立法动态 Judicial News

1. 最高法印发《民事诉讼程序繁简分流改革试点问答口径（一）》

    SPC Releases Q&A (I) on the Pilot Reform of Civil Proceedings for the Separation of Complicated Cases from Simple Ones

背景摘要：近日，最高人民法院印发《民事诉讼程序繁简分流改革试点问答口径（一）》（下称《问答口径（一）》）。

Background Information：The Supreme People's Court ("SPC") has recently issued the Questions and Answers (I) on the Pilot Reform of Civil Proceedings for the Separation of Complicated Cases from Simple Ones (the "Q&A (I)").

《问答口径（一）》对“能否适用小额诉讼程序审理简单知识产权案件？”“在线庭审适用于哪些案件？”等三十七个问答加以明确。其中，《问答口径（一）》规定，简单知识产权案件，例如图片类、音乐作品类著作权侵权案件等，只要事实清楚、权利义务关系明确、争议不大，且在规定标的额以下的，可以适用小额诉讼程序审理。《问答口径（一）》还指出，在线庭审适用范围原则上没有案件类型限制，但实践中法官应根据案件性质、当事人数量、复杂程度等因素做出综合评估，确定案件是否适宜在线庭审。案件存在双方当事人不同意在线庭审、不具备在线庭审技术条件、需现场查明身份、核对原件、查验实物等情形的，不适用在线庭审。

The Q&A (I) provides clarifications on 37 questions, including "whether it is appropriate to try simple intellectual property cases under the small claim lawsuit procedures?" and "which cases could be handled via online court trials?". Among others, the Q&A (I) clarifies that simple intellectual property cases, such as cases involving infringement upon copyright of photographs or music works, may be heard under the small claim lawsuit procedures, provided that the case facts and the relationship between rights and obligations are clear and the dispute is minor, and the amount of the claim does not surpass the prescribed upper limit. In addition, the Q&A (I) expounds on the scope of application of online court trials, stating that in principle, there are no limits regarding case type on the scope of application, but judges shall give comprehensive consideration to various factors including case nature, number of parties involved, and complicatedness of the case, while determining whether it is reasonable to hold court trials online. Online court trials will not apply if the parties to a case disagree with online court trials, the technical conditions for holding online court trials do not permit, or identity, original documents or physical objects need to be checked on the spot.

2. 最高法发文推进破产案件依法高效审理

    SPC Calls for Law-based and Efficient Trials of Bankruptcy Cases

背景摘要：近日，最高人民法院印发《关于推进破产案件依法高效审理的意见》（下称《意见》）。

Background Information：The Supreme People's Court ("SPC") has recently issued the Opinions on Advancing Efficient Trials of Bankruptcy Cases According to the Law (the "Opinions").

《意见》共22条，着重从以下五个方面推进破产案件依法高效审理：一是优化案件公告和受理等程序流程；二是完善债务人财产接管和调查方式；三是提升债权人会议召开和表决效率；四是构建简单案件快速审理机制；五是强化强制措施和打击逃废债力度。其中，《意见》指出，对于债权债务关系明确、债务人财产状况清楚、案情简单的破产清算、和解案件，人民法院可以适用快速审理方式。破产案件具有“债务人存在未结诉讼、仲裁等情形，债权债务关系复杂”等情形之一的，不适用快速审理方式。《意见》还强调，人民法院要准确把握违法行为入刑标准，严厉打击恶意逃废债行为。

The Opinions, comprised of 22 articles, call for efforts in five aspects as follows to propel efficient trials of bankruptcy cases in accordance with the law. The first is optimizing the procedures and processes regarding case-related announcement and case acceptance. The second is improving the ways to take over and probe into the property of debtors. The third is enhancing the efficiency of convening and casting votes at creditors' meetings. The fourth is instituting a quick trial mechanism for simple cases. And the fifth is intensifying coercive measures and crackdown upon attempts to dodge repaying debts. Among others, the Opinions state that people's courts may adopt the quick trial mechanism to those bankruptcy liquidation and conciliation cases in which the debtor-creditor relationship is explicit, the property information of debtors is clear, and case facts are simple. The quick trial mechanism does not apply to those bankruptcy cases where "debtors are involved in pending lawsuits or arbitration and the debtor-creditor relationship is complicated" or under other circumstances. The Opinions also stress that people's courts shall accurately adopt the criteria for imposing criminal penalties for violations and severely combat malicious acts of dodging debt repayment.

