Recently, the Supreme People's Court issued the Decision of the Supreme People's Court on Amending the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases (Fa Fa Fa Fa [2011] No.7) (hereinafter referred to as the Decision). On the background and main contents of the Decision, the reporter interviewed the person in charge of the the Supreme People's Court Research Office. Reporter: What is the background of the "Decision"?
A: On February 4th, 2008, in order to cooperate with the implementation of the Property Law, our hospital revised the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases (Trial) issued on October 30th, 2006, and issued the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases (hereinafter referred to as the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases in 2008). Since the implementation of the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases on April 1 2008, it has played an important role in facilitating the parties to carry out civil litigation and standardizing the civil filing, trial and judicial statistics of the people's courts. In the past three years, with the implementation or revision of rural land contract management dispute mediation and arbitration law, insurance law, patent law and other laws, many new types of civil cases have appeared in trial practice, which need to be supplemented and improved in the 2008 Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases. In particular, the Tort Liability Law has been implemented since July 20 10, and it is urgent to supplement the causes of tort liability disputes. With the approval of the leaders of the Supreme People's Court Institute, a research group led by the Supreme People's Court Research Office was established in February 20 10, and the first court, four civil courts and trial supervision courts of our institute participated in the revision work. On the basis of extensive investigation and study, the research group completed the revision of the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases in 2008. On February 65, 20 1 1, the Supreme People's Court issued a decision. According to this decision, the Supreme People's Court issued the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Printing and Distributing the Revised Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases (No.201] 41) (hereinafter referred to as the Notice), which put forward specific requirements for courts at all levels to apply the revised provisions on the cause of action of civil cases.
Reporter: Please talk about the revision process of the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases.
A: According to the work plan, in February 20 10, the Supreme People's Court Research Office issued the Notice of the Supreme People's Court Research Office on Soliciting Opinions on Amending the Cause of Action of Civil Cases, and solicited opinions from the National High Court on amending the provisions on the cause of action of civil cases in 2008. The vast majority of high courts held symposiums attended by courts at all levels within their jurisdiction, and timely reported more than 900 specific causes of action that should be amended, deleted or added. On the basis of sorting out, screening and classifying the specific causes of action reported by the high courts, the research group drafted the Provisions on the Causes of Action of Civil Cases (Draft for Comment) and the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Printing and Distributing the Provisions on the Causes of Action of Civil Cases (Draft for Comment).
According to the arrangement of the work plan, the research group held a "symposium on the revision of the cause of action of some courts in China" in Fuzhou and Chongqing respectively. Some judges of high courts, intermediate people's courts and grass-roots courts who are engaged in civil filing, trial and judicial statistics attended the forum and put forward specific suggestions for revision. Considering the particularity of "maritime disputes", the Research Office and the Fourth People's Court held a forum in Qingdao Maritime Court to listen to the opinions and suggestions of the representatives of the National Maritime Court on "maritime disputes". Representatives from nine maritime courts including Tianjin, Guangzhou, Dalian, Wuhan, Ningbo, Xiamen, Beihai, Haikou and Qingdao attended the forum. 20 10 on June 24th, the research group also held a symposium attended by specially invited inspectors and lawyers from the Supreme People's Court. After each symposium, the research team carefully studied and digested the opinions of the delegates in a timely manner, and revised the draft for comments many times, forming the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases (Draft for Review) and the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Printing and Distributing the Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases (Draft for Review). 2010165438+129 October, the judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court discussed and adopted two drafts. In the process of revision, the research group repeatedly studied and revised the two drafts, and revised eight drafts altogether. It can be said that the revision of the cause of action of this civil case has concentrated the collective wisdom of the Supreme People's Court, condensed the hard exploration of local courts at all levels, and is the crystallization of the painstaking efforts and labor of the majority of judges across the country.
Reporter: What principles did this revision follow?
A: After extensive consultation, we have determined the following principles to be followed in amending the cause of action of this case:
The first is the principle of legitimacy. It is necessary to ensure that the specific cause of action is based on substantive law and procedural law, and it must also conform to the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law on the scope of accepting civil cases.
The second is the practical principle. The cause of action should be concise and easy to understand, and the formulation of the cause of action should reflect certain scientific nature, but more attention should be paid to practicality and moderate flexibility. Through the establishment of the four-level cause of action system, it serves the convenience of litigants, the practice of filing a case for trial, judicial statistics, innovation and strengthening civil trial management.
