【仲裁】当事人自治的边界：国际仲裁机构违背仲裁协议相关问题

谢小松北京德和衡（深圳）律师事务所联席合伙人Arbitral Institution’s Discretion and Limitations on Party Autonomy——A Comparative Analysis on Two Types of Limitations仲裁机构裁量权与当事人自治的限制——对两种限制的比较分析I. INTRODUCTION引言1. Party autonomy is the guiding principle in determining the procedure to be followed in an international arbitration[1], which is exemplified by Article 19(1) of UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (“Model Law”)[2]. However, it is also admitted that parties’ agreement can not work everywhere or at all times. In practice, it may be restrained by the discretion of arbitral institution (including tribunal) on two typical grounds, namely, the efficiency requirement, and the principle of equal treatment.当事人自治是确定国际仲裁应遵循的程序的指导性原则，《UNCITRAL示范法》（“《示范法》”）第19(1)条即是例证。然而，人们也承认，当事人的协议不可能在任何地方或任何时候都有效。在实践中，它可能受到仲裁机构(包括仲裁庭)自由裁量权基于以下两项典型理由的限制，即效率要求和平等对待原则。2. Based on the arbitration rules of some leading institutions and seminal cases in relevant jurisdictions, this article is intended to analyze, on a comparative basis, how they are mutually conflicting and harmonized between arbitral institution or tribunal’s discretion and party autonomy when it comes to the two typical type of limitations above-mentioned, and draw a basic line, as a preliminary attempt, for the scope of party autonomy.基于主要仲裁机构的仲裁规则和相关法域有影响力的案例，本文拟对仲裁机构或仲裁庭的自由裁量权与当事人自治在上述两种典型限制方面如何相互冲突和协调进行比较分析，并初步尝试为当事人自治的范围划定一条基本界线。II. LIMITATION ON THE GROUND OF EFFICIENCY基于效率要求的限制A. Arbitration Rules相关仲裁规则3. In order to cater for the need of users of international arbitration for time-efficiency and cost-effectiveness, some leading institutions adopted expedited procedures as default procedure in the absence of specific parties’ agreement if the amount in dispute is lower than a set amount.为了满足国际仲裁使用者对节约时间和费用成本的需求，一些主流仲裁机构规定，在当事人没有明确约定的情况下，如果案件争议金额低于某一确定金额，将默认适用快速程序。4. For instance, the 2016 Arbitration Rules of Singapore International Arbitration Center (“the 2016 SIAC Rules”) provide that, absent any express agreement between the parties, if the disputed amount does not exceed S$6 million or in cases of exceptional emergency, the expedited procedure shall apply[3], which means that SIAC may abbreviate any time limit under the expedited rules, the case shall be referred to a sole arbitrator (unless the SIAC President determines otherwise), and the tribunal may take some measures to accelerate the proceedings, including deciding the case on documents-only basis, or stating the reasons in summary form in the final award. Furthermore, the 2016 SIAC Rules also include provision that the rules of expedited procedure shall prevail over any contrary terms in the arbitration agreement (“prevail provision”).[4]例如，《2016年新加坡国际仲裁中心仲裁规则》（“《2016 SIAC规则》”）规定，在当事人没有任何明确约定的情况下，如果争议金额不超过600万新加坡元或在特殊紧急情况下，应适用快速程序，这意味着SIAC可以缩短快速规则下的任何时间期限，案件应提交给独任仲裁员（除非SIAC主席另有决定），仲裁庭也可以采取一些措施加快程序，包括仅以文件为基础裁决案件，或在最终裁决中以简要形式陈述理由。此外，《2016年SIAC规则》还包含快速程序规则优先于仲裁协议中任何相反条款的规定（“优先条款”）。5. Relevant cases in Singapore indicate that it has already become controversial in terms of balance between party autonomy and efficiency before the adoption of the aforesaid “prevail provision”.新加坡的相关案例表明，在引入上述“优先条款”之前，当事人自治与效率之间的平衡已经成为争议。