為鼓勵仲裁人勇於告知可能導致當事人對其本人公正、獨立產生合理懷疑之情事，本會仲裁人倫理委員會2017年9月作成決議（以下簡稱「決議」），請辦理目標可贖回遠期契約(TRF)爭議類型之仲裁人應說明其近三年內所辦理該類案件總件數，並細分被投資人、銀行選定及擔任主任仲裁人件數。該項決議並納入本會仲裁人聲明書（以下簡稱「聲明書」）內。
In order to ensure the arbitrators' disclosure of any matter that may give rise to the parties' justifiable doubts as to their impartiality and independence, CAA Ethics Committee made a resolution in September 2017 (hereinafter “the resolution”) which adopted in the current CAA arbitrator statements. The resolution requested the arbitrators of TRF cases  disclose their total number of cases within the past three years, categorised as appointment by investor, appointment by bank, and appointment as presiding arbitrator. 

爰本會近受理一屬該類型案件，聲請人(投資人)以仲裁人告知擔任相對人（銀行）*所選定案件超過三件而依仲裁法第15、16條聲請該仲裁人迴避。為讓當事人及被聲請迴避之仲裁人能完整表達意見以消弭可能之誤解，仲裁庭在評議前也參考國際仲裁實務之先例，請被聲請迴避之仲裁人補充說明其被當事人、當事人代理人選任狀況及相關仲裁案報酬等內容，並請雙方當事人就仲裁人應否揭露、迴避相關規範之目的及解釋等議題、以及TRF等特殊類型爭議仲裁人被單方選定次數過多與其公正與獨立之關係等提出意見。該案經雙方當事人對於相關規範以及被聲請迴避之仲裁人補充說明內容提出意見後，在仲裁庭做出決定前，該被聲請迴避之仲裁人決定自行請辭。
In a recent CAA TRF case, the claimant (investor) challenged an arbitrator in accordance with Articles 15 and 16 of Taiwan's Arbitration Law, who had been appointed by the respondent (the bank)* for over three times. In order to ensure that the challenged arbitrator and the parties have a full opportunity to present their case as well as to resolve any misunderstanding, the arbitral tribunal considered international arbitration practices and invited supplementary submissions before its deliberations. However, the challenged arbitrator resigned before the tribunal made the final decision. 

本會參照國際律師協會國際仲裁利益衝突指引（以下簡稱「指引」）之原則，在仲裁人聲明書內納入上揭規定，仲裁人依規定告知反而致當事人懷疑其不能公正與獨立並進而聲請迴避，此類聲請是否有理由，仍應視個案情況而判斷，並非得以告知內容當然推定符合迴避之要件；本案引發關於仲裁法第15條及第16條之解釋，以及法條間之關係等議題，均值得探討。本報下期將針對本會「決議」、「聲明書」、上二條文關係及「指引」規範原旨，邀請專家作深入探討，供仲裁庭就類似聲請事項作成決定之參考。
CAA's current arbitrator disclosure statement refers to the International Bar Association (IBA) Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest. An arbitrator's disclosure in compliance with the prescribed requirements may prompt a party to question that arbitrator's impartiality and independence and further challenge that arbitrator. Whether such challenge is justifiable depends on the circumstances of each case. This recent CAA TRF case raises some concerning issues relating to the interpretation of Articles 15 and 16 of Taiwan's Arbitration Law. To assist the tribunal's decision-making in future and similar cases, the next issue of CAA newsletter will have a feature article which further explores the intricacy between these legislative provisions, CAA's resolution and arbitrator statement and the IBA Guidelines. 

*編按:非指特定個案之當事人，而係以TRF銷售之銀行方總稱
*The term "bank" here refers to banks that sell TRF generally, and does not mean any party in any specific dispute.