>>>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
 
Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Qufu Branch of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. v. China Coal No. 68 Engineering Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over a construction contract)
大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司与中煤第六十八工程有限公司施工合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Qufu Branch of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. v. China Coal No. 68 Engineering Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over a construction contract)
(Case about disputes over a construction contract)
大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司与中煤第六十八工程有限公司施工合同纠纷案
Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Qufu Branch of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. v. China Coal No. 68 Engineering Co., Ltd. (Case about disputes over a construction contract) 大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司与中煤第六十八工程有限公司施工合同纠纷案
[Summary] [裁判摘要]

Article 224 the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 29 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China explicitly stipulate hierarchical jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of arbitration awards and such stipulations shall have binding force. For the enforcement of an arbitral award, there were only two nexus points in the determination of jurisdiction: one is the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement and the other is the place where the property subject to enforcement is located. The civil procedure law is a public law, so it shall be prohibited unless it is prescribed as a right in the law. Although the civil procedure law does not explicitly forbid the parties' negotiation on the selection of a court having jurisdiction over enforcement, the parties' selection of jurisdiction over the enforcement should be limited to the aforesaid two nexus points and the parties may only select one court having jurisdiction among them to file an application for enforcement. The provisions on responding to actions in the civil procedure law shall apply to judicial proceedings and shall not apply to enforcement procedures. Therefore, when the parties voluntarily determined to file an application for enforcement with a court having no jurisdiction by the parties' selection through negotiation or by such default means as raising no objection to jurisdiction and abandoning the objection to jurisdiction, such determination should not be supported.

 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百二十四条最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第二十九条对仲裁案件执行的级别管辖和地域管辖作出的明确规定,具有强制约束力。关于仲裁裁决的执行,其确定管辖的连接点只有两个,一是被执行人住所地,二是被执行的财产所在地。民事诉讼法属于公法性质的法律规范,法律没有赋予权利即属禁止。虽然民事诉讼法没有明文禁止当事人协商执行管辖法院,但对当事人就执行案件管辖权的选择限定于上述两个连接点之间,当事人只能依法选择向其中一个有管辖权的法院提出执行申请。民事诉讼法有关应诉管辖的规定适用于诉讼程序,不适用于执行程序。因此,当事人通过协议方式选择,或通过不提管辖异议、放弃管辖异议等默认方式自行确定向无管辖权的法院申请执行的,不予支持。
好饿但是不想动

Supreme People's Court
 最高人民法院
Enforcement Ruling 执行裁定书
(No. 42 [2015], Enforcement Application, Supreme People's Court) (2015)执申字第42号

BASIC FACTS
 
Claimant: Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group”), domiciled at 6 Lane 52, Wolitun Street, Longfeng District, Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province. 申诉人:大庆筑安建工集团有限公司。
Legal Representative: Huo Ruijin, General Manager of this Company. 法定代表人:霍瑞金,该公司总经理。
Authorized Agent: Dong Peng, lawyer from Beijing W&H Law Firm. 委托代理人:董鹏,北京市炜衡律师事务所律师。
Authorized Agent: Lu Luwei, lawyer from Beijing Yixing Law Firm. 委托代理人:路卢玮,北京市易行律师事务所律师。
Claimant (Person subject to Enforcement): Qufu Branch of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Qufu Branch”), domiciled at 11 Dongmen Street, Qufu City, Jining City, Shandong Province. 申诉人(被执行人):大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司。
Person-in-Charge: Hao Dekun, General Manager of this Company. 负责人:郝德坤,该公司总经理。
Authorized Agent: Dong Peng, lawyer from Beijing W&H Law Firm. 委托代理人:董鹏,北京市炜衡律师事务所律师。
Authorized Agent: Lu Luwei, lawyer from Beijing Yixing Law Firm. 委托代理人:路卢玮,北京市易行律师事务所律师。
Respondent (Enforcement Applicant): China Coal No. 68 Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company”), domiciled at 1 Kuangjian East Road, Zoucheng City, Shandong Province. 被申诉人(申请执行人):中煤第六十八工程有限公司。
Legal Representative: Tang Jingdong, General Manager of this Company. 法定代表人:汤敬东,总经理。
Authorized Agent: Guo Xianwei, legal counsel of this Company. 委托代理人:郭现伟,该公司法律顾问。
The claimants Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Qufu Branch of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. refused to accept the enforcement ruling (No. 4 [2014], Enforcement Reconsideration, HPC, Shandong) as rendered by the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province and appealed to the Supreme People's Court. After accepting this case, the Supreme People's Court formed a collegial bench and examined it according to law. On June 24, 2015, the Supreme People's Court organized a hearing, in which the authorized agents of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. and Qufu Branch of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group Co., Ltd. as well as the authorized agent of China Coal No. 68 Engineering Co., Ltd. participated. The examination of this case has been concluded. 申诉人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司不服山东省高级人民法院(2014)鲁执复议字第4号执行裁定,向本院申诉。本院受理后,依法组成合议庭进行审查。2015年6月24日本院组织听证,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司和大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司的委托代理人、中煤第六十八工程有限公司的委托代理人参加了听证。本案现已审查终结。