B. Case Study案例研究6. In AQZ v ARA[2015] SGHC 49, where both parties agreed in the arbitration clause that the dispute shall be administered under Expedited Procedure of the 2010 SIAC Rules and the tribunal shall be comprised of three arbitrators. However, the SIAC appointed a sole arbitrator who finally rendered an award in favor of the Buyer. The Seller applied to set aside the final award on the ground that, under Article 34(2)(a)(iv) of Model Law, the composition of the arbitral tribunal and/or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties. Singapore High Court ruled that the 2010 SIAC Rules have been incorporated into the parties’ contract and the rules must be interpreted purposively together with the rest of the contract, thus the incorporated reference to an Expedited Procedure could override the parties’ agreement to have three arbitrators.[5]在AQZ v ARA[2015] SGHC 49一案中，双方当事人在仲裁条款中约定争议应按照《2010年SIAC规则》的快速程序进行处理，且仲裁庭应由三名仲裁员组成。但是，SIAC指定了一名独任仲裁员，该仲裁员最终作出了有利于买方的裁决。卖方根据《示范法》第34(2)(a)(iv)条规定的“仲裁庭的组成和/或仲裁程序不符合当事人之间协议”这一事由申请撤销该最终裁决。新加坡高等法院裁定，《2010年SIAC规则》已被纳入双方的合同，该规则必须与合同的其他部分一起有目的性地进行解释，因此快速程序的纳入可以优先于双方关于委任三名仲裁员的约定。7. However, in the landmark case of Noble Resources International Pte Ltd v Shanghai Good Credit International Trade Co, Ltd ([2016] Hu 01 Xie Wai Ren No.1)[6], the Chinese court rendered a different ruling. In this case, both parties agreed in the arbitration clause that the dispute shall be referred to a tribunal comprised of three arbitrators in accordance with the 2013 SIAC Rules. Given that the amount in dispute did not exceed the specified amount (S$5 million) in the 2013 SIAC Rules, SIAC decided to apply Expedited Procedure and appointed a sole arbitrator to hear the case. The Seller sought to recognize and enforce the award in its favor in China, which was resisted by the Buyer.然而，在来宝资源国际有限公司诉上海信泰国际贸易有限公司外国仲裁裁决承认与执行一案中，中国法院则做出了不同的裁定。该案中，双方当事人在仲裁条款中约定，根据《2013年SIAC规则》将争议提交由三名仲裁员组成的仲裁庭解决。考虑到该案争议金额未超过《2013 SIAC规则》规定的金额（500万新加坡元），SIAC决定采用快速程序，同时指定了一名独任仲裁员审理此案。卖方试图在中国承认并执行对其有利的裁决，但买方提出拒绝承认与执行申请。8. Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court ruled that there is no explicit provision under the 2013 SIAC Rules that SIAC President may have discretion to appoint a sole arbitrator where the expedited procedures shall apply but the parties have agreed to have three arbitrators, and the wording “unless the President determines otherwise” in Article 5.2(b) of the 2013 SIAC Rules does not mean that the President has such unlimited discretionary power as to impede party autonomy. The final award was consequently refused to be enforced in China on the ground under Article V(1)(iv) of New York Convention that the arbitration procedures violate the parties’ agreement.   上海市第一中级人民法院认为，《2013年SIAC规则》中没有明确规定，在适用快速程序但双方同意由三名仲裁员组成仲裁庭的情况下，SIAC主席仍可以根据自由裁量权指定一名独任仲裁员，且《2013年SIAC规则》第5.2(b)条中“除非主席另有决定”的措辞并不意味着主席享有无限的自由裁量权，以至于使当事人的意思自治受到损害。该最终裁决因此被拒绝在中国执行，理由是根据《纽约公约》第5(1)(iv)条，仲裁程序违反了当事人之间的协议。III. LIMITATION ON THE GROUND OF EQUAL TREATMENT基于平等对待原则的限制9. The recent amendments to the Arbitration Rules of ICC Court of Arbitration (“the ICC Rules”) has well exemplified how party autonomy is limited on the ground of the equal treatment principle. Pursuant to Articles 12(6)-12(8) of the 2017 ICC Rules, in multi-party disputes where the number of arbitrators to be appointed is less than the number of parties, the multiple claimants and/or multiple respondents, or the additional party joined in the arbitration together with the claimant(s) or respondent(s), will jointly nominate the arbitrators, failing that and where all parties are unable to agree to a different method for the constitution of the arbitral tribunal, ICC Court may appoint all the arbitrators, notwithstanding the parties’ agreement on appointment procedure, to ensure equality between the parties.