3. 商务部发文推广上海市24条稳外资新措施

    MOFCOM Promotes Shanghai Municipal Government's 24 New Measures for Foreign Investment Stabilization

背景摘要：日前，商务部办公厅发出《关于推广上海市24条稳外资新措施的函》。

Background Information：The General Office of the Ministry of Commerce ("MOFCOM") has recently issued the Letter on Promoting the 24 New Measures of Shanghai Municipality for Foreign Investment Stabilization.

该函称，上海市人民政府印发《本市贯彻〈国务院关于进一步做好利用外资工作的意见〉若干措施》（简称《若干措施》），从落实国家扩大开放政策、加强外商投资促进工作、提升投资便利化水平、强化外商投资保护等四个方面，提出24条稳外资措施，有助于对冲疫情影响，持续营造开放、便利的投资环境，进一步吸引和稳定外资。关于强化外商投资保护，《若干措施》明确，要提高涉及外资政策透明度，制定出台涉及外资的行政规范性文件时，加强合法性审核，并事先征求外资企业、相关商协会的意见建议。涉及企业投资和生产经营活动调整的行政规范性文件，合理确定公布到施行之间的时间，给企业预留调整时间。

The letter reads that the Several Measures of the Shanghai Municipality for Implementation of the Opinions of the State Council on Further Improving the Use of Foreign Capital (the "Several Measures") promulgated by the Shanghai Municipal People's Government introduce 24 measures intended to stabilize foreign investment, in four aspects, including putting in place the national policies for wider opening up, stepping up efforts to boost foreign investment, improving foreign investment facilitation and strengthening the protection of foreign investment, which are helpful in countering the impacts of the epidemic, sustaining an open and convenient environment for investment, and further attracting and stabilizing foreign investment. As regards efforts to strengthen the protection of foreign investment, the Several Measures highlight the need to improve the transparency of policies related to foreign investment, strengthen reviews of the legality of foreign-investment-related administrative normative documents before they are officially released, and seek opinions and advice from foreign-invested enterprises and relevant chambers of commerce and associations beforehand. As for administrative normative documents that introduce adjustments to investment, production and operational activities of enterprises, a reasonable buffer period should be established between the date of promulgation and the effective date, to set aside time for enterprises to get well-prepared for such adjustments.

经典案例 Representative Case

当事人的约定不能对抗电子商业汇票系统中的记载

The Agreement between Parties cannot be Relied on to Defend against the Record in the Electronic Commercial Draft System

——甲证券公司与乙保理公司、丙公司、丁公司等票据追索权纠纷上诉案

——An appellant case of Security Company A v. Factoring Company B, Company C and Company D on Disputes over Right of Recourse

1. 裁判要点

.   Key Point

各方当事人签订协议，约定电子商业汇票系统中载明的质权人作为实际质权人的代理人在电子商业汇票系统中持有票据。根据票据法的规定，此时应认定质权人为电子商业汇票系统所载明的人，而不是当事人自行约定、未在电子商业汇票系统中载明的人。当事人的约定不能突破票据的文义性特征。

The parties at issue signed an agreement stipulating that the pledgee registered in the Electronic Commercial Draft (“ECD”) system shall hold relevant ECD as the agent of the actual pledgee. Pursuant to the Law of Negotiable Instruments, the pledgee recognized by law shall the one registered in the ECD system instead of the actual pledgee as agreed by the parties. The agreement between parties are not allowed to override the literalness of negotiable instruments.

