>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Guiding Case No. 56: Han Fengbin v. Inner Mongolia Jiujun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. (Case regarding objection to jurisdiction over product liability dispute)
指导案例56号:韩凤彬诉内蒙古九郡药业有限责任公司等产品责任纠纷管辖权异议案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Tort
  • Legal document: Ruling
  • Judgment date: 03-27-2013
  • Procedural status: Retrial

Guiding Case No. 56: Han Fengbin v. Inner Mongolia Jiujun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. (Case regarding objection to jurisdiction over product liability dispute) 

指导案例56号:韩凤彬诉内蒙古九郡药业有限责任公司等产品责任纠纷管辖权异议案

(Issued on November 19, 2015 as deliberated and adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过2015年11月19日发布)
Guiding Case No. 56 指导案例56号不接我们电话 也不给拒接原因法宝

Keywords 关键词
Civil action; objection to jurisdiction; retrial period 民事诉讼/管辖异议/再审期间
Key Points of Judgment 裁判要点
Where a party raises no objection to jurisdiction during the period of submitting a written statement of defense in the first instance trial, but raises an objection to jurisdiction in the second instance review or after the case is remanded for retrial, the people's court may not examine the objection. 当事人在一审提交答辩状期间未提出管辖异议,在二审或者再审发回重审时提出管辖异议的,人民法院不予审查。
Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China 《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第127条
Basic Facts 基本案情
For the case of dispute over compensation for product quality damage between plaintiff Han Fengbin and defendants Inner Mongolia Jiujun Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Jiujun Pharmaceutical”), Shanghai Yunzhou Commercial Building Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yunzhou Commercial Building”), Radio and Television Shanghai (hereinafter referred to as “RTS”), and Dalian Hongyan Pharmacy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hongyan Pharmacy”), the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Liaoning Province entered a civil judgment (No. 4 [2007], First, Civil Rights, Dalian) on September 3, 2008. Jiujun Pharmaceutical, Yunzhou Commercial Building, and RTS refused to accept the judgment and appealed to the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province. On May 24, 2010, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province entered a civil judgment (No. 400 [2008], Final, Civil DivisionI, HPC, Liaoning). After this judgment came into force, the retrial applicants Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building filed an application for retrial with the Supreme People's Court. 原告韩凤彬诉被告内蒙古九郡药业有限责任公司(以下简称九郡药业)、上海云洲商厦有限公司(以下简称云洲商厦)、上海广播电视台(以下简称上海电视台)、大连鸿雁大药房有限公司(以下简称鸿雁大药房)产品质量损害赔偿纠纷一案,辽宁省大连市中级人民法院于2008年9月3日作出(2007)大民权初字第4号民事判决。九郡药业、云洲商厦、上海电视台不服,向辽宁省高级人民法院提起上诉。该院于2010年5月24日作出(2008)辽民一终字第400号民事判决。该判决发生法律效力后,再审申请人九郡药业、云洲商厦向最高人民法院申请再审。
On December 22 of the same year, the Supreme People's Court entered a civil ruling (No. 1019 [2010], Civil Complaint, Supreme People's Court) and directly reviewed the case. On August 3, 2011, it entered a civil ruling (No. 117 [2011], Civil Review, Supreme People's Court), in which the civil judgments of first instance and second instance were reversed and this case was remanded to the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Liaoning Province for a retrial. In the retrial, Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building raised an objection to jurisdiction. 最高人民法院于同年12月22日作出(2010)民申字第1019号民事裁定,提审本案,并于2011年8月3日作出(2011)民提字第117号民事裁定,撤销一、二审民事判决,发回辽宁省大连市中级人民法院重审。在重审中,九郡药业和云洲商厦提出管辖异议。
Judgment 裁判结果