《国际商会仲裁院仲裁规则》（“《ICC规则》”）最近的修改很好地说明了如何在平等对待原则的基础上限制当事人自治。根据《2017年ICC规则》第12(6)-12(8)条，在待委任仲裁员人数少于当事人人数的多方当事人争议中，多名申请人和/或多名被申请人，或加入仲裁的其他当事人与申请人或被申请人，将共同提名仲裁员，如无法共同提名且所有当事人不同意采用其他方法组成仲裁庭时，ICC可以任命所有仲裁员，不论当事人就仲裁员委任程序是否达成协议，以此确保当事人之间的平等。10. In the case of Vidatel v. PT Ventures, Mercury and Geni (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 9 November 2022, No 21-17203)(“Vidatel case”)[7], it was highly disputed how the equal treatment principle shall be applied when it comes to the arbitrator appointment. In this case, both the claimant and the three respondents were shareholders of the same company, the claimant commenced the ICC arbitration as per the shareholder agreement. In the shareholder agreement, the parties agreed that the tribunal shall be comprised of five arbitrators, one to be designated by each party, the fifth one to be jointly designated by the other four arbitrators, and failing that, by the ICC President. The claimant argued that the three respondents shall jointly appoint one arbitrator, instead of each appointing one arbitrator, due to the convergence of interests between them, which was objected by the respondents. ICC decided to appoint all five arbitrators after the failure of agreement between all the parties on a different method of constitution of the tribunal. French Supreme Court finally affirmed the ICC award by holding that the equality was maintained since all the parties were deprived of the right to choose their arbitrator.在Vidatel v. PT Ventures, Mercury and Geni一案中（“Vidatel案”），在委任仲裁员时如何适用平等对待原则存在很大争议。在该案中，申请人和三名被申请人都是同一家公司的股东，申请人根据股东协议向ICC提起仲裁。在股东协议中，各方同意仲裁庭应由五名仲裁员组成，每一方当事人各指定一名仲裁员，第五名仲裁员由其他四名仲裁员共同指定，如无法达成一致，则由ICC主席指定。申请人主张，由于三被申请人之间的利益趋同，因此应当共同指定一名仲裁员，而不是各自分别指定一名仲裁员，被申请人对此提出异议。在全体当事人不同意采用不同的仲裁庭组成方式后，ICC决定指定全部五名仲裁员。法国最高法院最终维持了ICC的这一裁决，认为所有当事人都被剥夺了选择仲裁员的权利，因此确保了平等。11. The ruling in Vidatel case has adopted a different approach as to the assessment of the equal treatment in the constitution of tribunal than the one enshrined in the prominent French case of BKMI Industrieanlagen GmbH, Siemens AG v. Dutco Construction Co. (Private) Limited (“Dutco case”) in 1992. In the latter case, the equal treatment principle typically means that each party in the dispute has an equal right when appointing the arbitrators, it was assessed objectively on a mere basis of the number of the parties and the arbitrators to be appointed. The Vidatel case, however, introduced a more subjective assessment of the equal treatment principle in the constitution of tribunal by taking into account the parties’ respective position and interests in multi-party disputes.Vidatel案对在仲裁庭组成中如何判断平等对待原则采取了与1992年法国著名的BKMI Industrieanlagen GmbH, Siemens AG v. Dutco Construction Co. (Private) Limited（“Dutco案”）不同的方法。在后一个案例中，平等对待原则通常是指争议各方当事人在指定仲裁员时享有平等的权利，也即仅仅是根据当事人和待指定的仲裁员的数量来对是否符合平等对待原则进行客观评估。但是，Vidatel案通过将各方当事人在多方当事人争议中各自的立场和利益地位纳入考量范围，对平等对待原则在仲裁庭组成中的适用进行了更为主观的评估。[8]12. For the avoidance of the controversy raised in Vidatel case, the 2021 ICC Rules adopted a new “prevail provision” in Article 12(9), which empowers the ICC Court to appoint each member of the tribunal, in exceptional circumstances, to avoid a significant risk of unequal treatment and unfairness that may affect the validity of the award, regardless of any agreement by the parties on the method of constitution of the tribunal. The“prevail provision” here will also apply when it goes beyond multi-party disputes.