|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ten Model Maritime Cases Published by the Supreme People's Court in 2016 | | 最高人民法院公布2016年十大典型海事案例 |
| (April 2017) | | （2017年4月） |
| In 2016, the maritime trial teams across the country closely centered on the implementation of a maritime power and the strategy of the “Belt and Road” and the development and construction of free trade zones of the Yangtze River Economic Zone, gave full play to the functional roles of maritime trials, achieved new progress in aspects of safeguarding the country's territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, taking the lead in international maritime rules, improving maritime trial concepts, and unifying adjudication criteria for maritime cases, and formed a batch of model maritime cases. In order to give play to the demonstration and reference effects of such model cases, the Fourth Civil Division of the Supreme People's Court hereby selects ten model cases, which are published as follows: | | 2016年，全国海事审判队伍紧紧围绕海洋强国与“一带一路”战略的实施、长江经济带发展与自由贸易实验区建设，充分发挥海事审判职能作用，在维护国家领土主权和海洋权益、引领国际海事规则、提升海事审判理念、统一海事案件裁判尺度等方面取得新的进展，形成一批典型海事案例。为发挥典型案例的示范和参考作用，最高人民法院民事审判第四庭特选取10件刊载如下： |
| Luan and Other 20 Persons v. ConocoPhillips China Inc. and China National Offshore Oil Corporation for Dispute over Liability for Maritime Pollution Damage | | 栾某某等21人与康菲石油中国有限公司（ConocoPhillipsChinaInc.）、中国海洋石油总公司海上污染损害责任纠纷案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| In June 2011, an oil spill accident occurred in the No. 19-3 oil field located in the south central water area of Bohai Sea, causing seawater pollution of over 6,200 square kilometers in the surroundings and northwest area of the oil field. It was identified by the joint accident investigation group consisting of the State Oceanic Administration and other six administrative organs that as the operator, ConocoPhillips China Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “ConocoPhillips”) should assume all liability for the accident. In 2011, the North China Sea Environmental Monitoring Center of the Sate Oceanic Administration issued an Offshore Investigation Report, which recorded the pollution conditions of the relevant waters. Upon negotiation between the Ministry of Agriculture and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (“CNOOC”) and ConocoPhillips, it was determined that ConocoPhillips should contribute the compensation of CNY1 billion. In particular, CNY731.5 million was used to compensate for aquaculture losses of fishermen in the relevant polluted area. The People's Government of Laoting County determined the compensation standards and a majority of aquaculture obligees accepted the administrative mediation and received compensation. On October 6, 2011, the Aquaculture Association of Laoting County, Hebei Province authorized Boya Company to make technical analysis on the expected yield and output value of over 29 aquaculture households in the Daqinghe Saltworks located in Laoting County, Hebei Province due to the water pollution, and a Technical Consulting Report was issued. Luan and other 20 fishermen in the polluted area refused to accept the administrative mediation. They appealed to the Tianjin Maritime Court by using the Report as the appraisal conclusion and requested that ConocoPhillips and CNOOC should jointly and severally compensate for their aquaculture losses, appraisal costs, and litigation fees. | | 位于渤海海域中南部的蓬莱19-3油田于2011年6月发生溢油事故，导致该油田周边及其西北部面积约6200平方公里的海域海水污染，由国家海洋局等7家行政机关组成的事故联合调查组认定，康菲公司作为作业者承担该事故的全部责任。国家海洋局北海环境监测中心于2011年出具《近岸调查报告》，记载了相关海域的污染情况。经农业部与中海油公司、康菲公司协商确定，康菲公司出资人民币10亿元的赔偿补偿款，其中人民币7.315亿元用于赔偿补偿相关受污染区域渔民的养殖损失。乐亭县人民政府确定了赔偿补偿标准，当地大多数养殖权利人按该标准接受行政调解并领取了赔偿补偿款。河北乐亭水产养殖协会于2011年10月6日委托博亚公司就河北省乐亭县大清河盐场29余家养殖户因水污染所造成的预期产量及产值给予技术分析并出具《技术咨询报告》。栾某某等21个受污染区域渔民不接受行政调解，以该报告作为鉴定结论，向天津海事法院起诉，请求康菲公司与中海油公司连带赔偿其养殖损失和鉴定费用、诉讼费。