或通过与破产有关的法律时对《示范法》给予积极考虑,同时铭记需要有国际协调的、规制并便利跨国界破产案件处理的法律,并邀请已使用《示范法》的国家向委员会通报相关情况; 4. 又建议所有国家继续考虑实施《联合国国际贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》。 52/158{§35}
附件二 联合国国际贸易法委员会的决定 在2018年7月2日第1080次会议上,委员会通过了下述决定: 联合国国际贸易法委员会,
回顾大会1966年12月17日第2205 (XXI)号决议,大会在该决议中设立了联合国国际贸易法委员会,目的是为各国人民的利益,特别是为发展中国家人民的利益而促进国际贸易法的逐步协调和统一, 认识到有效的破产制度愈益被视为鼓励经济发展和投资并促进创业活动和保持就业的一种手段, 深信关于承认和执行判决的法律日益重要,因为当今世界上企业和个人在不止一个国家拥有资产并跨国界转移资产越来越容易, 考虑到关于承认和执行民商事判决的国际文书将与破产有关的判决排除在其范围之外,
关切跨国界破产案件协调与合作不足,包括在承认和执行与破产有关的判决方面涉及种种不确定性,可能阻碍对跨国界破产进行公平、高效和有效的管理,从而减少挽救虽陷入财务困境但仍有存活力的企业的可能性,使得债务人的资产更有可能隐匿或散失,妨碍将对包括债务人、债务人雇员和债权人在内的所有利益相关人最为有利的重整或清算, 深信尊重国内程序和司法制度并为法律、社会和经济制度不同的国家所接受的公平和国际协调的跨国界破产立法将有助于发展国际贸易和投资,
赞赏活跃于破产法改革领域的政府间组织和获邀非政府组织支持并参与关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法草案及其颁布指南的拟订工作, 表示赞赏第五工作组(破产法)为拟订关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法草案及其颁布指南而开展的工作, 1.
通过《贸易法委员会关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法》及其《颁布指南》,前者载于联合国国际委员会第五十一届会议报告附件三A/73/17{§36} ,后者由A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.157所载案文和A/CN.9/955号文件所列修订意见以及委员会第五十一届会议通过的修订意见组成; {§37} 2. 请秘书长发布《贸易法委员会关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法》及其《颁布指南》,包括以电子方式,用联合国六种正式语文公布,并向各国政府及其他有关机构广泛传播;
3. 建议所有国家在修订或通过与破产有关的立法时对《贸易法委员会关于承认和执行与破产有关的判决的示范法》给予积极考虑,并请已使用《示范法》的国家向委员会通报相关情况; 4. 还建议所有国家继续考虑实施《贸易法委员会跨国界破产示范法》(1997年)。 52/158{§38}
1 颁布国似宜注意,应当在方括号内提供的两则备选案文中二选一。 《颁布指南》在第15条说明中提供了对这一规定的解释。 2 例如Rubin & Anor.v Eurofinance SA, [2012] UKSC 46(在[2010] EWCA Civ 895和[2011] EWCA Civ 971案裁判基础上的上诉);
《法规判例法》判例1270。 另见韩国最高法院2010年3月25日的裁决(判例号:2009Ma1600)。 3 现有制度的重点主要限于区域范围,如拉丁美洲、欧洲联盟和中东。 见贸易法委员会A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.126号文件,第6段。
4 1971年《关于承认和执行民商事外国判决的公约》和2005年6月30日《关于选择法院协议的公约》,这两项公约均由海牙国际私法会议拟定。 5 关于海牙会议的工作情况,可查阅:https://www.hcch.net。 6
见2018年5月的公约草案第2条第1(e)项。 增加的这一排除是指在金融稳定委员会主持下为防止金融机构倒闭而在各法域颁布的新法律框架。 7 2005年6月30日《选择法院协议公约》:Trevor Hartley和Masato Dogauchi编写的解释报告,第56段。 8
例如,《美国联邦破产法》第11章和1986年《英国破产法》第二部分。 9 见贸易法委员会A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.126号文件,第16段。 10 这些判决涉及根据2000年5月29日欧洲理事会关于破产程序的第1346/2000号条例所作的裁定。
案例引证见贸易法委员会A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.126号文件,第21段。 11 同上,第22段。 12 《大会正式记录,第六十九届会议,补编第17号》(A/69/17),第155段。
13 同上,《第七十三届会议,补编第17号》(A/73/17),第131段。 14 《跨国界破产示范法颁布指南和解释》,第48-49段。 《立法指南》,导言,术语表,第12(s)款:“‘破产’:当债务人总体上无能力偿付其到期债务或当其负债超出其资产价值时。
15 关于“承认和执行”一词含义的进一步解释,见下文第78-79段。 16 不妨指出,《示范法》中“法院”一词的使用不受《跨国界破产示范法》的定义第二部分中所称“有权监控或监督外国程序”一语的局限,原因见下文第52段所述。 17
《跨国界破产示范法》,第3条(第1款)至第8条。 18 序言,第2(b)项,以及第14条(h)项和第X条(在下文讨论,见第126-127段)。 19 序言,第2(d)项和第2条(d)㈡项(见下文第45段和第62段)。
20 见下文第88-91段关于认证问题的讨论。 21 见《颁布指南和解释》,第196-199段。 22
《跨国界破产示范法》,第2(a)条:(a)“‘外国程序’系指外国遵守与破产有关的法律实施的集体司法程序或行政程序,包括临时程序,在这一程序中,为了达到重整或清算目的,债务人的资产和事务由外国法院监控或监督。 23 《颁布指南和解释》,第69-80段。 24 《跨国界破产示范法》,第2(d)条:“‘外国代表’系指在外国程序中被授权管理债务人资产或事务的重整或清算,或被授权担任该外国程序的代表的人或机构,包括临时指定的人或机构。
25 《立法指南》,导言,第12㈤项:“‘破产管理人’:在破产程序中被授权管理破产财产的重整或清算的人或机构,包括临时指定的人或机构。 26 同上,第二部分,第三章,第35段。 27
同上,导言,第8段:为简单起见,《立法指南》使用“法院”一词与《跨国界破产示范法》第2条(e)项的用法相同,都是指“有监控或监督”破产程序“权限的司法机关或其他机关”。 为破产程序提供支持或在其中负有特定职责但在这些程序中不具有判决职能的机关,将不被视作归属《指南》所用“法院”一词的含义范畴。 《跨国界破产示范法》第2条(e)项规定:“(e)‘外国法院’系指具有监控或监督外国程序权限的司法机关或其他机关。 28 《立法指南》,第二部分,第四章,B节。
29 例如,见《颁布指南和解释》,第91-93段。 30 关于《跨国界破产示范法》下的相关案例,例如,见《司法角度的审视》第三节B.5“‘公共政策’的例外”。 31
联合国,《条约汇编》,第1498卷,第25567号。 32 联合国,《条约汇编》,第527卷,第7625号。 33 《立法指南》,导言,第12(b)段:“‘债务人的资产’:债务人的财产、权利和利益,包括财产上的权利和利益,不论该财产是否由债务人占有,是有形财产还是无形财产,是动产还是不动产,同时还包括债务人在设押资产或第三方拥有的资产上的权益。
34 《大会正式记录,第七十三届会议,补编第17号》(),附件三。 35 第号决议,附件。 36
《大会正式记录,第七十三届会议,补编第17号》()。 37 同上,第五章,A.3分节。 38 大会第号决议,附件。