为避免在Vidatel案中引起的争议，《2021年ICC规则》在其中第12(9)条中采用了新的“优先条款”，允许ICC在特殊情况下有权指定仲裁庭中的每一名仲裁员，以避免可能影响裁决有效性的不平等对待和不公平的重大风险，而无论当事人就仲裁庭的组成方法是否达成任何协议。此处“优先条款”的适用并不仅仅限于多方当事人争议的场合。13. The 2024 Arbitration Rules of China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (“the 2024 CIETAC Rules”) have embodied the latest update as to the aforesaid “prevail provision” on the ground of equal treatment principle within Asian-Pacific region. As per 26.4 of the 2024 CIETAC Rules, if the procedure of forming the arbitral tribunal agreed by the parties is manifestly unfair or unjust, or if a party abuses its rights in a way that results in undue delay of the arbitral proceedings, the Chairman of CIETAC may determine the procedure of formation of the arbitral tribunal or appoint any member of the arbitral tribunal.《2024 年中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会仲裁规则》（“《2024 CIETAC规则》”）体现了上述基于平等对待原则而引入的“优先条款”在亚太地区的最新进展。根据《2024 CIETAC规则》第26.4条的规定，如果当事人约定的组庭方式存在显著的不公平或不公正，或当事人滥用权利导致仲裁程序不必要的拖延，仲裁委员会主任可依据公平原则确定组庭方式或指定仲裁庭的任一组成人员。IV. COMPARISON AND CONCLUSION比较与结论14. As discussed above, for the purpose of resolving the dilemma between party autonomy and efficiency requirement or equal treatment principle, both SIAC Rules and ICC Rules introduced the “prevail provision” which enables the institution or tribunal’s discretion to override any contrary agreement between the parties. Nevertheless, it still remains to be discussed whether such response has completely achieved its goal.如前文所述，为解决当事人自治与效率要求或平等对待原则之间的两难困境，SIAC规则和ICC规则均引入了“优先条款”，使机构或仲裁庭的自由裁量权可以凌驾于当事人之间任何相反的约定之上。但是，这种应对措施是否完全达到了目的目前还有待讨论。15. As for the limitation arising from equality of treatment, it is noticeable that the concept of treating the parties with equality is fundamental in all civilized systems of civil justice and the arbitration rules of almost all leading arbitral institutions.[9] As some commentator pointed out, “if party autonomy is the first principle to be applied in relation to procedure in international arbitration, equality of treatment is the second—and it is of equal importance”[10]. In Dutco case discussed above, French Supreme Court held that equality of the parties in the appointment of arbitrators is a matter of public policy which can be waived only after the disputes has arisen.[11]From a perspective of contract law, for example, under the UNIDROIT Principles on International Commercial Contract, a contract can be avoided by the disadvantaged party due to the appearance of gross disparity (Article 3.2.7(1)[12]), or shall be invalid for violating the principle of equality between the parties which constitutes public policy or mandatory rules (Article 3.1.4[13]). Therefore, it would be moderately acceptable that the party autonomy can be overridden by equal treatment principle functioning as part of public policy.关于平等对待所产生的限制，值得注意的是，平等对待当事人的概念在所有文明的民事司法制度和几乎所有主要仲裁机构的仲裁规则中都是最基本的。有论者指出，“如果当事人自治是国际仲裁程序中适用的第一原则，那么对待平等则是第二原则，而且同样重要”。在上文讨论的Dutco一案中，法国最高法院认为，各方当事人在任命仲裁员方面的平等是一项公共政策问题，只有在争议发生后才能放弃。从合同法的角度来看，例如，根据《UNIDROIT国际商事合同原则》，合同可由处于不利地位的一方基于显失公平这一事由撤销（第3.2.7(1)条），或因违反构成公共政策或强制性规则的当事人平等原则而无效（第3.1.4条）。因此，在功能上作为公共政策一部分的平等对待原则可以优先于当事人自治而得以适用，基本可以接受。