The Supreme People's Court found upon review that: On August 5, 2011, with respect to the disputes over a construction contract between China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company and Qufu Branch, the Qingdao Arbitration Committee rendered an arbitral award (No. 453 [2008], Arbitration, Qingdao), ordering Qufu Branch to pay China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company in an amount of project funds of CNY 5,367,813.65, an interest of CNY 840,295.79, and the maintenance expenses and a fine of CNY 467,000. Since Qufu Branch, the person subject to enforcement, failed to perform its obligations as determined in the effective legal instrument, the enforcement applicant, China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company, filed an application on May 11, 2012 for enforcement with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, which placed the case (No. 160 [2012], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) on file for enforcement. On May 16 of the same year, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City prepared a notice on enforcement and on July 20 of the same year, it sent the notice on enforcement to Qufu Branch, the person subject to enforcement, and ordered it to perform the obligations. On July 28, the person subject to enforcement, Qufu Branch, raised an objection to enforcement jurisdiction to the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. The Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City placed the case (No. 25 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) on file for review. On August 15 of the same year, since the other party consented to settlement through negotiations, Qufu Branch decided to withdraw the written objection to jurisdiction. However, as both parties failed to reach a consensus, Qufu Branch continued its objection to enforcement jurisdiction. On May 19, 2013, Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group raised an objection to jurisdiction with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. On November 12 of the same year, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City rendered an enforcement ruling (No. 25 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) that the objection to jurisdiction of this case raised by Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group and Qufu Branch should be rejected. After that, both Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group and Qufu Branch refused to accept the ruling. On November 19 and 20, 2013, they both filed an application for reconsideration with the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province and requested the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province to revoke the ruling.

