Public-Private Partnership Disputes in the Chinese courts

IMG_2997

A team of researchers from the Jiangsu Higher People’s Court #1 Civil Division recently published an article on difficult legal issues relating to public-private partnerships (literally government/social capital cooperation) (PPP) in the Journal of Law Application (the Journal) (法律适用), # 17, 2017.  The Journal is one of China’s core legal journals (among the most prestigious academic law journals).  The National Judges College is affiliated with the Supreme People’s Court (SPC).  

The data on which the researchers’ analysis was based was the results of a search of the official Supreme People’s Court (SPC) database (裁判文书网),  using the keywords  “BOT” and  “PPP”.   Their search (end date April 30, 2017) found 493 BOT-related decisions and 20 PPP-related decisions.  The article relates to both BOT and PPP projects and uses the term PPP to include both.

Data on PPP/BOT disputes

  1.  BOT/PPP disputes are increasing

    1. BOT cases
2013 2014 2015 2016
Concluded cases 21 115 107 183

From 2013 to 2016, BOT disputes increased 71%.

2. PPP cases: not large number currently but increasing yearly.

2015 2016
Cases# that been concluded 4 16

Wide range of industries are involved in PPP disputes

China’s official PPP projects include a large number of industries such as energy, transportation, water conservancy construction, etc (can be found on http://tzs.ndrc.gov.cn/zttp/PPPxmk/xmk/). PPP disputes have largely focused on heating, sewage treatment, road engineering, station project, etc.

Type of PPP cases 

BOT cases:

Type of cases Civil Cases Administrative Cases Criminal Cases
85.54% 2.7% 11.76%

Civil cases mainly include contract, property, tort and financial disputes, among which contract disputes account for 78.22%.

Type of the contract cases (78.22%) Construction Project dispute Heating contract Loan Lease Sales
21.61% 13.92% 13.19% 7.69% 7.33%

PPP cases:

Type of cases Civil Case Administrative Cases Criminal Cases
# 11 5 4

Most civil cases are construction project disputes.

 parties to PPP cases

PPP disputes involve multiple legal relationships and parties, including the government, private investors, the project company (SPV), financiers, guarantee companies, insurance companies, contractors, operators, raw material purchaser, etc. Also, with the implementation of the One Belt And One Road” strategy, disputes arising from overseas PPP projects have gradually emerged.

New issues are emerging

Because PPP is a newly-developing area, many problems are gradually emerging. New problems will continue to increase, including interpretation of the PPP contract terms, the application of the “changed circumstances” doctrine [under the Contract Law], the government’s repurchasing issue,  and the evaluation of project quality. In December 2016, National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) released Notice of the Ministry of Finance, the People’s Bank of China, and the China Securities Regulatory Commission on Issues concerning Regulating the Asset Securitization of Public-Private-Partnership Projects, which however, still cannot solve some key legal issues such as asset independence and bankruptcy isolation in terms of the insufficient SPV legislation.

Difficulties in hearing PPP cases

For a long time, the government has been used to the role of “administrator”, usually solving disputes through administrative mechanisms. It has not cared much about contracts in which it is on an equal footing with private entities. Facing PPP disputes, private entities may take irrational and non-legal means to protect their rights, resulting in further aggravated conflicts and sometimes mass incidents.

There are difficulties hearing PPP cases, considering the insufficient (PPP 立法供给不足), non-specific (没有专门的PPP法律和行政法规) and incoherent legislation (没有明确的法律规则参考). Also, courts need to consider many aspects such as the legal, economic and social impacts.

Legal risks in implementing PPP projects

Although the central and local governments are promoting PPP projects, there is virtually no related legislation. Although there are relatively few PPP disputes now, that will change as government continues to promote PPP.   Because legislation governing PPP projects is insufficient the compliance risk is inevitable.  Major legislation lacks special provisions regulating PPP:

Although the State Council has enacted guidelines on promoting PPP projects (Circular of the General Office of the State Council on Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Public-Private Partnership Mode in the Public Service Fields (关于在公共服务领域推广政府和社会资本合作模式指导意见)  they are only administrative regulations and are insufficient to protect the private sector. Meanwhile, there are conflicting policies from different national ministries and departments, which in the end not only affects the standing of PPPs and fairness, also causes high administrative costs and low work efficiency.  It is unclear what PPP is and the relationship between PPP projects and others, such concessions. Therefore there are many disagreements concerning whether a project should be considered a PPP project and what the rights of the various parties should be.

The competent authority & management mechanism for PPPs are  unclear

At present, China lacks a unified institution to govern PPP projects.  Although the state has designated the NDRC to take the lead on traditional basic infrastructure PPP projects and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) to take the lead on public services PPP projects, in reality there is crossover between the two types of projects and no clear line between them.  These projects involve  NDRC, MOF, and the authorities in charge of the relevant industry and in this situation with projects involving multiple approvals, there are no clear rules on the division of authority among authorities, and between the central and local authorities, the procedure for obtaining approvals, and whether approvals can be consolidated.

Legal infrastructure for PPP projects

PPP projects involve multiple legal fields such as tax, land, finance, insurance, and construction.  Because a coherent and detailed procedure is lacking for PPP projects, it will lead to legal risks afterwards such as whether PPP projects have tax breaks, whether the land used in a PPP project needs to be put out for bidding separately.

III. How the courts deal with PPP cases

General principles in hearing PPP cases:

  1. Balance strict application of law and promoting transactions; and
  2. Uphold the equal protection of property rights–balance the interests of the government and social capital (private sector), different parties’ interests, and the interests of the public.

Nature of PPP agreements

There are two schools of thought on the nature of PPP agreements, administrative v. civil agreements.

Validity of the PPP contract?

What if the parties argue that the PPP agreement is invalid since it may violate existing laws and administrative regulations?

  • Qualification for private sector (companies) to enter into a PPP contract
    • One view is that private sector must be qualified for construction, otherwise the PPP agreement will be invalid.
    • Another view is that private sector does not need construction qualifications, and the PPP is not invalid.
    • Authors’ view: we need to distinguish. If the PPP contract contains project construction, then the private sector shall have the corresponding construction qualification. If the contract does not contain such project construction, then the private sector does not necessarily need to have the construction qualification.
  • Problems in the bidding process
    • NDRC has released guidelines for PPP project operations – Notice of the National Development and Reform Commission on Issuing the Guiding Rules for Implementing Public-Private Partnership Projects in Traditional Infrastructure Fields (国家发展改革委关于印发《传统基础设施领域实施政府和社会资本合作项目工作导则》的通知), which provides that the private sector should be selected via relevant bidding process. Then what if the PPP contract which includes the construction project did not go through the bidding process, will that lead the invalidity of such contract?
    • Authors’ view: if the contract contains construction work, and such the contract is legally required to go through the tender process, then without such process, the PPP contract will be invalid.
  • land issues

Many PPP projects are connected with land use. What if the land was not subject to a tendering process? Will that invalidate the PPP agreement?

Authors’ view: this is controversial in practice. According to the regulation enacted by Ministry of Land and Resources 国土资源部办公厅关于印发《产业用地政策实施工作指引》的通知国土资源部办公厅关于印发《产业用地政策实施工作指引》的通知, if the PPP project concerns land use, then the process of bidding and the process of authorizing land use can be combined, therefore the courts can confirm the validity of the PPP agreement.

Enforcing government undertakings

Some local governments will make undertakings to provide certain benefits or rewards to the private sector participants. What is the legal effect of that commitment?

  • One view holds that the promise is an administrative promise and should be recognized as effective.
  • Another view is that the govern commitment is ineffective since it goes beyond the government’s powers.

Authors’ view: we need to distinguish different situations. If the government’s benefits or rewards are in violation of law, administrative regulations and mandatory regulations, such as in violation of tax laws or result in the loss of state-owned assets, then the undertaking is invalid. If the commitment does not violate mandatory laws or against the public interest, such commitment should be valid based on the principle of estoppel.

Issues related to PPP contracts

  1. Relationship between the PPP agreement and the construction contract
    • In PPP projects, the government signs the PPP project agreement with the private sector entity, and the SPV and the third party (which is designated or appointed by the private sector) signs the project construction contract. What is the relationship between these two contracts? When the PPP agreement is terminated, how do we deal with financial settlement under the construction contract?
      • One view is that in the construction contract is one part of the performance under the PPP agreement, therefore, the project construction contract is linked to the PPP agreement.
      • Another view is that the construction contract and the PPP contract have an actual connection but involve different legal relationships.
      • Authors’ view: it is necessary to see whether the PPP agreement has specifically agreed upon certain terms governing the construction contract. If not, then these two contracts shall be deemed to be independent of each other.
  2.  Bid bond issues
  • Generally, the government requires the private sector entity to provide a bond for its bid. The issue is whether the bid bond is governed by the arbitration agreement (in the main agreement).
  • One view holds that the bid bond is linked to the main contract and the arbitration clause applies to the bid bond.
  • Another view is that the indemnity obligation of the guarantor is primary and therefore not related to the main agreement, therefore the arbitration agreement is inapplicable.
  • Authors’ view: the issue of tender guarantee payment, it is related to the main contract, therefore it should be subject to the arbitration clause in the contract if there is any.

Project employer issues

  • Since it is the government and the private sector signed the PPP contract, and it is the project company and the contractor have signed the construction contract, then who is the project employer under the construction contract?
    • One view holds that the government and private sector entity are the project employers.
    • Another view is that the project company is the project employer.
    • Authors’ view: the PPP contract and construction contract are independent contracts, therefore under the construction contract, the project company should be recognized as the project employer.

 pledge of the interest in the PPP

Can a concessionaire’s rights be pledged? Considering the SPC’s guiding case No.53, the usufruct (benefits from the use rights) in a concession may be pledged and can be used as accounts receivable in the pledge registration

  • Authors’ view: the pledge should be recognized as effective under SPC’s guiding case No. 53.

Dispute settlement mechanism in PPP disputes

  • What if the parties agree to dispute resolution by arbitration or civil action in the PPP agreement?
    • Authors’ view: as discussed above, if the issue is governed under administrative law, then even if the parties agreed to arbitration or civil litigation in the PPP agreement, the agreement will not be binding and the parties must rely on administrative remedies. If the dispute is a pure contract issue, then the dispute resolution agreement between the parties shall be valid.
  • What if the parties agreed on jurisdiction?

Other Suggestions

  • Promote PPP legislation and create an the overall framework of PPP system: China should speed up the process of PPP legislation, which can learn from Legislative Guide on Privately Financed Infrastructure Projects enacted by United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, PPP Reference Guide enacted by the World Bank, PPP Handbook enacted by Asian Development Bank (ADB).
  • Clarify the PPP management mechanism and clarify the responsibilities of all parties.
  • Improve the supporting mechanisms for PPP projects.

__________________________________________________

Many thanks to my Peking University School of Transnational Law research assistant Zhu Dianmeng (Grace) for her work on this.

Update on China’s international commercial court

Screen Shot 2018-03-10 at 9.16.02 PM

Judge Gao Xiaoli

Among the many developments flagged in Supreme People’s Court (SPC) President Zhou Qiang’s 2018 report to the National People’s Congress is that the SPC will establish an international commercial tribunal (court)(最 高人民法院国际商事审判庭), as approved by the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms. The timing is unknown. The international commercial tribunal (this post will use the term “court”) as is understood clearly, must fit political and technical requirements. This blogpost will look at those, particularly the technical ones, as those are the ones that have escaped the attention of most commentators outside of China.

Background

Although many  articles have been published in the media, both in and out of China after the public announcement to the press about the international commercial court in January, 2018, most of them have little detail on the issues. Some contain uninformed statements, such as the one that quotes an insider at the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade mentioning the use for dispute resolution of “the common law of the United States and European countries” (send the insider back to law school please!).

In the past three months, Judge Gao Xiaoli, deputy head of the SPC’s #4 civil division (photo above), and at least one other person at the SPC has released some information about the court, all of which seems to have eluded international discussions. For those who are not aficionados of Chinese foreign-related dispute resolution, Judge Gao (who often appears at UNCITRAL or international arbitration related conferences or seminars) outside as well as inside mainland China, is a formidable presence in the courtroom. Thanks to the SPC’s streaming of court hearings, it is now possible to see that from any corner of the world.  She is also an impressive speaker. Judge Gao is representative of the judges engaged in technical legal work at the SPC, with a PhD in law from one of China’s leading law schools and experience studying abroad.

Political requirements

On the political requirements, there are at least two, both previously highlighted in this blog.  The more general one was highlighted one year ago–the establishment of the international commercial court relates to a sentence in the Fourth Plenum Decision:

Vigorously participate in the formulation of international norms, promote the handling of foreign-related economic and social affairs according to the law, strengthen our country’s discourse power and influence in international legal affairs, use legal methods to safeguard our country’s sovereignty, security, and development interests.

More specifically, it appears to be the civil and commercial counterpart to the efforts noted on this blog two years ago (concerning dispute resolution in maritime cases),  part of a push to move the locus of China-related dispute resolution from London and other centers in Europe (or elsewhere) to China, where Chinese parties will encounter a more familiar dispute resolution system.

The other political requirement relates to the need to serve major government strategies, the BRI/OBOR one in particular, discussed in this blogpost.  President Zhou Qiang’s 2018 NPC report, as his 2016 report (and presumably 2017 report) contain the phrase “provided service for the country’s major strategies.” As a central government institution, the SPC must do its part to support national major strategies. Since BRI/OBOR has been initiated, President Zhou Qiang’s report has mentioned  BRI/OBOR as one of those major strategies for which the SPC has provided service.

Technical requirements

Further background

The sources that previous commentators missed include the following:

In the press interview, Judge Gao reviews what the SPC has done so far in this area, including several developments previously highlighted on this blog:

  • SPC’s One Belt One Road (BRI/OBOR) policy document;
  • SPC’s OBOR/BRI model/typical cases (see above link and translations by the Stanford Guiding Cases project found here);
  • SPC’s judicial interpretation on demand guarantees, that blogpost explains that with so many Chinese companies focusing on infrastructure projects overseas, Chinese banks have issued billions of dollars in demand guarantees.

 Technical issues

The SPC is looking at three types of investment and trade disputes:

  • state-state disputes (for China, generally WTO);
  • investor-state disputes (ICSID and other institutions, generally using UNCITRAL rules (note that CIETAC and the Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration (SCIA) also have amended their rules to be able to take investor-state disputes, with SCIA using the UNCITRAL rules;
  • disputes between commercial parties.

Judge Gao mentioned that they at the SPC, too have noticed the worldwide trend of other jurisdictions establishing courts to hear investor-state disputes, citing Canada among them and that they are exploring whether the Chinese courts can do so as well.  However, she notes that when China acceded to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), it made a commercial reservation, and the SPC judicial interpretation concerning the New York Convention excluded investor-state disputes, so that currently it is not possible to enforce investor-state awards through the New York Convention. Judge Gao says they are considering solutions to this issue.

Commercial disputes

Definition of OBOR/BRI disputes

Although none of the authors have mentioned this (nor have I, until now), one unrecognized issues in discussing OBOR/BRI disputes is a definitional one–what is a OBOR/BRI related dispute?  It seems that in court practice, the definition is broad, including cases between Chinese contractors and their demand guarantee issuing banks, as well as cross border cases involving Chinese and parties located in OBOR countries.  In my research (including a discrete inquiry with a knowledgeable person), a formal definition is lacking.

Judicial cooperation/enforcement issues

As this earlier blogpost mentioned, enforcement of foreign court judgments is on the SPC’s agenda.  As Judge Gao recognizes, there needs to be a structure for judgments of this international commercial court to be enforced outside of China.  She mentions (as has this blog), that China is actively participating in negotiations on the Hague Convention on the Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, and is studying ratification of the Hague Convention on the Choice of Courts Agreements.  She flags also (as has this blog) that the SPC is drafting a judicial interpretation on the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil & commercial judgments.

Practice in other jurisdictions

Judge Gao mentions that the SPC is looking at the international commercial courts in several jurisdictions, including Dubai and Singapore (as mentioned in the earlier blogpost), but also Abu Dhabi, London’s Commercial Court (it appears that someone at the SPC has read this Financial Times article on foreign litigants there), and notes that the Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium are all establishing international commercial courts that use English.

Challenges for the Chinese courts

Judge Gao forthrightly flags a list of issues (my comments in italics) that the SPC faces in establishing an international commercial court. It is likely that she and her colleagues are aware of the additional issues raised as well.

  • judges; she notes that Dubai and Singapore have foreign judges on their international commercial courts, but currently China’s Judges’ Law and People’s Court Organizational Law (being amended) present obstacles to having foreign judges, and without them, the court will not be international and will not be internationally credible (literally, be internationally influential) (但是如果不引进外籍专业性人才参与国际商事法庭的建设,则缺乏国际性,缺乏影响力). My earlier blogpost mentioned the nationality issue. Would qualified foreign judges (or those from Hong Kong) be willing to join the international commercial court? Judge Gao does not mention that the group of Chinese judges qualified to hear these cases is not that large, and they are overloaded with cases, judicial interpretation/other guidance drafting, and other work. Could highly qualified Chinese lawyers be appointed to this court?  It is unclear, and relates to issues of how they would fit into the rigid structure of the judiciary, highlighted here.
  • choice of law; she mentions that parties have freedom concerning choice of law in China, so that would not be a problem.  However, relating to choice of court clauses, Professor Vivienne Bath’s research on parallel proceedings in China (previously mentioned on this blog) shows that Chinese courts do not recognize the validity of those clauses when the choice “lacks an actual connection with the dispute” because of provisions in the Civil Procedure Law.
  • procedure; she queries whether there can be some breakthroughs in civil procedure in this area.  Foreign lawyers are likely to query whether this could mean better discovery of documents. More importantly, what is not mentioned is that China’s failure to have acceded to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents will also be a major obstacle for the international commercial court. Under current Civil Procedure legislation,  notarization and legalization of documents is often required. The first step is when a party files suit or when a foreign party responds. Additionally, in litigation, evidence from a foreign country often must be notarized and legalized. Notarization and legalization costs time and money and a great deal of effort. At an academic conference in 2017, experts from the institutions involved discussed how to proceed on this.
  • language; Judge Gao notes that the Civil Procedure Law puts obstacles in the way of the international commercial court hearing cases in English.  Note that the pool of Chinese judges able to hear cases in English is not large, and would even further require recruiting judges from outside China’s judicial system.
  • counsel; She mentions the issue of having foreign lawyers handle cases is also an obstacle for the international commercial court, because China’s Civil Procedure Law currently does not permit it.
  • transparency; Judge Gao notes that Chinese judicial transparency and informatization has made great strides, so should be useful to the international commercial court.  However, Judge Gao and her colleagues could usefully look at the type of information accessible to both the parties and general public (and the level of detail in judgments) in other international commercial courts.
  • enforcement; Judge Gao raises the issue of recognition and enforcement of judgments, discussed above.

Where does the SPC go from here?

The article by the post-doctoral student Liao Yuxi suggested that the SPC may want to request the NPC Standing Committee authorize it to suspend some of the problematic provisions of the Civil Procedure Law that Judge Gao flagged above, such as the use of language, and the qualification of judges.  However many of the other issues cannot be resolved so easily, such as international enforcement and the requirement of notarization and legalization of evidence.

As for when we can expect to see some rules relating to the international commercial court, and whether drafts will be circulated for public (or even soft consultation), those are all unclear.  What is clear is that many complicated legal issues face Judge Gao and her colleagues.

 

 

 

 

 

Why are Chinese judges so stressed?

6C8064E2-CD04-43B8-BEF2-94DB1FF8D632-12865-00000E1088FD9E56_tmp

“Dear litigants”

The photo above was viral in legal Wechat groups in early February–a notice in the lobby of a Guangxi district court advising litigants to use mediation or arbitration because the judges in the court are overworked, overstressed, and voting with their feet to leave the courts.  The notice gives the court’s 2017 caseload (36,476 cases) and prediction for 2018 (over 40,000) and says fifteen percent of the judges have quit, retired, or transferred out of the courts and judges’ assistants are leaving as well.

How many Chinese judges are there?

SPC President Zhou Qiang reported to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee in November 2017 that there were 120,128 quota judges/judicial post judges(员额制), a reduction from 211,990.   Some of those judges have become judicial assistants, while others have been transferred to administrative roles within the courts.

It appears that the authorities decided to reduce the headcount of Chinese judges by comparing the percentage of judges in China with those in major jurisdictions. The readers of this blog know (and Chinese judicial reformers know clearly), the structure of the Chinese courts is quite different from those in other jurisdictions, whether civil or common law systems. However, once the reduction had been approved by the highest political authorities,  those questioning the wisdom of this decision  run the risk of improperly discussing (or distorting (歪曲)) judicial reform (妄议司改), a variation of “improperly discussing Central policy (妄议中央).

Chinese courts are a cross between a court and a Party/government organ, with personnel in administrative offices such as the political department (政治部), general office (办公厅), supervision bureau (监察局). Senior personnel such as the court president, vice presidents, and division chiefs, have a significant portion of their time taken up by administrative matters.  The judicial reforms now require senior personnel to hear a small number of cases per year and according to President Zhou Qiang, that number is up 32% (the base number is unknown).  Of the 120,990 judges who have the status of judge, 85% of them hear some number of cases. Statistics on the number of judges actually hearing cases are hard to pin down.

We do not know how many judges have left the Chinese courts in 2017 or 2016 by quitting or transferring to a government department.  Presumably, the head of the Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) Political Department (in charge of personnel) does, but those statistics seem to be confidential.  Based on partial information however, judges are continuing to leave the courts, from the SPC on down.

From a survey done by a post-doctoral student at the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence of the SPC in 2015 (further detailed below), close monitoring of Wechat articles, and my own personal observations, those who remain in the judiciary have a high degree of stress.

Stresssed Chinese judges and their job dissatisfaction

In the spring of 2015, then Beijing Higher People’s Court Judge Hu Changming and a post doctoral student at the SPC’s China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence, but now a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Institute of Law, conducted a job satisfaction survey among Chinese judges, published in the prestigious China Law Review and summarized in SPC media. Hu previously won awards for his writings as a judge. He later published an article on Wechat (originally published in the defunct Wechat account “Home of Judges” that (according to this report) led to his punishment for distorting (歪曲) judicial reform.

Hu received 2660 responses from judges working in all four levels of the Chinese judiciary.  Although the ongoing trope about the Chinese judiciary outside of China is that most Chinese judges are former People’s Liberation Army officers, Judge Hu’s survey found that most judges had at least an LLB or master’s degree in law, with small numbers of judges with less than an LLB or a Ph.D.

The pie chart below (from Hu’s study) is of responses concerning job satisfaction (extremely satisfied 1.28%, relatively satisfied, 11.09%, neutral, 30.53%, not very satisfied 34.89, and very dissatisfied, 22.22%).Screen Shot 2018-02-21 at 3.58.34 PM

His survey further revealed that practically all (94.47%) of judges surveyed had considered quitting the judiciary, of whom 57.37% had considered it seriously, and only 5.53% had never considered it.  His survey had more male than female respondents, and more middle-aged than late career judges, likely affecting these results.

Why are Chinese judges dissatisfied?

According to Hu’s 2015 survey, Chinese judges are dissatisfied for both work-related and benefits-related reasons. This is consistent with my earlier research.   This post will look at some of the work-related reasons.

Work-related reasons

Both the survey and other observations show that Chinese judges, particularly those in basic level courts in China’s most developed areas, have too much work.  One major reason was the decision in 2015 to change the case filing system. Six weeks into the case filing reform I predicted “greater stress for fewer judges and other judicial staff” and at the end of 2015 noted the SPC was “putting a positive spin on what is a highly stressful situation for frontline judges.”

The caseload in the busiest courts is large and on the increase yearly(see the chart below for the caseload in first half of 2017 and percentage increases). The Wechatosphere frequently reports on the heavy caseload in the country’s major courts and the stress on frontline judges. In September, 2017, I reported on the situation for frontline judges pre-19th Party Congress.

Screen Shot 2018-02-23 at 9.18.47 PM

1. Pudong/Shanghai; 2.Chaoyang/Beijing;3. Yuexiu/Guangzhou; 4. Baoan/Shenzhen; 5. Futian/Shenzhen; 6. Haidian/Beijing; 7. #1/Dongguan; 8. Jingan/Shanghai; 9. Western District/Beijing; #1/Zhongshan

For domestic cases, judges are under tight deadlines and their work computers will flash a red signal when a case isn’t closed on time. Although unreasonable performance targets were to have been abolished, Wechat articles and judges who I was able to disturb at year’s end mentioned that they were under pressure to close cases by year end so that their court could achieve a high closing rate, documenting the closing rate pressure mentioned in September, 2017.

Another source of pressure for judges is the lifetime responsibility system, which two Chinese judges writing in an academic law journal called the “sword of Damocles hanging over judges” ( 法官办案责任追究是时刻悬挂在法官们头上的“达摩克利斯之剑”), analyzing the drawbacks with the standards and their implications for judges.  Hu’s survey found that almost half of them felt that the responsibility system for mistaken cases was unfair and this is also shown in Wechat and articles in court media as well as comments by individual judges.

According to Judge Hu’s survey, judges regularly work overtime, some for over six months a year, and most mention that they have inadequate administrative support. This may change over time as some law graduates are willing to take on positions as judge’s assistants, but as the sign above indicates, some of them are leaving too, but from the Wechatosphere, they feel stressed as well. As mentioned in this earlier blogpost, interns are a welcome source of additional brainpower, although in experience of my students, at least, interns need to depend on their parents or school scholarships to cover their expenses during their internships.

Then there is the matter of what work occupies their work day.  In addition to sitting in court, reading case files,  or drafting judgments, Chinese judges have to receive petitioners, deliver litigation documents, and enforce judgments, as well as publicize law to “the masses (including soldiers).”

Additionally, meetings of various types take up their time as well.  Since the Communist Party has been focusing on raising the ideological level of the judiciary, it seems likely that for frontline judges, meetings focused on the latest Party documents take time away from cases.

As this blog has mentioned previously, the judicial reforms for the most part have retained the pyramid structure of Chinese courts, where the court president, vice presidents, and division chiefs have administrative authority over judges.  And even for those reformed courts that have a flat administrative structure, the authority of the head of the court (or tribunal and the judicial committee still remains in place, although the judicial reforms call for new committees to be put in place relating to both appointments and judicial punishment.

Will the “deepened reform of the judicial system with comprehensive integrated reforms” (深化司法体制改革综合配套改革) (discussed in December’s blogpost) deal with the stress of China’s judges and retain (and attract) the elite corps that Chinese judicial reformers envision?  We will need to wait and see.

 

 

 

 

 

Rights of the Child

Hannah Lu[1]

As of this writing, there have been eight school shootings in the United States since 2018 started[2] and there have been 290 school shootings in the United States since 2013[3]. Between the years 2013-15, 85 of these shootings have occurred at K-12 schools.[4]

In November 1989, practically every member of the United Nations signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a human rights treaty that sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health, and cultural rights of children. I learned about this treaty when I was in primary school in Hong Kong.  196 members of the United Nations are party to the convention. The United States is not.

CRC Article 3 states

“in all action concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institution courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration”.

Article 19:

“State’s parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s), or any other person who has the care of the child.”

The United States (while it has not ratified the treaty, it remains a signatory) is in violation of these articles through its negligence to properly and adequately protect children from gun violence while they are at school. [Editor’s note: this assumes these articles are now part of customary international law, so that the United States is bound by these principles although it has not ratified the CRC.] The failure to pass any gun reform legislation on both a federal and state level is not just a failure on the part of the government to its children but a violation of their human rights. The negligence and inability to pass gun reform legislation mean that the United States has both failed to consider the best interests of its children but also that it has failed to protect them from physical and mental violence. The State Department’s website says that “the protection of fundamental human rights was a foundation stone in the establishment of the United States over 200 years ago”[5]. The question now is when will the United States address those foundational rights?

_____________________________

[1] Class of 2018, New York University, Tisch School of the Arts (and daughter of the Monitor).

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far

[3] https://everytownresearch.org/school-shootings/

[4] https://everytownresearch.org/reports/analysis-of-school-shootings/

[5] https://www.state.gov/j/drl/hr/

Supreme People’s Court & the new campaign to “sweep away black & eliminate evil”

Screen Shot 2018-01-31 at 11.21.40 AMLast week, China announced the latest campaign to “sweep away black and eliminate evil,” saohei chu’e (扫黑除恶),“Concerning the Carrying Out of a Special Action to Sweep Away Black and Eliminate Evil” (关于开展扫黑除恶专项行动的通知) (full text not yet released) with Xinhua news reporting that it reflects it reflects the leadership’s  outlook on security and people-centered governance thought.  The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) is an integral part of the campaign and was one of the institutions (along with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, Ministry of Public Security, and Ministry of Justice) that issued a guiding opinion (办理黑恶势力犯罪案件的指导意见) on how the campaign is to be carried out (text found here). As previously discussed on this blog (and in a forthcoming article), there is no transparency requirement for guiding opinions and other “judicial normative documents” that are not judicial interpretations.  What has been made transparent (in a quick dive into the Wechatosphere) is that the SPC is both clarifying the criminal law issues to the legal community and signalling through releasing typical cases and other actions that lower authorities should not use the campaign to confiscate the property of private entrepreneurs. But will other imperatives trump that signal?

  1. Clarifying the legal issues

Although the commentators in this Voice of America program weren’t aware of it, there is a body of (confusing) legislation, partially described in this book chapter (somewhat outdated).  The authoritative (because it is published by the five criminal divisions of the SPC)  Reference to Criminal Trial (刑事审判参考), had published a special issue (issue #107) on organized crime law last summer. (For those of us who read more quickly in English, the editors have helpfully compiled an English translation of the table of contents. (see below)

IMG_3026

IMG_3027

In his 29 January Wechat posting on his 说刑品案 (“Speak About Criminal Law, Evaluate Cases”) Wechat account, its editor, Judge Yu Tongzhi (于同志), a judge in the #2 Criminal Division and one of the editors of Reference to Criminal Trial, set out 20 Q & A’s with guidance on the legal issues (derived from last summer’s issue).

Judge Yu described the posting as to “coordinate” (配合) with this campaign, but is the author’s way of saying that the law on these issues is confusing and all involved, whether they are judges, prosecutors, public security or defense lawyers need an authoritative steer through the forest of law, judicial interpretations, and other guidance.   As is apparent from the photo above, the guidance includes a 2015 conference summary on organized crime, guiding cases (指导案例)(not to confused with those guiding cases (指导性案例 issued by the SPC itself), authoritative commentary on the 2015 conference summary, major cases, and discussions by judges of difficult legal issues. The guidance posted often illustrates answers with examples from the guiding cases and cautions that standards should not be improperly expanded, such as the definition of a “gang member.”  He does not include a summary of the law on property seizure, the subject of one of the articles in issue #107.

Some of the organized crime legal issues are analogous to those in other jurisdictions and last year one of the SPC websites published a long article analyzing this area of law (and its problems), suggesting that China look to US RICO legislation.

The first of the 20 questions is:

  1. What’s the connection between the 2015 and 2009  conference summaries on organized crime?

Don’t be surprised if you haven’t heard of either conference summary, as neither one seems to have been incorporated in any of the major translation databases.  As to what conference summaries are, Conference summaries are what the SPC entitles “judicial normative documents”  (there are a number of titles for these) and often address new issues or areas of law in which the law is not settled.   “Conference summaries” are also a form of Communist Party/government document.

The relationship is addressed in the article on the application of the 2015 conference summary by several heads of SPC criminal divisions in issue #107.  Their view is that the two conference summaries should be read together, which the later one taken as an elaboration of the first, with newer provisions superseding the older ones.

The campaign & private entrepreneurs

The second signal that the SPC is sending is that the “sweep away black and eliminate evil” campaign should not be used to abuse private entrepreneurs.  On 30 January, the SPC issued seven typical cases on protecting private property rights and the rights of entrepreneurs, one of which involves a case that occurred during the 2008 “strike black” campaign.  As summarized in China Daily,  the Liaoning Public Security Department arrested Liu Hua and Liu Jie in a 2008 criminal investigation and seized 20 million yuan (about 3.16 million U.S. dollars) in funds from their company, Beipeng Real Estate Development Co. Ltd. in Shenyang. In 2014, a local court in Benxi convicted the two and the company of illegal occupation of farmland but exempted them from criminal punishment. Liaoning Public Security refused to return the seized funds and related financial documents were not returned.  SPC Vice President Tao Kaiyuan SPC Vice President Tao Kaiyuan acted as the chief judge, and the SPC’s State Compensation Committee ruled the Liaoning Public Security Department should return the funds with  interest. Judge Hu Yunteng and the  #2 Circuit Court  were involved in this as well. Company counsel’s detailed account of this case (highly recommended!) found here. Judge Zhu Heqing, Deputy head of the #3 Criminal Division, discussed in the article mentioned above in #107 the problems with the law and practice of property seizures, such as the lack of a definition of “organized crime related property” (涉黑财物) and related seizure procedures, as well as the lack of procedures to require the return of property improperly seized.

Some thoughts

As the document on implementing this campaign has not been released, we cannot know whether it includes performance targets that will lead local authorities to “round the usual suspects up.” What is apparent from the Wechat posting and much more from issue #107, is that the law is this area is unclear, lacks procedures for protecting the property of the entities involved (not to mention the entrepreneurs), and can be easily abused by local authorities.  As we know from the case above and other cases, entrepreneurs will then spend years seeking the return of their property.  The SPC must coordinate with this latest campaign while protecting the rights of entrepreneurs, and avoid a new set of mistaken cases.

 

 

 

 

Supreme People’s Court & Supreme Court Justice Roberts’ 2017 year-end report

download-2Chief Justice John Roberts of the United States Supreme Court may be surprised to learn that a translated version of his 2017 year-end report on the federal courts was recently published by the People’s Court Daily, as it has been for the past twelve years. It was republished by Wechat and Weibo sites affiliated with the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and other prominent Wechat public accounts and legal websites. What significance does the report have?

The translators that bring the year-end reports to Chinese readers are Mr. Huang Bin (formerly of the SPC’s China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence and now of the National Judicial College, a former Yale Law School visiting scholar) and Ms. Yang Yi (China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence, a former Columbia Law School visiting scholar).

Two subjects in Justice Roberts’ 2017 report are likely to resonate with Chinese readers. The first is how the federal courts dealt with national disasters in 2017 (introductory comments in some of the Wechat versions mention that China has only scattered legislative provisions related to emergency measures for the courts). The second is sexual harassment and Justice Roberts’ request to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to organize a working group to review the code of conduct for the federal judiciary, guidance to employees on issues of confidentiality and reporting of instances of misconduct, and rules for investigating and processing misconduct complaints.

The #Metoo movement has not yet explicitly affected the Chinese courts. However, it is likely that Chief Justice Roberts’ acknowledgment that existing rules and structures for dealing with sexual harassment complaints are inadequate that resonates with Chinese women judges and judicial support staff, who make an increasingly large percentage of the Chinese judiciary. It seems likely (confirmed by discrete inquiries) that sexual harassment occurs in Chinese courts as well.

More broadly, what relevance does Justice Robert’s report and others on the US federal and state judiciary have for the Chinese judiciary after the 19th Party Congress, when in October, 2017 Communist Party Central Committee policy on the training of judges and prosecutors lists first resolutely opposing erosion by the mistaken Western rule of law viewpoint” (坚决抵制西方错误法治观点侵蚀)? To the careful observer, the publication of these reports and other articles on specific issues in SPC publications means that the senior and lower levels of the Chinese courts have an ongoing interest in what the US federal and state courts are doing and look to commonalities and takeaways (despite the vast differences in the two systems).

Another example of the Chinese courts looking to commonalities with the US courts occurred earlier this month (January) when the China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence published a Chinese summary of the National Center for State Courts’ 2017 survey on public confidence in the state courts. The article appears to be a republication of an article previously published internally and reflects the concern of the Chinese judiciary with public trust.

The takeaways, that is referring to or borrowing foreign legal concepts or models to reform China’s judicial system remains politically sensitive. In Party General Secretary and President Xi Jinping’s 19th Party Congress speech, he called for the continuation of judicial reform:

We will carry out comprehensive and integrated reform of the judicial system and enforce judicial accountability in all respects, so that the people can see in every judicial case that justice is served.

 Earlier in 2017, when visiting the China University of Political Science and Law, Xi Jinping cautioned that Chinese legal reform does not mean wholesale adoption of foreign law and institutions:

China shall actively absorb and refer to successful legal practices worldwide, but they must be filtered, they must be selectively absorbed and transformed, they may not be swallowed whole and copied (对世界上的优秀法治文明成果,要积极吸收借鉴,也要加以甄别,有选择地吸收和转化,不能囫囵吞枣、照搬照抄).

What a careful observer notices from monitoring SPC media is that those involved with reform of discrete areas of Chinese legislation and judicial practice continue (in the pre/post 19th Party Congress era) to look at US federal/state law (and other foreign law) structures and practices, including: use of mediation in federal appeals cases; bankruptcy practicereform of Chinese nuclear safety legislation to broaden the scope of information released to the public, that is in specific areas that do not involve basic principles of the Chinese courts.

 

 

 

Supreme People’s Court Monitor’s 2017 year-end report

 

IMG_1934

SPC court handbooks & monthly bulletins from the 1980s & 1990s

A change in this year-end report, with some stories as well as thank yous.

In 2017, the Supreme People’s Court Monitor published 41 posts and had over 33,000 page views, from 155 jurisdictions, primarily from:

  • United States;
  • Hong Kong;
  • (mainland) China; and
  • Australia.

with the United Kingdom, Germany, and Singapore trailing.

Since founding almost five years ago:

Views: 108,990
Jurisdictions: 183
Posts: 212

Most followers use Twitter to follow the Monitor.Although Twitter is not accessible in mainland China without a VPN, 26% of the Monitor’s Twitter followers are based there.

Thank yous

Thank you to:

  •  the booksellers (likely long retired) who sold me the SPC court handbooks & bulletins in the 1990s, opening for me a door into the world of the Chinese judiciary;
  • my colleagues and students at the School of Transnational Law, Peking University (Shenzhen);
  • my fellow bloggers Jeremy Daum (Chinalawtranslate.com), Wei Changhao (npcobserver.com, Mark Cohen (Chinaipr.com), and Eugene Fidell (globalmjreform.blogspot.com);
  • the law schools and other institutions around the world, that have listed my blog as a Chinese law resource;
  • law and political science professors who have recommended the Monitor to students and many others in other institutions who have provided support in various ways;
  • journalists and scholars writing about the Chinese judiciary who have cited the Monitor;
  • organizers of conferences and other events in Beijing, Shanghai, Leiden, Cologne, Hong Kong, and Sydney. One Shanghai event attracted several “mature students” from the local authorities, apparently interested to know more about the challenges Chinese students could face studying law in the US;
  • Certain members of the Chinese legal community:
    • judges and others currently or formerly affiliated with the SPC and local courts, who helped me understand the Chinese court and legal system in countless ways;
    • lawyers, arbitrators and other legal professionals who have done the same;
    • administrators of the Wechat public accounts who published my articles; and
    • those who had the fortitude to read early drafts of articles and give frank comments, particularly the person who asked the classic question “what are you trying to say?!”  (The much-improved article will be published this year.)

Finally, thank you very much to the East Asian Legal Studies program of Harvard Law School for supporting the Monitor.  I hope their example will lead to the greater recognition of the importance of understanding the Chinese legal system (with its many special characteristics).

  • 20171229_103914

    School of Transnational Law, 29 December

 

 

Supreme People’s Court reports on its bankruptcy accomplishments

Screen Shot 2017-12-30 at 8.45.44 AM

The warm sun and shopping mall Christmas decorations were not what drew Supreme People’s Court (SPC) President Zhou Qiang and a large group of senior court and other government leaders to Shenzhen on Christmas Day–it was a rare national bankruptcy trial work conference. It sends signals about the importance of bankruptcy post 19th Party Congress.

This appears to have been one of the last official activities of Grand Justice Du Wanhua, who has taken the lead in promoting bankruptcy work in the courts (see earlier blogposts) and is a classmate of President Zhou Qiang. Du, who turns 64 in January, is retiring.  Takeaways from the conference include:

  • some statistics;
  • the latest political/professional policy on bankruptcy;
  • some informed comments on where the challenges are (with some of my further comments in italics).

Statistics

The Chinese courts accepted 8984 bankruptcy & compulsory liquidation cases in 2017 (through 21 December), heard by 97 bankruptcy divisions (up from 6 in 2016, a consequence of a 2016 SPC notice, described here).  The courts concluded 4404 bankruptcy cases through November.

Reforms aimed at speeding up cases moving from enforcement to bankruptcy proceedings are showing some initial success, with the Guangdong courts handling over 43,000 in the second half of 2017, of which 10,000 were handled by the Shenzhen courts.

Latest bankruptcy policy statements

President Zhou Qiang conveyed the macro policy on bankruptcy.

  • adhere to problem orientation (必须坚持问题导向) (one of the current political slogans);
  • if at all possible, merge or reorganize, less bankruptcy liquidation 尽可能多兼并重组,少破产清算 (the current policy);
  • Explore establishing a simplified procedure and a pre-reorganization system (简易破产程序、预重整制度) (this idea, a borrowing of pre-packaged administration from US/English law has been discussed by academics and others for some years, but this prominence seems to be new.  Pre-packaged administration is a bankruptcy/insolvency procedure under in which a company arranges to sell all or some of its assets to a buyer before appointing an administrator to facilitate the sale. It involves a company’s institutional creditors agreeing to it, so it is understandable that would be an attractive idea in China);
  • intermediate courts in larger cities and economically developed areas should establish bankruptcy divisions or collegial panels (this follows from an announcement in 2016, discussed here);
  • use informatization to improve the hearing of bankruptcy cases (信息化建设提高破产审判质效).

Du Wanhua had more specific signals to the lower courts.

  • improve professionalism;
  • improve the bankruptcy administrator system, promote establishing a bankruptcy administrator society, bring in a competitive system;
  • improve the enforcement to bankruptcy system,  accelerate cases that can’t be enforced transferred to bankruptcy proceedings;
  • use reorganization as much as possible through the market and legal methods to save companies in trouble;
  • establish a normalized government/courts unified coordinated system (要建立常态化的“府院破产统一协调机制”), protect the rights of each party on an equal basis;
  • use informatization.
  • handle carefully bankruptcy cases involving debts that are mutual/joint guarantees, guide financial creditors to convert the debt into equity or other methods that simplify the debtor relationship and enable the company to survive;
  • handle carefully the consolidated bankruptcy of affiliated companies, balance the conflicts between the rights and interests of each party.
  • improve cross-border bankruptcy trial work.

 On problems facing bankruptcy courts

Professor Li Shuguang of the China University of Political Science & Law, one of the preeminent Chinese bankruptcy law scholars, who attended the conference, had informed comments, citing the following challenges for the bankruptcy courts:

  1. The relationship between the courts and government when hearing bankruptcy cases needs to be resolved. (Despite the official talk of a united approach by courts & government, discussed above, it remains a challenge. For some local color, see this excerpt from an article by a team of Zhejiang bankruptcy judges on real estate developer bankruptcy:

If a real estate developer is having a crisis, government will involve itself first, and only if administrative measures don’t work, will they think of judicial measures. This creates problems in transitioning from administrative to judicial procedures. For example, how should a court treat the legal authority of the creditor settlement arrangement of the special work team formed by government to deal the crisis? Once the company goes into bankruptcy procedures, government hasn’t withdrawn completely, and on the one hand, all sorts of bankruptcy matters require coordination and cooperation by many government departments, and on the other hand government will give instructions and suggestions about bankruptcy work, considering the needs of the local economy, stability, and other interests.

3.  Many local courts are afraid to accept bankruptcy cases and even establish unreasonable barriers to for local protection–new systems need to be put in place.

4.  On bankruptcy administrators, there need to be more detailed rules on selection, oversight, administration, operation. [I can testify to this, based on the questions raised on one of my Wechat chat groups about bankruptcy administrators and the many articles published on bankruptcy law-related Wechat public accounts.] 

5. Professor Li asks how Chinese bankruptcy law can be reformed to effectively rescue companies, to enable courts to identify salvageable companies, properly protect the rights of creditors and shareholders.  More detailed rules are needed on preferences in bankruptcy.  These are ongoing issues for Chinese bankruptcy courts, as the current system protects local government interests.

6.  There exist a group of specific issues related to bankruptcy liquidation, such as how to expand the pool of assets available to the creditors, balance the interests of various creditors, deal with the relationship between creditor committees (under the bankruptcy law) and financial institution creditors committee (these committees were put in place from 2016, see more details here).  This also relates to issues of transparency and procedure, particularly what information will be available to members of the creditor committee, and at what point. An important area where legal infrastructure is lacking, as discussed in this Wechat article.

Among those issues is how to protect the interests of consumers who have purchased property from a bankrupt real estate developer.  This is an important practical issue for all involved (including local governments) because an increasing number of real estate developers are going into bankruptcy.  A recent Wechat article analyzes a 2015 SPC ruling that requires the bankruptcy administrator to perform the purchase and sale contract where payment has been made in full.  In practice, courts take different approaches to variations on this scenario.

7.  He echoes Du Wanhua on issues related to consolidation of bankruptcy cases involving corporate affiliates and the transfer of cases from enforcement to bankruptcy, raising the problem of the courts performance indicators.

8. Professor Li opens up the issue of “informatization,” so that it becomes a platform collecting and analyzing bankruptcy data, and information sharing mechanism for all involved.  This comment echoes my own experience that the electronic platform is not helpful for a researcher seeking access to bankruptcy documents, as few are accessible, not even those that are otherwise publicly available. Some bankruptcy judges have responded to my discrete inquiries that little information is available because it is possible to set access restrictions on information.)

9.  He raises the increasingly prominent issue of cross-border bankruptcy, in which judges lack legislation and experience to deal with these issues, and suggests that at an appropriate time harmonization of Chinese cross-border bankruptcy standards with international ones.  By this, he is likely referring to the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency.  These issues are ongoing ones for the professional community in Hong Kong and increasingly in the rest of the world, see this law firm alert. This has been a frequent topic of academic analysis.

Finally, Professor Li states (what is clear from the comments above) that bankruptcy legislation is inadequate–the judicial interpretations the SPC has issued. deal with only a small portion of the outstanding issues and there isn’t time to draft a long judicial interpretation.  As judges are hearing bankruptcy cases, large numbers of technical issues have arisen [I can testify to this, based on the questions raised on one of my Wechat chat groups.]  SPC academic journals and academic studies address specific issues, see these articles. Professor Li suggests that a “conference summary” be issued based on this conference and input from bankruptcy court professionals. (A conference summary is explained in this blogpost.)

Quick comment

Finally, this area of law is a microcosm of issues facing the Chinese courts, whether it is the requirement for the SPC and lower courts  to reflect current Party/government policy in what they do, relationship between the courts and government, issues with judicial professionalism, large number of technical issues but a lack of legislation, related issues that affect the ordinary person, consideration of foreign law models, and the disconnect between international and Chinese practice.

Judicial reform post-19th Party Congress

 

download-2

Judge Jiang speaking at an academic conference

 

Senior Judge Jiang Huiling heads the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s China Institute of Applied Jurisprudence (the Institute). He recently published two articles in the Chinese legal and professional press (the first of which was published in the Central Political-Legal Committee’s (authoritative) Legal Daily) signaling the phraseology and goals for judicial reform after the 19th Party Congress. As the operation of the Chinese judiciary has an important impact both domestically and internationally (as well as in greater China), post-19th Party Congress judicial reform goals are important.

For those who are not familiar with the Institute, it is the SPC’s in-house think tank. The Institute works on a broad variety of issues, particularly those linked with judicial reforms. Like think tanks elsewhere in the world, the Institute trains post-doctorate fellows and has its own staff. Judge Jiang is among a group of senior judges at the SPC who combines an international perspective (he studied at the University of Montreal, and has been a visiting scholar at Yale Law School, University of Sydney, and Academia Sinica) with profound experience in and understanding about the Chinese court system and how it can be reformed, given its complex bureaucratic nature and the environment in which it operates.

From his articles, it is clear that the new phraseology is “deepen the reform of the judicial system with comprehensive integrated reforms” (深化司法体制改革综合配套改革). The language is found deep in Xi Jinping’s 19th Communist Party Congress Report.

Background for these further reforms

Judge Jiang mentioned that during the summer of 2017, the senior political leadership approved further judicial reform measures (including written instructions from Xi Jinping to the Central Political-Legal Committee, designating Shanghai to take the lead in piloting them, initiating a series of reforms from early November. The Outline of the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Plan required Central approval for major reforms, so this approval should not be surprising.  The beginning of this round of judicial reforms was also first piloted in Shanghai, so piloting these further reforms in Shanghai (as further described in this report) is also to be expected and it seems likely that piloting of reforms will continue in other places.

Eleven further reforms & some comments

Judge Jiang sees these further reforms as intended to implement the previous judicial reforms and classifies them into eleven broad areas.  The SPC has undertaken research (designating lower courts to do so) in many of these areas (with the results to be released to the public in some form).  It appears that those designing judicial reforms have realized that many judicial reforms are linked to deeper issues relating to the Chinese system.

I summarize Judge Jiang’s list and add some of my own comments or queries in italics (which should not be attributed to him):

  1. Optimize how judicial power is allocated within the courts, including the authority to adjudicate and to administer, splitting enforcement authority from hearing cases, allocating authority within offices/divisions of the court, and reallocate the functions of higher and lower courts.  The way that courts have been administered has for many years followed the (traditional) Party/state administrative model.  Some reforms have been implemented in recent years, but it is unclear how much will it be possible to change this, given long-standing patterns of interaction within a court and between higher and lower courts, as well as current incentives/performance indicators.  This appears to be linked to point 19, 24, and other provisions of the Outline of the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Plan .
  2. Reform judicial administration–what should the model be–centralized administration by the SPC or local administration by each court?  Judge Jiang suggests China could consider models already in place outside of China. This is linked to point 62 of the Outline of the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Plan. 
  3. Improve personnel administration, such as selection of judges, retirement, rotation of positions, discipline/punishment, retirement/resignation, education/training, headcount administration, internal institutions, etc.  The current model derives from the principle of “the Party manages cadres”  and is linked to basic aspects of the Chinese system such as the official ranking system (官本位) and hukou (户口).  Many of the matters mentioned (such as resignation, discipline, selection and headcount administration) are now controlled or operated by Party institutions–what flexibility will there be for the courts to innovate?  The judicial reforms do anticipate a separate career track for judges (and prosecutors), but it is apparent that the “devil is in the details.”  If there is to be cross-jurisdictional rotation of positions, what happens to the schooling of dependents and other practical matters linked with the hukou [household registration] system? An increasing number of legal professionals and judges are women. What impact would a cross-jurisdictional rotation of positions have on women judges? How can lawyers and others outside the system be fit into the official ranking system?  Under the current system, more senior judges are senior cadres, often less involved with hearing cases because of their administrative responsibilities.  Will later retirement for judges mean more judges in the courtroom?  The retirement issue has been under discussion for some years–see this 2015 blogpost for further background.
  4. Reform the system of how judges are “cultivated” (法官养成机制), in particular, look to the practice of other civil law jurisdictions (including Taiwan) in establishing a two year judicial training system, rather than the current practice of entirely selecting judges from within and having them learn on the job, and increase training for serving judges. He mentions improving the system of recruiting lawyers and law professors to the judiciary. (This is related to points 50 and 52 of the Outline of the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Plan. The two-year training program proposal had been mentioned by Huang Yongwei, president of the National Judicial College, over two years ago.  It is linked to judicial education policy documents issued to implement the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Outline, highlighted in this 2015 blogpost).  What might be the content of this training program?  From the previous policy documents we know it will include ideological, ethical, and professional training, but what will that mean in practice?  There have been ongoing exchanges between the Chinese judiciary and the Singapore Judicial College–  will the “beneficial experience” of Chinese judges in Singapore have any effect on the Chinese model?
  5. Improve judicial evaluation, i.e. benchmarking of how the Chinese judiciary is doing.  Judge Jiang suggests looking to domestic analytical frameworks (by the China Academy of Social Sciences and others), as well as international ones, including the Global Framework for Court Excellence and the World Justice Project,  but says there are issues with data and disconnect with Chinese judicial reality.  This relates to point 51 and others in the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Plan. Benchmarking judicial performance remains an ongoing issue, with most Chinese courts in campaign mode to achieve high case closing rates in the run-up to the New Year.
  6. Better use of technology in the judiciary, not only big data but also use of electronic files, judicial “artificial intelligence.” For lawyers involved in cross-border cases, query when this will also imply the use of apostilles rather than the current system of notarization and consularization, as well as a more timely integration of other Chinese court procedures with those prevalent in the outside world. Pilot projects are underway in some areas regarding electronic files.
  7. Improve litigation, including “trial-centered criminal justice reforms,” pre-trial procedures, more detailed evidence rules, separating petitioning from litigation, and the use of people’s assessors. Creating a “trial-centered criminal justice system” at the same time that expedited procedures/Chinese style plea bargaining is being promoted raises many related issues as was recently discussed at a recent conference that I attended, and separating petitioning from litigation requires improvement of legal aid to the poor and better procedures for considering litigation-related petitions (see these earlier blogposts).
  8. Improve the use of diversified dispute resolution, to involve resources from other social and national resources and the market to resolve disputes, leaving only those most appropriate to be resolved by the courts. This relates to point 46 of the Outline of the 4th Five Year Judicial Reform Plan and related measures described in a 2016 SPC policy document, described here.
  9. Speed up the formation of a legal profession, including reform to legal education, examinations, etc., which Judge Jiang sees as long-term issues.  From my own observations in the courts, remarks by serving judges, practicing lawyers, and interactions with recent Chinese law school graduates, reforms to legal education are needed, as is some flexibility in the career path for Chinese legal academics, which stresses a Ph.D. and academic achievements, rather than any experience outside academia.
  10. Establish a rule of law (法治) culture and environment.  This, of course, is critical. However, the difficulty of doing so was most recently illustrated in the recent clearing of “low end population” from Beijing and related legal analysis (such as this article, originally published on a Chinese scholarly site.
  11. Improve judicial administration generally, including methods of enforcing the law, legislative drafting, etc.  Reforms of a grander scale appear to this observer to be difficult to implement, particularly at this stage.

Finally, Judge Jiang says these are the broad outlines of judicial reform, but they are subject to adjustment along the way.

 

 

 

 

December update on judicial review of arbitration

IMG_2676

photo of Beijing traffic, December 2017

The latest buzz within the Chinese international commercial legal community on Belt & Road related legal developments appears not to have surmounted the Great Wall of the Chinese language. The buzz is that a comprehensive judicial interpretation relating to arbitration is on route to promulgation.

On 4 December the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a news release that its judicial committee had approved a judicial interpretation on judicial review of arbitration in principle, entitled Provisions on Some Issues Related to the Trial of the Judicial Review of Arbitration (Judicial Review of Arbitration Interpretation) (最高人民法院关于审理仲裁司法审查案件若干问题的规定).  “Approval in principle”  (原则通过) is not mentioned by the SPC’s 2007 regulations on judicial interpretations but is one of the SPC’s long-established practices.  It means that the judicial committee has approved it, subject to some “minor” amendments. Minor amendments are more than typographical errors and relate to specific substantive matters.  However, the news release did not specify what those “minor” issues were or set a deadline for issuing the interpretation. In December of last year (2016), the SPC’s judicial committee also approved in principle the #4 Company Law interpretation, but that interpretation was not formally issued until August of this year. This observer surmises (without any basis in facts or rumors) that the interpretation will be promulgated before Chinese new year so it can be one of the 2017 accomplishments of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division (but then again, that may be overly optimistic.

The new interpretation will focus on the issues that courts frequently encounter when arbitration-related cases come before them, dealing with gaps in current judicial interpretations (and likely the outdated Arbitration Law, (The Arbitration Law is also the subject of discussions among practitioners, academics, and others.)  The interpretation will incorporate new provisions on the types of cases, case acceptance, jurisdiction, procedure, the application of law and other questions.  It appears that it will incorporate the provisions described in the Notice concerning some questions regarding the centralized handling of judicial review of arbitration cases (the subject of the last blogpost).  It is hoped that the new interpretation will provide for a hearing procedure when cases involving the SPC’s prior approval procedure.

For those not familiar with the intricacies of China’s judicial review of arbitration issues, a 1995 SPC circular sets out a prior approval procedure, requiring local  court rulings to refuse to enforce foreign-related/”greater China”/foreign arbitration awards to be submitted for eventual review by the SPC.  It is currently an internal administrative type procedure, with no explicit option of a hearing.

The SPC announcement described the drafting of the Judicial Review of Arbitration Interpretation as having begun in 2016.  This blog reported in late 2014 that Judge Luo Dongchuan, then head of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division, mentioned that a new judicial interpretation on the judicial review of arbitration-related issues will go into the Court’s judicial interpretation drafting plan in 2015 and that the SPC intends to reform jurisdiction in judicial review of arbitration issues, to consolidate them in specialized courts.

A follow up post will describe the latest buzz on the Belt & Road international commercial tribunal.

_______________________________

If you like this blogpost, please join the East Asian Legal Studies Center of Harvard Law School in supporting the Supreme People’s Court Monitor.

Supreme People’s Court strengthens judicial review of arbitration

liu guixiang at arbitration summit

Judge Liu Guixiang speaking at the China Arbitration Summit

At China’s Arbitration Summit in late September, Liu Guixiang, Chief Judge of the #1 Circuit Court, called attention to a notice that the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued earlier this year to strengthen judicial review of arbitration. The notice (Notice concerning some questions regarding the centralized handling of judicial review of arbitration cases关于仲裁司法审件归口办理有关问题的通知) is linked to the likely increasing number of cases involving judicial review of arbitration matters, linked to the increasing number of arbitrations involving Chinese parties (and the One Belt One Road initiative) both in China and elsewhere in the world, including Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre.  (The notice highlights data collection problems).

The notice, reproduced below, is not an SPC judicial interpretation. Unlike judicial interpretations, notices are not required to be published. It seems that the SPC itself has not officially published it, but several official websites have published it, as have a number of Wechat accounts.

A quick search reveals that the notice drew on  a 2014 study by the Guangdong courts summarizing the results of pilot projects  (including Shenzhen) that the SPC commissioned, involving cooperation with the now independent Shenzhen Court of International Arbitration. As is usual, Guangdong and Shenzhen have led the way as pilot areas for judicial reform. The study highlighted a list of problems with the way lower courts review arbitration related issues, including lack of consistency in reviewing cases. The study also highlighted problems in tracking case data.

As Judge Liu also mentioned (as has this blog), the SPC is working on a comprehensive judicial interpretation on that subject).  That judicial interpretation is still being drafted, with the #4 Civil Division of the SPC taking the lead.

A very rough translation and some comments written in italics follow. (Many thanks to an anonymous and well-informed follower of this blog for bringing the notice to my attention and for some thoughts.) Please call translation glitches/mistakes to my attention.

最高人民法院
关于仲裁司法审查案件归口办理
有关问题的通知

法[2017]152号

Supreme People’s Court

Notice Concerning Some Questions regarding the centralized handling of judicial review of arbitration cases

Fa (2017) #152

各省、自治区、直辖市高级人民法院,解放军军事法院,新疆维吾尔自治区高级人民法院生产建设兵团分院:

To the provincial, autonomous region, directly administered municipality higher people’s courts, People’s Liberation Army Military Court,  Production and Construction Corps Branch of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region Higher People’s Court:

为依法正确审理仲裁司法审查案件,保证裁判尺度的统一,维护当事人的合法权益,促进仲裁事业健康有序发展及多元化纠纷解决机制的建立,现就各级人民法院办理仲裁司法审查案件的有关问题通知如下:

To try correctly judicial review of arbitration cases according to law and guarantee a unified yardstick for judicial decision-making, protect the legal rights of parties, promote the healthy and orderly development of arbitration matters and the establishment of a diverse dispute resolution mechanism, we notify the various levels of the people’s court handling judicial review of arbitration cases of the following:

一、各级人民法院审理涉外商事案件的审判庭(合议庭)作为专门业务庭(以下简称专门业务庭)负责办理本通知规定的仲裁司法审查案件。

I.  The trial divisions (collegial panels) trying foreign-related commercial cases shall be the specialized trial divisions (below, “specialized trial divisions) responsible for undertaking the judicial review of arbitration as set out in this notice.

This means that SPC is requiring trial divisions (or collegial panels, in smaller courts) handling foreign-related commercial matters to be responsible for reviewing the arbitration related matters described in the next paragraph. It is a plus for competency/consistency in arbitration-related matters.

二、当事人申请确认仲裁协议效力的案件,申请撤销我国内地仲裁机构仲裁裁决的案件,申请认可和执行香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区、台湾地区仲裁裁决的案件、申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决等仲裁司法审查案件,由各级人民法院专门业务庭办理。

II.  In cases in which a party applies to have the validity of an arbitration agreement recognized, cases in which application is made to cancel a domestic arbitration commission’s award, cases in which application is made to recognize (认可) and enforce a Hong Kong SAR or Macau SAR arbitration award, recognize (认可) and enforce a Taiwan area arbitration award, application is made to recognize (承认) and enforce a foreign arbitral award, shall be handled by the specialized trial divisions of each level of court.

This paragraph describes the types of cases covered by the notice–the types of judicial review of arbitration matters and that these cases should be handled by the specialized trial division of each level of court designated in the paragraph I. There is a difference in terminology (bolded above, but not in the original Chinese) when referring to the recognition of arbitral awards from Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan as distinguished from foreign arbitral awards, emphasizing that awards from these jurisdictions are considered part of “one country.”  Notice that cases involving domestic arbitration awards or disputes over the validity of an arbitration agreement to submit a dispute to domestic arbitration are also to be reviewed by the specialized trial division.  A big plus for consistency and competency in judicial review of arbitration matters.

专门业务庭经审查裁定认可和执行香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区、台湾地区仲裁裁决,承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的,交由执行部门执行。

When a specialized trial division, after review, has ruled to recognize and enforce a Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region, Taiwan Region arbitration award, recognize and enforce a foreign arbitral award, the enforcement shall be transferred to the enforcement departments for enforcement.

三、一审法院作出的不予受理、驳回起诉、管辖权异议裁定涉及仲裁协议效力的,当事人不服该裁定提起上诉的案件,由二审人民法院专门业务庭办理。

III.  When the first instance court makes a ruling which relates to the validity of an arbitration agreement relating not to accept, to reject a filing or objection to jurisdiction, and a party  disagrees with the ruling and appeals, the specialized trial division of the second instance court should handle it.

This  provision channels appeals relating to arbitration matters to specialists in the second instance courts, again a plus for competency and consistency.

四、各级人民法院应当建立仲裁司法审查案件的数据信息集中管理平台,加强对申请确认仲裁协议效力的案件,申请撤销或者执行我国内地仲裁机构仲裁裁决的案件,申请认可和执行香港特别行政区、澳门特别行政区、台湾地区仲裁裁决的案件,申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决的案件,以及涉及确认仲裁协议效力的不予受理、驳回起诉、管辖权异议等仲裁司法审查案件的信息化管理和数据分析,有效保证法律适用的正确性和裁判尺度的统一性。此项工作由最高人民法院民事审判第四庭与人民法院信息技术服务中心具体负责。

IV. Each level of people’s court should establish a centralized administrative platform for the judicial review of arbitration awards, to strengthen the informatized management and data analysis of cases regarding applications to confirm the validity of an arbitation agreement, cases regarding applications to cancel or enforce arbitration awards of our domestic arbitration institutions, applications to recognize and enforce Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Macau Special Administrative Region, Taiwan Region arbitration awards, cases regarding applications to recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards, and cases relating to the judicial review of arbitration such as refusal to accept, reject the filing, or objection to jurisdiction and others relating to the confirmation of the validity of an arbitration agreement; the effective guarantee of the correct application of law and of a unified yardstick for judicial decision-making.  The #4 Civil Division of the Supreme People’s Court and the People’s Courts Information Technology Service Center shall be specifically responsible for this work.

IV. This paragraph requires a platform to be established to enable better data collection of arbitration related cases. Data collection appears to be an ongoing issue for the courts.  2015 SPC rules on case file numbers (thank you to Chinalawtranslate.com for this translation), are aimed to create more consistency in filing numbers for cases, and will also be helpful in this process. Inconsistency in case files numbers was identified as a problem in the Guangdong study.) The SPC’s #4 Civil Division (in charge of cross-border civil and commercial matters) and the Information Technology Service Center are the ones responsible for ensuring this platform works.  The notice does not require data results to be made public. The legal and professional public (in China and elsewhere in the world) would look forward to regular big data reports on this.

最高人民法院

2017年5月22日

Supreme People’s Court

May 22, 2017

_______________________________________

If you like this blogpost, please join the East Asian Legal Studies Center of Harvard Law School in supporting the Supreme People’s Court Monitor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Clerking” for the Supreme People’s Court

20170824220614_20886

SPC President Zhou Qiang & Political Dept head Xu Jiaxin with 3rd group of interns, including a Peking University School of Transnational Law student

One of the unexpected influences of the United States system on the Chinese courts is the Supreme People’s Court’s (SPC) elite internship program, instituted in 2015.  (The German system of requiring law students to intern in courts, too, is an apparent influence). The word of mouth is that the SPC leadership noted that the US Supreme Court clerkships attracted top law students and wanted to do something similar in China.

The program is a small example of “foreign beneficial experience,” about which I wrote about earlier this year. The official position on borrowing/referring to foreign legal models is set out in the 4th Plenum Decision (as I wrote earlier):

Draw from the quintessence of Chinese legal culture, learn from beneficial experiences in rule of law abroad, but we can absolutely not indiscriminately copy foreign rule of law concepts and models.

President Xi Jinping’s further gloss on this is:

China shall actively absorb and refer to successful legal practices worldwide, but they must be filtered, they must be selectively absorbed and transformed, they may not be swallowed whole and copied (对世界上的优秀法治文明成果,要积极吸收借鉴,也要加以甄别,有选择地吸收和转化,不能囫囵吞枣、照搬照抄).

Unlike Supreme Court clerkships, which are done by recent law graduates, SPC interns are generally required to be students, generally at the master’s or PhD level.  The SPC selects several dozen outstanding students (the number seems to vary) to participate in the sixth month program.  They must be recommended by their law schools (each runs its own selection process)–see this notice by China University of Political Science and Law.  Applications are made to the Political Department of the SPC (it handles personnel matters) rather than to individual judges.  The program is part of the SPC’s outreach to educational institutions and efforts to create a more elite judiciary.

While most requirements are in line with internships in most parts of the world and the stress appears to be on outstanding academic qualifications, among the requirements for the program is having a firm political stand (政治立场坚定) (it seems to be standard for internships in Chinese government/or government affiliated institutions) and the application form asks about the political view of family members.

Preference is given to Beijing area law schools because no housing is provided, and from the lists of accepted interns, it is clear that more Beijing area interns are accepted. For those students from out of town, that means that they needed to find their own accommodations, but all can eat for free in the SPC cafeterias.  For Beijing based students, it likely means a long commute from the law schools based in the suburbs to be at work in the early morning.

Each intern is assigned a mentor, generally a presiding judge (审判长), therefore judge with long years of experience.  Interns are primarily assigned to the substantive/trial divisions (业务部门)  of the SPC and also other SPC offices including:

environmental and natural resources division;

criminal divisions;

State Compensation Office;

Administrative Division;

Enforcement Bureau;

Trial Supervision Division

Civil divisions;

Judicial reform office.

It seems that many were confronted with being assigned to work in areas of law that they had never before encountered, or being involved in work they had never before done. Some worked on judicial interpretation drafting,  many sat in on collegiate panel discussions of cases, assisted in case review, and assisted the teams of judges working on death penalty review while many helped their mentors with related research and administrative matters, finding their work reviewed meticulously, and spending long hours along with their (overworked) mentors.  Given the highly theoretical orientation of Chinese legal education, particularly at the graduate level, the interns (and their mentors) likely encountered major challenges along the way.

The circuit courts, too are taking interns, although they each seem to have their own requirements. The #2 Circuit takes interns from the law schools in Northeast China, the#6 Circuit Court from the Northwest provinces, the #3 Circuit from law schools within its Circuit, while the #1 Circuit Court has taken interns from the Shenzhen-based law schools (School of Transnational Law and Shenzhen University) as well as law schools in other parts of the country.

As part of its outreach to the academic community, the SPC also has a smaller program for legal scholars, seeking to attract elite academics.  That program limited to Chinese nationals from Chinese law schools, who generally should not be over the age of 50!

 

 

 

 

Farewell Judge Fang Jingang

 

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 10.21.46 AM

Funeral of Judge Fang Jinggang, #4 Circuit Court, Zhengzhou

Screen Shot 2017-10-22 at 9.04.21 PM

Screen Shot 2017-10-22 at 7.22.35 AM

from website of Yale’s Paul Tsai China Center

Screen Shot 2017-10-22 at 7.24.05 AM

While Party leaders (including Supreme People’s Court (SPC) President Zhou Qiang) were attending the 19th Communist Party Congress, tragedy again struck the Chinese judiciary. Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Judge Fang Jingang, who was working in the #4 Circuit Court in Zhengzhou, succumbed to a heart attack at the age of 51. Joining the dark-suited crowd pictured above (his circuit court colleagues and selected current and former senior personnel from Supreme People’s Court (SPC) headquarters and elsewhere, including his former superior Jing Hanchao, now deputy secretary of the Central Political Legal Committee )  in spirit was a large crowd of former colleagues and friends, located in China and abroad who were unable to attend the funeral in person.

Judge Fang can be considered a symbol of the new generation of elite Chinese judges. He spent many years  in the local courts as well as the SPC and also spent time abroad.  Like many of his colleagues, he had a PhD, and had worked in Hunan courts before being recruited to the SPC, initially to the Institute of Applied Jurisprudence and SPC’s judicial reform office. While at the Institute and thereafter, he and colleagues translated foreign materials (including several year-end reports of the federal judiciary) for internal reference and publication and he continued to research and make use of foreign law. He also spent several months at Yale Law School as a visiting scholar and as a result made friends among the Chinese law academic community in the United States (and continued to keep up with English language news, presumably from foreign sources).

After he returned to China he transferred to the “front line”–to the SPC’s case acceptance division and #2 civil division and was also sent to work in Tibet’s Higher People’s Court for three years under the SPC’s “assist Tibet” program.  While at the #2 civil division, he was part of the team of people drafting the #4 Company Law interpretation and has been at the #4 Circuit Court in Zhengzhou since the beginning of this year.  He continued to work with his #2 civil division colleagues on the Company Law interpretation and somehow find time to write articles on the interpretation, including one comparing US corporation law with the new Company Law interpretation, the latter published posthumously.

Screen Shot 2017-10-22 at 2.31.31 PM

Judge Fang in meeting at 4th Circuit with Columbia Law School Prof. Benjamin Liebman & others, May, 2017

SPC-related media obituaries range from the very official (on the SPC website) to the more personal (this one with quotes from several of his former colleagues). Early indications are that Judge Fang may also become a “model judge” (like Judge Zou Bihua) as SPC President Zhou Qiang and Executive Vice President Shen Deyong have already said that others should learn from Judge Fang. Judge Fang was posthumously awarded the title of “national excellent judge.”

Query whether Judge Fang’s death might indicate that the SPC’s circuit court model is too “lean and mean.” Statistics issued by the SPC in August indicate that almost half of all cases accepted by the SPC in the first half of this year have been accepted by the circuit courts, meaning that circuit court judges are under extreme pressure to deal with cases that are complicated/involving large amounts in dispute on time, and discrete inquiries indicate that many are working weekends and into the night.  Like Fang, many of them who were involved in judicial interpretation drafting when working at SPC headquarters continue to provide input to the work of their colleagues at SPC headquarters and are pulled into other research and writing projects.  And like Fang, working in a circuit court means that they away from their families.

Screen Shot 2017-10-25 at 11.51.20 AM

Judge Fang, center, singing karaoke

When singing karaoke recently, he changed the lyrics of a song to say “live as a fourth circuit person, die as a fourth circuit spirit.” 还说:“生是四巡人,死是四巡鬼”

SPC reveals new Belt & Road-related initiatives

Screen Shot 2017-10-06 at 11.05.55 AM

Judge Liu Guixiang (SPC judicial committee member & head of #1 Circuit Court) speaking at conference

In late September (2017), the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held a Belt & Road judicial conference with senior judges from 16 jurisdictions in the desert oasis of Dunhuang, famed for its Buddhist caves.  As is its custom at its international conferences, the SPC released some information concerning previously unknown cross-border related initiatives, both of which have implications for the international business and legal communities.  The English language reports of the conference (in China Daily and related media outlets)  missed the implications.  A brief article in one of the SPC’s Wechat accounts reveals that:

  • SPC is drafting a judicial interpretation on the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil & commercial judgments (关于承认和执行外国法院民商事判决若干问题的规定);
  • SPC is considering establishing a Belt & Road International Commercial Court (literally “Tribunal”) (“一带一路”国际商事法庭). (chief of the SPC’s #4 Civil Division, Judge Zhang Yongjian, must have been speaking of this when he was interviewed during the 2017 National People’s Congress meeting).

Enforcing foreign civil judgments

A recent decision by a Wuhan court to enforce a California default judgment has received worldwide attention, both professional and academic. with some noting nothing had really changed and Professor Donald Clarke correctly wondering whether an instruction had come from on high.  With this news from Judge Liu, it is clear that the Wuhan decision is part of the Chinese courts’ rethink of its approach to recognizing and enforcing foreign court judgments.

Judge Liu revealed that the judicial interpretation will set out details regarding the meaning of “reciprocity” and standards for applying it (明确互惠原则具体适用的标准).  In another recent article, an SPC judge considered the matter of reciprocity in more detail.  Among the issues she mentioned were: 1) China not being a party to the Hague Convention on the Choice of Courts (this obstacle has been removed as China signed the Convention on 12 September 2017 (this article has a good overview); 2) China should actively participate in the drafting of the Hague Convention on the Recognition & Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (this seems to be happening, as this blog has reported).  The SPC judge recognized that the current Chinese position has significant limitations and can lead to a great deal of parallel litigation (see Professor Vivienne Bath‘s scholarship on this).  The SPC judge also suggested that the standards set out in mutual judicial assistance agreements could be useful in drafting standards for reviewing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Belt & Road Commercial Court

Judge Liu also mentioned that the SPC would establish a Belt & Road dispute resolution mechanism and that the SPC was considering a Belt & Road commercial tribunal, to provide the parties of OBOR countries with fair, efficient, and low-cost one-stop legal services.  It is clear from discrete developments that the SPC is looking to Singapore’s International Commercial Court and the Dubai’s International Finance Centre Courts (DIFC).  One of those discrete developments is the cooperation agreement that the Shanghai Higher People’s Court and Dubai International Finance Centre Court signed in October 2016 (reported here), which must have required the concurrence of the SPC. The other discrete development is the memorandum of understanding on legal and judicial cooperation between the SPC and Singapore Supreme Court, signed in August 2017, relating to mutual recognition and enforcement of monetary judgments, judicial training for judges, and the Belt & Road initiative.

The details of the SPC’s  Belt & Road commercial court (tribunal) are yet unclear.  Both the DIFC and Singapore International Commercial Court have a panel of international judges, but a similar institution in China would be inconsistent with Chinese legislation.  The SPC is clearly interested in promoting mediation to resolve Belt & Road disputes. This interest is visible from the September 2017 International Mediation conference in Hangzhou, at which Judge Long Fei, director of one of the sections in the SPC’s Judicial Reform Office, spoke on the benefits of international commercial mediation.

Perhaps the SPC envisions an institution analogous to the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and plans to cooperate more on resolving Belt & Road commercial disputes with UNCITRAL and other international organizations.  We will need to see how this further develops.

It is also unclear whether the SPC will issue a draft judicial interpretation or draft regulations on the Belt & Road dispute resolution center for public comment.  Although President Zhou Qiang and Executive Vice President Shen Deyong speak of the benefits of judicial transparency, it seems the benefits of public participation in judicial interpretation drafting /rule-making have yet to be fully realized.

 

Supreme People’s Court gears up for 19th Party Congress

Screen Shot 2017-09-24 at 5.31.26 PM.png

As the days count down to the 19th Party Congress, all Party/government institutions are preparing for it, including the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). On 19 September, the SPC issued an emergency notice (pictured above), calling on the lower courts to strengthening law enforcement work to provide a good judicial environment for the holding of the 19th Party Congress.  The SPC, as other Party/government institutions, issue emergency notices from time to time (here’s one from the Ministry of Education), generally linked to a politically significant event. The full text for the SPC notice hasn’t been released (or if it has, it has escaped me). It is meant to send signals to the SPC staff and to the lower courts.

Some of the signals:

  • improve performance indicator systems (indicating too many courts still have dysfunctional performance indicators);
  • handle more cases, handle them well, handle them quickly (多办案、办好案、快办案, language better suited to the factory floor);
  • ensure that the goal of having  difficulties in enforcement basically resolved in three years is achieved (again….);
  • clear up those unresolved cases (要抓好长期未结案件清理,确保依法妥善清理案件)–this is being taken seriously by court leaders, again judges (and their clerks, assistants and interns). The PhDs (and Master’s degree holders) praised by the SPC may feel they are somewhere between a model production worker and a real judge (or clerk.). (Of the SPC quota judges, about 1/3 have PhDs, with over half holding a master’s degree), and PhDs are not unusual in the lower courts, at least in major cities.)  An unscientific survey shows judges and their support staff doing more overtime during the pre-19th Party Congress and pre-Golden Week holiday to meet this target;
  • reminds the lower courts about the case registration reform and reminds judges that cases should be accepted, even towards year end, when courts are concerned about their case closing numbers, especially the number of cases that will be carried over to the next year, and warns them against reporting false closing statistics  (坚决杜绝人为抬高立案门槛、拖延立案、年底前提前关门不收案等突出问题), (切实防止虚假报结、强迫撤诉);
  • reminds courts about another important but controversial judicial reform, implementing the judicial responsibility system (insightful analysis and research from within the courts on this is coming out, see this recent article in the National Judicial College’s journal);
  • it reminds judges of ways to deal with the increase and cases and reduction in headcount–use diversified dispute resolution, separate simple from complicated cases, and try similar cases together.

The SPC released some year to date (end August) statistics (I’m drilling down on the state of transparency in this area)–close to 16 million newly accepted cases (15.89 million), no breakdown on how cases are categorized, closed cases up to 12.67 million (up 15.7%). This indicates continued high pressure on first instance judges and their assistants. I’m awaiting data on what the vortex of reforms means for retaining high quality judges.

 

 

China’s draft court law

Screen Shot 2017-09-10 at 8.40.56 PM

Screenshot of trial in the Haidian district court

A draft of the first comprehensive overhaul of China’s court law since 1979 (the organic/organizational law of the people’s courts) is now open for public comment (until 4 October).  A translation of the draft is available at Chinalawtranslate.com (many thanks to those who made it possible).  A translation of the current law is here and an explanation of the amendments has also been published.  The draft is significantly longer than the earlier version of the law (66 vs. 40 articles). It retains much of the framework of the old law, incorporates legislative changes as well many of the judicial reforms, particularly since the Third and Fourth Plenums, and leaves some flexibility for future reforms. As with the current law, Communist Party regulations address (and add another layer to) some of the broad issues addressed in the draft law. Some comments:

Drafting process

The drafting process (the explanation has the details) reflects the drafting of much Chinese legislation (further insights about the process from Jamie Horsley here)–several years of soft consultation by the drafters of relevant Party and government authorities, plus one month of public consultations. Among the central Party authorities consulted were: Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, Central Organizational Department (in charge of cadres); Central Staffing Commission (in charge of headcount); Central Political Legal Committee.  On the government side: Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate; State Council Legislative Affairs Office; Ministry of Finance, National People’s Congress Legal Work Committee. Investigations and consultations were also done at a local level.

General Provisions

Some of the dated language from the 1979 version has been deleted (references to the “system of the dictatorship of the proletariat,” “socialist property,” and the “smooth progress of the socialist revolution.” replaced by “lawful rights and interests of legal persons,” and protection of national security and social order. Although the draft court law deletes language that distinguishes among owners of different types of Chinese companies, Chinese criminal law still does (see this chart setting out sentencing guidelines, for example).

Article 10 of the draft incorporates judicial responsibility systems into the law (a prominent feature of the recent judicial reforms), but a topic regarding which dispassionate analysis is hard to find.

The draft contains clear statements about judicial openness and the right of the masses (i.e. ordinary people, that term is alive and well) to know about the work of the courts (according to law).

Organization of the courts

The draft mentions some of the specialized and special courts that have been established over the last thirty years:

Article 14 incorporates the guiding case system into the draft.

Article 15 of the draft crystallizes the SPC’s circuit courts (tribunals) into law (SPC regulations on the jurisdiction of those courts found here).

Article 24 gives space for establishing cross-administrative region courts (the time has not yet been ripe for establishing them).

Articles 26 and 27 give courts some flexibility on their internal structure (courts in remote areas with few cases need not establish divisions, while large city courts can have multiple specialized ones. (Earlier blogposts have mentioned establishing bankruptcy divisions, for example.)

Trial Organization

This section of the draft law incorporates the current judicial reforms in several ways, including:

  • In Articles 30-31, on the operation of collegial panels and requiring the court president to be the presiding judge when s(he) participates in a collegial panel;
  • Mentioning in Article 32 that the members of the collegial panel are the ones to sign their judgments and dissenting opinions are to be recorded;
  • Article 34 gives space for eliminating the role of people’s assessors to determine issues of law;
  • Article 37 incorporates into law previous SPC regulations on judicial interpretations and guiding cases, specifying that they must be approved by the SPC judicial committee;
  • Article 40 contains provisions imposing liability on members of the adjudication/judicial committee for their comments and their votes. It also incorporates into the law SPC regulations on disclosing the views of the judicial committee in the final judgments, except where the law provides it would be inappropriate;
  • Article 41 also incorporates into the law the specialized committees mentioned in judicial reform documents (briefly discussed in prior blogposts).

Court Personnel

Article 42 requires court presidents to have legal knowledge and experience.  It has long been an issue that court presidents have been appointed more for their political than legal expertise.

It appears that the reform of having judges below the provincial level appointed by the provincial level is not yet in place,

This section of the draft court law incorporates the personnel reforms set out in the judicial reform documents in several ways: quota judge system; selecting higher court judges from the lower courts; the roles of judicial assistants and clerks (changed from the old model); other support personnel in the courts; a new career track for judges, including judicial selection committees; preference to hiring judges with legal qualifications;

Safeguards for the courts’ exercise of authority

Article 56 gives courts the right to refuse to engage in activities that violate their legally prescribed duties (with this end the phenomenon of judges sweeping streets?);

Article 57 relates to reforms relating to enforcement of judgments (and the social credit system);

Article 59 relates to threats to judges’ physical safety and personal dignity, that occur several times a year in China, and have been the subject of SPC regulations;

Scope for further reforms for judicial personnel management (including salary reform!) are included in this section.

Article 60 reiterates the principle that judges may only be transferred, demoted, dismissed according to procedures specified by law (Party procedures  to which most judges are subject,are governed by Party rules.)

Article 62 relates to judicial (and judicial personnel training)–some earlier blogposts have shed light on this topic.

Article 64 incorporates into the draft law President Zhou Qiang’s focus on the informatization (including use of the internet and big data) of the Chinese courts.

Etc.

My apologies to readers for the long gap between posts, but several long haul trips from Hong Kong plus teaching have left me no time to post.

Supreme People’s Court ramps up its judicial responsibility system

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 7.04.09 AMIn April of this year (2017), the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its judicial responsibility guidelines.  At the end of July, the SPC issued a 73 article implementing opinion (最高人民法院司法责任制实施意见(试行)(Implementing Opinion), which went into effect on 1 August 2017.  There have been many summary reports in the legal press, but the full text was not found until 11 August. 2017 It has since been published by several Wechat accounts, but as of this writing, no official text has been issued.  The policy basis for the responsibility system links back to the 3rd and 4th Plenum Decisions. Senior Party leadership (the Central Leading Group for Comprehensively Deepening Reforms) approved the SPC’s responsibility system.

The document establishes operating rules for the SPC  after this latest round of court reforms, and therefore sets guidelines for the lower courts. It can be expected that the lower courts will issue corresponding documents. Through the Implementing Opinion, it is possible to see how much autonomy an individual judge/three judge panel has and what matters require approval by senior SPC leaders.

Opinions (as this blog has previously explained) are not judicial interpretations but a type of judicial normative document.   A recent Wechat post by an SPC commercial subsidiary, Faxin (法信), described them as judicial guiding documents (司法指导性文件). That is the terminology being used for them in a series of books published by the People’s Court Press. Inconsistent legal terminology is not a new phenomenon.

The basic principles of the Implementing Opinion are said to implement central authorities’ requirements, let those who hear cases bear responsibility, clarify how cases are to be dealt with and put in place the Party group’s responsibility for enforcement (the phrase “Party group” actually is mentioned three times) and case handling. It appears that some provisions memorialize current practice, while others set out new rules.

The  Implementing Opinion specifies roles of different personnel and institutions within the SPC such as the court president (and vice presidents), heads of divisions, professional judges committee, judicial committee, presiding judges, judges in charge of cases, clerks, and judicial assistants. It provides guidelines on how cases are to dealt with, from case acceptance, random case assignment, to issuing decisions.

The Implementing Opinion includes the following (selected) provisions:

  • Details on staffing for judges (one assistant and one clerk in the circuit courts, and some assistants and clerks at headquarters) (Article 3);
  • those with a leadership role (President/vice president/vice/heads of divisions) should generally be the presiding judge (Article 5), while the judges in collegial panels should change every 2-5 years;
  • leaders need to hear cases, that are difficult/important/guiding, etc., but specialists are designated to assist them (Article 7);
  • rules on who will issue judgments, mentioning that the president of the SPC signs the  order for the implementation of the death penalty (this was understood to be the case already)(Article 11);
  • court leaders may not give oral/written instructions concerning a case (except as otherwise provided (i.e. cases that are considered by the judicial committee)(Article 12);
  • responsibilities of professional judges committees (a committee put into place under the judicial reforms); judicial committee (can be split into specialist civil, criminal, enforcement subcommittees) (role said to have narrowed, but include major/difficult cases affecting national interests & social stability, but also other non-case related duties such as approving judicial interpretations/judicial normative documents, etc., the judicial committees requires  views be stated in the judgment (Articles 16-19);
  • the basic rule is random case assignment, with exceptions for major/difficult cases (Article 26-27), with electronic service of process & documents if agreed (Article 32);
  • basic rule is online broadcast of SPC court hearings, unless approved by leaders otherwise (Article 33), with requirements concerning the posting of rulings/judgments and other transparency requirements mentioned in the document;
  • circuit courts are prohibited (in general) from considering requests for instructions (the rule makes sense–it would defeat one of the purposes of having circuit courts (Article 25, this is an example);
  •  Articles 41-43 relate to precedent case review (as suggested in my recent article) and require approval by leaders if the ruling in a case will be inconsistent with prior SPC rulings on the topic (this has been criticized as being inconsistent with judicial autonomy). Approval is required in several other situations, see Article 40 (2-4));
  • Articles 46-50 set forth rules for a collegiate panel to consider a case and submit it to the division leadership/professional judges committee/judicial committee;
  • Article 51 requires the judge responsible for the case (承办法官) to draft the decision reached according to the majority view, indicating that the role of responsible judge has administrative overtones. If not so, the judgment would be drafted by one of the judges who agreed with the majority view.
  • Article 58 retains existing special procedures (including special standards for transparency) for certain criminal cases, such as death penalty cases, cases involving foreigners, overseas Chinese, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwanese Chinese.
  • Article 61 provides the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) representative stationed at the SPC can be a member of the judicial committee (this seems to be analogous to the procedure under law under which a representative from the procuratorate can take part in judicial committee meetings). Additionally, anti-corruption officials stationed in each division can participate in professional judges committee meetings and collegiate panel discussions.   Article 61 does not require their views to be adopted.  It could be that their views are considered more seriously if discussions relate to matters regarding which they are competent.
  • Article 64 requires certain types of cases to be submitted for approval to higher levels of the SPC, including cases involving mass incidents, that will have an effect on social stability; difficult and complicated cases that will have a major effect on society; cases that will conflict with prior SPC cases; those that indicate the judge violated the law; death penalty review, major criminal cases, cases involving requests for instructions involving foreigners, overseas Chinese, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwanese Chinese.

The vision for the reformed SPC remains a court with administrative characteristics (官本位), with concepts derived from other jurisdictions (judge’s assistant would be an example), that enables Party guidance in sensitive cases and its operations to reflect changes in Party/government policy (serving the actual situation), but seeks to be a more professional and accessible institution, hearing cases in a professional manner. It can be surmised that certain provisions from the Implementing Opinion will be incorporated into the revisions of the Organizational Law of the People’s Courts currently being drafted.

 

 

Law-related Wechat public accounts (2017 version) (1)

logoI’ve posted several times about law-related Wechat (微信) public accounts.  They are an important resource for those trying to understand Chinese legal developments (or their absence) and their implications or impact. For the observer, it enables us to learn about new issues (or aspects of issues) that we didn’t know existed, and (depending on the topic), hear viewpoints other than the official one, or at least read hints of dissenting views. Those with the Wechat app on their smartphone can subscribe to these public accounts but it is also possible to find some these articles through an internet search.  Note that the “Mr. Yong” about whom I wrote in 2016 still lurks on Wechat, so articles published may disappear.

Below is an incomplete guide to some useful law-related Wechat public accounts–oriented to my own interests, to be followed up when time permits.  Please contact me through the comment function or by email with additional suggestions.

Official accounts

As I’ve written before Party/government authorities use Wechat public accounts to reach out to a public that is moving away from traditional media to their smartphones. SPC policy is encouraging courts to do so.  There is some but not complete overlap between articles that appear on an institution’s website and Wechat account. There is complete overlap when more political matters are involved. Even some articles published on institutional public accounts have a “netizen” tone and popular netizen slang and images, such as this one from the Qianhai Court public account.

Screen Shot 2017-07-29 at 9.13.10 AM

You’re right, today the little editor wants to tell everyone A BIG! THING! about the Qianhai Court!

Some large institutions (Supreme People’s Court (SPC) and Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP)), have affiliated research, publishing and educational institutions, with each having a Wechat public accounts under its auspices. There is some overlap in articles, but others are unique to the Wechat account.

The SPC has its official account: Wechat ID: ch_zgrmfy; People’s Court Daily: Wechat ID: renminfayuanbao; SPC’s research institute, The Institute for Applied Jurisprudence, Wechat ID: fayansuo; National Judicial College’s Wechat ID:falvshiyongzazhi (Wechat version of their magazine, Application of Law (法律适用) & account of its case research institute (司法案例研究院), Wechat ID: sifalyjy.  There is also an account on diversified dispute resolution, linked to the Institute for Applied Jurisprudence: 多元化纠纷解决机制 (SIFAADR). The electronic database Faxin (法信) affiliated with People’s Court Press (which itself has a Wechat account: fayuanchubanshe) also has a Wechat account, Legal_information, as do the journals 中国审判  (Id: zhongguoshenpan) and人民司法 (renminsifa). (This list is incomplete).

Officially approved accounts but not official

Some individuals affiliated with legal institutions have Wechat public accounts (presumably with the approval of their institutional leaders), among them: account of a Pudong New area judge, 法眼观察 (fygc20140416)–here is a recent article on the large number of cases in his and 19 other local courts; 法影斑斓 , account of He Fan, judge in the judicial reform office of the SPC, Wechat ID: funnylaw1978; CU检说法 (CU-JIAN), account of a local prosecutor (see an article on prosecutor’s assistants) 稻花蛙声(paddyfrog), recent article on judicial reform as seen from the bottom of the judicial food chain;法治昌明 (fazhichaming), with a recent article on the toxic system of performance appraisals.

Supervision Commission

The two must read accounts for those trying to understand what is happening with the supervision commission pilots:监察委前沿 (jianchaweiqy)and反腐先锋 (recent article on the framework for the supervision commissions published here)

Others, many previously recommended

  • Arbitration:  Wechat ID: cnarb1, account of Lin Yifei, mentioned in an earlier blogpost.  I highly recommend it to both practitioners and others interested in arbitration.
  • Labor law:Wechat ID: laodongfaku (劳动法库) (with over 200,000 followers; Wechat ID: ldfview (子非鱼说劳动法);
  • Civil law 海坛特哥 (haitanlegal), account of Chen Te, formerly of the Beijing Higher People’s Court, now a lawyer (高衫legal) [his earlier posts focused on medical law], Wechat ID: gaoshanlegal;  审判研究, Wechat ID: spyjweixin; 法客帝国, Wechat ID: Empirelawyers; 审判研究, Wechat ID: msspck.
  • Criminal law: 辩护人Defender (bianhuren_net); 辩护园地 (zrflawyer); 刑事实务, Wechat ID: xingshishiwu; 刑事审判参考 Wechat ID: criminailaw;说刑品案 (xingshishenpan)
  • International law: Wechat ID: ciil 2015 国际法促进中心
  • IP law–知产力 (zhichanli); 知识产权那点事, Wechat ID: IPR888888.
  • Aggregators–智和法律新媒体, Wechat ID: zhihedongfang; 法律博客, Wechat ID: falvboke,  法律读品, Wechat ID: lawread.

 

 

Forthcoming individual bankruptcy legislation revealed in letter to President Zhou Qiang’s mailbox

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 12.48.54 PMMost readers of this blog are unlikely to know that the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) publishes on its website responses to selected letters to President Zhou Qiang that make suggestions and give opinions. In a July 11 response, the SPC revealed that individual bankruptcy legislation is on its agenda. As I suggest below, actual legislation is likely to come later.

The letter said:

Dear Mr. Pan Dingxin:

We received your proposal, and after consideration, we respond as follows:

establishing and implementing an individual bankruptcy system is beneficial for those individuals or households who have fallen into serious financial distress to exempt some of their debts and enable them again through their hard work to achieve normal business and living conditions. Because of this, it has an important function to protect individuals and households that have fallen into financial difficulties. However an individual bankruptcy system relates to the establishment and improvement of an individual credit system and commercialization of commercial banks or their further marketization and other factors.  At the same time, the implementation of an individual bankruptcy system requires the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee to legislate. We believe that with development and improvement of the socialist market economic, the National People’s Congress or its Standing Committee will promulgate an individual bankruptcy law on the basis of the experience with the “PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.” The Supreme People’s Court will definitely actively support the work of the relevant departments of the state, and promote the implementation of an individual bankruptcy system.

Thank you for your support of the work of the Supreme People’s Court!

Supreme People’s Court

June 15, 2017

Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 9.37.15 PM Few are aware that Shenzhen has been working on draft individual bankruptcy legislation for several years now, looking to Hong Kong’s experience and legislation, described in a recent report as a “complete” individual bankruptcy system (“完善的个人破产制度”).  The process has been going on for so long that the team (designated by the local people’s congress and lawyers association) and headed by a Shenzhen law firm partner published a book one year ago with its proposed draft and explanations.

Although Professor Tian Feilong of Beihang University’s Law School has been recently widely quoted for his statement about Hong Kong’s legal system undergoing “nationalisation,”  this is an example, known to those closer to the the world of practice, that Hong Kong’s legal system is also seen as a source of legal concepts and systems that can possibly be borrowed.  The drafting team looked at Hong Kong (among other jurisdictions) and others in China have proposed the same as well.

Shenzhen’s municipal intermediate court has completed an (award-winning) study on judicial aspects of individual bankruptcy shared with the relevant judges at the SPC.

If recent practice is any guide, individual bankruptcy legislation will be piloted in Shenzhen and other regions before  nationwide legislation is proposed, and it will be possible to observe the possible interaction between those rules and the government’s social credit system. So national individual bankruptcy legislation appears to be some years off.

As to why the SPC has a letter to the court president function, the answer is on the SPC website: it is to further develop the mass education and practice campaign (mentioned in this blogpost four years ago) and listen to the opinions and suggestions of all parts of society (the masses).  Listening to the opinion and suggestions of society are also required of him as a senior Party leader, by recently updated regulations. The regulations are the latest expression of long-standing Party principles.

Screen Shot 2017-07-27 at 12.48.33 PM

Welcome to the “Court President’s Mailbox”

 

 

Chinese courts & formality requirements

apostille

Hong Kong Apostille (from internet)

In February, 2017, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued its second judicial transparency white paper, giving the official version of what the SPC has done to respond to public demands for greater transparency about the Chinese judicial system. But what are the voices from the world of practice saying? One of the issues (for a small but vocal group, foreign litigants) is inconsistent and non-transparent formalities requirements.

Chinese civil procedure legislation requires a foreign litigant to notarize and legalize corporate documents, powers of attorney & other documents. It is a time consuming and costly process, with some jurisdictions providing documents that do not meet the expectation of Chinese courts.   China is not yet a signatory to the Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents  (Hague Legalization Convention)   which substitutes the faster and cheaper apostille process (note that Hague Legalization Convention continues to be applicable to Hong Kong and Macau under the terms of the joint declarations and Basic Laws for each Special Administrative Region (SAR)).  About one year ago, a Ministry of Justice official published a Wechat article discussing the benefits of the Hague Legalization Convention (as well as the issues facing China in implementing it).

While this article addresses issues faced by foreign plaintiffs seeking to challenge Trademark Review and Adjudication Board decisions in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court (Beijing IP Court), according to other practitioners (who have asked not to be identified), these problems with inconsistent (and non-transparent) requirements concerning legalizing foreign corporate documentation are not limited to the Beijing IP Court, but face foreign parties appealing from intermediate courts to provincial high courts elsewhere in China. These requirements can have the effect of cutting off a party’s ability to bring an appeal, for example.

What is the solution?  The long-term solution, of course, is for China to become a signatory to the Hague Legalization Convention.  In the meantime, Chinese courts should be more transparent about their formalities requirements.  These requirements affect all foreign parties, whether they are from One Belt, One Road  (OBOR) countries or not. If China is seeking to become an international maritime judicial center or hear more OBOR commercial cases, the Chinese courts need to become more user friendly.  Courts with significant numbers of foreign cases (Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen….) can consider reaching out to the foreign chambers of commerce, many of which have legal committees, to understand in greater detail what specific problems foreign litigants face (and convey their views to foreign audiences). Resolving this issue can create some goodwill with the foreign business community with relatively little effort.