月度归档： 2026 年 6 月

 26年6月18日，上海市高级人民法院在2026陆家嘴论坛“金融法治国际研讨会”上，发布了2021至2025年涉外、涉港澳台金融商事审判典型案例（中英文版）。枚举一二。

某保险公司作为实际承运人的保险人，在被保险货物发生损失后，依据《蒙特利尔公约》向缔约承运人主张代位求偿权。上海法院通过体系解释方法，认定实际承运人与缔约承运人对旅客、托运人承担连带责任，《蒙特利尔公约》的立法初衷在于平衡保护各方利益。保险人代位行使被保险人权利时，自然有权主张该连带责任

一起保证合同纠纷涉及香港法的适用，当事人提交了另案中香港大律师出具的法律意见书。该意见书对涉案法律问题的法律基础与事实基础，均与本案一致。上海法院认可了该法律意见书的效力，认为：当事人提交的域外法查明意见，在事实与法律基础均一致的情况下，可作为本案域外法查明的依据，无需就同一法律规范重复查明、重复办理公证认证手续。

境外仲裁机构已就基础合同争议作出裁决，明确项目总承包商应立即释放保函。然而，总承包商仍向银行提出“非延即付”保函索赔申请。申请人遂向上海法院申请中止支付反担保函项下款项。上海法院认定，本案符合紧急止付条件，在申请次日即作出止付裁定，并及时受理、妥善应对后续保函欺诈纠纷。

当事人申请承认美国特拉华州衡平法院作出的一项证券赔偿民事判决。中美之间并未缔结或参加相互承认和执行民事判决、裁定的国际条约。上海法院综合考量法院所在国法律、双边共识等因素，认定中美之间存在“法律上的互惠关系”，并就案涉《海牙送达公约》适用问题进行审查，最终作出承认该美国判决的裁定。

---

Introduction

On June 18, 2026, the Shanghai High People’s Court released its 2021-2025 typical cases in foreign-related financial and commercial trials (bilingual Chinese-English version) at the “International Symposium on Financial Rule of Law” during the 2026 Lujiazui Forum. The ten cases focus on the application and establishment of cross-border financial legal rules, systematically summarizing procedural and substantive issues from four dimensions: accurate application of international conventions, efficient ascertainment of foreign laws, response to cross-border financial needs, and deepening international judicial cooperation.

2026年6月15日，英国皇家海军陆战队与国家犯罪局（NCA）联合行动，在英吉利海峡登临并扣押了一艘悬挂喀麦隆国旗的油轮MV Smyrtos，该船被指控为俄罗斯”影子舰队”的一部分，运输受制裁的俄罗斯石油。船长Ajay Pant（38岁，印度籍）被指控违反《俄罗斯制裁条例（欧盟退出）2019》，最高面临10年监禁。这是英国首次针对影子舰队进行刑事起诉，标志着西方对俄制裁执法力度的显著升级。

本次扣押行动的法律依据主要来自三层规范：首先，依据《联合国海洋法公约》（UNCLOS）第110条规定的登临权（right of visit），英国作为船旗国在怀疑船只从事非法活动时享有登临检查的权利；其次，英国《俄罗斯制裁条例（欧盟退出）2019》作为国内法实施了对俄贸易禁令与制裁措施；最后，英国首相于2026年3月授权的制裁与海事执法权限为本次联合行动提供了权力基础。

本次行动引发的核心争议在于制裁执法的法律边界。一方面，英国主张影子舰队的存在破坏了国际制裁体系的完整性，使俄罗斯得以绕过制裁继续通过能源出口获取战争资金；另一方面，法律学者质疑针对悬挂第三国旗帜、船长为第三国国民的船舶进行刑事起诉是否符合国际法中罪刑法定原则与主权豁免原则。特别是，当英国当局声称”影子舰队规模自2022年以来增长了三倍”时，却未明确指出MV Smyrtos具体违反了哪一项明确列明的制裁清单，这可能引发执法标准模糊化的担忧。

此次扣押释放了一个明确信号：西方制裁已从”经济威慑”转向”刑事执法”。对于国际航运业而言，这意味着运输俄罗斯能源的风险不再是经济损失，而是船东与船员面临刑事指控的可能。从合规角度，航运公司需要建立更为严格的制裁筛查机制，不仅在合同层面排除涉俄货物，还要在实操层面确保船舶航行路线、保险安排、船员资质等各环节均不触及制裁红线。

UK’s First Detention of Russian Shadow Fleet Tanker: Legal Boundaries of Sanctions Enforcement

On June 15, 2026, British Royal Marine Commandos and the National Crime Agency (NCA) conducted a joint operation to board and detain MV Smyrtos, a tanker flying the Cameroonian flag, in the English Channel. The vessel was accused of being part of Russia’s “shadow fleet” transporting sanctioned Russian oil. Captain Ajay Pant, a 38-year-old Indian national, was charged with violating the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, facing up to 10 years’ imprisonment. This marks the UK’s first criminal prosecution against the shadow fleet, signifying a significant escalation in Western sanctions enforcement against Russia.