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| In the trial of first instance, the Tianjin Maritime Court held that: Based on the evidence in this case, it may be identified that the oil spill accident caused spill damages to the water area of aquaculture of Luan and other 20 persons; ConocoPhillips should make compensation therefor; when the accident occurred, CNOOC was not the operator of the oil field and it did not control the pollution source and thus it should not assume the compensation liability. Luan and other 20 persons should bear the burden of proof on the extent and amount of their losses. Since Boya Company did not receive a Fishery Pollution Accident Investigation and Appraisal Qualification Certificate issued by the Bureau of Fishery Management and Fishing Port Superintendence of the People's Republic of China of the Ministry of Agriculture, it did not have the appraisal qualification and the probative force of the Technical Consulting Report was not accredited. The burden of proof on the extent and amount of aquaculture losses borne by Luan and other 20 persons was not sufficient and definitive. Considering that the conditions for evaluation and appraisal of losses of Luan and other 20 persons have not been met in the trial, the degree of pollution and the amount of losses should be comprehensively identified in light of the relevant evidence and case facts. In light of the relevant evidence and case facts and by reference to the compensation standards determined by the People's Government of Laoting County, the Tianjin Maritime Court rendered a judgment that ConocoPhillips should compensate Luan and other 20 persons CNY1,683,464.4 for their losses. Luan and other 20 persons refused to accept the judgment and appealed. The Higher People's Court of Tianjin Municipality rendered a judgment of second instance to dismiss the appeal and affirm the original judgment. | | 天津海事法院一审认为，根据本案证据，可以认定溢油事故构成对栾某某等21人养殖海域的污染损害，康菲公司应就此进行赔偿，中海油公司在事故发生时不是油田的作业者，也不控制污染源，不应承担赔偿责任。栾某某等21人应当对损失程度和数额承担举证责任。因博亚公司未取得农业部渔政渔港监督管理局核发的《渔业污染事故调查鉴定资格证书》，不具备鉴定资质，对其出具的《技术咨询报告》的证明力不予认定。栾某某等21人对于养殖损失程度和数额的举证没有达到充分、确定的程度。鉴于审理过程中对栾某某等21人损失进行评估、鉴定的条件已不具备，应结合本案相关证据及案件事实对污染程度及损失数额进行综合认定。结合相关证据及案件事实，参照乐亭县人民政府确定的赔偿补偿标准，天津海事法院判决康菲公司赔偿栾某某等21人损失人民币1683464.4元。栾某某等21人不服，提起上诉。天津市高级人民法院二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| In the process of Sino-foreign cooperative development, due to reasons of the operator, an oil spill accident occurred and caused foreign-related massive claims for compensation in three provinces and one municipality, which had considerable international and domestic impacts. The smooth handling of this case has great significance in many aspects. First, in the judgment of this case, the polluter was subject to liability, which was conducive to enhancing the public's consciousness of marine environmental responsibility. The judgment of this case indicated that any civil subject should engage in production and operation in compliance with laws and regulations; regardless of whether it is a Chinese company or a foreign company, they are equal before the law; and whoever causes an accident, environmental pollution, and damages to others must compensate for losses and assume other legal liability. Second, by centering on the issue, the judgment of this case demonstrated the process of burden of proof and authentication, which has been fully identified by the public and it indicated again that openness promotes public trust. In accordance with the laws and judicial interpretations, the courts of first instance and second instance specified that the infringed parties should bear the burden of proof on the pollution behavior, the damages caused thereby, and the relevance between pollutants and damages. Then, the courts determined the probative force of evidence of each party. Finally, they determined that the loss appraisal report provided by the infringed parties did not have the probative force. The argumentation and reasoning were clear and sufficient. Even though the case was a major and sensitive case, the Tianjin Maritime