The answer to this question (in some Chinese courts, at least), is yes. A recent legal blogpost flagged a ruling in a labor case published in the Supreme People’s Court’s case database: Su Qiao v. the Taian (Shandong) Municipal Communist Party Disciplinary Inspection Commission. The author of the blog cited in support of his view Articles 48 of the 2012 Civil Procedure Law and Article 52 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Law Judicial Interpretation (concerning organizations that can be parties to civil litigation).
A subsequent (partial) database search revealed some other civil cases in which Communist Party organizations have appeared in variously as plaintiff, defendant, third party, and party against which the enforcement of an arbitral award was sought, including one decided by the Supreme People’s Court (Court):
In the middle of April, 2015, the Chinese courts carried a report on the issuance of a policy document (the full text is not yet available) by the Ministry of Justice and the National Committee for the Ageing (NCA) (a joint State Council/Party organization, as the Chinese version of the NCA’s website states) on establishing a system of lawyers and legal aid for the elderly. Issues relating to representing the elderly in China mirror those in other parts of the world.
Although the Supreme People’s Court was not one of the institutions that issued the policy document, the national court system is affected by profound changes to Chinese society, including the greying of Chinese society, its urbanization, and other factors. These cases are considered by the courts those relating to people’s livelihood, as discussed in previousblogposts.
The issuance of this document relates to Article 55 of the 2012 Law on the Protection of the Rights of the Elderly, which calls for elderly people to obtain legal assistance if they cannot afford a lawyer needed to defend their rights. The Chinese courts are facing a major increase in cases involving the elderly, both civil and criminal, involving psychological and physical abuse, as a study done by the Suzhou Intermediate Court illustrates. It is likely that the Ministry of Justice and NCA did a more comprehensive study on the need for advocates for the elderly before issuing this document.
From 2011 to 2013, the Suzhou courts accepted 1,100 civil cases involving the elderly. Those increased rapidly over the 3 years in question, because in 2013 586 cases were accepted, an increase of 102.77% over the previous year. The cases related to support, divorce, inheritance, and division of property rights.
in 2013, there was an 83% increase in civil cases involving the right to the division of property rights arising from land acquisition, with over 80% of the property division cases arising in rural areas;
Over 90% of the support cases arose in rural areas;
In 2013, there was a 183% increase in inheritance disputes involving the elderly;
In over 70% of the cases involving division of property rights from land acquisitions, elderly were forced to live in bicycle sheds, garages, or other unfavorable conditions.
In many cases, elderly are shunted back and forth between their grown children, who were fighting over valuable property rights held by elderly parents.
The policy document calls for a one month movement in October to focus on the establishment of probono legal service centers for the elderly. A one month movement appears inadequate for the breadth and depth of this important social problem, which reveals that Confucian values concerning support and care for the elderly have landed in the dustbin of history in too many cases. We look forward to hearing more detailed reports from law firms and NGOs on how the rights of over a hundred million Chinese elderly (anticipated to more than double by 2050) can be better protected.
The Supreme People’s Court often organizes experts meetings (论证会) when drafting judicial interpretations, which are analogous to what in Hong Kong is called “soft consultations” (closed door consultation with market participants).
In late March, the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) and the #2 civil division of the Supreme People’s Court held a experts meeting in Shenzhen to obtain comments from the market on a draft of the #4 interpretation on company law. It was attended by a packed roomful of SCIA arbitrators (as attested by these photos from the report on the SCIA website). Participants included lawyers from the Shenzhen Stock Exchange (SSE), chief counsel for listed companies (primarily on the SSE), law firm partners with a broad range of clients, and the author of this blog.
Judge Wang Dongmin of the #2 Civil Division chaired the half-day proceedings. Vice President of the #2 Civil Division, Yang Yongqing, and Judge Liu Min of the #1 Circuit Court [Tribunal] based in Shenzhen, and other Supreme People’s Court judges also attended.
The review of the draft proceeded in five sections, mirroring the sections of the draft:
when can a court declare invalid or cancel a decision of a board of directors/shareholders meeting;
procedures by which a shareholder’s right to know can be enforced;
how can a shareholder enforce his right to have profits distributed;
issues related to the transfer of shareholding;
issues related to derivative litigation.
The commentators raised some issues not previously raised in previous experts meetings, as well as a broad variety of drafting comments, and practical issues, including many relating to cross-border issues.
The judicial interpretation is being drafted to provide guidance to the lower courts (and the market) in hearing cases concerning these basic company law issues that the Company Law itself does not yet address in sufficient detail. We look forward to a revised draft being issued for public comment, so that the drafting team can receive an even broader range of comments.