Qi Yuling v. Chen Xiaoqi et al.: Dispute over Infringement of a Citizen's Basic Right to receive Education Protected by Constitution Through infringement of Right of Name@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Qi Yuling, female, 28, is a worker from Lunan Ferroalloy General Factory of Shandong. She resides at Chengguanzhen, Zoucheng City, Shandong Province.@#
Defendant: Chen Xiaoqi (with Chen Hengyan her name used before), female, 28, is an employee from Shandong Tengzhou Branch, Bank of China. She resides at the dormitory of Tengzhou Branch, Bank of China, Longshan Road, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province.@#
Defendant: Chen Kezheng, male, 47, the father of Chen Xiaoqi, is a worker from the Government of Baogou Town, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province. He resides at Quanjia Village, Baogou Town, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province.@#
Defendant: Jining Business School of Shandong Province
Address: Nandaizhuang Road Jining City, Shandong Province@#
Legal representative: Kong Xianzhong, the president of this school@#
Defendant: The Eighth Middle School of Tengzhou City, Shandong Province
Address: Baogou Town, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province@#
Legal representative: Zhu Hengfu, the president of this school@#
Defendant: The Education Committee of Tengzhou City, Shandong Province
Address: No. 165 Xingyun Road, Tengzhou City, Shandong Province@#
Legal representative: Sun Zuobing, the director of this Committee@#
Plaintiff Qi Yuling filed a suit at the Intermediate People's Court of Zaozhuang City, Shandong Province against defendants Chen Xiaoqi, Jining Business School of Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as Jining Business School), the Eighth Middle School of Tengzhou City, Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Eighth Middle School) and The Education Committee of Tengzhou City, Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Education Committee) because of the disputes over infringement of right of name and infringement of right to receive education.@#
Plaintiff Qi Yuling complained that:
Having passed the unified examinations (the unified entrance examinations) and the plaintiff was admitted by defendant Jining Business School, according to the intent she had filled in a Form of Intent, as a student of authorized training (to be trained under authorization of a certain unit) of grade 1990, majoring in Finance and Accounting. Because of the joint falsification of all the above-mentioned defendants, defendant Chen Xiaoqi entered into Jining Business School in the name of the plaintiff. As a result, the plaintiff's right of name, right to receive education and other pertinent rights and interests were infringed. Thus she pleaded the court to order all the defendants to stop the infringement, make an apology and compensate the plaintiff for the economic losses in the sum of RMB 16,000 yuan (including: 1. the salary taken by Chen Xiaoqi in the name of the plaintiff, RMB 50,000 yuan; 2. the housing welfare given by the unit of Chen Xiaoqi, 90,000 yuan; 3. the fee that the plaintiff spent in restudying in a middle school for one year, RMB 1,000 yuan; 4. the