 本院经审查查明,中煤第六十八工程有限公司与大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司施工合同纠纷一案,2011年8月5日,青岛仲裁委员会作出青仲裁字(2008)第453号裁决书,裁决大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司向中煤第六十八工程有限公司支付工程款5 367 813.65元、支付利息840 295.79元、支付维修金及罚款467 000元。因被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司未履行生效法律文书确定的义务,申请执行人中煤第六十八工程有限公司于2012年5月11日向青岛市中级人民法院申请强制执行,该院立(2012)青执字第160号案件执行,于同年5月16日制作执行通知,同年7月20日向被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司寄出执行通知,要求其履行义务。当月28日,被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司向青岛市中级人民法院提出执行管辖异议。青岛市中级人民法院立(2013)青执裁字第25号案件审查。同年8月15日,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司因对方同意协商处理,遂决定撤回书面管辖异议。此后,双方未协商达成一致意见,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司对执行管辖坚持异议。2013年5月19日,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司向青岛市中级人民法院提出管辖异议。同年11月12日,青岛市中级人民法院作出(2013)青执裁字第25号执行裁定,驳回大庆筑安建工集团有限公司与大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司对本案执行管辖的异议。后大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司不服该裁定,分别于2013年11月19日和20日向山东省高级人民法院申请复议,请求撤销该裁定。
It was also found that the person subject to enforcement, Qufu Branch, was incorporated by Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group at the Industrial and Commercial Administration of Qufu City on September 30, 2002 as a branch without corporate capacity. Its business scope included construction contracting and specialized contracting. It had a registered capital of CNY 0. The annual industrial and commercial inspection of this Company was completed in 2009 and at the present, the business license of this branch has been revoked. 另查明,被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司由大庆筑安建工集团有限公司于2002年9月30日在曲阜市工商局注册成立,属于无法人资格的分支机构。经营范围是施工承包、专业承包。注册资本0万元。该公司工商年检至2009年,目前该分公司处于吊销营业执照状态。
It was also found that on October 5, 2012, Qufu Branch filed an application for not enforcing the arbitral award with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. On April 19, 2013, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City rendered an enforcement ruling (No. 13 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) that the application of Qufu Branch for not enforcing the arbitral award should be rejected. 另查明,2012年10月5日被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司向青岛市中级人民法院申请不予执行仲裁裁决。青岛市中级人民法院于2013年4月19日作出(2013)青执裁字第13号执行裁定,裁定驳回了大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司不予执行仲裁裁决的申请。
It was also found that on October 8, 2012, the enforcement applicant, China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company, filed an application with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City for adding Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group as a person subject to enforcement. On November 13, 2013, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City rendered an enforcement ruling (No. 24 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) that Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group should be added as a person subject to enforcement in the case for which the enforcement ruling (No. 160 [2012], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) was rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group refused to accept the ruling and raised an objection to enforcement with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. On May 6, 2014, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City rendered an enforcement ruling (No. 10 [2014], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) that the objection to enforcement raised by Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group should be rejected. 另查明,2012年10月8日,申请执行人中煤第六十八工程有限公司向青岛市中级人民法院申请追加大庆筑安建工集团有限公司为被执行人。青岛市中级人民法院于2013年11月13日作出(2013)青执裁字第24号执行裁定,追加大庆筑安建工集团有限公司为青岛市中级人民法院(2012)青执字第160号案件的被执行人。大庆筑安建工集团有限公司不服该裁定,向青岛市中级人民法院提出执行异议,青岛市中级人民法院于2014年5月6日作出(2014)青执异字第10号执行裁定,驳回了大庆筑安建工集团有限公司的执行异议。
It was also found that on November 12, 2012, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City rendered an enforcement ruling (No. 160 [2012], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) that the enforcement procedure should be concluded. 另查明,2012年11月12日,青岛市中级人民法院作出(2012)青执字第160号执行裁定,裁定终结本次执行程序。
In the view of the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province, in accordance with paragraph 1, Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of Enforcement Procedures, the person subject to enforcement, Qufu Branch, raised an objection to enforcement jurisdiction within the statutory time limit. During the period of review by the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, Qufu Branch decided to withdraw its objection to jurisdiction and consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, which was its true will. There was no evidence proving that the aforesaid decision and consent violated the principle of voluntariness and thus they did not violate the law. On October 25, 2012, Qufu Branch filed an application for not enforcing the arbitral award with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, proving that Qufu Branch recognized the enforcement jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City over the case. It was not inappropriate for the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City to reject the objection raised by Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group and Qufu Branch. In conclusion, the grounds for reconsideration of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group and Qufu Branch were untenable. On January 27, 2014, the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province rendered an enforcement ruling (No. 4 [2014], Enforcement Reconsideration, HPC, Shandong) that the application for reconsideration filed by Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group and Qufu Branch should be rejected. 