On February 29, 2012, the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Liaoning Province entered a civil ruling (No. 7 [2011], First, Civil Retrial, IPC, Dalian), holding that: It retried this case upon instructions of the People's Supreme People's Court. Since defendant Hongyan Pharmacy was domiciled in Zhongshan District, Dalian City, Liaoning Province, it entered the ruling on denying the objection to jurisdiction raised by Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building. Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building appealed. On May 7, 2012, the Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province entered a civil ruling (No. 1 [2012], Final, Civil Retrial, HPC, Liaoning), holding that: When plaintiff Han Fengbin instituted an action in the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City, Hongyan Pharmacy domiciled in Dalian City was listed one of the defendants. Besides, in the original trial, plaintiff provided the relevant evidence for his drug purchase in Hongyan Pharmacy and such evidence was cross-examined in court. Therefore, Hongyan Pharmacy was an eligible defendant and the Intermediate People's Court of Dalian City had jurisdiction over this case. The Higher People's Court of Liaoning Province entered the ruling on dismissing the appeals of Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building and affirming the original ruling. Afterwards, Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building separately applied for retrial to the Supreme People's Court. On March 27, 2013, the Supreme People's Court entered a civil ruling (No. 27 [2013], Civil Retrial Application, Supreme People's Court) to deny the applications of Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building for retrial. 辽宁省大连市中级人民法院于2012年2月29日作出(2011)大审民再初字第7号民事裁定,认为该院重审此案系接受最高人民法院指令,被告之一鸿雁大药房住所地在辽宁省大连市中山区,遂裁定驳回九郡药业和云洲商厦对管辖权提出的异议。九郡药业、云洲商厦提起上诉,辽宁省高级人民法院于2012年5月7日作出(2012)辽立一民再终字第1号民事裁定,认为原告韩凤彬在向大连市中级人民法院提起诉讼时,即将住所地在大连市的鸿雁大药房列为被告之一,且在原审过程中提交了在鸿雁大药房购药的相关证据并经庭审质证,鸿雁大药房属适格被告,大连市中级人民法院对该案有管辖权,遂裁定驳回上诉,维持原裁定。九郡药业、云洲商厦后分别向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2013年3月27日作出(2013)民再申字第27号民事裁定,驳回九郡药业和云洲商厦的再审申请。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective judgment, the court held that: As to the period for a party to raise an objection to jurisdiction, there was a specific provision in Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Procedure Law”) that “Where a party raises any objection to jurisdiction, the party shall file the objection during the period of submitting a written statement of defense. Where a party raises no objection to jurisdiction and responds to the action by submitting a written statement of defense, the court accepting the action shall be deemed to have jurisdiction.” It could thus be seen that if a party raised no objection to jurisdiction during the period of submitting a written statement of defense in the first instance trial, but it raised an objection to jurisdiction in the second instance review or in the retrial, according to the principle of constant jurisdiction, since jurisdiction of this case has been determined, the people's court should not examine the objection to jurisdiction. In this case, Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building raised an objection to jurisdiction in the retrial of the case by the court of first instance after the case was remanded to the court of first instance for retrial in the ruling entered under the trial supervision procedures. At first, in the first instance trial, after the complaint of plaintiff Han Fengbin was served upon Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building, neither of them raised any objection to jurisdiction during the period of defense, which explained that both parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the court of first instance and jurisdiction has been determined. Besides, after the first instance trials and the second instance review and the retrial, the procedures for this case were still