2. 基本案情

2. Basic Facts

2016年1月，丙公司与丁公司签订《购货合同》，约定丙公司向丁公司购买铜精矿等。同年4月1日，丙公司作为出票人和承兑人开具电子商业承兑汇票一张，载明收款人为丁公司，票据金额为99,995,447.20元，到期日为2017年3月21日。2016年3月，丁公司与乙保理公司签订《应收账款转让合同》，约定丁公司将其对丙公司享有的应收账款债权转让给乙保理公司。同年4月，丁公司将系争电子商业承兑汇票背书转让给乙保理公司。

In January 2016, Company C signed a Sales Contract with Company D to purchases copper concentrates from the latter. On April 1, 2016, Company C, as the drawer and acceptor, issued an electronic commercial drafttothe payee Company D; the amount of the draft is RMB 99,995,447.20, and the due date is March 21, 2017. In March 2016, Company D and Factoring Company B signed an Agreement on Transfer of Accounts Receivable, agreeing between them the transfer of accounts receivable from Company C. In April 2016, Company D endorsed over the electronic commercial draft to Factoring Company B.

之后，乙保理公司与甲证券公司签订《资产买卖协议》，约定乙保理公司将包括上述99,995,447.20元债权在内的若干项资产转让给甲证券公司。双方又签订《票据质押协议》，约定乙保理公司以系争汇票设定质押，作为丙公司履行货款支付义务的担保。甲证券公司、乙保理公司还与戊银行签订《票据服务协议》，约定乙保理公司将系争汇票出质给甲证券公司，戊银行作为票据服务银行和质权人的代理人，在电子商业汇票系统中持有票据，并提供质押票据的审验、保管和提示付款等服务。在电子商业汇票系统中，质权人登记为戊银行。2017年3月21日，戊银行就系争汇票进行提示付款，因承兑人账户余额不足被拒付。

Later, Factoring Company B and Security Company A signed an Asset Purchase Agreement, according to which, Company B is to transfer certain assets, including the above claim of RMB 99,995,447.20, to Security Company A. Both parties further signed a Bill Pledge Contract, agreeing that Factoring Company B is to pledge the commercial draft at issue to guarantee Company C’s performance of its payment obligation. Security Company A and Factoring Company B also signed a Bill Service Agreement with Bank E. According to such service agreement, Factoring Company B is to pledge the commercial draft at issue in favor of Security Company A, and that Bank E will, as the draft services provider and the agent of the pledgee Security Company A, hold the draft in the ECD system, and provide such services as verification, custody and presentation for payment of the pledged draft. In the ECD system, Bank E is registered as the pledgee. On 21 March 2017, Bank E presented the draft for payment but was denied due to insufficient fund in the acceptor’s account.

2017年10月12日，甲证券公司起诉请求判令乙保理公司向其支付汇票金额99,995,447.20元及相应利息，并判令丙公司、丁公司对乙保理公司的上述义务承担连带清偿责任。

On 12 October 2017, Security Company A filed a lawsuit and claimed that Factoring Company B shall pay the amount of the draft RMB 99,995,447.20 as well as any accruable interests, and that Company C and Company D shall bear joint and several liability therefor.

3. 裁判结果

3. Judgment

上海市高级人民法院于2019年5月24日作出（2018）沪民终241号终审判决：驳回甲证券公司的诉讼请求。

The Shanghai High People’s Court delivered a final Judgement ([2018] Hu Min Zhong No.241) rejecting the claims of Security Company A.

4. 裁判理由

4. Reasoning

法院认为,首先，根据《票据法》第四条第二款的规定，持票人行使票据权利，应当按照法定程序在票据上签章，并出示票据。系争汇票背书显示出质人为乙保理公司，质权人为戊银行，并无甲证券公司的相关记载，甲证券公司并非系争汇票权利人。其次，根据《票据法》第三十一条的规定，以背书转让的汇票，背书应当连续。持票人以背书的连续，证明其汇票权利；非经背书转让，而以其他合法方式取得汇票的，依法举证，证明其汇票权利。因系争汇票系由乙保理公司直接背书质押给戊银行，甲证券公司并没有取得并持有该票据。第三，甲证券公司主张其是系争汇票真正的质权人，戊银行只是其票据权利的代理人。根据《票据法》第五条第一款的规定，票据当事人可以委托其代理人在票据上签章，并应当在票据上表明其代理关系，但本案系争汇票并未载明戊银行为甲证券公司的代理人。