16.By contrast, it may be in need of more justifiable reasons to limit party autonomy on the ground of efficiency, particularly when the parties have reached a explicit and specific agreement as to the arbitration procedures (e.g., the parties agreed that the dispute shall be referred to three arbitrators for resolution under expedited procedures). First, unlike equal treatment principle, efficiency requirement is not placed by all leading arbitration rules on such a position as to override party autonomy. For instance, some Rules provide that the provisions of expedited procedure shall apply only when the parties agree so (e.g., 2023 SCC Rules for Expedited Arbitration), or such procedures or provisions shall not apply when the parties reach a contrary agreement or expressly opt out of them (e.g., 2021 ICC Rules, 2018 HKIAC Rules, 2024 CIETAC Rules), which indicates that efficiency requirement may not function as part of public policy in international arbitration. 相比之下，基于效率要求限制当事人自治则可能需要更多正当理由，特别是当当事人关于仲裁的约定明确而具体时（例如，当事人同意由三名仲裁员根据快速程序解决他们之间的争议）。首先，与平等对待原则不同，并非所有主要仲裁规则都将效率要求置于凌驾于当事人自治之上的地位。例如，一些仲裁规则规定，只有在当事人同意的情况下，才能适用快速程序规则（如《2023 SCC快速仲裁规则》），或者在当事人明确作出相反约定或选择排除适用这些规则时，这些规则不予适用（如《2021年ICC仲裁规则》、《2018 HKIAC 仲裁规则》、《2024年CIETAC仲裁规则》），这表明在国际仲裁中效率要求在功能上并非公共政策的一部分。17. Second, since the arbitration rules to be applied can be deemed as being incorporated by reference into the parties’ agreement, in the event that the arbitration clause contradicts the applicable arbitration rules, it could be crucial to determine the specific content of party autonomy by probing the parties’ real intent at the time of agreement. As observed in the Vidatel case, the parties’ understanding of equality at the time of the agreement may be different from that at the time of the occurrence of dispute due to the application of different standards for assessing the principle of equality, which is not the case when assessing whether the parties’ need for efficiency has already been satisfied (for example, under the circumstance that the parties agreed to have their dispute resolved under expedited procedures by three arbitrators). It is thus much easier to determine what the parties really want when considering efficiency than equal treatment. In other words, the real intent as to the extent to which the efficiency requirement shall be met between the parties at the time of agreement is typically too unambiguous to be superseded by any provisions under the applicable arbitration rules.[14]其次，由于约定适用的仲裁规则可被视为已经通过提及方式并入当事人之间的协议，在仲裁条款与所适用的仲裁规则相互矛盾时，通过探究当事人在签订协议时的真实意图以确定当事人自治的具体内容就至关重要。正如Vidatel案所表明的那样，由于判断平等原则如何适用的标准有所不同，当事人在签订协议时对平等的理解可能不同于争议发生之时，而在评估当事人对效率的需求是否得到满足时情况则并不是如此（例如，在当事人同意由三名仲裁员根据快速程序解决他们之间争议的场合）。因此，相较于当事人考虑平等对待的场合，在当事人考虑效率时更容易确定其真实意图。换言之，当事人签订协议时有关效率要求应在何种程度上被满足的真实意图通常而言非常清晰明确，以至于无法被所适用的仲裁规则中的任何规定取代。18. As such, the adoption of “prevail provision” on the ground of efficiency may not decrease the parties’ complaint about the high expense and procedural delays of international arbitration, but instead discourage them to use it by eroding their autonomy which serves as the cornerstone of the proceedings supposed to be tailored by themselves. It is still to be seen whether the conflict between the party autonomy and efficiency requirement will be eliminated in the future after the introduction of such “prevail provision”.因此，以效率为理由引入“优先条款”可能不会减少当事人对国际仲裁高额费用和程序拖延的抱怨，反而会侵蚀他们的自治权，从而使他们不愿使用国际仲裁，而自治权则是本应由他们自己量身定制的程序的基石。此类“优先条款”引入后当事人自治与效率要求之间的冲突未来是否会得到消除，仍有待观察。脚注：Footpoints：向上滑动阅览[1] See Nigel Blackaby ,Constantine Partasides, etal., Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, 7th edition Oxford University Press 2022, p328.