>>>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
 
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】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Ruling
  • Judgment date: 03-24-2010
  • Procedural status: Trial at Second Instance
  • Source: SPC Gazette,Issue 7,2010

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我我我什么都没做 (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
谁敢欺负我的人
的规定,裁定驳回潘日阳对本案管辖权提出的异议。
BASIC FACTS 
Pan Riyang appealed to this Court against the ruling of first instance, alleging that: in this ruling, the interpretation 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 did not conform to the legislative intent. The meaning of “where the place of domicile of one party is outside its territorial jurisdiction and whose amount in controversy is 50 million yuan or more” should be that the place of domicile of one party was outside a court's territorial jurisdiction while that of the other party was inside the court's territorial jurisdiction, not including the circumstance of both parties being domiciled outside such territorial jurisdiction. Hence, he requested this Court to quash the ruling of first instance according to law and order the trial of this case be made by the Intermediate People's Court of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province. 潘日阳不服一审裁定,向本院上诉称:一审裁定对最高人民法院《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)的解释不符合立法的本意。“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”的含义应当是当事人一方住所地不在本辖区而另一方住所地在本辖区,不包括当事人双方均不在本辖区的情形。故请求本院依法撤销一审裁定,裁定本案由陕西省榆林市中级人民法院审理。
Zhao Ziwen did not submit any written reply. 赵子文未提交书面答辩意见。
In this Court's opinion, this case is an appeal by one party against a ruling of a Higher People's Court about the objection to subject matter jurisdiction. According to Article 8 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Civil Cases with Objection to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, this Court shall review the case and make a judgment. In 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北大法宝 (No. 10 [2008] of the Supreme People's Court) issued by the Supreme People's Court, “where the place of domicile of one party is outside its territorial jurisdiction” refers to such a situation that the place of domicile of either party to the case, the plaintiff or defendant, is outside a court's territorial jurisdiction, excluding the situation that both the place of domicile of the plaintiff and that of the defendant are outside such territorial jurisdiction. In the case that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is domiciled therein, the sole determinant of a court having jurisdiction over the trial of the case shall be the amount in controversy. In a joint action case, whenever the place of domicile of one of the plaintiffs or one of the defendants is not within a court's territorial jurisdiction, the situation “where the place of domicile of one party is outside its territorial jurisdiction” shall be satisfied. In the case that the place of domicile of a third party is outside a court's territorial jurisdiction, no matter he has or has not an independent right to claim, since he is not the major party involved in the proceedings, the situation “where the place of domicile of one party is outside its territorial jurisdiction” shall not apply to the third party, while the plaintiff's and the defendant's interests concerning the jurisdiction shall be taken into consideration. The amount in controversy in this case is more than 50 million yuan, but neither party thereto is domiciled in the territorial jurisdiction of the court of first instance. According to Article 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Civil Cases with Objection to Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province shall not have jurisdiction over the trial of this case, so it shall be transferred to a people's court having jurisdiction. Because the place of alleged infringement was in Shenmu County, Shaanxi Province, the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province shall transfer this case to the Intermediate People's Court of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province for trial. 本院认为,本案是当事人不服高级人民法院就级别管辖异议裁定而提起的上诉,根据最高人民法院《关于审理民事级别管辖异议案件若干问题的规定》第八条的规定,本院应当依法审理并作出裁定。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)中所称的“当事人一方住所地不在本辖区”,是指原告或者被告一方当事人住所地不在本辖区,不包括原告、被告双方住所地均不在本辖区的情形。原告、被告双方住所地均不在本辖区的,应当仅按照诉讼标的额标准来确定级别管辖法院。在共同诉讼场合,原告之一或者被告之一住所地不在本辖区的,应当属于“当事人一方住所地不在本辖区”的情形。对于第三人住所地不在本辖区的,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,由于是参加他人之间的诉讼,故基于原被告管辖利益的衡量,不应列为“当事人一方住所地不在本辖区”的情形。本案诉讼标的额在5000万元以上,但当事人双方住所地均不在本辖区,根据最高人民法院《关于审理民事级别管辖异议案件若干问题的规定》第一条的规定,陕西省高级人民法院对本案无管辖权,应移送有管辖权的人民法院审理。因诉称的侵权行为地在陕西省神木县,陕西省高级人民法院应将本案移送陕西省榆林市中级人民法院审理。
JUDGMENT 
In sum, the ruling at first instance was wrong by determining that the Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province should have jurisdiction over the trial of this case, and thereby shall be corrected. The request of the appellant for revoking the ruling at first instance and transferring this case to the Intermediate People's Court of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province is tenable and shall be maintained. According to Article 38, Article 153.1(2) and Article 154 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, this Court rules as follows: 综上,原审裁定认为陕西省高级人民法院对本案具有管辖权错误,应予纠正。上诉人提出的撤销原审裁定、将本案移送陕西省榆林市中级人民法院审理的上诉请求成立,应予支持。根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第三十八条、第一百五十三条第一款第(二)项、第一百五十四条的规定,裁定如下:
1. 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 shall be quashed; 一、撤销陕西省高级人民法院(2009)陕民一初字第2号民事裁定;
2. The Higher People's Court of Shaanxi Province shall transfer this case to the Intermediate People's Court of Yulin City, Shaanxi Province for trial. 二、陕西省高级人民法院将本案移送陕西省榆林市中级人民法院审理。
This ruling shall be final. 本裁定为终审裁定。
Presiding Judge: Jiang Qibo 审 判 长 姜启波
Acting Judge: Wang Shengquan 代理审判员 王胜全
Acting Judge: Li Yanchen 代理审判员 李延忱
March 24, 2010 二O— O年三月二十四日
Clerk: Shao Haiqiang 书 记 员 邵海强
fnl_279401

 

     
     
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