The legal basis for this detention operation stems from three layers of norms: First, under Article 110 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the right of visit, the UK as a flag state enjoys the right to board and inspect vessels suspected of engaging in illegal activities; Second, the UK’s Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 implements domestic trade embargoes and sanctions against Russia; Finally, the sanctions and maritime enforcement powers authorized by the UK Prime Minister in March 2026 provide the power basis for this joint operation.

The core controversy triggered by this action lies in the legal boundaries of sanctions enforcement. On one hand, the UK claims that the existence of the shadow fleet undermines the integrity of the international sanctions regime, allowing Russia to continue obtaining war funds through energy exports while circumventing sanctions. On the other hand, legal scholars question whether criminal prosecution against vessels flying third-country flags with captains of third-party nationalities conforms to the principle of legality in international law and sovereign immunity principles. In particular, when British authorities claim that “the shadow fleet has tripled in size since 2022,” they fail to explicitly specify which clearly listed sanctions schedule MV Smyrtos violated, which may raise concerns about the vagueness of enforcement standards.

2026年5月6日，《商事调解条例》正式实施后的第一个工作日，全国首例涉外商事领域的个人调解案件在上海浦东成功落地。这标志着中国在构建国际商事争议解决体系方面迈出了具有开创性意义的一步。

基本案情：本案是一起跨越八年的涉外货物买卖合同货款纠纷。当事人一方为注册于中国（上海）自由贸易试验区内的外商独资企业，另一方为广东某公司。2018年，外资企业根据双方确认的提货确认单向广东公司销售自美国进口的塑料制品。截至2025年3月，广东公司累计拖欠货款数十万元，虽经陆续偿还，仍有部分款项未付。2026年4月，外资企业发出催款函，催告未果，双方就此产生纠纷。

调解过程：2026年5月6日上午，在浦东国际法律服务园，华东政法大学教授丁伟以个人调解员身份，通过线上线下相结合的方式主持调解。从启动调解到双方签署协议，整个过程仅用了一个小时。

法律依据：双层制度保障

个人调解（独立调解）是国际商事争议解决领域的通行做法，此前国内并无此路径，只有调解组织可以开展商事调解活动。

《商事调解条例》（2026年5月1日施行） ：第二十四条第三款规定：”在自由贸易试验区、海南自由贸易港等区域内，有关地方可以试点建立商事调解员独立开展涉外商事调解活动的相关制度。”

《上海市促进浦东新区商事调解规定》（2024年） ：对商事调解员个人参与商事调解活动作了原则性规定。

两部法规共同为浦东试点涉外商事争议个人调解工作提供了法治保障。

制度优势：灵活高效的争议解决新路径

与传统的诉讼或机构调解相比，个人调解具有以下显著优势：

1. “点对点”选择专家：当事人可以自主选择最信任的调解员，本案中双方共同选定国际贸易纠纷领域的权威专家丁伟教授
2. 高度灵活保密：调解过程高度保密，避免商业信息外泄；调解节奏由当事人共同掌控
3. 快速高效：本案从启动到签署协议仅用一小时，大幅降低时间成本
4. 成本节省：无需层层申请走流程，经济成本显著低于诉讼

Case Overview: Eight-Year Payment Dispute Resolved in One Hour

Basic Facts: This case involves an eight-year foreign-related goods sales contract payment dispute. One party is a wholly foreign-owned enterprise registered in the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone, and the other party is a Guangdong company. In 2018, the foreign enterprise sold plastic products imported from the United States to the Guangdong company based on mutually confirmed delivery confirmations. By March 2025, the Guangdong company had accumulated arrears of several hundred thousand yuan. Despite partial payments, outstanding amounts remained unpaid. In April 2026, after the foreign enterprise sent a payment demand letter without success, a dispute arose between the parties.