[2] Article 19(1) of Model Law provides: “Subject to the provisions of this Law, the parties are free to agree on the procedure to be followed by the arbitral tribunal in conducting the proceedings.”[3] Article 5.1 of the 2016 SIAC Rules.[4] Article 5.3 of the 2016 SIAC Rules.[5] See AQZ v ARA[2015] SGHC 49, para. 132, available at https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2015_SGHC_49, accessed on 24 January 2024.[6] The original version in Chinese of this judgment is available at https://law.wkinfo.com.cn/judgment-documents/detail/MjAyNjAxOTYxNjU%3D?searchId=f532c258ada243c7b16627b3d83217bf&index=1&q=%EF%BC%882016%E6%B2%AA01%E5%8D%8F%E5%A4%96%E8%AE%A41%E5%8F%B7&module=&summary=%E4%B8%8A%E6%B5%B7%E5%B8%82%E7%AC%AC%E4%B8%80%E4%B8%AD%E7%BA%A7%E4%BA%BA%E6%B0%91%E6%B3%95%E9%99%A2%0D%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%0D%0D%09%09%09%09%09%09%09%0D, accessed on 24 January 2024.[7] The original version in French of this judgment is available at https://www.courdecassation.fr/decision/export/636b6d1067b11ddcd1c423b8/1, accessed on 25 January 2024.[8] See Mangesh Krishna, “Whose Side Are You On? Modification of the Dutco Principle by the French Supreme Court”, available at https://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2023/02/09/whose-side-are-you-on-modification-of-the-dutco-principle-by-the-french-supreme-court/, accessed on 1 February 2024.[9] Supra, n.1, p330.[10] Ibid, p329.[11] The original version in French of this judgment is available at https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/juri/id/JURITEXT000007028100, accessed on 25 January 2024.[12] This Article provides: “(1) A party may avoid the contract or an individual term of it if, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, the contract or term unjustifiably gave the other party an excessive advantage. Regard is to be had, among other factors, to (a) the fact that the other party has taken unfair advantage of the first party’s dependence, economic distress or urgent needs, or of its improvidence, ignorance,inexperience or lack of bargaining skill, and (b) the nature and purpose of the contract. ”[13] This Article provides: “The provisions on fraud, threat, gross disparity and illegality contained in this Chapter are mandatory.”[14] On the contrary, there may be some exceptions where the parties’ agreement contradicts more explicit and specific provisions issued by the arbitral institution. For example, Article 8.3 of HKIAC Rules provides: ”Where the parties have agreed on a different procedure for designating three arbitrators and such procedure does not result in the designation of an arbitrator within a time limit agreed by the parties or set by HKIAC, HKIAC shall appoint the arbitrator.”(emphasis added)文章转自：威科先行公众号或许您还想看谢小松：分公司签署的仲裁协议是否约束总公司？谢小松：不存在的“信托击穿”：简评新加坡高等法院家族信托案作者简介谢小松联席合伙人谢小松律师，北京德和衡律师事务所联席合伙人，中国政法大学民商法学硕士，瑞典斯德哥尔摩大学法学硕士（国际仲裁LLM）候选人。主要执业领域为商事争议解决、涉外与国际仲裁、金融与（跨境）投融资业务、房地产与建设工程等，工作语言为中文和英文。谢小松律师在商事争议解决领域特别是涉外与国际仲裁、跨境执行方面有着丰富的实务经验，代表境内外客户办理了多宗重大复杂的商事案件，包括各级人民法院审理的商事诉讼案件、国内主要仲裁机构（中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会、深圳国际仲裁院、上海国际仲裁中心、北京仲裁委员会等）受理的商事仲裁案件以及境外仲裁机构（包括国际商会仲裁院、香港国际仲裁中心以及新加坡国际仲裁中心等）管理的国际仲裁案件，并为企业提供（跨境）投资并购等非诉讼法律服务以及包括企业合规在内的常年法律顾问服务。谢小松律师目前是北京市律师协会涉外律师人才库成员、国际商事仲裁理事会青年组织（Young ICCA）成员、新加坡国际仲裁中心青年组织（YSIAC）成员、香港国际仲裁中心HK45组织成员。手机：18811782779邮箱：xiexiaosong@deheheng.com质控人简介刘章印高级合伙人公司业务中心总监liuzhangyin@deheheng.comEND