Category Archives: case database

administrative cases, Answers Database, case database, socialist core values

2025 Year-End Supreme People’s Court Typical Cases

Leave a comment
Press conference announcing the joint SPC & SPP administrative public interest litigation typical cases

The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued or participated in issuing close to two dozen groups of typical cases from the beginning of November to the end of December, 2025.

These typical cases reflect the latest policies promoted by the SPC and  President Zhang Jun (张军)’s preference for conveying judicial policy through typical cases.   Conveying policy through typical cases is also consistent with the guidance of General Secretary Xi Jinping, who has stressed that “one case is better than a dozen documents (习近平总书记强调， “一个案例胜过一打文件”).  Each group represents an accomplishment for the division, bureau, or office that reviewed and edited (compiled) the cases and, in some cases, negotiated with other institutions to select cases that meet the needs of multiple institutions.   This post highlights some of the trends visible in these latest typical cases, but first provides a Chinese case law system refresher.

1993 collection of SPC Gazette typical cases & judicial interpretations

Quick Chinese case law system refresher

Typical cases are part of the SPC’s dynamic case guidance system. I am including a brief overview of the dynamic Chinese case law system to clarify the role of typical cases, as these two recent articles suggest confusion among journalists, and some of my own students have difficulty understanding the system.   I use the term “dynamic” because the elements of the case guidance system have changed under SPC President Zhang Jun 张军. My sense is that SPC judges in different substantive areas place different emphasis on case guidance as tools in their guidance toolbox, but that is a discussion for a different day and forum.

  1. The most persuasive type of cases in the case guidance system are guiding cases (指导性案例),  which have been approved by the SPC judicial (adjudication) committee.  Former Judge Guo Feng  described guiding cases here as “of  [an] authoritative, normative, exemplary, and uniformly applicable nature. They are de facto binding. The compilation of GCs has specific standards and standardized procedures and needs to meet requirements for high quality….Where a case being adjudicated is, in terms of the basic facts and application of law, similar to a Guiding Case released by the Supreme People’s Court, the court should refer to the “Main Points of the Adjudication” of the relevant Guiding Case in its ruling or judgment.” Judge Guo provides an authoritative explanation of the meaning of “refers to” and related issues in the same article linked above.  This earlier blogpost summarizes the 2020 SPC guidance on similar case search.
  2. The second most authoritative type of case is the reference case (参考案例).   As I wrote here, “reference cases” are a new type of edited case published in the People’s Court Case Database（人民法院案例库), which launched in early 2024.  The principal drafters of the People’s Court Case Database Work Procedures clarified in an authoritative article that “reference cases”  are “a new type of edited case created by the Case Database system. Their effectiveness is higher than other cases except for guiding cases.”  As of 23 December 2025, the  People’s Court Case Database contains 5216 reference cases.  My earlier post explains the selection process.
  3. Another type of guidance, which some SPC media describe as part of the case database system, is the Court Answers Platform, also translated as the “Judicial Q & A Platform,” which I analyzed in the earlier post.  The official intent, as evidenced in this article in SPC media, is for the People’s Court Database and the Court Answers Platform to be an integrated guidance product. This goal was mentioned in the SPC’s report to the NPC, as well as the latest court reform plan (about which I have a short article on its way to publication).
  4. The type of case guidance with the longest history is the typical (典型 model/exemplary/example) case. Typical cases too, are edited cases and are therefore “compiled.” The SPC Gazette started publishing typical cases in 1985, but I have earlier typical cases in other SPC publications in my research archives.
    As I wrote here, the SPC’s Gazette cases are generally considered to be the most authoritative of the typical cases, but there is no authoritative guidance on the definition or hierarchy of typical cases.  I have more details on typical cases in that article. Typical cases are considered to guide the lower courts as a form of case guidance and policy signaling.  Therefore, Chinese lawyers and in-house counsel also pay attention to typical cases. Typical cases are also used as a form of public legal education (普法, see here and here).
  5.  I am not further discussing the authoritativeness of judgments or rulings, but see my earlier discussion.

The rules derived from these cases are not static.  Provisions from typical cases may be incorporated into meeting minutes (conference summaries 会议纪要), for example,  while on 30 December 2025, the SPC issued a judicial interpretation that drew on questions raised on the Court Answers Platform. It is not unusual for provisions from guiding cases or judicial interpretations to be incorporated into legislation.

Overview of Recent Typical Cases

What the SPC has issued in the last two months of 2025 are typical cases (典型案例). The SPC issued several groups of typical cases with the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), which serve to harmonize views on specific issues between the two institutions and sometimes with multiple institutions.  The SPC issued several with regulatory/administrative institutions, reflecting a policy trend of recent years. President Zhang Jun highlighted this policy in his 2024 specialized report to the NPC Standing Committee on administrative litigation (I have a draft article that touches on this policy trend).  This year’s year-end typical cases include several groups with the Women’s Federation and one group with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions.

Some groups of cases promote mediation (phrased as promoting the Fengqiao Experience 枫桥经验). (For those with the time to read academic articles, a recent article by Professor Benjamin Liebman and Liu Zeming has an extended discussion of this.

Some typical cases of note:

  1. A group of domestic violence cases 最高法发布2025年中国反家暴典型案例.  Jeremy Daum’s (Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center/Chinalawtranslate.com) analysis of those cases is found here. He said “the release shows a generally positive direction, and was interesting in that the cases were presented as showing compliance with international legal norms.”

2.  Fourth Group of  Civil Cases That Embody Socialist Core Values 最高人民法院发布5起第四批人民法院大力弘扬社会主义核心价值观典型民事案例  These cases appear to be aimed at educating the general public and providing some guidance for less experienced judges on how socialist core values can be applied. Among the cases are: two cases involving employers: a workplace sexual harassment case and an employer that withdrew a job offer after the candidate accepted it and had provided evidence of terminating his previous job; a slip and fall case brought by someone who focused on his phone rather than his step.  The SPC issuing a typical case conveying that workplace sexual harassment is a violation of socialist core values is particularly significant.

For those with a greater interest in socialist core values and court judgments, I wrote a quick summary of the related SPC guiding opinion here and commented that “it can be seen as a part of the ‘socialist core valueization’ of Chinese law and the legal system, and in particular, the judiciary. It is one important piece of how the judiciary is being further transformed in the Xi Jinping era.” A 2024 student note by Liu Zeming in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law argues that through the project of integrating socialist core values into judgments,  the Party-state is effectively imposing a new conception of what Chinese law is.

3. Typical cases of application of model texts (third batch) (最高法发布示范文本应用典型案例（第三批）). These cases provide examples to the lower courts and public of how courts are using model texts (court forms), a project involving cooperation between the SPC,  Ministry of Justice, and All China Lawyers Association.  Bilingual versions of those forms are behind lawinfoChina.com’s paywall and Chinese versions are available in many places, such as here.    That link leads to a downloadable 900+ page document with the accompanying multi-institutional document and the court forms. The typical cases promote the use of those court forms. An experienced senior judge whom I contacted commented that “these forms are useful for some types of cases, such as traffic accident cases.”

4.  The SPC issued several groups of typical cases with the SPP. The two institutions issued a third group of administrative public interest cases 两高”联合发布第三批行政公益诉讼典型案例 .  The SPC contributed to the drafting of the procuratorate-led public interest litigation law.  Many of the cases involved a local procuracy providing a procuratorial suggestion to an administrative agency to enforce a provision of the law and filing suit when the suggestion was not taken seriously. One of the cases involved a county human resources bureau that did not properly supervise listings on a bureau-sponsored job platform, several of which restricted jobs to men only.  Another group of SPC and SPP typical cases involves corruption cases related to ordinary people (最高人民法院 最高人民检察院联合发布依法惩治群众身边腐败犯罪典型案例).  The cases involve embezzlement, fraud, and misappropriation of funds related to school meals, elderly and disabled person services, medical insurance, etc.  Another group focuses on job-related crimes in the financial sector (最高人民法院、最高人民检察院联合发布依法惩治金融领域职务犯罪典型案例), with cases of corrupt financial regulators and bankers.  The case descriptions provide insights into the many ways corruption can be performed. The fourth group relates to the courts and procuratorate joining forces to substantively resolve administrative disputes, also a policy promoted in recent years.   法检合力法治化实质性化解行政争议典型案例.

4. Typical cases with regulators include: cases with the National Financial Regulatory Administration promoting diversified dispute resolution (particularly mediation) 国家金融监督管理总局; typical cases with the National 最高人民法院联合发布金融领域纠纷多元化解典型案例 and the State Administration of Cultural Heritage 最高人民法院、国家文物局联合发布依法推进文物保护典型案例

5. The SPC issued typical cases with the Women’s Federation as well as with the Women’s Association plus other institutions.  All of these cases relate to women, children, and families. One group of typical cases with the Women’s Federation involving judicial assistance to minors (最高法、全国妇联联合发布保护未成年人权益司法救助典型案例).  The two institutions have jointly issued typical cases several years in a row, previously in time to coincide with Children’s Day. This year, two of the cases involved providing psychological services to the affected minors,  and all involved courts providing financial and other arrangements for minors who lost one or both parents.  It provides a glimpse into the difficulties faced by orphans, particularly in rural areas. The SPC, SPP, Women’s Federation, and Ministry of Justice issued the top 10 cases protecting women’s and children’s rights   Another group of typical cases with the Women’s Federation and Ministry of Justice promotes mediation in family disputes (最高人民法院与全国妇联、司法部联合发布婚姻家庭纠纷调解工作典型案例

6. The SPC issued two groups of typical cases promoting the protection of private enterprise, including one group on private enterprise property rights and retrial cases involving the protection of the rights of private entrepreneurs 最高法发布涉民营企业产权和民营企业家权益保护再审典型案例. Almost 10 years ago, I wrote about a document conveying many of the same points as these typical cases.  Unfortunately, it appears that protecting the rights of private entrepreneurs is an “evergreen” issue for the Chinese courts.