Mediation Process: On the morning of May 6, 2026, at the Pudong International Legal Services Park, Professor Ding Wei from East China University of Political Science and Law served as an individual mediator, conducting the mediation through a combination of online and offline methods. From initiating the mediation to both parties signing the agreement, the entire process took only one hour.

宋丽华与阙文彬等人因股权买卖合同履行产生争议，提交至成都仲裁委员会仲裁。2021年10月11日，成都仲裁委员会裁决被申请人向申请人支付人民币3.37亿余元。
申请人先后向香港法院和美国加州北区联邦地区法院申请执行。被申请人在两地均提出异议，主张边席仲裁员Q在第二次远程庭审中存在严重违规行为（持续走动交谈、视线游离、外出乘车导致多次掉线且未戴耳机等），未能充分参与庭审，导致程序不公，违反公共政策。

香港高等法院认为仲裁员Q的行为明显违反自然公正的基本原则，剥夺了当事人的听审权。仲裁程序未达到公平公正审理的高标准。法院强调，即使被申请人当时未对程序提出异议，也不能视为放弃了对抗仲裁员严重违规行为的权利。若承认该裁决将“使法院的良知受到震撼”，故裁定违反香港公共政策，拒绝承认与执行。

美国法院（地区法院及第九巡回上诉法院）均裁定准许执行，其核心逻辑如下：

程序瑕疵不构成对美国正当程序与公共政策的违反：法院指出，仲裁员Q注意力不集中的情况持续时间有限且多发生在非实质性论证阶段，被申请人未能证明这对其陈述案件产生实质影响。美国法下的公共政策抗辩作狭义解释，仅在违反“最基本的道德与正义观念”时方可适用，本案未达此门槛。
当事人未及时提出异议，视为默示放弃：被申请人的代理律师在庭审中明知连接不稳等情况，不仅未当场提出异议，在仲裁庭询问程序是否有异议时回答“无异议”，且未按仲裁庭建议提交补充书面陈述。基于“禁止袖手旁观并事后附带攻击”的原则，当事人在程序中未及时主张权利，事后难以再以此为由抗辩。
香港拒执不构成《纽约公约》下的拒执事由：《纽约公约》第五条第一款项下的撤销或中止事由，仅限于“仲裁地国”的有权机关撤销或中止。香港是以“执行地法院”身份作出拒执裁定，而仲裁地（中国内地）的有权机关（成都中院）已裁定执行该裁决并驳回异议，因此香港的裁定不影响美国法院执行。
终局结果：美国第九巡回上诉法院维持原判，美国最高法院拒绝受理被申请人的提审申请。

2026年5月28日，德国慕尼黑地方法院就一起具有里程碑意义的案件作出裁定：谷歌必须为其AI搜索摘要（AI Overviews）功能生成的虚假诽谤性内容直接承担法律责任。

一、AI生成内容属于”自身陈述”

法院明确认定，谷歌AI概览并非简单展示第三方网页内容，而是用自身措辞重新生成独立陈述，这与传统搜索引擎存在本质区别。法院指出，传统搜索引擎仅指向外部网站，属于”间接侵权者”；而AI概览”评估、整合、重新编写并结构化信息，生成独立、全新且实质性的陈述”，属于”谷歌自身的内容”。

二、打破搜索引擎免责惯例

德国联邦最高法院此前判例认为，搜索引擎运营商仅作为间接侵权者承担责任，因其仅让第三方内容变得可被查找。但慕尼黑法院认为，这一逻辑不适用于AI概览功能。法院强调，谷歌开发了该人工智能，并将其提供给用户，因此对AI生成内容负有完全主导权，理应作为直接侵权主体承担法律责任。

三、驳回谷歌抗辩理由

谷歌辩称用户可以自行点开链接核实真伪，法院断然驳回：AI摘要是完整定论式内容，普通用户没有义务逐一核验溯源，就像新闻标题误导读者，媒体必须担责，无需用户读完正文追责。谷歌还辩称AI本身存在误差、内容不可信，法院同样驳回，指出谷歌一边宣传AI摘要高效可靠，一边用AI缺陷推卸责任，逻辑自相矛盾。

判决结果与后续

法院发布临时禁令，禁止谷歌通过AI概览继续传播针对两家出版商的虚假言论。违规处罚依据德国民事诉讼法第890条：单次最高罚25万欧元；情节严重时，企业负责人最高可被拘留6个月。目前该判决仅为临时禁令、非终审判决，谷歌已表示正在评估上诉方案。