The Court held that, first, according to Article 4.2 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments, to exercise the rights in the negotiable instruments, a holder shall put his/her signature or seal to the negotiable instruments according to the legal procedures and present the instrument. The endorsement of the draft at issue, however, demonstrated that the pledgor was Factoring Company B, the pledgee was Bank E, and there was no mentioning of Security Company A, thus Security Company A was not entitled to claim any right to the draft. Secondly, according to Article 31 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments, to endorse over a draft, the endorsement shall be in uninterrupted series. The holder shall prove his/her rights to the draft by the interrupted series of endorsement. If a draft is transferred by legal means other endorsement, the holder shall prove its right to the draft according to law. The draft at issue was endorsed by Factoring Company B over to Bank E, and Security Company A did not obtain neither was it the holder of the draft. Thirdly, Security Company A claimed that it was the actual pledgee of the draft and Bank E acted as its agent. According to Article 5.1 of the Law of Negotiable Instruments, parties to a negotiable instrument may entrust their agents to put their signatures or seals to the instruments with the agency relationship clearly indicated. In the current case, no such indication was made on the draft to state that Bank E was the agent of Security Company A.

综上，甲证券公司既未按照法定程序在票据上签章，又未以其他合法方式取得票据，在票据上也看不出由戊银行代理其持有票据的字样，故甲证券公司关于其为系争汇票的合法持票人的主张难以成立，其向乙保理公司、丙公司、丁公司行使票据追索权亦无事实和法律依据。甲证券公司可待戊银行行使票据追索权后，根据涉案《票据服务协议》向戊银行主张相应权利。

To sum, Security Company A failed to signature or seal the draft at issue in line with the law, and failed to obtain the draft at issue through other legal means. Besides, nothing on the bill demonstrated that Bank E held the draft as the agent of Security Company A. Therefore, Security Company A has no ground to claim that it was the lawful holder of the draft, and there was no factual or legal basis for it to exercise the right to recourse against Factoring Company B, Company C and Company D. Security Company A may claim the relevant right against Bank E based on the Bill Service Agreement after Bank E exercised its right to recourse.

5. 裁判意义

5. Significance

本案涉及当事人约定的票据质权人与电子商业汇票系统中的记载不一致时如何认定的问题。根据票据的文义性特征，票据上的一切权利义务必须严格依照票据上记载的文义而定，文义之外的任何理由及事项均不能作为根据。我国《票据法》中的多个条文即是票据文义性特征的体现，无论是传统纸质票据还是电子票据，在法无特殊规定的情况下均应遵循。虽然电子票据产生于《票据法》制定之后，但其相对传统纸质票据而言是发展而非颠覆，电子商业汇票系统亦在不断发展完善中。本案二审判决重申票据的严格文义性，明确当事人的约定不能对抗电子商业汇票系统中的记载，对于维护票据交易的安全与效率具有重要意义。

The case involves the issue of the identification of the pledgee of draft when the registration in the ECD system differs from the agreement between parties. According to the literalness of negotiable instruments, all rights and obligations under the instruments shall be determined strictly based on the records thereon, rather than any other reasons or matters. The literalness of negotiable instruments is recognized by several articles of the Law of Negotiable Instruments, which, absent special overriding rules, shall be observed in relation to both traditional paper instruments and electronic instruments. Although electronic instrument was developed after the promulgation of the Law of Negotiable Instruments, it develops, rather than replaces, the traditional paper instrument, and the ECD system is still being improved. The Judgement of the second instance reiterated the strict literalness of negotiable instruments, clarified that the agreement between parties shall not override the registration in the ECD system, and contributed to upholding the safety and efficiency of transactions of negotiable instruments.

 本文版权归作者沈彦炜所有。