Court opened a court session and made a live web-cast of the whole process. The full demonstration of analytical reasoning in the judgment has achieved social understanding and support. Third, the courts made great efforts to explore alternative methods for identifying losses, which has fully reflected the essential pursuit of fairness and justice and they further raised a new subject of deepening the building of an environmental protection system and mechanism. Under the circumstances where Luan and other 20 persons failed to submit effective evidence for proving their losses caused by the pollution, the courts of first instance and second instance decided the amount of compensation by reference to the compensation standards as determined by the People's Government of Laoting County and rendered a judgment accordingly. In this way, the situation where fishermen completely lost the lawsuit due to failure on burden of proof was avoided and the handling method had the exploration value and enlightening significance in environmental justice technologies. | | 蓬莱19-3油田在中外合作开发过程中因作业者原因发生溢油事故，在环渤海三省一市区域引起具有涉外因素的群体性索赔纠纷，具有相当的国际国内影响，该案的成功处理，具有多方面的意义。第一、本案审判对污染者依法追责，有利于增强全社会的海洋环保责任意识。本案判决表明，任何民事主体从事生产经营，均应当依法合规；无论是中国公司还是外国公司，在法律面前一律平等，因违规作业造成事故导致环境污染和他人损害的，都必须承担赔偿损失等法律责任。第二、本案裁判围绕争议焦点充分展示举证质证认证过程取得广泛社会认同，再次表明公开促公信的重要意义。一、二审法院根据法律和司法解释明确被侵权人应当举证证明有关污染行为、污染损害以及污染物与损害之间的关联性，然后逐一认定当事人证据的证明力，最终认定被侵权人提供的损失鉴定报告不具有证明力，论证说理清晰充分。尽管该案是一件重大敏感案件，天津海事法院开庭审理进行了全程网上直播，裁判分析推理过程的充分展示，取得了社会的理解和支持。第三、法院努力探索认定损失的替代方法，充分体现对公平正义的实质追求，也进一步提出了深化构建环保制度机制的新课题。在栾某某等21人不能提供有效证据证明其污染损失的情况下，一、二审法院参照乐亭县政府确定的赔偿补偿标准，酌定损失赔偿数额并相应作出判决，由此避免了渔民因举证不能而完全败诉的局面，这种处理方式在环境司法技术上具有探索价值和启示意义。 |
| Wartsila Finland Oy and Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. and Yingqin Engines (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. for Dispute over Tort in the Sales of Ship Equipment | | 瓦锡兰芬兰有限公司（WartsilaFinlandOy）、西特福船运公司（Spliethoff`sBevrachtingskantoorB.V.）与荣成市西霞口船业有限公司、颖勤发动机（上海）有限公司船舶设备买卖侵权纠纷案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| On June 3, 2006, Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Xixiakou Shipbuilding Co., Ltd.”) and Spliethoff's Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. (hereinafter referred to as “Spliethoff B.V.”) concluded two shipbuilding contracts, which stipulated that Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company built two 12500 multi-purpose vessels (No. 038 and No. 039) for Spliethoff B.V. at the price of USD 20.49 million for each vessel. Both parties also concluded a supplementary agreement that Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company must use main engines of Wartsila Finland Oy (hereinafter referred to as “Wartsila Oy”). On January 17, 2007, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company and Wartsila Oy concluded two agreements on the purchase of main engines and propelling systems. At that time, the two agreements were signed by the sales manager of Yingqin Engines (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. on behalf of Wartsila Oy and the general manager of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company. Afterwards, Spliethoff B.V. consigned the main engines purchased from Wartsila Oy to Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company, which also paid the corresponding price. Since Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company failed to deliver the vessels within the time limit as stipulated in the contracts, on July 13, 2009, Spliethoff B.V. rescinded the contract on the purchase of No. 038 vessel. In April 2011, When debugging the main engine of No. 038 vessel, engineers of Yingqin Company identified that the oil pressure for trial voyage did not meet the requirements and they sent an email to Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company, alleging that: After consulting the engine records, we found that the engine of No. 038 vessel was an old Wartsila engine purchased by Spliethoff B.V. and the engine was refurnished in a Dutch factory and then was sold to Wartsila Oy. Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company entrusted a maritime judicial appraisal institution to appraise that the main engines of the two vessels were refurnished second-hand ones. With respect to issues concerning the main engine of No. 038 vessel, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company filed a tort action with the Qingdao Maritime Court. On the ground that Yingqin Company, Wartsila Oy, and Spliethoff B.V. passed old engines off as new ones for sales and their acts constituted commercial fraud, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company required that the three companies should “provide one set of the same main engine and propelling system as agreed on in the contract” and the three companies should jointly and severally compensate for derogation of the vessel and other losses. Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company also filed a similar lawsuit with respect to issues concerning the main engine of No. 039 vessel, and the case facts and the final handling results were similar to those of No. 0.38 vessel. | | 西霞口船业与西特福公司于2006年6月3日同时签订两份船舶建造合同，约定西霞口船业为西特福公司建造12500型多用途船舶二艘（038号轮、039号轮），每艘造价均为2049万美元。双方补充约定西霞口船业必须使用瓦锡兰主机。西霞口船业与瓦锡兰公司于2007年1月17日签订两份主机及推进系统购买协议，该两份协议当时由颖勤公司销售经理代瓦锡兰公司与西霞口船业总经理签署。后西特福公司将瓦锡兰主机托运给西霞口船业，西霞口船业也支付了相应价款。因西霞口船业未能在合同约定的期限内交付船舶，西特福公司于2009年7月13日解除了038号轮的买卖合同。2011年4月，颖勤公司工程师在负责调试038号轮主机时，发现试航油压达不到要求，给西霞口船业发送邮件称：通过查阅发动机记录，038号轮的发动机系西特福公司购买的一款旧的瓦锡兰发动机，在荷兰工厂翻新后卖给了瓦锡兰公司。西霞口船业委托海事司法鉴定机构鉴定该两轮主机均为翻新二手新主机。西霞口船业就038号轮主机问题向青岛海事法院提起侵权之诉，以颖勤公司、瓦锡兰公司、西特福公司用旧机器冒充新机器出售构成商业欺诈为由，请求该三公司“按合同约定提供同样的主发动机、推进系统一台套”，连带赔偿船舶贬损及其他损失。西霞口船业就039号轮主机问题提起类似诉讼，案情和最终处理结果与038号轮案类同。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| After the trial of first instance, the Qingdao Maritime Court held that: The case facts and evidence were sufficient to prove that Yingqin Company, Wartsila Oy, and Spliethoff B.V. jointly committed the fraudulent conduct that second-hand main engines were passed off as new ones, sold to Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company, and installed on new vessels. They should jointly and severally assume the tort liability. Therefore, the Qingdao Maritime Court rendered a judgment to uphold the claims of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company. Yingqin Company, Wartsila Oy, and Spliethoff B.V. refused to accept the judgment and appealed. After the trial of second instance, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province held that: Wartsila Oy, and Spliethoff B.V. have jointly committed fraud on Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company. However, Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company did not submit evidence to prove that when concluding the contracts, Yingqin Company knew or should have known the main engines involved were second-hand ones. Therefore, Yingqin Company should not assume the tort liability. Basically the same as the judgment of first instance, the judgment of second instance only upheld Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company's claim that the tortfeasors should compensate for the interest of the loan paid in advance for the propelling system and the vessel. Wartsila Oy and Spliethoff B.V. refused to accept the judgment of second instance and filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. In the retrial, the Supreme People's Court held that: The key point in the retrial of this case involved identification of fraudulent conduct and tort liability. The main engine was one of the most crucial parts of a vessel. It was a common practice in the shipbuilding that the buyer or the entrusting party designated the production supplier or model of the vessel main engine. It could not be determined that Spliethoff B.V. had the subjective malice of colluding with other persons to provide second-hand main engines