7.  Several groups of typical cases involve labor issues: one involving the evergreen issue of wage arrears of migrant workers (最高人民法院发布人民法院治理欠薪典型执行案例); another issued with the SPP and the All-China Federation of Trade Unions  on using “one letter and two documents”  to protect workers rights (最高法会同全国总工会、最高检联合发布 2025年劳动法律监督“一函两书”典型案例).

  Concluding comment

The primary purpose of these typical cases appears to vary, but all signal “people-centered.”  For the person with patience to wade through the initial political framing, they provide slivers of insight into current judicial policy,  and persistent issues in society, the operation of the judicial system.

The SPC also intends these typical cases to evidence that the SPC is implementing the Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Strengthening Trial Work in the New Era  中共中央关于加强新时代审判工作的意见, the 2025 Party document guiding the work of the courts, which President Zhang Jun has described as “the major political task for the courts at present and the foreseeable future.”

______________________________________

Many thanks to Yuan Ye, PKU doctoral student, for his comments on this post.  This year, I will continue to focus on writing longer articles and trust that some of the articles stuck in the pipeline will see the light of day.  One hope I have for my own work is that I am able to spend some time inside the SPC, although I am doubtful that it will ever be possible in my lifetime.

case database, foreign-related cases, foreign-related rule of law, Maritime courts

Supreme People’s Court’s 2022-2024 Maritime Litigation Report

Leave a comment
Excerpt from the report. It does not clarify why the SPC accepted larger numbers of maritime cases in 2023 and 2024.

On 18 December 2025, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) issued a bilingual report on maritime litigation. (The first link is to the webpage on the SPC’s official website from which the report can be downloaded by scanning a QR code. The second link is to a copy of the report downloadable from my website). The report provides insights for those interested in the latest developments concerning the multiple goals of the Chinese maritime courts.

Excerpts from the press release (in machine translation):

From 2022 to 2024, the three levels of maritime courts nationwide accepted 98,726 maritime cases of various types and concluded 97,140 cases. Among these, 71,705 were maritime and commercial cases, with 70,759 concluded; 5,477 were maritime administrative cases, with 5,482 concluded; 21,359 were maritime enforcement cases, with 20,706 concluded; and 185 were maritime criminal cases, with 193 concluded. Of these, 6,823 cases involved foreign parties, and 6,071 were concluded; 1,226 cases involved Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, and 1,134 were concluded. The cases involved 143 countries and regions. Over the three years, the eleven maritime courts seized 2,592 vessels, including 49 foreign vessels and 6 vessels registered in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan; and auctioned 1,376 vessels, including 13 foreign vessels and 2 vessels registered in Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan.

…[.W]e will promote the modernization of maritime trials and create a preferred location for resolving international maritime disputes. We will improve the domestic maritime rules system and cooperate with the legislative body [NPC and its Standing Committee] to revise laws and regulations such as the Maritime Law. From 2022 to 2024, we released 33 typical maritime cases and 7 special guiding cases on maritime trials, and added 138 maritime cases to the People’s Court case database [人民法院案例库]. We actively participated in the formulation of international rules; the Beijing Convention on Judicial Sale of Ships was successfully signed, and the Convention on Transferable Documents of Goods is progressing in an orderly manner. We will improve the “one-stop” diversified dispute resolution mechanism for foreign-related maritime disputes, effectively enhancing the attractiveness of international maritime dispute resolution. We will strengthen the goal-oriented approach of substantively resolving conflicts and disputes, and adhere to the principles of “as if I were in litigation” and “settling disputes.” We will improve institutional mechanisms, strengthen talent training, and comprehensively improve the quality and efficiency of trials.

These excerpts illustrate some of the themes in my 2024 article, posts on this blog, and my presentations on the SPC and foreign-related rule of law:

  • the policy goal of making China a preferred location for resolving international [maritime] disputes;
  • the primarily domestic caseload of the maritime courts;
  • the SPC working closely with the National People’s Congress (SPC) in foreign-related rule of law-related areas;
  • although much is made of guiding cases in the academic world, it is apparent that the SPC uses typical cases and Case Database cases as preferred guidance tools;
  • the focus on substantively resolving disputes;
  • the SPC participating directly (or indirectly) in the drafting of international rules;
  • further developments related to the maritime courts hearing criminal cases (as highlighted in SPC documents from 2016);
  • although my article was finalized before sanctions-related cases became a focus of the foreign-related work of the Chinese courts, note that the report mentions several sanctions-related cases.

Some have asked about the status of reports such as this. My understanding is that this report is an official statement of the SPC, reflecting its current policies. It must have been internally approved at a senior level, but as a report, it has no legal effect.

case database, Case law

Update on the People’s Court Case Database

Leave a comment

By Susan Finder, with research assistance by Sun Jinping (孙金萍)

What do we know now about the People’s Court Case Database (Case Database, 人民法院案例库) that we did not know when in launched in late February 2024?  What insights do 10 months of operation of this case database provide?  This blogpost provides a consolidated analysis of the Case Database,  incorporating the work procedures for the Case Database (Case Database Work Procedures, 人民法院案例库建设运行工作规程), issued in May 2024, the analysis previously published on this blog in March 2024, and observations of practice, summarizing what the Case Database is, why it was established, some historical background, how cases are incorporated into the database,  comments from local judges on its usability, and my own comments on its significance.

What is the Case Database?

The Case Database (人民法院案例库)  provides a collection of 4338 edited cases (案例) rather than original judgments, rulings, or other judicial documents as collected in China Judgements Online (裁判文书网). According to the Case Database Work Procedures, the Case Database incorporates guiding cases and certain “reference cases” (参考案例) which have been reviewed and approved by the SPC.  The judgments in the reference cases must have come into force and have referential and exemplary value for the trial of similar cases. However, the Case Database Work Procedures do not define “reference cases,” or clearly situate them compared to guiding or typical (exemplary, model) cases.  The “Understanding and Application” article written by the principal drafters of the Case Database Work Procedures clarifies that “reference cases” “are a new type of edited case created by the Case Database system. Their effectiveness is higher than other cases except for guiding cases.” This is consistent with my earlier analysis that the selection process appeared to involve more reviews than typical cases, but fewer approvals than guiding cases. 

To provide an example for this article, I undertook a full-text search of the term “性骚扰“ （sexual harassment). It returned three cases, one guiding case, and two reference cases: Guiding Case No. 181: Zheng v. Honeywell Automation Control (China) Co., Ltd. (dispute over an employment contract);  黄某诉重庆某公司劳动争议案 (Labor Dispute, Huang v. A Chongqing Company); and a dispute over a right to reputation, Gong v. a Beijing Internet Technology Company 龚某某诉北京某网络技术有限公司名誉权纠纷案. (I have posted the full text of the reference cases, for those interested).

The Case Database is accessible from the SPC’s homepage, which is, the last time I checked, not accessible for those with a US IP address. I trust it can be accessed directly through the link provided above. It is intended to be accessible outside of China and appears to be hosted by the same platform as China Judgements Online.  Similar to the China Judgements Online Platform, it requires the user to register and provide personal information.  Even after such information is provided, the login process is not smooth for those without a mainland China identification card. 

Why this New Case Database?

Press conference announcing launch of the case database, including SPC VP Yang, head & deputy head of Research Office, & head of the All China Lawyers Association

The large number of model/typical/exemplary cases that the SPC has issued in the past year makes it clear that President Zhang Jun favors those to guide the lower courts, rather than large numbers of policy documents.  So the decision for the Chinese Courts Case Database to serve as a database for various types of edited and specially selected cases for their persuasive or exemplary value is consistent with the views of President Zhang Jun on the use of cases.  It is also consistent with the views of General Secretary Xi Jinping, who has stressed that “one case is better than a dozen documents (习近平总书记强调， “一个案例胜过一打文件”), 

The SPC has described it as a new public legal service product (公共法律服务产品).  It was launched before the Two Meetings ( National People’s Congress and Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference meetings) in March (2024) and therefore it was featured in the SPC’s NPC Report.  The principal drafters of the Case Database Work Procedures describe it as useful for promoting the unified application of law and a tool for enhancing resolving disputes at source, that is oriented to both judges and the general public. It is the latest in a series of SPC platforms designed to promote the unified application of law.

The Case Database Work Procedures require a judge to undertake search  when undertaking a similar case search (see my former student’s description of the process). However, the reference case may not be used as the basis of a judgment, but a judge may use it in considering a case and the reasoning of a judgment or ruling, apparently without citation.