The third is the principle of stability. In order to ensure the moderate stability of the cause of action system, we should try not to make major adjustments to the cause of action system and structure.
Reporter: Please introduce the main contents of the revision of the cause of action.
A: In order to meet the needs of trial practice after the implementation of the Tort Liability Law, we upgraded the cause of tort dispute to the first level. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Law, the third and fourth reasons for tort liability disputes are added. First of all, according to the relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Law, various specific tort liability disputes newly stipulated in this law are listed. Secondly, coordinate the relationship between the cause of infringement dispute and other first-class causes of action. According to the relevant provisions of the Tort Liability Law, the objects protected by the Tort Liability Law are civil rights and interests, including personal rights and property rights such as the right to life, health, name, reputation, honor, portrait, privacy, marital autonomy, custody, ownership, usufructuary right, guarantee right, copyright, patent right, trademark exclusive right, discovery right, stock right and inheritance right. These civil rights and interests are included in civil and commercial rights and interests such as personality rights, marriage and family inheritance rights, property rights and intellectual property rights, and these civil rights and interests disputes often include both ownership confirmation disputes and infringement disputes, which makes it more difficult to arrange civil cases scientifically and reasonably. In order to maintain the integrity and stability of the whole cause of action system and avoid overlapping as much as possible, this revision still keeps these civil tort disputes in the first-level cause of action, only lists the relevant causes of action stipulated in the Tort Liability Law under the tort liability cause of action, and also lists some common causes of tort liability disputes that are inconvenient to be listed under the tort liability cause of action in practice from the bottom up. According to the needs of trial practice, some other second-level, third-level and fourth-level causes of action have been added in this revision. This time, * * * revised 5 first-level causes of action, 20 second-level causes of action, 1 13 third-level causes of action, 154 fourth-level causes of action. The revised Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases contains 10 first-level causes of action, 42 second-level causes of action, 424 third-level causes of action and 367 fourth-level causes of action.
Reporter: What problems should we pay attention to when applying the revised Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases?
A: In view of the possible problems in the application of the revised Provisions on the Cause of Action of Civil Cases, the revised Notice further clarifies and standardizes them.
First, it clarifies the coordination of the cause of action under the ninth part "Tort Liability Dispute" with other causes of action such as "Personality Right Dispute", "Property Right Dispute" and "Intellectual Property and Competition Dispute". When determining the specific cause of action of tort liability disputes, the specific cause of action listed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the ninth part of the Tort Liability Law "Tort Liability Disputes" shall be applied first. If there is no corresponding cause of action, the causes of action under other parts such as "personality right dispute", "property right dispute" and "intellectual property rights and competition dispute" shall apply. Motor vehicle traffic accidents may cause personal injuries and property losses. When determining the cause of action, Title IX of the cause of action for liability disputes in motor vehicle traffic accidents should be applied, but Title I of the cause of action for disputes over life, health and physical rights should not be applied, nor should Title III of the cause of action for disputes over compensation for property damage be applied.
The second is to clarify the nature and function of the cause of action of civil cases. People's courts at all levels shall not equate the provisions of the cause of action of civil cases with the acceptance conditions stipulated in Article 108 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), and shall not rule that the application of the parties is not applicable in the provisions of the cause of action of civil cases, so as to reject or dismiss the prosecution and affect the exercise of the parties' litigation rights.
The third is to clarify the change of cause of action. If the legal relationship between the parties' prosecution and the actual litigation is inconsistent, the people's court shall, when closing the case, change the cause of action according to the nature of the actual legal relationship between the parties ascertained by the court.
The fourth is to further standardize the application of some causes of action. For the part with pause in the cause of action (that is, ","), the corresponding cause of action shall be determined according to the specific case when applicable, and the cause of action shall not be directly quoted. For example, the cause of action of "disputes over the right to life, health and body" should be determined according to the specific personality rights and interests infringed; For example, if the cause of action is "a dispute over the contract of carriage of goods by sea or a dispute over offshore waters", the corresponding cause of action shall be determined according to the specific waters where the dispute occurred; Such as "unauthorized use of the unique name, packaging and decoration of well-known commodities", the corresponding cause of action should be determined according to the specific infringement object.