山东省高级人民法院认为,按照最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国民事诉讼法>执行程序若干问题的解释法宝》第三条第一款的规定,本案被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司在法定期限内提出了执行管辖权异议。在青岛市中级人民法院审查期间,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司决定撤回了管辖权异议,同意青岛市中级人民法院对该案行使管辖权,是其真实意思表示,无证据证明违反了自愿原则,因此不违反法律规定。2012年10月25日,被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司向青岛市中级人民法院提出不予执行该仲裁裁决的申请,说明其认可青岛市中级人民法院对该案具有执行管辖权。青岛市中级人民法院依法驳回大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司的异议并无不当。综上,申请复议人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司及大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司的复议理由不成立。该院于2014年1月27日作出(2014)鲁执复议字第4号执行裁定,驳回大庆筑安建工集团有限公司及大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司的复议申请。
The claimants, Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group and Qufu Branch, refused to accept the aforesaid ruling, appealed with the Supreme People's Court, and requested that the enforcement ruling (No. 4 [2014], Enforcement Reconsideration, HPC, Shandong) as rendered by the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province be revoked and a court having jurisdiction should be designated for enforcement. The main grounds were as follows: (1) In accordance with Articles 224 and 237 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, an arbitral award may be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate people's court at the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement or at the place where the property subject to enforcement is located. Since the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City is not an intermediate people's court at the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement or an intermediate people's court at the place where the property subject to enforcement is located, it had no right to place the case on file, accept the case, and have jurisdiction over the case. (2) It was not provided in any law or judicial interpretation of China that a party may have the right to freely select a court beyond the statutory jurisdiction. Even though both parties selected a court beyond the statutory jurisdiction for enforcement, such selection violated the mandatory provision of the law and should be an invalid agreement. It was erroneous for the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City and the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province to hold that their exercise of jurisdiction over this case was the true will of the parties and did not violate the law. 申诉人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司、大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司对上述裁定不服,向我院申诉,请求撤销山东省高级人民法院(2014)鲁执复议字第4号执行裁定,指定有管辖权的法院执行。主要理由是:一、根据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百二十四条、第二百三十七条最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》的相关规定,仲裁裁决可以由被执行人住所地或被执行的财产所在地的中级人民法院管辖。青岛市中级人民法院既不是被执行人住所地也不是被执行的财产所在地的中级人民法院,该院无权立案、受理、管辖本案。二、我国法律及司法解释并未规定当事人可以自由选择法定管辖之外的法院执行的权利,即使双方均选择法定管辖之外的法院执行,也是违反法律强制性规定的,应属于无效的约定。青岛市中级人民法院及山东省高级人民法院认为对该案行使管辖权是当事人真实意思表示,不违反法律规定是错误的。
China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company contended that: Considering that Qufu Branch alleged its special relationship with the Intermediate People's Court of Jining City and the Intermediate People's Court of Daqing City, if the aforesaid court exercise the enforcement, the creditor's rights would fail to be realized. Besides, since the application filed by Qufu Branch with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City for revoking the arbitral award was rejected, China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company filed an application for enforcement with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. After the application for enforcement was placed on file, Qufu Branch raised an objection to jurisdiction, filed an application for not enforcing the arbitral award, and took other measures to delay or avoid enforcement, causing the failure to enforce the arbitral award thus far. 中煤第六十八工程有限公司答辩称:鉴于被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司称其与济宁市中级人民法院和大庆市中级人民法院有特殊关系,如果由上述法院执行,无法实现债权。此外,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司向青岛市中级人民法院提出撤销仲裁裁决申请被驳回。故向青岛市中级人民法院申请执行。立案执行后,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司提出管辖权异议、不予执行仲裁裁决申请等拖延执行,逃避执行,致使仲裁裁决至今没有得到执行。

JUDGMENT'S REASONING我我我什么都没做
 
The Supreme People's Court held upon review that the focal dispute of this case was whether the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City had jurisdiction over enforcement of this case. Article 224 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 29 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China explicitly stipulated hierarchical jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction for the enforcement of arbitration awards and such stipulations shall have binding legal force. For the enforcement of an arbitral award, there are only two nexus points in the determination of jurisdiction: one is the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement and the other is the place where the property subject to enforcement is located. The civil procedure law is a public law and it shall be prohibited unless it is prescribed as a right in the law. Although the civil procedure law does not explicitly forbid the parties' negotiation on the selection of a court having jurisdiction over enforcement, it is specified in the law that the parties' selection of jurisdiction over an enforcement case shall be limited to the aforesaid two nexus points. The parties may only select one of the courts having jurisdiction to file an application for enforcement, and may not change the court having enforcement jurisdiction as prescribed by the law in any form. The provisions on responding to actions in the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China applied to judicial proceedings and the application of the provisions in the enforcement procedures lacked both legal basis and juristic basis. Therefore, the determination of a court having no enforcement jurisdiction as one having jurisdiction by the parties' selection through negotiation or in such default modes as raising no objection to jurisdiction and abandoning the objection to jurisdiction does not comply with the law. For the purpose of this case, neither the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement, Qufu Branch, nor the place where its property was located was within the jurisdiction of the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. Therefore, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City had no jurisdiction over the enforcement of this case. Instead of filing an application for enforcement with a court having jurisdiction, the enforcement applicant, China Coal No. 68 Engineering Company, filed an application for enforcement with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City, which had no jurisdiction on the ground that the person subject to enforcement once alleged its special relationship with the court at the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement or at the place where its property was located. Being fully aware that it had no jurisdiction, the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City nonetheless accepted the case, which did not comply with the law. Qufu Branch raised an objection to enforcement jurisdiction within the statutory time limit. The Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City should review the objection according to the law and determine whether the objection was tenable in accordance with the law. During that period, Qufu Branch decided to withdraw its objection to jurisdiction and filed an application for not enforcing the arbitral award with the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City. However, the aforesaid acts of the party could not change the law and the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City could not thus acquire the jurisdiction over enforcement of this case. In conclusion, the grounds of appeal of Qufu Branch were tenable and the handling of the objection to jurisdiction over enforcement of this case by the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City and the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province lacked legal basis and should be corrected. When the court determined the enforcement jurisdiction, since Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group was not a party to this case but a party that was added by the court upon application of another party to this case, Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group had no right to raise an objection to the determination of jurisdiction over this case. Considering that Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group was not a party to this case for which the arbitral award was rendered, the jurisdiction over the enforcement of the arbitral award could not be determined on the basis of the place of domicile of Daqing Zhu'an Construction Group or the place where its property was located. Instead, the court having enforcement jurisdiction should be determined on the basis of the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement or the place where the property subject to enforcement is located. In other words, the intermediate people's court at the place of domicile of the person subject to enforcement, i.e., Qufu Branch, or at the place where the property subject to enforcement was located had jurisdiction. Considering that the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City did not have the enforcement jurisdiction over this case, in order to facilitate the smooth enforcement of this case by the court having enforcement jurisdiction and remove the obstacles in the enforcement procedures, the relevant enforcement rulings involving non-property control measures in this case as rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City should all be revoked. 