Background

The Case Database is yet another product of last year’s thematic education campaign (主题教育).  As described in my article published in US Asia Law Institute’s Perspectives, during the campaign, President Zhang required SPC divisions, offices, circuit courts, and affiliated institutions to undertake research focusing on current significant problems or issues in their area of law or responsibility and write reports proposing practical solutions. One of the problems brought to the surface during that campaign was that [edited] cases issued for guidance (案例指导) were not standardized, timely, comprehensive, or consistent.  Followers of this blog would have known that.

The Case Database Work Procedures provide that the database is the primary responsibility of the Research Office,  also involving other divisions and offices.

  Case Selection Process

The Case Database Work Procedures contains a lengthy section setting out the procedure by which reference cases are incorporated into the Case Database. They can be recommended by lower courts, universities, other institutions, or the general public.  The details of the process for selecting typical [foreign-related] cases contained in my article are consistent with the process described in the Case Database Work Procedures.  It is a bureaucratic process involving multiple levels of review. 

Depending upon the entity that has submitted the case, the proposed edited cases are reviewed by members of the relevant operational division of the SPC.  The Case Database Work Procedures provides that an SPC division (sitting as the professional judges meeting) reviews and discusses a group of cases for proper application of law, reasoning, and ethical orientation (value orientation 价值导向).  If the judges in the relevant operational division consider that certain cases are suitable for inclusion in the database, the division will report the case selectionto the relevant SPC leader for approval.  I surmise that an explanatory report accompanies the selected cases.  The cases are thereafter sent to the Research Office for review. During the review process, the Research Office reviews the format and substance of the selected cases, involving experts in the review.  As part of the formatting process, each case is labeled with a special number (see the attached cases). I surmise the initial approval by the SPC leader is subject to final clearance by the Research Office. Otherwise, the Research Office could be in the awkward position of negating a decision by a leader.  This procedure highlights the unique role of the Research Office at the SPC.

The Case Database Work Procedures also contain a procedure for updating or deleting reference cases that are no longer appropriate.

Case from Beijing Financial Court incorporated into database

The Case Database Work Procedures specify that the application of Case Database cases in the hearing of cases should be incorporated into a judge’s performance evaluation. From the number of WeChat articles on local court websites announcing the good news that one or more of their cases had been incorporated into the database,  it must be useful for court key performance indicators (KPIs).

Comments from judges

I surveyed an unscientific sample of judges on the Case Database, all highly experienced（资深) and located in major cities.  All said that they will refer to the Case Database, as it is required and found helpful when dealing with similar cases. One judge found that access to the database was not convenient. Several judges commented that the number of cases in the database is still small and the cases do not form a whole case group (that is, there are not a sufficient number of cases in a particular area of law), making it difficult for judges to undertake a case comparison.  One judge remarked that the case descriptions are overly abstract, with too many facts about the case omitted. That same judge noted that the names of the parties and case numbers are omitted, making it difficult to track down the original case.  

Comments

As  I wrote earlier, although the SPC describes the Case Database as providing more authoritative, standardized, and comprehensive guidance, with such a small number of cases in the database and such a large number of specialized issues that face Chinese courts daily, as a practical matter it is not a “one-stop platform” for Chinese judges or lawyers.  The insufficient number of details may reflect the designers’ desire to reach ordinary citizens as well as judges.   Although the drafters mentioned that they sought comments on their product, none of the judges I surveyed (from among the busier courts) had commented on the draft version of the product.  So it appears another example of a reform that could have benefited from more input from users, as I discussed in a recent presentation.  In my view, it would also make sense to incorporate SPC-approved typical cases into the database, to make searching easier for judges, lawyers, and others interested in Chinese cases.

I surmise from the procedures in the Case Database Work Procedures that discussing the selection of Case Database cases now occupies a good portion of the work-week of SPC judges. This would be consistent with earlier reforms seeking to focus the work of the SPC on guiding the lower courts.  

The Case Database appears to be reshaping case law with Chinese characteristics.  However, as I wrote earlier,  this also signals the dynamic nature of Chinese judicial policy, as the forms of SPC guidance of the lower courts have further evolved during 2024.  If an updated version of the 2020 rules on similar case search are issued, those would incorporate the Case Database and the Court Answers  Database.

Finally, although one aspect of the Fourth Five-Year Court Reform Plan Outline stressed reducing the administrative-type operation of the courts (去行政化), the establishment and operation of the Case Database evidences that times have changed.

 

 

_______________________________________________

Many thanks to an anonymous peer reviewer for reviewing this blogpost.

Answers Database, case database

Supreme People’s Court’s New Court Answers Platform

Leave a comment

By  Susan Finder and Zeng Yuhang (曾宇航) , 4L student, Peking University School of Transnational Law 

As mentioned in two recent blogposts, and as readers may be aware, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) launched a new internal platform, the Court Answers Database (法答网, “Answers Database”) in July 2023 (last year’s announcement), to provide authoritative answers on legal questions to overworked lower court judges. It is one of President Zhang Jun’s case law initiatives, reflecting his work at the Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP). Although not widely known,  the SPP launched an analogous database for procurators in 2018 entitled 检答网 (Procurator Answers Database), which appears to be operating.

As of early September 2024, the SPC has published nine groups of Answers Database questions and responses in the People’s Court Daily (about which more is said below)： first; second; third; fourth; fifth; sixth; seventh; eighth; ninth. One question and answer is translated below.

The Answers Database, together with the new SPC case database 人民法院案例库 (People’s Courts Case Database, “Case Database”), has become a key focus for the SPC under President Zhang Jun to unify how judges apply the law (known in Chinese as unified legal application 统一法律适用).

What’s new?

Slogan of the Answers Database: “If you have questions, find the Answers Database”

The Answers Database is a platform for judges in lower courts to seek guidance on legal issues by asking questions and obtaining answers from other judges. Seen another way, it is an online platform to strengthen guidance by the SPC (its firm guiding hand)  in particular, but also by provincial courts, and to a lesser extent by intermediate courts.

The question-and-answer process is described in the next section. The Research Office of the SPC is responsible for overseeing the overall operation of the Answers Database. As of August 29, 2024, the Answers Database has received over 650,000 inquiries and provided more than 550,000 responses.  During this year’s report to the National People’s Congress, President Zhang Jun revealed the Answers Database had received 280,000 inquiries, answering 230,000.  That means the number of inquiries has more than doubled since the early spring. 

 As to the nature of the answers and how they are used, from the beginning, the SPC has emphasized that the answers provided are non-binding and intended for reference only. We comment more on this below.

From the publicity materials so far and the experience of one of the authors, it appears that the stress on using the Answers Database varies from judge to judge, court leader to leader, and by substantive area. At the late August 2024  Supreme People’s Court Judges’ Forum (最高人民法院法官讲坛), the head of the SPC’s Research Office describes it as a “rich or treasure mine” (宝矿，福矿) to be mined.  The senior judge from the SPC’s #2 Civil Division mentioned at the Forum that they are using queries posted on the Answers Database as sources of information in drafting a new version of the judicial interpretation of the Company Law, and other reports stress the usefulness of the Answers Database in drafting or amending other judicial interpretations and other SPC documents. A vice president of the Judicial College said that they would integrate queries and responses into judicial training materials.

Another use for the Answers Database is when judges hear cases on related topics that are discussed by specialized judges committee meetings. We understand that judges may choose to include Answers Database responses to similar issues as an attachment to their trial or review report  (审理报告 or 审查报告 (for retrial cases), analogous to a bench memorandum （see the linked blogpost for an explanation of these reports) at their discretion, but again, for internal discussion and reference purposes only.

At the forum mentioned above, the judges mentioned they have implemented a requirement for cases submitted for review by senior court leaders (阅核) or the specialized judges meeting (专业法官会) to include a report summarizing preliminary research conducted in both the Case Database and the Answers Database. This aligns with a related SPC policy described below. (For a review of the case discussion process, see this description by Yuan Ye, one of my former students now a PhD student at Peking University.

According to a handbook on the Answers Database published by a provincial court, some responses are designated as “premium answers” and “high-frequency answers”. As mentioned above, the SPC has published nine batches of these selected premium answers in the People’s Court Daily (although it is understood that the number of premium answers in the database is significantly higher than those published). It is understood that the Research Office is responsible for designating responses as “premium.” After initial selection, the relevant substantive SPC divisions will be asked to conduct a secondary review. They could advise the Research Office if the question has been answered improperly and suggest adjustments. Additionally, SPC divisions and departments could recommend questions and answers. 

Some Answers Are More Important Than Others

The published answers carry significant weight among legal professionals, who assume that a high level of review has been conducted within the SPC of those cases. Practitioners view the published responses as likely to significantly influence court decisions in similar cases. For example, after the ninth batch of answers related to company buyback rights was published (see the translation below), many top law firms issued legal alerts outlining the potential major impacts. In an SPC publicity video, the dean of Tsinghua Law School suggested that the publicized questions and answers will be useful for legal education.  Based on our observations of the Answers Database over the past year plus, the impact of the published responses is considerable.  Some judges queried mentioned that responding to queries takes a significant amount of time.

How does the Answers Database operate?

As for how the Answers Database operates, based on the handbook mentioned above and the authors’ understanding,  inquirers—both judges and judge assistants (responses could only be written by the judges)—to submit questions when encountering complex legal issues during a case. They should fill out the form which covers the subject matter, relevant laws, personal statements (optional–meaning how the judge thinks the question should be approached) etc. 

Based on our inquiries, questions can only be submitted to the next higher court. judges are also permitted to ask questions across different departments. For instance, a judge handling civil cases can ask a question related to enforcement to a judge in the Enforcement Department.

After finishing the form,  inquiring judges should obtain approval from their leadership to submit their inquiries. At this point court leaders may resolve these questions through meeting with relevant judges or their superiors. Once received by the relevant court, questions will be routed to relevant departments based on the subject matter. Division heads then assign specific judges to formulate responses, which may be discussed at a professional judges’ meeting. The response, especially at the SPC level undergoes review by senior leadership —first by the deputy division chief and finally by the division chief. SPC sources mention that such review sometimes can be quite robust – the answers should be rewritten and some complicated questions will be presented to the specialized judges committee of that division for further discussion before final approval by the division head.  It is understood that courts have been given targets of a quota of questions that must be answered. That means that senior judges in higher courts are required to respond to these questions in addition to their usual work.

It appears that the SPC leadership intends the Answers Database to make an impact on the Case Database. An SPC publicity video and related article mention the concept of “database integration (库网融合),” meaning the Answers Database needs to be deeply integrated with the Case Database. For example, if the specific legal issues are covered by the frequently asked and premium questions,  the Research Office spokesperson said that efforts should be made to find the relevant real cases and add them to the Case Database. As discussed in a previous blogpost, cases in the People’s Courts Case Database are highly persuasive.

Comments 

The Answers Database illustrates multiple aspects of the unique operation of the SPC and Chinese court system in its current evolution. 

One aspect is dynamic policies.  The new importance of the Answers Database means that the forms of SPC guidance of the lower courts have further evolved in the last year. As a result, an updated version of the rules on similar case search issued in 2020 is likely to incorporate the Answers Database as well as the People’s Courts Case Database.

A second aspect is better enabling the SPC (or higher courts) to identify legal issues about which lower court judges are unclear and clarify them through responses, judicial interpretations, or other judicial documents, rather than through judgments or rulings on appeal.

Although one aspect of the Fourth Five-Year Court Reform Plan Outline stressed reducing the administrative-type operation of the courts (去行政化), times have changed.  The Answers Database appears to be a “lite” version of the request for instructions system, described here,  also as flagged by a senior Beijing judge in the recent SPC video mentioned earlier and related article. He commented that the Answers Database is similar to the request for instructions（请示) system but offers a more streamlined approach – unlike traditional inquiries, which may demand more time to respond, the Answers Database allows judges to quickly pose questions to higher courts and receive feedback quickly. Speed may not necessarily be positive.  On requests for instructions, as  I wrote previously,  fifteen or more years ago, there had been proposals even within  the SPC for the system to be “proceduralized” or “judicialized,” but the Answers Database illustrates the bureaucratic aspects of the Chinese court system. This development reflects the greater importance of Chinese characteristics in judicial reform, as Dean Jiang Huiling mentioned in 2022.

Although the Answers Database focuses on answering abstract legal questions rather than particular disputes, the boundary between questions related to a specific case and abstract legal questions is fuzzy. People using this database comment that many questions are presented in a way tailored to the specific facts of a case.  Moreover, the research and drafting of responses are done without arguments submitted by opposing counsel and likely under great time pressure. The litigation process is likely to generate arguments or sub-issues that the judges may not have considered.  From the description above, it appears that reponses (that litigants are not necessarily aware of) will have an impact on how courts decide cases.  Again, it throws into question the appeal system.  However, we acknowledge a viewpoint likely to be held by many Chinese judges, that, unlike requests for instruction, the Answers Database will promote the unification of the application of law because these responses are public (within the court system).

Finally, the expanding number of queries may reflect front-line judges’ anxiety about the evolving judicial responsibility/accountability system, which the most recent Party Plenum has mentioned will be further strengthened.  Obtaining an authoritative response from a higher-level court reduces the possibility that a judge may make an error, as well as the possibility of reversal on appeal.

_______________________

　Batch #9, Question #2

How should the nature of the equity repurchase right and its exercise period in the “value adjustment mechanism (‘betting agreement’)” be determined?

Answer to question: Equity repurchase clauses are often stipulated in “value adjustment mechanism agreements”. For example, if the target company is not listed before X month X day of X year or the annual net profit does not reach XX million yuan, the investor has the right to require shareholders or actual controllers to repurchase the equity held by the investor at X price. In judicial practice, there is a great deal of controversy over the nature and exercise period of the above equity repurchase right. Some people believe that the investor’s request for equity repurchase is a creditor’s right and is subject to the statute of limitations. Others believe that the investor’s request for equity repurchase is a formative right and is subject to reasonable period restrictions.

We believe that the essence of this issue is how to understand the nature of the investor’s right to request the major shareholder or actual controller to repurchase the equity. Regarding the agreement in the equity valuation adjustment agreement that the investor has the right to request the major shareholder or actual controller to repurchase the equity, according to the contract interpretation rules established in Article 142, paragraph 1 of the Civil Code, in addition to understanding the words used in the agreement, the agreement should also be understood in combination with relevant clauses, the nature and purpose of the behavior, customs and the principle of good faith. From the purpose of the agreement between the two parties, in fact, when the conditions (not listed or profit not meeting the target) are met, the investor can either request the other party to repurchase and then “get rid of” the equity itself, or continue to hold the equity without requesting the other party to repurchase. Because the investor has the space to choose independently when exercising this right, it is more in line with the commercial expectations of the parties to limit it to a reasonable period. Specifically: 1. If the parties agree on the period for the investor to request the other party to repurchase, for example, the investor can decide whether to repurchase within 3 months from the date of determining that it is not listed, from the perspective of respecting the free will of the parties, the agreement should be recognized. If an investor requests the other party to repurchase beyond the three-month period, it can be regarded as giving up the right to repurchase or choosing to continue to hold the equity, and the People’s Court will not support its repurchase request. If the investor requests the other party to repurchase within the three months, the limitation period should be calculated from the day after the request. 2. If the parties have not agreed on the period within which the investor requests the other party to repurchase, then the right should be exercised within a reasonable period. In order to stabilize the business expectations of the company’s operations, it is appropriate to determine the reasonable period in the trial work not to exceed 6 months. The limitation period starts from the day after the request is made within 6 months.

Consultant : Meng Gaofei, Commercial Tribunal (Bankruptcy Tribunal) of the Shanghai High People’s Court

Q&A expert : Du Jun from the First Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court

_______________________________________

The authors express their appreciation to an anonymous peer reviewer for his careful review of an earlier draft of this post and several other knowledgeable anonymous persons for sharing their insights.

alternative dispute resolution, bankruptcy, bankruptcy law, BRI, case database, Case law, Communist Party and the Courts, foreign-related cases, NPC, Role of the Supreme People's Court

What’s New in the 2024 Supreme People’s Court report to the National People’s Congress?

Leave a comment

Susan Finder and Zhu Xinyue

I. Overview of the 2023 SPC Work Report

Supreme People’s Court (SPC) Work Reports to the National People’s Congress (NPC) appear to the casual reader as much of a muchness. Like all official work reports, it provides a perfectly positioned overview of the previous year’s accomplishments and a high-level summary of 2024 work priorities.

To the attentive reader,  the March 2024 SPC Work Report to the NPC  (2024 SPC Work Report or Report) signals something new and different compared to its predecessor reports.  This much-delayed blogpost flags only some of what is new.  I have italicized many of my comments. (Please contact me if I have not mentioned your area of interest.)

The 2024 SPC Work Report signals that since President Zhang Jun took office, he has vigorously implemented new policies and set new priorities. Accordingly, the Report highlights Zhang Jun era keywords. Conveniently for the reader, they are contained in this single report.  A single phrase or sentence in this report links to one or more SPC documents, initiatives, and guiding/typical cases.

As in previous years, local court cases or innovations are considered accomplishments and heralded on local court WeChat accounts. Last year’s report, in contrast, was President Zhou Qiang’s last and served as an official summary of his accomplishments over the previous five years.

Several phrases in the first paragraph of  the 2024 Work Report (bolded) signal the new themes in this report:

… by focusing on the working theme of “justice and efficiency”, insisting on active justice, deepening and realizing service for the overall situation and justice for the people, we have made solid progress in promoting the modernization of judicial work聚焦“公正与效率”工作主题，坚持能动司法，做深做实为大局服务、为人民司法，推动审判工作现代化迈出坚实步伐…

As the regular reader of this blog could predict, the word “active ( 能动)” and the watchword or keyword  “active justice (能动司法)  can be found throughout the report.

Some statistics

The initial section of the 2024 SPC  Work Report provides overall statistics from the SPC and the entire court system.  The SPC accepted 21,081 cases and concluded 17,855 cases, representing a year-on-year increase of 54.6% and 29.5%, respectively. These numbers reflect the end of the pilot project to reorient the four levels of the Chinese courts and the corresponding increase in retrial applications made to the SPC. It can be anticipated that those numbers will be even higher in the 2024 calendar year. As I have previously written, most of the civil and administrative retrial applications to the SPC are unsuccessful, but it requires SPC judicial time to review them. For Americans, a useful but not entirely appropriate analogy is the petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

The report states that courts at all levels accepted 45.574 million cases and concluded 45.268 million cases, with 15.6% and 13.4% yearly increases, respectively.  Most cases in Chinese courts are civil/commercial (60.05%) or enforcement cases (29.34%).  I would be grateful if a reader could provide comparative statistics (from other jurisdictions) on enforcement.  My reaction is that the proportion of enforcement cases is relatively large. See the chart below:

These numbers likely are linked to the poor economy, which from comments by friends in the court system, means an increase in business disputes and business-related crime.  These increases are evident despite policies to reduce the number of disputes entering the courts and resolve cases filed before they reach the hearing stage. Those policies include: resolving cases at their source, resolving others through mediation, (now promoted under the keyword/title of Fengqiao Experience),  and promoting arbitration.  Some judges have remarked privately that it also has to do with the low cost of litigation.

II.  Serve the overall situation effectively and ensure high-quality development and high-level security with active justice

The title of this section combines several watchwords/keywords 提法/关键词, robustly signaling that President Zhang Jun led the drafting of this report.

The ten subsections in this section must be understood as ones that were priority areas for the Chinese courts in 2023. I have selected only a few of the subsections out of the ten:

Assisting the Strengthening of the Construction of the Financial Rule of Law

This subsection in the 2024 SPC Work Report is positioned immediately after the sections on safeguarding national security and social stability, promoting public security governance, and fighting corruption, reflecting its priorities in the SPC’s work. Although both the 2023 and 2024 SPC Work Reports address judicial support for finance, the 2024 SPC Work Report emphasizes strict regulatory enforcement in the banking and securities sectors, both subsumed under the category“financial trials.”

The Chinese courts concluded 3.032 million financial cases, an 8% year-on-year increase, and heard 861 money-laundering cases, involving 1,019 individuals, with increases of 23.5% and 22.2%, respectively. The money-laundering cases are likely linked to the ongoing multi-institutional anti-money-laundering campaign of which the SPC is a participating institution. The Report stresses the importance of “compliance in financial activities, strict punishment for senior management illegalities (高管违法要严罚), and holding intermediaries accountable for negligence.” The report illustrated the last two policies by mentioning a securities false statement case in which senior managers were found liable and an intermediary bore 20% joint and several liability.  Given those signals, it will not be surprising that the Shanghai, Beijing, and Chengdu-Chongqing Financial Courts have made analogous judgments in 2023 and 2024. The allocation of liability in these cases is a current issue. The Report also mentioned two financial law-related judicial suggestions that the SPC issued, rarely, if ever mentioned in the past, linked to last year’s judicial interpretation on judicial suggestions/advice (司法建议).

 Promoting the Development and Growth of the Private Economy in Accordance with Law

This subsection, new in comparison with last year’s report, links to the July 2023 Central Committee and State Council document on promoting the private economy,  focusing on measures contained in a September 2023  policy document and typical cases.  It includes a paragraph discussing the measures in that policy document and highlighting that the courts heard 42 cases of property rights-related wrongful convictions.  The SPC issued 12 typical retrial  cases (civil, criminal, and administrative) involving the rights of private enterprises and private entrepreneurs. Cases of bribery and embezzlement involving non-state employees amounted to 6,779, involving 8,124 individuals, with a year-on-year increase of 26.6%. Although the SPC intends to enhance legal certainty, boosting business confidence and stabilizing expectations, other sources report on profit-oriented law enforcement at the local level, often leading to the jailing of private entrepreneurs and the confiscation of their assets.

III   Safeguarding and Enhancing People’s Livelihood through  Active Justice

The section title above replaces “The Path of Judicial Services for the People With Chinese Characteristics” in the 2023 report.

New themes introduced include “Supporting Guaranteed Delivery of Commercial Housing and Stable Livelihoods,” to deal with issues related to the ongoing crisis involving real estate developers.

  • Safeguarding Housing Rights: The financial collapse of many real estate developers has meant disputes along the real estate development supply chain. A 2023 SPC judicial interpretation prioritizes homebuyer rights, clarifying the order of claim repayment in disputes over unsuccessful delivery of sold commercial housing.
  • Strengthening Housing Pre-sale Supervision: The SPC issued Judicial Suggestion No. 1 to promote contract online signing and pre-registration, enhance pre-sale funds supervision for commercial housing, strengthen pre-sale information inquiries, and warn about home buying risks.  [These suggestions do not seem to have been made public.]
  • Restructuring the Financial Chain of Homebuying: In response to a financial chain rupture of a private real estate enterprise in Hunan Province, a court-facilitated restructuring revitalized 16.8 billion yuan, resolving housing delivery issues for 16,000 households by facilitating the merger and restructuring of 13 related companies.  This type of case was mentioned in a typical case that the SPC issued last year.

IV. Promoting National and Social Governance through Active Justice Which Practically Grasps the Front End and Treats the Disease Before it’s too Late 

As could be anticipated, this section emphasizes judicial suggestions, among other matters.

Deepening the Effective Use of Judicial Suggestions: The Report emphasized judicial suggestions that fill legal gaps and governance deficiencies, mentioning the regulations on comprehensive governance-oriented judicial suggestions, discussed here. This is yet another initiative emphasized by President Zhang Jun. The SPC led with Judicial Suggestions No. 1 to No. 5, and lower courts issued 9,429 suggestions.

V. Ensuring Judicial Justice through Actively Performing Duties 

This section underscores Party leadership within the judicial system, with the primacy of the Party’s political construction. It promotes “strengthening Party nature, emphasizing practical work, and achieving new accomplishments” (“强党性、重实践、建新功”) through solid “learning of ideology” (扎扎实实“学思想”) and outlines the result of “deepening investigation and research and solidifying thematic education”( 大兴调查研究，让主题教育走深走实) and implementing “investigation promoting case handling, and case handling also being investigation” (“调研促进办案、办案也是调研”).

The Report indirectly addresses public concerns about the China Judgements Online database by emphasizing efforts to improve transparency in judicial proceedings (裁判文书上网) and the “People’s Court Case Database”,  such as posting 2.165 million documents online in 2023, with a year-on-year increase of 111.6%, covering a wider range of trial areas and case types, with the SPC and higher courts posting 35,000 documents, a 370% increase. The 2024 Report details measures for the uniform application of legal standards, including 15 judicial interpretations, 13 guiding cases, and 610 typical cases. As discussed here, the “People’s Court Case Database” contains SPC-approved cases, and judges must search this database.   “Legal Response Network (法答网)” (analysis to come) launched on July 1, 2023, facilitates communication among courts and has received 280,000 legal application inquiries, answering 230,000. Insights from this platform have led to the revision or drafting of 27 judicial interpretations and regulatory documents.

More specific selected statistics

Bankruptcy cases: 29,000 bankruptcy cases were concluded, marking a year-on-year increase of 68.8%. Additionally, 1,485 bankruptcy restructuring and settlement cases were concluded. Local court white papers on bankruptcy (link is to the Shanghai court white paper) are an undervalued source of insights on more specific bankruptcy trends, such as the type of companies going bankrupt and the length the companies have been in business. One law firm report on bankruptcy flagged missingness on the SPC’s bankruptcy platform and the rate at which local courts accepted bankruptcy cases.

Foreign-related civil and commercial cases: 24,000 foreign-related civil and commercial cases and 16,000 maritime cases were concluded, representing annual increases of 3.6% and 5.3%. The average trial time decreases by nearly 10 days. 16,000 cases of judicial review of commercial arbitration were concluded, reflecting a 5% year-on-year increase. During this period, 552 arbitration awards were revoked, remaining stable year-on-year, while 69 foreign arbitration awards were recognized and enforced, representing a 16.9% increase. This section mentions a Shanghai Financial Court case in which the court stopped payment on a demand guarantee, although in fact most of such lawsuits are unsuccessful.

Deepening the diversification of dispute resolution: Since 2013, court cases have increased by an average annual rate of 13%, doubling over 10 years. Judges handled an average of 357 cases annually in 2023, up from 187 in 2017.  The courts successfully mediated 11.998 million disputes through people’s mediation, administrative mediation, and industry-specific mediation organizations/institutions, representing a 32% increase year-on-year and accounting for 40.2% of the total civil and administrative cases filed.

Fully leveraging the role of scientific evaluation as a “command baton”: The annual case closure rate was adjusted to the closure rate within the trial period, which reached 97.7% last year, a 2 percentage point increase. A special case cleanup initiative concluded 1,914 lawsuits pending for over three years and 2,455 pending cases involving 6,909 individuals, accounting for 81.3% and 86.8%, respectively, of the total cases.  The title of this section is significant. Judges at all levels of courts feel that “command baton.”

VI. 2024 Work Targets

As readers of this blog could anticipate, the 2024 work arrangements of the courts are focused on the modernization of judicial work, active justice, and other 2023 top keywords. The work arrangements listed here are more general than the types of work plans mentioned in my article.  They are intended to signal to the NPC and general public the overall direction of the SPC’s work in the current year. For the most part, the arrangements are expressed in phrases or single sentences.

Criminal cases: Implement the holistic national security concept, severely punish crimes threatening national security and public safety, promote the normalization of crackdowns on gangs and evil [sometimes used against local entrepreneurs], and severely crack down on telecommunications network fraud, cross-border gambling, and corruption, with harsher punishment for bribery crimes. All if not most of these crimes were flagged during January’s annual Central Political-Legal Work Conference.

Intellectual property and digital rights: Strictly protect intellectual property rights and promote their transformation and application, and serve the development of new productive forces. Justice Tao Kaiyuan published an article in People’s Daily in late March explicating the link between the development of new productive forces and the improvement of intellectual property rights protection. Strengthen personal information protection and improve digital rights protection rules. The latter two presumably imply inter-institutional cooperation.

Bankruptcy and Economic Development: Increase work on hearing bankruptcy cases and give full play to “active rescue” and “timely liquidation”. We can expect to see the courts accepting more bankruptcy cases this year. Deepen the compliance reform for companies involved in criminal cases and continue to optimize the growth of the private economy. Properly handle real estate development and affordable housing contract disputes, and actively serve the new model of real estate development (recent Party/state initiative). Strengthen hearing and enforcement work in “agriculture, rural areas and farmers” (“三农”) to support rural revitalization. The latter is consistent with previous SPC policy.

Ecological and Social Justice: Serve ecological civilization [the environment]  and green and low-carbon development in accordance with the law. Strengthen the protection of the rights of women, children, the elderly, disabled people, etc. (It is unclear whether that will include a better legal infrastructure for sexual harassment cases.) Strengthen administrative trials, supervise and support administrative agencies to administer according to law and strictly enforce the law. Promote judicial advice/suggestions and national and social governance.

Court administration.  Improve the quality and efficiency of court hearings and accelerate the modernization of trial work. Deepen the comprehensive supporting reform of the judicial system and formulate the “Sixth Five-Year Plan” reform outline for the people’s courts. [It is unclear when it will be issued] Comprehensively and accurately implement the judicial responsibility/accountability system (see related documents here), and further implement  “supervision/”review” system  (阅核制) by senior court leaders. That system is one of President Zhang Jun’s initiatives.  Improve the hierarchical selection system for judges and promote the coordinated use of posts and establishments across administrative regions. This seems to be a reform to share judicial headcount. Deepen the “three-in-one” reform of criminal, civil, and administrative cases in intellectual property, environmental resources, and juvenile matters.

Foreign-related and Grassroots Courts: Enhance the foreign-related judicial hearing system (consistent with my observations about the importance of foreign-related matters) and efficiency. Do a good job of “replying to letters and visits“, and strengthen the management of the source of letters and visits.

Grassroots Courts:  Practice the “Fengqiao Experience” in the new era, promote resolving cases at source (诉源治理), provide practical guidance for mediation, and vigorously create “Fengqiao Style People’s Tribunals.” The SPC has issued six groups of related typical cases and the Chinese court media has begun to report on the creation of such people’s tribunals. The Report mentions strengthening relatively weak grassroots courts (相对薄弱基层法院), another initiative by President Zhang Jun. Under this initiative (full text of measures unavailable), 106 relatively weak local courts are targeted for additional support. The SPC has set quotas for each province, as well as a goal of removal from the list within one to three years.

Supervision, Guidance and Digital Courts: Strengthen supervision and guidance (stressed by President Zhang Jun, as mentioned above), deepen trial management, use the “People’s Courts Case Database” and improve the “Legal Response Network 法答网”. [More on this in a later blogpost, but it appears to be an updated version of letters to the 人民司法 (People’s Justice) mailbox)]. Develop a nationwide court “one network” and digital courts (数字法院) to boost efficiency. Note that the term “smart courts” (智慧法院), the subject of books, articles, and PhD dissertations in Chinese and English,  appears to have been dropped.

Court Supervision and Integrity: The final section for the most part repeats principles seen previously, such as improving political, professional, and professional ethical qualities. It flags improving the training of professional trial talents in foreign-related, intellectual property, and other fields and stresses the use of personnel assessment of all court staff.

Finally, I conclude with this extended quotation from the Report:

 the new development of the work of the people’s courts in the new era and new journey is fundamentally due to the leadership of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the scientific guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. It has benefited from the effective supervision of the National People’s Congress and its Standing Committee, the strong support of the State Council, the democratic supervision of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the supervision of the National Supervision Commission and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the democratic supervision and support of various democratic parties, the Federation of Industry and Commerce, people’s organizations and non-party personages, and the enthusiastic concern, support and help of local party and government organs at all levels, deputies to the National People’s Congress, members of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, all sectors of society and the general public.

________________________________________________________

Many thanks to an anonymous peer reviewer!

References to “I, me or mine” are to Susan Finder rather than Zhu Xinyue. Finally, I’d like to express my appreciation to followers of this blog for their patience.

case database, Case law

The Supreme People’s Court’s New Case Database

1 Comment
Screenshot of the home page of the case database

On February 27, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) held a press conference to announce the new SPC case database 人民法院案例库 (People’s Courts Case Database).  As of this writing, fewer than 4000 cases have been incorporated. This new case database provides a collection of edited cases (案例) rather than original judgments, rulings, or other judicial documents as collected in China Judgements Online (裁判文书网).  I summarize below the process by which edited cases are selected for inclusion in the People’s Courts Case Database.

 The new People’s Courts Case Database is accessible from the SPC’s homepage, which is, the last time I checked, not accessible for those with a US IP address. I trust it can be accessed directly through the above link. It is intended to be accessible outside of China and appears to be hosted by the same platform as China Judgements Online.  Similar to the China Judgements Online Platform, it requires the user to register and provide personal information.  Even after such information is provided, the login process is not smooth, for those without a mainland China identification card.  

This blogpost will address the selection process, the apparent rationale for establishing this case database, and whether it imposes new requirements on Chinese judges. It will flag matters that this case database does not yet address.   

Why this New Case Database?

Press conference announcing launch of the case database, including SPC VP Yang, head & deputy head of Research Office, & head of the All China Lawyers Association

The large number of model/typical/exemplary cases that the SPC has issued in the past year makes it clear that President Zhang Jun favors those to guide the lower courts, rather than large numbers of policy documents.  So the decision for the Chinese Courts Case Database to serve as a database for various types of edited and especially selected cases, such as guiding cases, typical cases, and other types of cases selected for their persuasive or exemplary value is consistent with the views of President Zhang Jun on the use of cases.  It appears from the press conference announcing the Chinese Courts Case Database that launching the database timely was the primary responsibility of the Research Office, also involving other divisions and offices.

The SPC has described it as a new public legal service product (公共法律服务产品), launched before the Two Sessions. It is yet another product of last year’s thematic education campaign (主题教育).  As described in my article published in US Asia Law Institute’s Perspectives, during the campaign, President Zhang required SPC divisions, offices, circuit courts, and affiliated institutions to undertake research focusing on current significant problems or issues in their area of law or responsibility and write reports proposing practical solutions. One of the problems brought to the surface during that campaign was that [edited] cases issued for guidance (案例指导) were not standardized, timely, comprehensive, or consistent.  Followers of this blog would have known that. 

Although the SPC describes the new database as providing more authoritative, standardized, and comprehensive guidance, with such a small number of cases in the database and such a large number of issues that face Chinese courts daily, as a practical matter it will not be a “one-stop platform” for Chinese judges or lawyers.  The SPC requires judges to check it when undertaking a similar case search (see my former student’s description of the process).

  Case Selection Process

The procedure by which cases are incorporated into the Chinese Courts Case Database is analogous, but not identical, to the process by which guiding cases and typical cases are selected.  The details of the process for selecting typical [foreign-related] cases contained in my forthcoming article are consistent with the process described in one of the press releases accompanying the launch of the Chinese Courts Case Database. It is a bureaucratic process involving multiple levels of review. 

Depending upon the entity that has submitted the case, the proposed edited cases are reviewed by members of the relevant operational division of the SPC.  The entire division (sitting as the professional judges meeting) reviews and discusses a group of cases for proper application of law, reasoning, and ethical orientation (value orientation 价值导向).  If the judges in the operational division consider that certain cases are suitable for inclusion in the database, they will be reported to the relevant SPC leader for approval.  I surmise that an explanatory report accompanies the selected cases.  The press release states that the cases are thereafter sent to the Research Office for review. During the review process, the Research Office reviews the format and substance of the selected cases, involving experts in the review.  As part of the formatting process, each case is labeled with a special number (see below). I surmise the initial approval by the SPC leader is subject to final clearance by the Research Office. Otherwise, the Research Office could be in the awkward position of negating a decision by a leader.  This procedure highlights the unique role of the Research Office at the SPC.

Case from Beijing Financial Court incorporated into database

This process appears to involve more reviews than typical cases, but fewer approvals than guiding cases. Therefore cases incorporated in the database should be considered highly authoritative and therefore highly persuasive.  From the number of WeChat articles on local court websites announcing the good news that one or more of their cases had been incorporated into the database,  it must  useful for court key performance indicators (KPIs).

Unresolved Issues for the Case Database

Annually, the SPC issues many reference (typical) cases, as selected by various divisions of the SPC and in connection with a variety of events.   My 2022 blogpost lists about ten different types of regularly issued typical cases. It is clear that guiding cases are the most persuasive and these People’s Court Case Database cases are highly persuasive, but that still leaves many SPC typical cases that need sorting.  One friend knowledgeable about the selection process for typical (model) and guiding cases, particularly in the intellectual property (IP) field, classified SPC Gazette cases as ranking second in prestige, behind guiding cases. The friend described the top ten  and the fifty typical IP cases issued annually as  “the Oscars.” The friend viewed the ten top cases as “best actors and actresses,” and the fifty typical ones as the “best supporting roles.” The friend noted that the digests (要旨) issued by the SPC IP Court are not as influential as guiding cases. My understanding is that lower court IP judges would consider them when deciding cases because they are statements of the view of the SPC IP Court on that particular issue.  

A second issue for all these typical cases is that there does not seem to be a mechanism for reviewing previously issued typical cases to determine whether the case is still valid.  The SPC published a four-part five-volume set of typical cases（最高人民法院发布的典型案例汇编 2009-2021), pictured below. These volumes only include cases published in the SPC Gazette and the SPC’s official website, therefore not including the cases in the journals published by the operational divisions or the National Judges College.  It is unclear whether the SPC plans to incorporate the journal cases into the People’s Courts Case Database.  That would require a significant amount of personnel time to review those prior typical cases for timeliness and consistency. 

Third, the approval process described above will take some time, which means that cutting-edge cases will be found in China Judgments Online rather than this database.

So the database has not yet resolved the problems identified last year but has provided an authoritative database to check.

 

 

_______________________________________________

Many thanks to an anonymous peer reviewer for reviewing several drafts of this blogpost.

case database, judicial transparency

Supreme People’s Court Monitor in People’s Court Daily

Leave a comment

Earlier this month I had the honor of receiving an invitation from He Fan (何帆), head of the planning department of the Judicial Reform Office of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) to write a short article on the SPC case database (裁判文书网）and its impact outside of China for People’s Court Daily (人民法院报). I saw the invitation as a significant opportunity to be able to address the readers of the SPC’s media at this historical point. Fortunately, Professor He Haibo of Tsinghua University School of Law (who along with colleagues) has done extensive research on the case database), had been invited earlier. His article had already been published when I received He’s invitation, giving me an example to consider.

I drafted the article in English and was honored to be able to persuade Fu Panfeng (傅攀峰), assistant research fellow with the International Law Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, to transform it into readable Chinese. Several readers of drafts made insightful suggestions which were incorporated into the final version.

The article was published on 11 September in the SPC’s electronic media (Wechat and Weibo)–see the screenshot below from the beginning of the Wechat version. It was published on 13 September in the People’s Court Daily (see the screenshot above). Several Wechat public accounts have republished it, including that of Hu Changming, of the Law Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (his version has one additional sentence). The English version below is not identical with the Chinese version, because the amendments occurred in several rounds.

I am very honored to be invited to provide some thoughts about the impact of the 裁判文书网 from an international perspective. When I first started to become interested in the developments of the Chinese courts about 30 years ago, Chinese law could only be found only in books, with few published cases. I have seen the development and impact in China of the 裁判文书网 with my own eyes. Much is made of the number of judgments that have been posted, but I will bring the focus back to each individual judgment.

Outside of China, the 裁判文书网 has had a great impact on a broad range of people, because it is one of main faces of Chinese justice that the world sees. Although it may not be apparent, every judgment or ruling has many readers—the parties themselves plus many unknown readers inside and outside of China. It is from those documents that readers from far away will consider whether that court gives a fair hearing to the parties involved, regardless of the crime committed or nature of the breach. Readers will consider whether the facts presented support the legal conclusion, whether the legal conclusion is supported by logical, clear and persuasive reasoning, how was the case decided, and for criminal cases, whether the punishment appears appropriate given the facts set out. To the readers outside of China, each judgment or ruling is an original and unfiltered voice of Chinese justice and gives a view of many aspects of Chinese society and economy, historical and contemporary. We note that the legal requirement is that all judgments and rulings that can be published are published.

As to who outside of China is concerned about the judgments and rulings on裁判文书网, that includes a broad range of types of institutions and people. One type of institution is foreign governments and their departments. The foreign affairs, commercial, intellectual property authorities of foreign countries look to judgments and rulings posted on the 裁判文书网 to understand how the Chinese courts consider cases that involve its citizens, companies, and other institutions, especially if national diplomats monitor the particular cases. If cases are translated into foreign languages, foreign judges may read them to understand how Chinese judges consider similar cases.

Other frequent readers of cases in the 裁判文书网 are private lawyers, in-house counsel and executives, who may directly or indirectly oversee company-related litigation in China. It enables them to make more informed strategic decisions about many aspects of doing business in China, because they can search previous similar cases. Will a Chinese court support their claim against a party who has breached its obligation to the company, regardless of the nationality of the company? Will a Chinese court protect the intellectual property rights of the foreign company in the event of breach? In a dispute, is the opposing party’s settlement offer reasonable?

Non-profit organizations, whether religious, or secular, consult the 裁判文书网. How do Chinese courts protect the rights of the religious, or, for example, members of environmental organizations?

Foreign journalists, too, use the 裁判文书网, too, to understand from the sources what Chinese justice means in action.
Two other categories must be mentioned–academics and students abroad as well individuals. Many professors and students at foreign universities undertake big data studies involving cases in the Chinese courts, looking to the 裁判文书网.
Finally, foreign individuals who work, study, and live in China also may be readers of Chinese judgments or rulings. Will a Chinese court protect the rights of a foreign individual whose Chinese employer has failed to comply with his legal obligations?

The foreign community is aware of the requirement from this summer for judges to search for like cases. It has generally been considered to be a positive development, as on the one hand, it enables like cases to be decided similarly, and formalizes the practice of lawyers and other litigation representatives submitting cases for judges to consider.

As to suggestions from outside of China, we would suggest on the one hand, that requirements to delete sensitive personal or corporate information be strengthened, so that the 裁判文书网not be used as a way to obtain confidential corporate or sensitive personal information.

The 裁判文书网 is an important public good, and the technical aspects should be made convenient and as user-friendly as possible to all users.

case database, Case law, Communist Party and the Courts, Court Reform, foreign-related cases

Supreme People’s Court’s new guidance on similar case search

6 Comments

Screenshot 2020-07-27 at 8.49.14 PMOn 27 July 2020,  the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)  issued Guiding Opinions Concerning Strengthening Search for Similar Cases to Unify the Application of Law (Guiding Opinions) (关于统一法律适用加强类案检索的指导意见（试行)),  effective on 31 July.  It is not a judicial interpretation, rather it is guidance intended to make judicial decisions more consistent, an ongoing issue in the Chinese court system.  The SPC is approving the practice of judges using principles derived from prior cases to fill in the gaps in legislation and judicial interpretations.  The Guiding Opinions codifies many of the practices of the Chinese courts and imposes some new requirements. It does not mean that China has become a common law legal system.  As explained further below, although the Guiding Opinions do not address this question, comments by an SPC judge suggest that the special status of cases selected by the SPC by its operational divisions remains in place.

It also illustrates two larger points–that discrete judicial reforms aimed at more consistent judgments continue to be implemented even as the role of Party leadership and oversight continues to be stressed. It is also an illustration of how long it can take judicial reforms to be implemented. in my view, this discrete, technical reform has implications greater than the drafters of the Guiding Opinions realized, including a possible impact on Chinese legal education. It has the potential to make litigation a more predictable process for parties.

Case Search Requirements

What are similar cases?

Article 1 defines that–the cases that are already effective and are similar in their basic facts, disputed points, issues of law, etc. (指与待决案件在基本事实、争议焦点、法律适用问题等方面具有相似性，且已经人民法院裁判生效的案件).

When is similar case search required? (Articles 2 and 7)

  1. When a case is proposed to be submitted to a professional or specialized  (presiding) judges meeting (generally all the judges in a division) or the judicial/adjudication committee for discussion;
  2. Relevant judicial principles are unclear or conflicting;
  3. A court president or division head requires it under his or her supervision authority;
  4. Other relevant situations.

That is, similar case search is not required in all cases, only when the relevant “law” is unclear.

Similar case search should be set out in the trial report for the case or in a separate precedent (similar case) report (类案检索报告) and included in the case file. As noted in my earlier blogpost, trial reports are confidential and not accessible to parties or their lawyers. Article 8 requires that the search report must include details on the platform, means of search, etc. and how the search was used.

Who searches and how?

The judge in charge of the case (承办法官) is in charge of undertaking the search and is responsible for doing it accurately and properly, using either the SPC’s database or other case databases, focusing on cases from the last three years, except for guiding cases.

Judges can use methods such as keyword search, legal provision (article of the relevant law), or related case search.

What must be searched?

These rules (in Article 4) are in line with what I have previously written:

  1.  SPC guiding cases;
  2. SPC typical (model) cases (典型案例) and judgments or rulings of the SPC;
  3.  Reference cases issued by provincial-level higher people’s courts  and decisions by those courts;
  4.  Higher-level courts in the jurisdiction in question and judgments of that court.

Except for the guiding cases, priority is given to the search of cases or cases in the past three years; if a similar case has been searched in the previous order, no search is required. Article 5 provides that judges can use methods such as keyword, legal article-linked, and case-based searches.

My understanding is that these are general principles, but the specific scope of cases that need to be searched will depend on the specifics. As I have previously written, the SPC Circuit Courts have issued cases that guide the lower courts in their circuits.  The special authority of those cases remains in place. Judges reviewing issues related to the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in China will need to look to a special set of cases (described here), for example.

I had previously written about cases selected by the operational divisions of the SPC providing guidance to the lower courts.  Those retain their special authority, as indicated by comments by Senior Judge Yu Tongzhi, an editor of Reference to Criminal Trial (the joint publication of the SPC’s five criminal divisions). He noted in an article published on 31 July, that as far as criminal justice is concerned, without a doubt, the first choice for searching similar cases is to search the guidance cases contained in their publication, setting indices to the guidance cases for the convenience of readers.

Are precedents binding?

Precedents are not binding, but guiding cases should be 参照 “referred to” (the link is to SPC Research Office Deputy Director  Judge Guo Feng’s authoritative explanation) unless the case conflicts with subsequently issued law or judicial interpretations. Other types of cases are not binding, but for judges to consider（参考).

How judges must respond

Article 10 imposes a new requirement on courts, if procurators, parties, their representatives (their lawyers) submit guiding cases or other cases in support of their legal position (as I had previously written had been the practice).  For guiding cases, courts are required to state in the reasoning section of their judgments whether or not the guiding case was referred to and why.

For all other types of cases, the court can use its power of clarification/explanation and other means (释明等方式) to respond.  It is understood that this is meant to give judges flexibility in responding to (non-guiding) judgments provided by parties–so the court may respond in its court’s judgment or in other ways. Those other ways may include:  responding to the cases submitted pre-hearing, during a hearing, after a hearing, as the court considers most appropriate.  We will need to observe what is done in practice, for example, whether courts respond primarily in their judgments or orally.  This will be the way that a party can monitor whether the search accurately reflects prior cases, as neither a party or its counsel has access to the trial report. Other unknowns are how this system will influence administrative proceedings such as those at the Trademark Review and Adjudication Board.

Link to Inconsistent Decision Mechanism

Article 11 contains a link to the inconsistent decision mechanism discussed here, which I described as a microcosm of themes reflecting how the SPC operates, given its high bureaucratic nature.

Why case law reform?

As this blog has discussed, in the New Era, the role of Party leadership and oversight continues to be stressed (see this blogpost, for example).  This discrete judicial reform is aimed at more consistent judgments. It is a critical tool that judges are already using because Chinese legislation lags behind the needs of the courts, and judicial interpretations are insufficient as well. Party policy would have an indirect impact on those cases, as would foreign law principles (mentioned here).

“Slow-cooking” judicial reform

The issuance of these rules shows the strength of the case law system and how long it can take a single judicial reform to be implemented. As mentioned in the June, 2019 blogpost, when Professor Hu Yunteng（until recently Justice Hu Yunteng, formerly a full-time member of the SPC’s judicial committee, now retired) recollected the history of the case system with Chinese characteristics, he mentioned that Jiang Huiling, then his colleague at the China Institute for Applied Jurisprudence (now Dean of the Tongji University School of Law) had looked to jurisdictions outside of China to advocate that China establish a case law system. Professor Hu Yunteng doesn’t specify whether Dean Jiang Huiling was looking to case law systems in civil or common law jurisdictions in the “West.”).  In his 2016 Harvard Law Review student note, Mark Jia (now clerking on the Supreme Court), cited Li Shichun of the China Law Society to the effect that it was the National People’s Congress that opposed those seeking to establish a Chinese case law precedential system. That opposition has been overcome by widespread professional usage (as described in my 2017 Tsinghua Law Review article). It is unusual in that the practice came first and was not a top-down reform (顶级设计).

Concluding Comments

This discrete, technical reform is an important one for the rules relating to judicial decision-making better harmonized with judicial practice.  There are a number of unknowns.  One is whether it will result in judges feeling more comfortable in setting out their reasoning,  knowing that other judges may look to it.  An important question is how the practice of responding to cases will evolve–will judges tend to respond in their judgments, or as I suspect, do it orally. (As to why I think that–it is related to the desire of Chinese judges to reduce their risk under the judicial responsibility system).

In my view, this reform has the potential to make Chinese litigation a more predictable process. It is a bit of evidence of the gradual harmonization of the operations of the Chinese courts with the rest of the world,  as current circumstances permit.

 

case database, Social credit

Supreme People’s Court President’s Zhou Qiang’s virtual mailbox

Leave a comment

One of the more unusual features of the Supreme People’s Court (SPC)’s website is the “Court President’s mailbox,”  by which individuals can send an email to SPC President Zhou Qiang (to yzxx@court.gov.cn), and where selected responses are published. President Zhou Qiang established it in 2013, almost exactly six years ago. As to why the SPC has a letter to the court president function, the answer is on the SPC website and the article announcing the launching of the mailbox:

it is to “further develop the mass education and practice campaign [mentioned in this blogpost six years ago] and to listen to the opinions and suggestions of all parts of society (the masses).

Listening to the opinions and suggestions of society is also required of Zhou Qiang as a senior Party leader.  It was part of the mass education and practice campaign and continues to be a fundamental principle in the current “Don’t forget the Party’s original aspirations and firmly remember your mission” campaign.

President Zhou Qiang listed establishing the Court President mailbox as an accomplishment in his 2018 report to the National People’s Congress.

Local courts have followed the SPC’s model by establishing their own “Court President’s mailboxes.” From my own experience, not all [non-spam] emails either to President Zhou Qiang’s or a local court president’s email box are considered to merit a response.

The language of the responses is surprising for the reader used to the very formal language of SPC documents.  (One follower of this blog was so surprised that he ask.ed me about this). Many of them start with

Hello! We received your proposal (or query), and after consideration, we respond as follows:您好！《关于…..》收悉。……经研究，答复如下:

And end with this language:

Thank you for your support of the work of the Supreme People’s Court! 感谢您对人民法院执行工作的关心和支持！

A  quick but unscientific survey of recently published responses follows. As to why people write, judging from my own experience and the content of published responses, it appears that it is one of the few ways to bring a problem (unrelated to a dispute) to the attention of the court authorities.  I have no way of determining whether the responses are representative of the letters submitted, but I surmise that the letters are typical (典型).

Proposals

Some responses relate to specific proposals. Among recent proposals include anonymizing references to HIV infected persons, stipulating the ceiling interest rate in private lending disputes, and uniforms for judges and judges assistants (specific recommendation not described).

Queries

Some responses relate to queries on specific practical issues for litigants, such as whether a plaintiff must provide the defendant’s identity card number when filing a lawsuit, and the deadline for an administrative agency to enforce an administrative penalty or fine.

 Issues with the social credit system

Responses to persons seeking to lift restrictions against them imposed by the judgment debtors part of the social credit system seem to constitute a substantial number of responses. In 2019, those included letters published on 8 October. 28 June, 12 June, 17 April, 31 January, among others. If affected persons need to write to Zhou Qiang to resolve their problem, it means that the mechanism in the social credit system for lifting restrictions on judgment debtors once they have complied does not work as well in practice as advertised, to the disadvantage of affected persons.

Issues with the operation of the SPC’s case database (裁判文书网)

Letters raising problems with the operation of the SPC’s case database (China Judgments Online) include letters published on 20 August, 16 July, 28 February. Users complain about problems with the search function, slow loading of pages, and other technical problems.  In one response the SPC complains about the database being used by companies using webcrawler or web scraping software, and their efforts to combat this by installing software to prevent it.  The SPC does not explain why this should be an issue.

(Complaints about the operation of the SPC’s case database are heard worldwide, judging by comments made at a recent international academic conference on Chinese law at 40 years and other academic conferences.)  As a consequence many researchers use alternative providers that offer better search functions and loading times.  I understand that the SPC has met with some of these alternative providers, but frustrations with the official database continue.

Who writes the responses?

Most responses lack a specific author. Occasionally a response is published in the name of the SPC’s Research Office or Data Center.  The careful reader detects inconsistencies in the way that letters are answered, with some persons addressed as Comrade, others by name, while others by Mr./Ms.

A natural question for legal professionals to ask is about the legal authority of these responses, as some of these responses are republished on Wechat public accounts focusing on law or legal information websites.  The answer seems to be “it depends”.  One recent response to a question concerned the time limit for an administrative agency to apply to a court to enforce an administrative penalty or fine was given by the SPC’s Research Office.  The Research Office is the SPC’s “gatekeeper” for judicial interpretations and is involved in drafting or coordinating the drafting (depending on the topic) of judicial interpretations (an academic article stuck in the production pipeline will provide more details).  Although the response is not legally binding (unlike a judicial interpretation), a Research Office response is likely to be highly persuasive guidance.  It is one of many tools in the the SPC’s guidance toolbox.