townscape improvement fee that the plaintiff paid for transferring her agricultural registered permanent residence into a nonagricultural one, RMB 6,000 yuan; 5. the tuition that the plaintiff paid for going to a technical school instead, RMB 5000 yuan; 6. the stipend and bursary that Chen Xiaoqi should have obtained during the period of her studying in Jining Business School, RMB 2,000 yuan; 7. the attorney's fees of RMB 5,000 yuan and the investigation fee of 1,000 yuan that the plaintiff has already paid) and compensate for her mental damages, RMB 400,000 yuan.
．．．．．．

齐玉苓诉陈晓琪等以侵犯姓名权的手段侵犯宪法保护的公民受教育的基本权利纠纷案@#
@#
原告：齐玉苓（曾用名齐玉玲），女，２８岁，山东鲁南铁合金总厂工人，住山东省邹城市城关镇。@#
被告：陈晓琪（曾用名陈恒燕），女，２８岁，中国银行山东滕州支行职员，住山东滕州市龙山路中国银行滕州支行宿舍。@#
被告：陈克政，男，４７岁，系被告陈晓琪之父，山东省滕州市鲍沟镇政府工作人员，住山东省滕州市鲍沟镇圈里村。@#
被告：山东省济宁商业学校。住所地：山东省济宁市南岱庄路。@#
法定代表人：孔宪忠，该校校长。@#
被告：山东省滕州市第八中学。住所地：山东省滕州市鲍沟镇。@#
法定代表人：朱恒富，该校校长。@#
被告：山东省滕州市教育委员会。住所地：山东省滕州市杏坛路１６５号。@#
法定代表人：孙卓炳，该委主任。@#
原告齐玉苓因与被告陈晓琪、陈克政、山东省济宁商业学校（以下简称济宁商校）、山东省滕州市第八中学（以下简称滕州八中）、山东省滕州市教育委员会（以下简称滕州教委）发生侵犯姓名权、受教育权纠纷，向山东省枣庄市中级人民法院提起诉讼。@#
原告齐玉苓诉称：原告经统考（统一招生考试）后，按照原告填报的志愿，被告济宁商校录取原告为九０级财会专业委培生（由特定单位委托学校培训的学生）。由于各被告共同弄虚作假，促成被告陈晓琪冒用原告的姓名进入济宁商校学习，致使原告的姓名权、受教育权以及其他相关权益被侵犯。请求判令各被告停止侵害、赔礼道歉，并给原告赔偿经济损失１６万元（其中包括：１、陈晓琪冒领的工资５万元；２、陈晓琪单位给予的住房福利９万元；３、原告复读一年的费用１０００元；４、原告为将农业户口转为非农业户口交纳的城市增容费６０００元；５、原告改上技校学习交纳的学费５０００元；６、陈晓琪在济宁商校就读期间应享有的助学金、奖学金２０００元；７、原告支出的律师代理费５０００元、调查费１０００元），赔偿精神损失４０万元。@#
被告陈晓琪辩称：本人使用原告齐玉苓的姓名上学一事属实。齐玉苓当年的考试成绩虽然过了委培分数线，但她表示过不想上委培，因此她没有联系过委培单位，也没有交纳委培费用，不具备上委培的其它条件。本人顶替齐玉苓上学，不侵犯其受教育权。受教育权不是《中华人民共和国民法通则》规定的民事权利，齐玉苓据此主张赔偿，没有法律依据，而且其诉讼请求已明显超过了民法通则规定的二年诉讼时效。@#
被告济宁商校辩称：本校收到以齐玉苓名义寄来的委培单位证明后，及时对考试成绩超过委培分数线的齐玉苓发出了录取通知书，因此没有侵犯原告齐玉苓的合法权益。@#
被告滕州八中辩称：在齐玉苓与陈晓琪的纠纷中，本校没有任何侵权行为，不应被列为本案被告。@#
被告滕州教委辩称：在九０届中专招生考试中，从报名、考试、录取到发放录取通知书的各个环节，本被告都严格执行了招生政策，在此纠纷中无任何过错，不应为他人的侵权行为承担责任。@#
枣庄市中级人民法院经审理查明：@#
原告齐玉苓与被告陈晓琪均是被告滕州八中的九０届应届初中毕业生，当时同在滕州八中驻地滕州市鲍沟镇圈里村居住，二人相貌有明显差异。齐玉苓在九０届统考中取得成绩４４１分，虽未达到当年统一招生的录取分数线，但超过了委培生的录取分数线。当年录取工作结束后，被告济宁商校发出了录取齐玉苓为该校九０级财会专业委培生的通知书，该通知书由滕州八中转交。@#
被告陈晓琪在１９９０年中专预选考试中，因成绩不合格，失去了继续参加统考的资格。为能继续升学，陈晓琪从被告滕州八中将原告齐玉苓的录取通知书领走。陈晓琪之父、被告陈克政为此联系了滕州市鲍沟镇政府作陈晓琪的委培单位。陈晓琪持齐玉苓的录取通知书到被告济宁商校报到时，没有携带准考证；报到后，以齐玉苓的名义在济宁商校就读。陈晓琪在济宁商校就读期间的学生档案，仍然是齐玉苓初中阶段及中考期间形成的考生资料，其中包括贴有齐玉苓照片的体格检查表、学期评语表以及齐玉苓参加统考的试卷等相关材料。陈晓琪读书期间，陈克政将原为陈晓琪联系的委培单位变更为中国银行滕州支行。１９９３年，陈晓琪从济宁商校毕业，自带档案到委培单位中国银行滕州支行参加工作。@#
被告陈克政为使被告陈晓琪冒名读书一事不被识破，曾于１９９１年中专招生考试体检时，办理了贴有陈晓琪照片并盖有“山东省滕州市招生委员会”钢印的体格检查表，还填制了贴有陈晓琪照片，并加盖“滕州市第八中学”印章的学期评语表。１９９３年，陈克政利用陈晓琪毕业自带档案的机会，将原齐玉苓档案中的材料抽出，换上自己办理的上述两表。目前在中国银行滕州支行的人事档案中，陈晓琪使用的姓名仍为“齐玉苓”，“陈晓琪”一名只在其户籍中使用。@#
经鉴定，被告陈克政办理的体格检查表上加盖的“山东省滕州市招生委员会”钢印，确属被告滕州教委的印章；学期评语表上加盖的“滕州市第八中学”印章，是由被告滕州八中的“腾州市第八中学财务专章”变造而成。陈克政对何人为其加盖上述两枚印章一节，拒不陈述。@#
另查明：１９９０年，被告滕州八中将当年参加中专考试学生的成绩及统招、委培分数线，都通知了考生本人。@#
１９９０年的招生办法，要求报考委培志愿的考生必须凭委培招生学校和委培单位的介绍信报名。为满足这一要求，凡报考委培志愿的考生事实上都是自己联系委培单位并自己交纳委培费用。被告陈晓琪当时交纳了５５００元的委培费。原告齐玉苓既未联系过委培单位，亦未交纳过委培费用。@#
上述事实，有证人孟繁运、曹森、张开宇、陈道山的证言，有枣庄市教委招生办公室、滕州市鲍沟镇政府的证明，有当事人齐玉苓、陈克政、济宁商校、滕州教委、滕州八中的陈述和对陈晓琪的调查笔录，有济宁商校九０级委培学生花名册、九三年毕业生就业工作调配表、“齐玉苓”人事档案和其他学生的体格检查表、鉴定结论两份、陈晓琪的户籍、滕州市招生委员会办公室的“滕招办字（１９９０）７号”文件等证据证实。@#
@#
枣庄市中级人民法院认为：@#
民法通则第九十九条规定：“公民享有姓名权，有权决定、使用和依照规定改变自己的姓名，禁止他人干涉、盗用、假冒。”被告人陈晓琪在中考落选、升学无望的情况下，由其父、被告陈克政策划并为主实施冒用原告齐玉苓姓名上学的行为，目的在于利用齐玉苓已过委培分数线的考试成绩，为自己升学和今后就业创造条件，其结果构成了对齐玉苓姓名的盗用和假冒，是侵害姓名权的一种特殊表现形式。由于侵权行为延续至今，故陈晓琪关于齐玉苓的诉讼请求已超过诉讼时效的答辩理由，显然不能成立。@#
．．．．．．