对比中国判决

2026年1月，杭州互联网法院审理中国首例AI幻觉侵权案时，驳回原告诉讼请求。法院认为，AI不具有民事主体资格，不能作出意思表示；AI自行生成的”赔偿承诺”也不能视为服务提供者的意思表示；案涉生成式人工智能属于服务而非产品，不应适用无过错责任原则。

1. AI-Generated Content Constitutes “Google’s Own Statements”

The court clearly determined that Google’s AI Overview does not simply display third-party web content but generates independent statements using its own wording—this represents a fundamental distinction from traditional search engines. The court noted that traditional search engines merely point to external websites, classifying their operators as “indirect infringers.” However, AI Overview “evaluates, combines, rewrites, and structures information into new statements,” constituting “Google’s own content.”

2. Breaking Search Engine Immunity Precedent

Previous rulings by the German Federal Court of Justice held that search engine operators bear only indirect infringement liability since they merely make third-party content discoverable. However, the Munich court determined this logic does not apply to AI Overview functionality. The court emphasized that Google developed and operates this AI system, maintaining complete control over its algorithms and content output, thus bearing direct responsibility as the primary tortfeasor.

3. Rejection of Google’s Defense Arguments

Google argued that users could verify information by clicking on links. The court firmly rejected this: AI summaries present complete, definitive conclusions, and ordinary users have no obligation to verify each detail—much like how media outlets must bear responsibility for misleading headlines without requiring readers to finish the full article. Google also claimed AI inherently contains errors and its content is unreliable. The court dismissed this argument as logically inconsistent, noting Google promotes AI Overview as efficient and reliable while simultaneously using AI defects to evade responsibility.

2026年4月28日，最高人民法院正式发布《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国海商法〉时间效力的若干规定》（法释〔2026〕8号），该司法解释自2026年5月1日起与新修订的《中华人民共和国海商法》同步施行。此次修订是海商法自1993年施行以来首次重大修订，对船舶抵押权转让规则、航运单证制度、诉讼时效等方面作出实质性修改，对涉外海事法律实务具有深远影响。

一、修法背景与主要内容

On April 28, 2026, China’s Supreme People’s Court officially released the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Time Effectiveness of the Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China” (Fa Shi [2026] No. 8), which took effect on May 1, 2026, simultaneously with the newly revised Maritime Code. This revision marks the first major amendment to China’s Maritime Code since its initial enactment in 1993, introducing substantial changes to ship mortgage transfer rules, shipping document systems, and limitation periods, with far-reaching implications for cross-border maritime legal practice.

（一）船舶抵押权转让：尊重当事人意思自治

Ship Mortgage Transfers: Respecting Party Autonomy

新法将原规定的强制性规则修改为任意性规则，明确”船舶抵押担保的债权转让的，抵押权一并转让，但法律另有规定或者当事人另有约定的除外”。这一修改与《民法典》相关制度保持统一，进一步拓展了当事人意思自治空间。

The revised Code changed the original mandatory rule to a suppletive rule, specifying that “when the claim secured by ship mortgage is assigned, the mortgage shall be assigned together therewith, unless otherwise provided by law or agreed by the parties.” This amendment aligns with relevant provisions of the Civil Code and further expands the scope of party autonomy.

（二）电子运输记录：立法空白首次填补

Electronic Transport Records: Filling the Legislative Gap

新法参考联合国国际贸易法委员会《电子可转让记录示范法》和《鹿特丹规则》，在第四章”海上货物运输合同”新增第五节”电子运输记录”，正式将电子提单纳入法律规制范畴。这是我国航运立法的重要突破，对促进航运数字化转型具有标志性意义。

Drawing upon the UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Transferable Records and the Rotterdam Rules, the revised Code added a new Section 5 on “Electronic Transport Records” in Chapter 4 on “Contracts of Carriage of Goods by Sea.” This formally brings electronic bills of lading within the scope of legal regulation, marking a significant breakthrough in China’s shipping legislation with landmark significance for promoting digital transformation in the shipping industry.

（三）诉讼时效：更利于保护债权人

Limitation Periods: Enhanced Protection for Creditors

新法将时效中止后”继续计算”修改为”自中止原因消除之日起满六个月届满”，并将中断事由范围扩展为与《民法典》一致，更有利于保护债权人合法权益。

The revised Code changed the post-suspension calculation from “continued calculation” to “expiration six months after the elimination of the suspension cause,” and expanded the scope of interruption causes to align with the Civil Code, providing stronger protection for creditors’ legitimate rights and interests.