valid and they were irreversible. This case was remanded to the court of first instance for retrial under the trial supervision procedures. Although it was tried under the procedures of first instance, the case remanded for retrial was not a case of first trial, jurisdiction over it has already been determined. As far as jurisdiction was concerned, since the civil proceedings were initiated by a party's filing of an action, the determination of jurisdiction over the case should be subject to the time when the action was brought. For the court with jurisdiction over the case when the action was brought, its jurisdiction should not be affected due to any change in the facts for determination of jurisdiction in the process of the proceedings. After the action was brought to the people's court, it was docketed and accepted by the people's court, with the complaint served upon defendants. During the period of defense, defendants failed to raise an objection to jurisdiction, which showed that the court with jurisdiction over the action has been determined. Afterwards, the court with jurisdiction over the action would not be altered due to any change in the domiciles, habitual residences, or administrative regions of the parties. On the premise that jurisdiction has been determined, the parties had no right to raise any objection to jurisdiction. If a party was still allowed to raise an objection to jurisdiction during retrial, it would inevitably make such stable judicial proceedings be in an uncertain state, destroying the stableness and orderliness of the judicial proceedings and delaying litigation. It would not only reduce the litigation efficiency and waste judicial resources, but also be unfavorable to the resolution of disputes. Therefore, on the basis of the principle of constant jurisdiction, the determinacy of judicial proceedings, and the requirements of justice and efficiency, the objection to jurisdiction raised by the party to a retrial case should not be supported. In view of the above, the objections to jurisdiction raised by Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building lacked legal basis. The ruling of first instance was not inappropriate in denying their objections to jurisdiction. 法院生效裁判认为:对于当事人提出管辖权异议的期间,《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(以下简称《民事诉讼法》)第一百二十七条明确规定:当事人对管辖权有异议的,应当在提交答辩状期间提出。当事人未提出管辖异议,并应诉答辩的,视为受诉人民法院有管辖权。由此可知,当事人在一审提交答辩状期间未提出管辖异议,在案件二审或者再审时才提出管辖权异议的,根据管辖恒定原则,案件管辖权已经确定,人民法院对此不予审查。本案中,九郡药业和云洲商厦是案件被通过审判监督程序裁定发回一审法院重审,在一审法院的重审中才就管辖权提出异议的。最初一审时原告韩凤彬的起诉状送达给九郡药业和云洲商厦,九郡药业和云洲商厦在答辩期内并没有对管辖权提出异议,说明其已接受了一审法院的管辖,管辖权已确定。而且案件经过一审、二审和再审,所经过的程序仍具有程序上的效力,不可逆转。本案是经审判监督程序发回一审法院重审的案件,虽然按照第一审程序审理,但是发回重审的案件并非一个初审案件,案件管辖权早已确定。就管辖而言,因民事诉讼程序的启动始于当事人的起诉,确定案件的管辖权,应以起诉时为标准,起诉时对案件有管辖权的法院,不因确定管辖的事实在诉讼过程中发生变化而影响其管辖权。当案件诉至人民法院,经人民法院立案受理,诉状送达给被告,被告在答辩期内未提出管辖异议,表明案件已确定了管辖法院,此后不因当事人住所地、经常居住地的变更或行政区域的变更而改变案件的管辖法院。在管辖权已确定的前提下,当事人无权再就管辖权提出异议。如果在重审中当事人仍可就管辖权提出异议,无疑会使已稳定的诉讼程序处于不确定的状态,破坏了诉讼程序的安定、有序,拖延诉讼,不仅降低诉讼效率,浪费司法资源,而且不利于纠纷的解决。因此,基于管辖恒定原则、诉讼程序的确定性以及公正和效率的要求,不能支持重审案件当事人再就管辖权提出的异议。据此,九郡药业和云洲商厦就本案管辖权提出异议,没有法律依据,原审裁定驳回其管辖异议并无不当。
In conclusion, the applications for retrial filed by Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building did not fall under the retrial circumstances as prescribed in item (6) of Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Law. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Law, the Supreme People's Court entered a ruling to deny the applications for retrial filed by Jiujun Pharmaceutical and Yunzhou Commercial Building. 综上,九郡药业和云洲商厦的再审申请不符合《民事诉讼法》第二百条第(六)项规定的应当再审情形,故依照该法第二百零四条第一款的规定,裁定驳回九郡药业和云洲商厦的再审申请。
(Judges of the effective judgment: Zhang Zhihong, Ning Sheng, and Jia Yaqi) (生效裁判审判人员:张志弘、宁晟、贾亚奇)
fnl_7999105三年不开张,开张吃三年 
     
     
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