based on such fact that it expressly specified the use of the main engine produced by Wartsila Oy; Spliethoff B.V. rescinded the contracts because Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company failed to deliver the vessels on schedule. However, the shipbuilding schedule was controlled by Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company and the vessel abandonment by Spliethoff B.V. could not determine that Spliethoff B.V. had a premeditation at the time of contract conclusion; the relevant evidence in this case could not prove that before Wartsila Oy delivered the engines and propelling systems, Spliethoff B.V. and Yingqin Company knew or should have known that the engines were second-hand ones and there was malicious collusion among Spliethoff B.V., Yingqin Company, and Wartsila Oy. The claim of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company that Spliethoff B.V. and Yingqin Company should jointly assume the tort liability lacked factual and legal basis. In this case, the relevant claims of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company were all based on contractual stipulations and within the scope of default losses. They were contractual creditor's rights in nature. There was no evidence proving that the old main engines provided by Wartsila Oy made Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company suffer from damages beyond such contractual creditor's rights as the performance of contracts and expectation interest. The pure contractual creditor's rights between parties to the contract were within the scope of regulation by the Contract Law other than the scope of regulation by the Tort Law. With respect to interest of contract performance, in principle, it should be protected in accordance with the Contract Law and the parties should not be upheld in seeking tort relief. The claim of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company that the other party to the contract, Wartsila Oy, should assume the tort liability for its loss of interest of contract performance lacked legal basis. The Supreme People's Court rendered a retrial judgment to set aside the judgments of first instance and second instance and dismiss the claims of Xixiakou Shipbuilding Company. | | 青岛海事法院一审认为，本案事实和证据足以证明颖勤公司、瓦锡兰公司、西特福公司共同实施了以二手主机冒充新主机卖给西霞口船业并安装到新船上的欺诈行为，应当承担连带侵权责任。据此，判决支持西霞口船业的诉讼请求。颖勤公司、瓦锡兰公司、西特福公司不服，提起上诉，山东省高级人民法院二审亦认为瓦锡兰公司和西特福公司共同对西霞口船业实施了欺诈，但由于西霞口船业没有提交证据证明颖勤公司在签订合同时知道或应当知道涉案主机为二手主机，颖勤公司不应承担侵权责任。二审与一审判决结论基本相同，仅未支持西霞口船业要求侵权人赔偿推进系统和垫付船款的贷款利息之主张。瓦锡兰公司和西特福公司不服二审判决，申请再审。最高人民法院再审认为，本案再审审理重点涉及欺诈行为与侵权责任等问题的认定。船舶主机是船舶最关键的部件之一，在船舶建造中普遍存在买方或者委托方指定船用主机生产供应商和型号的情况，不能根据西特福公司明确要求使用瓦锡兰公司生产的主机的事实认定该公司具有与他人串通提供旧主机的主观恶意；西特福公司因西霞口船业未按期交船而解除合同，但船舶建造进度由西霞口船业掌控，西特福公司弃船的行为也不能认定其在缔约时即有预谋；本案有关证据不能证明西特福公司、颖勤公司在瓦锡兰公司于交付发动机及推进系统以前知道或者应当知道发动机为翻新旧发动机，不能证明西特福公司、颖勤公司与瓦锡兰公司有恶意串通的情形。西霞口船业请求西特福公司、颖勤公司承担共同侵权责任，缺乏事实和法律依据。本案中，西霞口船业的相关请求均是基于合同的约定，属于违约损失的范畴，在性质上属于合同债权。本案没有证据表明瓦锡兰公司提供旧主机使西霞口船业遭受合同履行本身及可得利益等合同债权之外的损害。合同相对人之间单纯的合同债权属于合同法调整范围，而不属于侵权责任法调整范围。对于单纯合同履行利益，原则上应坚持根据合同法保护，不应支持当事人寻求侵权责任救济。西霞口船业就其合同履行利益损失请求合同相对方瓦锡兰公司承担侵权责任，没有法律依据。最高人民法院再审判决，撤销本案一、二审判决，驳回西霞口船业的诉讼请求。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
| This is a case concerning dispute over sales of vessel equipment and it involves such countries along the “Belt and Road” as China, the Netherlands, and Finland. This case has been tried in a legitimate and fair manner according to the law by centering on the overall situation of the building of the “Belt and Road.” It has given play to the demonstrative and guiding roles of the people's courts' service guarantee functions. First, by strictly implementing the principle of equal protection, this case has ensured the international credibility of China's maritime justice. In the trial of this case, the Supreme People's Court legally admitted evidence, found facts, accurately interpreted laws, made reasoning and argumentation in sequence by observing the reasoning method of “syllogism,” decisively corrected errors in the basic facts found in the original judgment that lacked proof with evidence or application of law, and had no bias due to the nationalities of the parties. Second, the reasoning is based on evidence, which fully reflects the principle of evidentiary adjudication. The judgment rendered upon retrial has allocated burden of proof according to the law, strictly followed the principle of evidentiary adjudication, took into full account of the common international maritime trading practice that a shipbuilding entrusting party designates the main engine of a vessel, and determined that three relatively isolated facts may be proved on the basis of the relevant evidence in this case, namely, Spliethoff B.V. insisted on the choice of engines produced by Wartsila Oy, the engines involved were second-hand refurnished engines, and Wartsila Oy knew or should have known the aforesaid fact, and that a chain of evidence on the malicious collusion between Wartsila Oy and Spliethoff B.V. was not formed. Third, the Supreme People's Court has accurately interpreted the legal principle that the Tort Law does not regulate contractual creditor's rights, which plays a role of standardizing the adjudication criteria. As one type of important civil rights, contractual creditor's rights are not explicitly included in the protection scope of the Tort Law of the People's Republic of China in Article 2 of this Law, which shows that the Tort Law does not regulate liability for breach of contract. The basic value of the Contract Law is autonomy of private law. The parties to a contract are permitted to freely stipulate such relationships of rights and obligations as undertaking of liability and right relief on the premise of not violating the legal compulsory provisions. The Tort Law is a mandatory law protecting civil rights and interests beyond contractual creditor's rights. If the application of the Tort Law is randomly expanded to contractual creditor's rights, the parties to a contract are permitted to avoid the effective stipulations of the contract through an action of tort liability, in which way the contract exists in name only, it will be bound to damage the realization of autonomy of private law, confuse the standardization system of the Tort Law and the Contract Law, and weaken the predictability of the parties on rights and obligations. The judgment rendered upon retrial specified that the pure interest of contract performance shall be protected in accordance with the Contract Law in principle, and the parties should not be upheld in seeking relief of tort liability, which has legal basis. | | 本案是一起船舶设备买卖侵权纠纷案，涉及中国、荷兰、芬兰等“一带一路”沿线国家。本案围绕“一带一路”建设大局依法公正审理，为人民法院发挥服务保障职能发挥示范指导作用。第一，本案通过严格贯彻平等保护原则，确保中国海事司法的国际公信力。最高人民法院在本案的审理中，依法采纳采信证据，认定事实，准确阐释法律，遵循“三段论”推理方式逐一说理论证，发现原审判决认定的基本事实缺乏证据证明、适用法律错误，果断予以纠正，不因当事人国籍而有所偏倚。第二，根据证据推理论证，充分体现了证据裁判原则。再审判决依法分配举证责任，严格依照证据裁判规则，充分考虑船舶建造委托方普遍指定船舶主机之国际海事海商交易实践，认定本案有关证据仅能证明西特福公司坚持选用瓦锡兰公司生产的发动机、案涉发动机为二手翻新主机以及瓦锡兰公司知情或者应当知情三个相对孤立的事实，并不能形成证明瓦锡兰公司与西特福公司存在恶意串通的证据锁链。第三，准确阐释侵权责任法原则上不调整合同债权这一法律原则，起到规范裁判尺度的作用。合同债权作为一种重要的民事权利，《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第二条并没有将其明确列入该法保护范围，表明侵权责任法不调整违约责任。合同法的基本价值是私法自治，允许合同当事人在不违反法律强制规定的前提下自由约定责任承担、权利救济等权利义务关系。侵权责任法是保护合同债权以外的民事权益的强行法，如果将侵权责任法随意拓展适用于合同债权，准许合同当事人以侵权责任之诉规避合同的有效约定而使合同形同虚设，势必损害私法自治的实现，混淆侵权责任法与合同法的规范体系，削弱当事人对权利义务的可预期性。再审判决明确单纯合同履行利益原则上应坚持根据合同法保护，而不应支持当事人寻求侵权责任救济，具有法律和法理依据。 |
| Wang and Other 14 Persons v. Three Friends International Shipping S.A for Dispute over a Crew Service Contract | | 王某等15人与三友国际航运有限公司（THREEFRIENDSINTERNATIONALSHIPPINGS.A）船员劳务合同纠纷案 |
| [Basic Facts] | | 【基本案情】 |
