>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Zhao Ziwen v. Pan Riyang (Case about Disputes over Property Infringement) (Case about Disputes over Property Infringement)
赵子文与潘日阳财产侵权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Zhao Ziwen v. Pan Riyang (Case about Disputes over Property Infringement) (Case about Disputes over Property Infringement)
(Case about Disputes over Property Infringement)
赵子文与潘日阳财产侵权纠纷案

Zhao Ziwen v. Pan Riyang (Case about Disputes over Property Infringement)

 

赵子文与潘日阳财产侵权纠纷案


 
[裁判摘要]

 
最高人民法院《关于调整高级人民法院和中级人民法院管辖第一审民商事案件标准的通知》中所称的“当事人一方住所地不在本辖区”,是指原告、被告中仅有一方当事人住所地不在本辖区,不包括原告、被告双方当事人的住所地均不在本辖区的情形。在共同诉讼中,原告之一或者被告之一住所地不在本辖区的,属于上述通知所称的“当事人一方住所地不在本辖区”。因第三人是参加他人之间的诉讼,故无论是有独立请求权的第三人还是无独立请求权的第三人,其住所地是否在本辖区不影响案件的管辖。

Supreme People's Court

 
最高人民法院

Civil Ruling
 
民事裁定书

No. 17 [2010] Civil Division I, Final
 
(2010)民一终字第17号

BASIC FACTS
 

Appellant (defendant in the trial of first instance): Pan Riyang, male, Han Chinese, born on October 27, 1956, domiciled at Suite 302, Entrance 1, Building 18, Summit Residences, East Shangyi Street, Yuquan District, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.
 
上诉人(一审被告)潘日阳。

Appellee (plaintiff in the trial of first instance): Zhao Ziwen, male, Han Chinese, born on January 12, 1961, domiciled at Apartment 14, Entrance 3, 85th Building, Zhenhua Street, Datong, Shanxi Province.
 
被上诉人(一审原告)赵子文。

PROCEDURAL POSTURE
 

The appellant, Pan Riyang, lodged an appeal with this Court against the civil ruling (No.2 [2009] Civil Division I, First Instance, Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province) rendered by the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province for the case about disputes over property infringement between him and the appellee, Zhao Ziwen. This Court formed a collegial panel according to law to try this case. So far, the trial of this case has concluded.
 
上诉人潘日阳为与被上诉人赵子文财产侵权纠纷一案,不服陕西省高级人民法院(2009)陕民一初字第2号民事裁定,向本院提起上诉。本院依法组成合议庭对本案进行了审理。本案现已审理终结。

In the view of the court of first instance, the amount in controversy in this case was 50 million yuan and neither party thereto was domiciled in Shaanxi Province; whether the case fell within this court's jurisdiction on civil and commercial cases of first instance was the key issue in the dispute between the two parties. According to the provisions of paragraph 2, Article 1 of the Notice on Adjusting the Standards for Jurisdiction over Trials of First Instance of Civil and Commercial Cases of the Higher People's Courts and the Intermediate People's Courts (No. 10 [2008] of the Supreme People's Court) issued by the Supreme People's Court, this court “shall have jurisdiction over the trial of first instance of a civil or commercial case whose amount in controversy is 100 million yuan or more, and the trial of first instance of a civil or commercial case where the place of domicile of one party is outside its territorial jurisdiction or where a foreign, Hong Kong, Macao or Taiwan element is involved and whose amount in controversy is 50 million or more.” The second criterion on jurisdiction under this provision does not only rule out potential local protection but also reduce the costs of legal proceedings to either party to a certain extent, which represents judicial impartiality. However, the expression “where the place of domicile of one party is outside its territorial jurisdiction” in this provision should not be simply interpreted as the circumstance where merely one party was outside a court's territorial jurisdiction, because this provision did not exclude the situation where neither party was inside the court's territorial jurisdiction. The trial of a civil or commercial case whose amount in controversy is 50 million yuan more by the court of first instance when the place of domicile of neither party was within its territorial jurisdiction would be more conducive to avoiding local protectionism. In addition, Zhao Ziwen had filed a lawsuit in the name of legal person with the court of first instance against Pan Riyang based on the same legal facts. This court had once tried the case. According to the actual situation of this case, trial by this court would be more favorable to identifying the facts, improving judicial efficiency and protecting the legitimate interests of both parties so as to achieve justice. Therefore, Pan Riyang's objection to this court's jurisdiction over the trial of this case and claim for transferring this case to the Intermediate People's Court of Yulin City were not tenable. In accordance with Article 38 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this court ruled to dismiss Pan Riyang's objection to its jurisdiction over the trial of this case.
......
 
一审法院认为,本案诉讼标的额在 5000万元,双方当事人住所地均不在陕西地区,本案是否属于本院管辖的第一审民商事案件是双方当事人争议的焦点问题。根据最高人民法院《关于调整高级人民法院和中级人民法院管辖第一审民商事案件标准的通知》(法发[2008]10号)第一条第二款规定,该院可管辖诉讼标的额在1亿元以上的第一审民商事案件,以及诉讼标的额在5000万元以上且当事人一方住所地不在本辖区或者涉外、涉港澳台的第一审民商事案件。该条款的第二个案件管辖标准,既排除了可能存在的地方保护的因素,在一定程度上亦减少了当事人的诉讼成本,体现了司法的公正性。但对该条款中“且当事人一方住所地不在本辖区”,不能单纯地理解为只有一方当事人不在本辖区的情形,因为该条并未排除当事人双方均不在本辖区的情形。当事人双方住所地均不在本辖区的诉讼标的额在5000万元以上的民商事案件由该院审理,更有利于摆脱地方保护主义的影响。另,赵子文曾以法人名义就同一法律事实将潘日阳诉至该院,该院曾对此案进行过审理,结合本案实际情况,由该院审理此案更有利于查明案件事实,提高司法效率,依法保护当事人双方的合法权益,实现司法公正。综上,潘日阳要求将本案移送到榆林市中级人民法院审理的管辖权异议不能成立。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条的规定,裁定驳回潘日阳对本案管辖权提出的异议。
......

Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥300.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese