| Model Cases regarding Providing Judicial Services and Safeguards by the Supreme People's Court for the Building of “One Belt and One Road” | | 最高人民法院为“一带一路”建设提供司法服务和保障的典型案例 |
| (July 7, 2015) | | （2015年7月7日） |
| Table of Contents | | 目录 |
| 1. Sino-Environment Technology Group Limited (Singapore) v. Thumb Environmental Technology Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (disputes over shareholder's contribution) | | 1、新加坡中华环保科技集团有限公司与大拇指环保科技集团（福建）有限公司股东出资纠纷案 |
| 2. ThyssenKrupp Mentallurgical Products Gmbh v. Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte Ltd. (disputes over a contract on international sales of goods) | | 2、德国蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际（新加坡）有限公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案 |
| 3. Hachiman Shipping S.A. v. Shanghai Shenfu Chemical Co., Ltd. and Dorval Kaiun K.K. (disputes over goods damage compensation in a marine freight contract) | | 3、哈池曼海运公司与上海申福化工有限公司、日本德宝海运株式会社海上货物运输合同货损赔偿纠纷案 |
| 4. A series of Cases regarding Disputes Arising from Abandonment of the Sierra Leonean Vessel “LEDOR” by Its Albanian Owner, G&B Shipping SH.P.K. | | 4、塞拉利昂籍“LEDOR”轮遭阿尔巴尼亚船东基恩毕船务有限公司弃船所引发系列纠纷案 |
| 5. Runipsys (Wuhan) Injection Systems Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Branch of TNT International Forward Agency (China) Co., Ltd. (disputes over a contract on goods carriage by air) | | 5、朗力（武汉）注塑系统有限公司与天地国际运输代理（中国）有限公司武汉分公司航空货物运输合同纠纷案 |
| 6. Zhejiang Yisheng Petrochemical Co., Ltd. v. INVISTA Technology Co., Ltd. (Luxembourg) (disputes over application for confirming the effect of an arbitration clause) (2014) | | 6、浙江逸盛石化有限公司与卢森堡英威达技术有限公司申请确认仲裁条款效力案 |
| 7. Jiangsu Taihu Boiler Co., Ltd. v. PT. KRAKTAU Engineering Co., Ltd. and Wuxi Branch of Bank of China Co., Ltd. (disputes over letter of guarantee fraud) | | 7、江苏太湖锅炉股份有限公司与卡拉卡托工程有限公司、中国银行股份有限公司无锡分行保函欺诈纠纷案 |
| 8. Case regarding Application of Fuligubohr Co., Ltd. (Poland) for Recognizing and Enforcing the Judgment Rendered by the Court of the Republic of Poland | | 8、波兰弗里古波尔股份有限公司申请承认和执行波兰共和国法院判决案 |
| Case No. 1 | | 案例1 |
| Providing Impartial and Efficient Judicial Services and Safeguarding the Lawful Rights and Interests of Both Domestic and Foreign Investors on an Equal Footing | | 公正高效司法 平等保护中外投资者合法权益 |
| -Sino-Environment Technology Group Limited (Singapore) v. Thumb Environmental Technology Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (disputes over shareholder's contribution) | | --新加坡中华环保科技集团有限公司与大拇指环保科技集团（福建）有限公司股东出资纠纷案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | 一、基本案情 |
| Thumb Environmental Technology Group (Fujian) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Thumb Company”) was a wholly foreign-owned enterprise established by Sino-Environment Technology Group Limited (Singapore) (hereinafter referred to as “Sino-Environment Group”) in China. On June 30, 2008, the registered capital of Thumb Company was increased to 380 million yuan upon approval. On April 27, 2012, Thumb Company filed a lawsuit on the ground that Sino-Environment Group failed to make contribution in full amount and requested the court to order that Sino-Environment Group should perform its shareholder's obligation of contribution and pay the increased capital of 45 million yuan. | | 大拇指公司是新加坡环保公司在中国设立的外商独资企业，2008年6月30日，大拇指公司经批准注册资本增至人民币3.8亿元。大拇指公司于2012年4月27日以新加坡环保公司未足额缴纳出资为由提起诉讼，请求判令新加坡环保公司履行股东出资义务，缴付增资款4500万元。 |
| After a trial of first instance, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province held that the Sino-Environment Group failed to perform its statutory obligation of making contribution in full amount as a shareholder, which has impaired the property right of legal person of Thumb Company, and Thumb Company had the right to require Sino-Environment Group to perform the obligation of contribution and make up the contribution. Therefore, the Higher People's Court of Fujian Province ordered Sino-Environment Group to make the contribution of 45 million yuan to Thumb Company. Sino-Environment Company appealed to the Supreme People's Court. | | 福建省高级人民法院一审认为，新加坡环保公司未履行股东足额缴纳出资的法定义务，侵害了大拇指公司的法人财产权，大拇指公司有权要求新加坡环保公司履行出资义务，补足出资。据此，判令新加坡环保公司向大拇指公司缴纳出资款4500万元。新加坡环保公司向最高人民法院提出上诉。 |
| (2) Judgment | | 二、裁判结果 |
| On June 11, 2014, the Supreme People's Court held an open hearing of this case and pronounced the judgment in court. After the second instance review, the Supreme People's Court held that in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Choice of Law for Foreign-related Civil Relationships, the Chinese laws should apply to such matters as contribution obligation between a foreign-funded enterprise in China and the foreign investor; and the laws at the locality of registration of the foreign investor should apply to such matters as the capacities for civil rights and the capacities for civil acts of judicial administrator and liquidator of the foreign investor. In accordance with the provisions of the Company Law of Singapore, during the period of judicial administration, the rights and duties obtained by a company's director on the basis of the Company Law and the company's bylaws should all be exercised and performed by the judicial administrator. Therefore, the resolution on appointing and dismissing the directors and legal representative of Thumb Company made by the judicial administrator of Sino-Environment Group was valid and effective. The Board of Directors of Thumb Company did not implement the resolution made by its sole shareholder, Sino-Environment Group, causing inconsistency between the legal representative under the industrial and commercial registration and the one appointed by the shareholder, and disputes arose in turn. In accordance with the provisions of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China, the legal representative of a company under the industrial and commercial registration had the force of disclosure outside the company. If the dispute over the right to represent the company involved a third party outside the company, the judgment should be made based on the industrial and commercial registration; as for the internal dispute between the company and its shareholders over the appointment or dismissal of the legal representative, the judgment should be made based on the effective resolution of the shareholders' meeting on the appointment or dismissal of the legal representative and the legal effect of the alteration of the legal representative should take place within the company. The lawsuit in this case could not represent the true intention of Thumb Company. Therefore, the Supreme People's Court rendered a ruling to reverse the original judgment and dismiss the appeal of Thumb Company. | | 2014年6月11日，最高人民法院公开开庭审理该案并作出当庭宣判。最高人民法院二审审理认为，按照《中华人民共和国涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条第一款的规定，我国外商投资企业与其外国投资者之间的出资义务等事项，应当适用我国法律；外国投资者的司法管理人和清盘人的民事权利能力及民事行为能力等事项，应当适用该外国投资者登记地的法律。根据新加坡公司法的规定，在司法管理期间，公司董事基于公司法及公司章程而获得的权力及职责均由司法管理人行使及履行。因此新加坡环保公司司法管理人作出的变更大拇指公司董事及法定代表人的任免决议有效。由于大拇指公司董事会未执行唯一股东环保公司的决议，造成了工商登记的法定代表人与股东任命的法定代表人不一致的情形，进而引发了争议。根据《中华人民共和国公司法》的规定，工商登记的法定代表人对外具有公示效力，如涉及公司以外的第三人因公司代表权而产生的外部争议，应以工商登记为准；而对于公司与股东之间因法定代表人任免产生的内部争议，则应以有效的股东会任免决议为准，并在公司内部产生法定代表人变更的法律效果。本案起诉不能代表大拇指公司的真实意思，裁定撤销原判，驳回大拇指公司的起诉。 |
| (3) Significance | | 三、典型意义 |
| This case is of great significance in safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of both domestic and foreign investors on an equal footing, guaranteeing the shareholders' rights to choose the administrator, and optimizing the legal environment for foreign investment and it has been awarded one of the important cases for the 65th Anniversary of the Building of the Supreme People's Court. This case has specified the rules for determining the capacities for civil rights and the capacities for civil acts of the judicial administrator of a foreign company within the territory of China, clearly defined the rules for differentiating disputes over the foreign company's right of representation, and enhanced foreign investors' confidence in making investment in China. Meanwhile, it is the first case in which the Supreme People's Court has invited foreign ambassadors and overseas media to attend the hearing and the judgment has been pronounced in court, which has highlighted China's judicial image of impartiality and efficiency. | | 该案对于平等保护中外投资者合法权益、保障股东选择管理者的权利、优化外商投资法治环境具有重要意义，被评为最高人民法院建院65周年重大案例之一。该案明确了外国公司的司法管理人及清盘人在中国境内民事权利能力和行为能力的认定规则，清晰界定了公司代表权争议的区分规则，增强了外商投资中国的信心。同时，该案是最高人民法院首次邀请外国驻华使节和境外媒体旁听庭审并当庭作出宣判的案件，彰显了我国公正高效的司法形象。 |
| Case No. 2 | | 案例2 |
| Accurately Applying an International Convention and Legally Supporting the Parties in Selecting the Applicable Law | | 准确适用国际条约 依法支持当事人选择准据法 |
| -ThyssenKrupp Mentallurgical Products Gmbh v. Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte Ltd. (disputes over a contract on international sales of goods) | | --德国蒂森克虏伯冶金产品有限责任公司与中化国际（新加坡）有限公司国际货物买卖合同纠纷案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | 一、基本案情 |
| On April 11, 2008, Sinochem International (Overseas) Pte Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Sinochem Pte Ltd.”) and ThyssenKrupp Mentallurgical Products Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as “ThyssenKrupp Gmbh”) concluded a Contract on the Purchase of Petroleum Coke. Sinochem Pte Ltd. has made full payment for goods as agreed in the Contract, but the Hardgrove Grindability Index (HGI) of petroleum coke delivered by ThyssenKrupp Gmbh was only 32. Sinochem Pte Ltd. held that the acts of ThyssenKrupp Gmbh constituted a fundamental breach and requested the court to order that the Contract should be terminated and ThyssenKrupp Gmbh should refund its payment for goods and compensate for its losses. | | 2008年4月11日，中化新加坡公司与德国克虏伯公司签订了购买石油焦的《采购合同》，中化新加坡公司按约支付了全部货款，但德国克虏伯公司交付的石油焦HGI指数仅为32。中化新加坡公司认为德国克虏伯公司构成根本违约，请求判令解除合同，德国克虏伯公司返还货款并赔偿损失。 |
| After a trial of first instance, the Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province held that: In accordance with the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG), the HGI of petroleum coke provided by ThyssenKrupp Gmbh was far below the standard as agreed in the Contract, causing failure to sell such petroleum coke in the Chinese market and achieve the expected purposes when the Contract was concluded. Therefore, the acts of ThyssenKrupp Gmbh constituted a fundamental breach. The Higher People's Court of Jiangsu Province rendered a judgment to support the claims of Sinochem Pte Ltd. ThyssenKrupp Gmbh appealed to the Supreme People's Court. | | 江苏省高级人民法院一审认为，根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的有关规定，德国克虏伯公司提供的石油焦HGI指数远低于合同约定标准，导致石油焦难以在国内市场销售，签订买卖合同时的预期目的无法实现，故德国克虏伯公司的行为构成根本违约。判决支持中化新加坡公司的诉讼请求。德国克虏伯公司向最高人民法院提出上诉。 |
| (2) Judgment | | 二、裁判结果 |