本院经审查认为,本案的焦点问题是青岛市中级人民法院对本案的执行是否有管辖权。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百二十四条最高人民法院《关于适用 <中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第二十九条北京大学互联网法律中心对仲裁案件执行的级别管辖和地域管辖作出明确规定,具有强制约束力。仲裁裁决的执行,其确定管辖的连接点只有两个,一是被执行人住所地;二是被执行的财产所在地。民事诉讼法属于公法性的法律规范,法律没有赋予的权力就是属于禁止。虽然民事诉讼法没有明文禁止当事人可协商执行管辖法院,但法律对当事人就执行案件管辖权的选择限定于上述两个连接点之间,当事人只能依法选择其中的一个有管辖权的法院提出执行申请,不得以任何方式改变法律规定的执行管辖法院。《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》有关应诉管辖的规定适用于诉讼程序,在执行程序中适用没有法律依据、法理依据。因此,当事人通过协议方式选择,或通过不提管辖异议、放弃管辖异议等默认方式来确定无执行管辖权的法院享有管辖权,均不符合法律的规定。就本案而言,被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司的住所地或财产所在地均不在青岛市中级人民法院管辖范围内,青岛市中级人民法院对本案执行没有管辖权。申请执行人中煤第六十八工程有限公司以被执行人称其与住所地或财产所在地的法院有特殊关系为由,不向有管辖权的法院提出申请执行,而向无管辖权的青岛市中级人民法院申请执行,青岛市中级人民法院明知自己无管辖权仍然受理本案,不符合法律的规定。本案被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司在法定期限内提出了执行管辖权异议,青岛市中级人民法院应当依法予以审查,并依据法律规定确定其异议是否成立。虽然在此期间,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司决定撤回管辖权异议,并且还向青岛市中级人民法院提出不予执行该仲裁裁决的申请,但当事人的上述行为均不能改变法律的规定而使青岛市中级人民法院取得对本案的执行管辖权。综上,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司申诉理由成立,青岛市中级人民法院和山东省高级人民法院关于本案执行管辖异议的处理缺乏法律依据,应予纠正。在法院确定执行管辖权时,大庆筑安建工集团有限公司不是本案的当事人,而是法院基于另一当事人申请追加的当事人,其无权就本案的管辖权确定提出异议。鉴于大庆筑安建工集团有限公司不是仲裁裁决案件的当事人,该仲裁裁决案件执行管辖的确定不能以其住所地或财产所在地作为根据,应以仲裁裁决案件中被执行人住所地或被执行的财产所在地作为确定执行管辖法院的根据,即被执行人大庆筑安建工集团有限公司曲阜分公司住所地或者被执行的财产所在地的中级人民法院有管辖权。鉴于青岛市中级人民法院对本案不具有执行管辖权,为方便有执行管辖权法院顺利执行本案,排除执行程序中的障碍,故青岛市中级人民法院所作出的涉及本案非财产控制措施的相关执行裁定应予以一并撤销。


JUDGMENT
 
In conclusion, in accordance with Article 224 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 29 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Application of the Arbitration Law of the People's Republic of China, and Article 129 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Enforcement Work of the People's Courts (for Trial Implementation) and by reference with the provisions of item (2), paragraph 1, Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the Supreme People's Court renders a ruling that: 综上,依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百二十四条最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国仲裁法>若干问题的解释》第二十九条最高人民法院《关于人民法院执行工作若干问题的规定(试行)》第129条之规定,参照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第一百七十条第一款第(二)项之规定,裁定如下:
1. The enforcement ruling (No. 4 [2014], Enforcement Reconsideration, HPC, Shandong) as rendered by the Higher People's Court of Shandong Province shall be revoked. 一、撤销山东省高级人民法院(2014)鲁执复议字第4号执行裁定。
2. The enforcement rulings (No. 160 [2012], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao), (No. 25 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao), (No. 13 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao), (No. 24 [2013], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao); and (No. 10 [2014], Enforcement, IPC, Qingdao) as rendered by the Intermediate People's Court of Qingdao City shall be revoked. 二、撤销青岛市中级人民法院作出的(2012)青执字第160号、(2013)青执裁字第25号、(2013)青执裁字第13号、(2013)青执裁字第24号、(2014)青执异字第10号执行裁定。
3. The enforcement applicant shall file an application for enforcement with the people's court having jurisdiction according to law. 三、申请执行人依法向有管辖权的人民法院申请执行。
This ruling shall come into force upon service. 本裁定送达后即发生法律效力。
Presiding Judge: He Dongning 审 判 长 何东宁
Acting Judge: Xue Guizhong 代理审判员 薛贵忠
Acting Judge: Xiang Guohui 代理审判员 向国慧
September 16, 2015 二O一五年九月十六日
Clerk: Zhang Qiaoyun

 书 记 员 张巧云
 

     
     
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