二、司法解释的核心规则：五大情形明确适用

The Judicial Interpretation’s Core Rules: Clear Guidance for Five Key Scenarios

（一）一般规则：法不溯及既往

General Rule: Non-Retroactivity Principle

《规定》第一条明确：海商法施行前的法律事实引起的海事纠纷案件，除法律、司法解释另有规定的外，应当适用当时的法律、司法解释；海商法施行后的法律事实引起的海事纠纷案件，适用海商法规定。

Article 1 of the Provisions clarifies that maritime disputes arising from legal facts occurring before the effective date of the Maritime Code shall be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations in effect at that time, unless otherwise provided by laws or judicial interpretations; disputes arising from legal facts after the effective date shall be governed by the Maritime Code.

（二）跨期法律事实：持续至新法施行后

Cross-Period Legal Facts: Continuing After the New Code Takes Effect

《规定》第二条明确：海商法施行前的法律事实持续至海商法施行后的，该法律事实引起的海事纠纷案件，适用海商法，但法律、司法解释另有规定的除外。

Article 2 provides that disputes arising from legal facts that began before but continued after the effective date of the Maritime Code shall be governed by the Maritime Code, unless otherwise provided by laws or judicial interpretations.

（三）溯及例外：严格限定

Retroactive Exceptions: Strictly Limited

《规定》第三条严格限定溯及例外，仅在符合《立法法》第一百零四条规定的”为了更好地保护公民、法人和其他组织的权利和利益”的极个别情形下，才对少数条款赋予有限的溯及力。

Article 3 strictly limits retroactive exceptions, allowing only in extremely rare circumstances where “necessary for better protecting the rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations” as stipulated in Article 104 of the Legislation Law, to grant limited retroactive effect to certain provisions.

（四）合同履行跨期：分别适用

Contracts Spanning the Transition: Separate Application

针对海商法施行前成立但履行持续至新法施行后的合同，《规定》第四条区分处理：因海商法施行前履行合同发生的争议，适用当时的法律、司法解释；因海商法施行后履行合同发生的争议，适用海商法有关合同履行的相关规定。

For contracts established before but performed after the effective date of the Maritime Code, Article 4 provides for differentiated treatment: disputes arising from performance before the effective date shall be governed by the laws and judicial interpretations at that time; disputes arising from performance after the effective date shall be governed by the relevant provisions of the Maritime Code concerning contract performance.

（五）船舶抵押权：有利溯及

Ship Mortgages: Favorable Retroactivity

《规定》第五条对船舶抵押权转让规则的实质性修改作出有利溯及安排：海商法施行前，若当事人已另行约定船舶抵押权不与其担保的债权一并转让的，可统一适用海商法的相关规定。

Article 5 provides for favorable retroactivity for the substantial amendment to ship mortgage transfer rules: where parties had agreed before the effective date of the Maritime Code that the ship mortgage would not be transferred together with the secured claim, the relevant provisions of the Maritime Code may be applied uniformly.

（六）电子运输记录：溯及适用

Electronic Transport Records: Retroactive Application

《规定》第六条明确电子运输记录的溯及适用。鉴于该完全新增规定与我国现行单证制度并无冲突，溯及适用也不会违背当事人合理预期、破坏现行法律秩序，故予以溯及适用。

Article 6 provides for retroactive application of electronic transport records. Given that this entirely new provision does not conflict with China’s current document system, and retroactive application would not violate parties’ legitimate expectations or disrupt the current legal order, retroactive application is permitted.

三、实务要点与涉外法律服务建议

Practical Points and Recommendations for Cross-Border Legal Services

（一）合同审查：关注跨期条款

Contract Review: Focus on Transitional Clauses

对于正在履行的涉外航运合同，律师应审查合同中是否涉及船舶抵押权转让、电子提单使用等事项，并根据《规定》判断新旧法的适用。

For ongoing cross-border shipping contracts, lawyers should review whether matters such as ship mortgage transfers or use of electronic bills of lading are involved, and determine the applicable law based on the Provisions.

（二）争议解决：善用溯及规则

Dispute Resolution: Leveraging Retroactivity Rules

《规定》第五条的”有利溯及”规则为当事人提供了新的谈判筹码。若当事人在原合同中已另行约定船舶抵押权不随债权转让，可主张适用新法赋予的更大意思自治空间。

The “favorable retroactivity” rule in Article 5 provides parties with new negotiating leverage. If parties had previously agreed that the ship mortgage would not transfer with the claim, they may argue for application of the new law’s greater scope for party autonomy.