| After a review, the Supreme People's Court held that: The business places of both parties to the case regarding disputes over a contract on the international sales of goods were located in Singapore and Germany, both of which were contracting states of the CISG, and both parties did not exclude the application of the CISG. Therefore, the CISG was applicable to the trial of the case in the first place. Where, in the CISG, there were no provisions on such issues involved in the trial of the case as validity of contract and transfer of ownership, the American law chosen by the parties should apply. In accordance with the provisions of the CISG, the goods delivered by ThyssenKrupp Gmbh did not conform to the provisions of the Contract and the acts of ThyssenKrupp Gmbh constituted a breach; however, since Sinochem Pte Ltd. could resell such goods at a reasonable price, the acts of ThyssenKrupp did not constituted a fundamental breach as provided in the CISG. Therefore, on June 30, 2014, the Supreme People's Court rendered a final judgment to reverse the original judgment and order ThyssenKrupp Gmbh to assume losses to partial payment for goods and storage charges. | | 最高人民法院审理认为，案涉国际货物买卖合同纠纷的双方当事人营业地分别位于新加坡和德国，而该两国均为《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的缔约国，且当事人未排除该公约的适用，因此本案审理首先适用该公约。对于审理案件中涉及到的问题公约没有规定的，例如合同效力问题、所有权转移问题，应当适用当事人选择的美国法律。根据《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》的规定，德国克虏伯公司交付的货物与合同约定不符，构成违约，但新加坡石化公司能够以合理价格予以转售货物，不构成公约规定的根本违约情形。据此，于2014年6月30日作出终审判决，撤销原判，改判德国克虏伯公司承担部分货款及堆存费损失。 |
| (3) Significance | | 三、典型意义 |
| An international convention has correctly applied to the case. For matters that are not regulated in the international convention, the applicable law chosen by the parties has been legally supported. This case specifies the application of the standard for determining a fundamental breach in the CISG, which has strengthened the uniformity, stability, and predictability of the application of conventions in China's judicial practice and greatly guaranteed the international trade order. | | 该案准确适用国际条约，并对于国际条约没有调整的事项，依法支持当事人选择的准据法。该案明确了适用《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》认定根本违约的标准，增强了我国司法实践中公约适用的统一性、稳定性和可预见性，有力保障了国际贸易的有序进行。 |
| Case No. 3 | | 案例3 |
| Improving the Compensation Rules for Marine Goods Damage and Effectively Regulating the International Shipping Order | | 完善海上货损赔偿规则 有效规范国际航运秩序 |
| --Hachiman Shipping S.A. v. Shanghai Shenfu Chemical Co., Ltd. and Dorval Kaiun K.K. (disputes over goods damage compensation in a marine freight contract) | | --哈池曼海运公司与上海申福化工有限公司、日本德宝海运株式会社海上货物运输合同货损赔偿纠纷案 |
| (1) Basic Facts | | 一、基本案情 |
On August 23, 2008, 1,001.53 tons of phenol was laded at Huelva Port of Spain and the carrier, Dorval Kaiun K.K. issued a clean order bill of lading. Upon endorsement, Shanghai Shenfu Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Shenfu Company”) accepted the bill of lading and based thereon, took delivery of the goods on board at Qingdao Port, the port of discharge. Since the chromaticity of phenol rose during consignment, causing damage to the goods, Shenfu Company filed a lawsuit and required that Dorval Kaiun K.K. and the actual carrier, Hachiman Shipping S.A., should jointly and severally compensate for the loss of goods of 8,347,849.57 yuan and the interest thereof.
．．．．．． | | 2008年8月23日，涉案1001.53吨苯酚在西班牙维尔瓦港装船，承运人德宝公司签发了清洁指示提单。申福公司经背书受让了该提单，并据此在卸货港青岛港提取了船载货物。因承运期间苯酚色度升高造成货损，申福公司提起诉讼，要求德宝公司和实际承运人哈池曼公司连带赔偿货物损失人民币8347849.57元及其利息损失等。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥800.00】 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
|
| | | |
| | | |