| “Sequoia Dragon” was a Panamanian bulk cargo vessel owned by Three Friends International Shipping S.A (hereinafter referred to as “Three Friends S.A”). Due to the shipping market downturn, the vessel berthed in the anchorage of Damaiyu Port, Yuhuan County, Taizhou City, Zhejiang Province for reorganization. On August 22, 2016, Wang and other 14 crew on board filed an application with the Ningbo Maritime Court for arresting the vessel since Three Friends S.A was in arrears of their salaries for a long term. Within the statutory time limit, they filed a lawsuit against Three Friends S.A for dispute over the crew service contract involved, required that Three Friends S.A should pay them a total of over CNY2 million for their salaries, board expenses, and repatriation charges, and requested the Court to confirm that the aforesaid amount of payment enjoyed the maritime liens of “Sequoia Dragon.” | | “红杉晟龙”（SEQUOIADRAGON）轮系三友公司所属的巴拿马籍散货船。因航运市场低迷，该轮停泊在浙江台州玉环大麦屿港锚地休整。2016年8月22日，王某等15名在船船员因三友公司长期拖欠其工资，向宁波海事法院申请扣押船舶，并在法定期限内就涉案船员劳务合同纠纷对三友公司提起诉讼，要求三友公司支付船员工资、伙食费、遣返费等共计人民币200万余元，并请求确认上述工资款对“红杉晟龙”轮享有船舶优先权。 |
| [Adjudication] | | 【裁判结果】 |
| After the trial, the Ningbo Maritime Court held that the application for pre-litigation preservation of maritime claim filed by Wang and other 14 crew complied with the legal provisions. Therefore, it rendered a ruling that “Sequoia Dragon” should be arrested. With respect to the lawsuit concerning dispute over the crew service contract subsequently instituted by Wang and other 14 crew, upon pretrial mediation and confirmation that all crew have received the salaries in arrears, the Ningbo Maritime Court rendered a ruling that the lawsuit was automatically withdrawn. | | 宁波海事法院经审理认为，王某等15名船员的诉前海事请求保全申请符合法律规定，遂裁定扣押“红杉晟龙”轮。对于王某等15名船员随后提起的船员劳务纠纷，经过庭前调解并确认全部船员收悉被拖欠的工资款后，裁定按自动撤诉处理。 |
| [Significance] | | 【典型意义】 |
Crew is one of the most important production factors in the shipping industry. At present, under the continued depression of the international shipping industry, disputes over foreign-related crew service contracts have such features as a large number of persons involved, a large amount of payment in arrears, and fierce conflicts between crew and vessel enterprises. China is a maritime power and a country of mariners. It has become one of countries having the largest number of mariners. The Chinese mariners account for one third of the total number of mariners around the world. The protection of mariners' rights and interests urgently calls for support from maritime justice. In this case, the Ningbo Maritime Court accurately grasped the shipping market situations, voluntarily got a clear picture of business operations of the foreign defendant, gave full play to the special advantages of mediation, the Chinese experience, in the resolution of complicated disputes, brought about the mediation of all parties by arresting the vessel, and made all crew involved receive the payment in arrears in full amount. In this way, the lawful rights and interests of the crew were protected, the arrest of the vessel involved was released and the operation thereof was resumed as soon as possible, and the intensification of contradictions was avoided. It has achieved good legal effects and social effects. The timely and effective trial of this case has greatly improved China's judicial credibility and effectively realized win-win of the ship-owner and crew. From November 12, 2016, the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 has formally taken effect in China. This case also has great reference value in accurately applying international conventions, properly settling crew service disputes, and providing judicial safeguard for the stable development of the shipping economy in the future.
．．．．．． | | 船员是航运业最主要的生产要素之一，在国际航运业持续低迷的当下，涉外船员劳务合同纠纷呈现出涉案人数多，拖欠数额大，船员与船企矛盾激烈等特点。我国是航运大国，也是海员大国，已经成为世界上拥有海员数目最多的国家之一，约占世界海员总数的三分之一，海员的权益保障问题迫切需要海事司法的支持。本案中，海事法院准确把握航运市场形势，主动摸清国外被告经营情况，运用调解这一中国经验在解决复杂纠纷方面的独特优势，通过扣押船舶，促成当事各方达成和解，使涉案船员足额拿到拖欠费用，保护了船员的合法权益，也使涉案船舶得以尽快解除扣押并恢复营运，避免了矛盾的激化，取得了良好的法律效果与社会效果。案件及时高效的审理，有力提升了中国海事司法的公信力，较好地实现了船东船员的互利共赢。2016年11月12日起，《2006海事劳工公约》已正式对我国生效。本案对今后准确适用国际公约，妥善解决船员劳务纠纷，为航运经济稳定发展提供司法保障，也具有较高的参考价值。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1400.00】 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|