（三）电子提单：合规新机遇

Electronic Bills of Lading: New Compliance Opportunities

新法对电子运输记录的正式认可，为进出口企业使用电子提单提供了明确法律依据。跨境贸易当事人应尽快熟悉相关规则，把握航运数字化的法律机遇。

The Maritime Code’s formal recognition of electronic transport records provides a clear legal basis for import/export enterprises to use electronic bills of lading. Cross-border trading parties should familiarize themselves with the relevant rules and seize the legal opportunities presented by shipping digitalization.

四、结语

Conclusion

此次海商法修订及司法解释的发布，标志着中国海事法律体系迈入新阶段。最高法通过精细的规则设计，在维护法律稳定性与适应社会发展需要之间取得平衡，为涉外海事法律实务提供了清晰指引。跨境航运企业、贸易商及法律从业者应密切关注新法的具体适用，适时调整合同策略与争议解决方案。

The revision of China’s Maritime Code and issuance of the judicial interpretation mark a new stage in China’s maritime legal framework. Through meticulously designed rules, the Supreme People’s Court has achieved a balance between maintaining legal stability and adapting to societal development needs, providing clear guidance for cross-border maritime legal practice. Cross-border shipping companies, traders, and legal practitioners should closely monitor the specific application of the new Code and timely adjust contract strategies and dispute resolution approaches.

案情概述

2026年6月5日，世界银行国际投资争端解决中心（ICSID）仲裁庭就Silver Bull Resources诉墨西哥共和国一案作出裁决，驳回原告全部索赔请求（案件编号：ARB(AF)/23/1）。这起涉资逾3.15亿美元的投资仲裁案，因NAFTA第11章（投资章节）向USMCA过渡期间的条约时限问题而被全额否决，成为国际投资仲裁领域又一”程序先于实体”的经典判例。

案件起因于墨西哥科阿韦拉州的Sierra Mojada银锌矿项目。Silver Bull指控墨西哥当局未能制止自2019年9月起持续至今的非法封锁，导致项目被迫停工。原告于2023年6月提起仲裁，主张墨西哥违反NAFTA第1110条（征收条款）、第1102条（国民待遇）、第1103条（最惠国待遇）及第1105条（最低标准待遇）。

然而，仲裁庭的裁决路径出人意料：从未进入实体审理，而是在管辖权阶段即终结全案。

核心法律争点：USMCA过渡期”两日窗口”

裁决的关键在于USMCA接替NAFTA后的条约过渡规则。

2018年生效的USMCA为NAFTA第11章遗留争议设置了”遗产条款”（legacy provisions），允许符合条件的投资者在特定过渡期内继续援引NAFTA投资保护。然而，该过渡期设有严格的时间边界：

• 可审查行为的起始日：2020年7月1日（USMCA生效日）
• 可审查行为的截止日：NAFTA第11章条款于2020年6月30日失效

仲裁庭据此认定：

• 墨西哥被诉行为（封锁矿场）始于2019年9月，早于可审查起始日
• 行为持续至USMCA生效后，但届至2020年6月30日，NAFTA第11章已失效
• 实际可主张损害的行为窗口仅为2020年6月28日至30日的短短三日

仲裁庭在裁决中指出：”三日窗口使得任何关于长期渐进性损害的因果论证在结构上不可能成立，无论underlying损害本身多么严重。”

欧盟《薪酬透明指令》6月7日到了国内法转化的最后期限，各成员国需要将指令转化为本国法律。核心内容包括员工薪酬知情权、企业薪酬披露义务、性别薪酬歧视救济机制。对中国在欧投资企业来说，这意味着新的合规成本和披露义务。

以下为指令的中英文对照版本。

2026年6月初，广东省东莞市中级人民法院正式受理了一起具有里程碑意义的跨国诉讼案件——闻泰科技股份有限公司正式起诉安世半导体有限公司（Nexperia B.V.） 荷兰总部及其三名外籍高管，索赔金额高达80亿元人民币，并明确提出恢复对安世半导体完整控制权的核心诉求。这是中国半导体行业首次依据《反外国制裁法》在国内法院提起反制裁诉讼，标志着中国企业在海外遭遇不公待遇时，正从被动申诉转向主动出击。

Wingtech vs. Nexperia: China Launches First Semiconductor Cross-Border Legal Counterstrike with RMB 8 Billion Claim