【立法动态 Judicial News】

1. 最高法出台公司法司法解释（五） 强化股东权益保护

1. SPC Unveils Judicial Interpretations (V) of Company Law to Better Safeguard Interests of Shareholder

背景摘要：日前，最高人民法院发布《关于适用〈中华人民共和国公司法〉若干问题的规定（五）》（下称《规定》），自2019年4月29日起施行。

Background Information：The Supreme People's Court ("SPC") has recently issued the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (V) (the "Provisions"), with effect from April 29, 2019.

《规定》共六条，主要对履行法定程序不能豁免关联交易赔偿责任、关联交易合同的无效与撤销、董事职务的无因解除与离职补偿、公司分配利润的时限、有限责任公司股东重大分歧解决机制等方面的问题加以明确。其中，《规定》规范了关联交易内外部责任，明确尽管交易已经履行了相应的程序，但如果结果上存在不公平，损害公司利益的情形，公司依然可以主张控股股东等关联人承担损害赔偿责任。同时，将股东代表诉讼的适用范围扩大到关联交易合同行为中，在关联交易合同存在无效或者可撤销情形而公司不起诉的情况下，符合条件的股东可以依法请求确认关联交易合同无效或者撤销该合同。

The Provisions provide clarity in six articles on the disapproval of exempting the parties concerned from liability for compensation related to related-party transactions even if certain statutory procedures have been performed, the invalidity and cancellation of contracts signed for related-party transactions, the dismissal of directors without cause and the compensation offered to directors when they leave their jobs, the time limit for companies to distribute their profits, and the mechanism for shareholders of limited liability companies to resolve their substantial divergence. Among others, the Provisions set forth the respective liability of internal and external parties involved in related-party transactions, clearly stating that although necessary procedures have been performed for a transaction, the company may still claim that such related-parties as the controlling shareholder shall bear liability for damages, if the unfair outcome of such transaction impairs interests of the company. In addition, representatives of shareholders are allowed to file lawsuits against a wider range of irregularities, including acts committed under the contract for a related-party transaction; even if the company does not file an lawsuit when the contract signed for a related-party transaction is invalid or revocable, qualified shareholders may initiate a legal action according to the law for invalidating or revoking such contract for the related-party transaction.

2. 两部门印发《2019年知识产权执法“铁拳”行动方案》

2.Two Departments Release "Iron Fist" Action Plan for IP Law Enforcement in 2019

背景摘要：日前，国家市场监督管理总局、国家知识产权局发布《2019年知识产权执法“铁拳”行动方案》（下称《方案》）。

Background Information：The State Administration for Market Regulation ("SAMR") and the China National Intellectual Property Administration ("CNIPA") have recently issued the "Iron Fist" Action Plan for Intellectual Property Law Enforcement in 2019 (the "Plan").

《方案》提出，大力推进知识产权行政执法体系建设，提升执法效能，强化重点市场、重点领域执法，严厉查处商标、专利、地理标志侵权假冒违法行为，督查督办一批大案要案，切实保护权利人和消费者的合法权益等。据此，《方案》确立严厉查处商标侵权违法行为、假冒专利违法行为等五项任务。同时，加强电子商务领域执法、重点商品交易市场执法以及外商投资领域执法。其中，《方案》要求，加大对外商投资企业反映较多的商标混淆、假冒专利等违法行为惩治力度，加强涉外展会、交易会等活动中商标权、专利权保护，及时处置展会、交易会期间的侵权假冒行为。

The Plan calls for strong efforts to advance the development of an administrative law enforcement framework for intellectual property (IP), enhance the efficiency and effects of IP law enforcement, reinforce law enforcement in core markets and in key fields, severely crack down upon unlawful infringement and imitations of trademarks, patents and geographical indications, and supervise investigations into and the handling of a number of major cases, in order to safeguard legal rights and interests of right holders and of consumers. Accordingly, the Plan proposes five tasks, including seriously investigating and punishing unlawful acts resulting in trademark infringement or imitations of patents. Meanwhile, efforts shall be made to strengthen law enforcement in the field of e-commerce, in key commodity exchange markets and in the foreign investment domain. Among others, the Plan requires that actions shall be taken to impose harsher punishment against those unlawful acts frequently reported by foreign-invested enterprises, like trademark confusion and imitations of patents, enhance the protection of trademark rights and patent rights during such activities as foreign-related exhibitions and trade fairs, and promptly respond to infringement and counterfeits uncovered in exhibitions and trade fairs.

【经典案例 Representative Case】

浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司诉A.P.穆勒-马士基

有限公司海上货物运输合同纠纷案

Zhejiang Longda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. v. A.P. Muller-Maersk Co., Ltd.

1. 裁判要点

1. Key Point

在海上货物运输合同中,依据合同法第三百零八条的规定，承运人将货物交付收货人之前，托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利，但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法第五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。托运人行使此项权利时，承运人也可相应行使一定的抗辩权。如果变更海上货物运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运，承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的请求，但应当及时通知托运人不能变更的原因。

In the contract for the carriage of goods by sea, in accordance with the provisions of Article 308 of the Contract Law, the shipper has the right to request a change of the contract of carriage before the carrier delivers the goods to the consignee, but the parties still have to comply with Article 5 of the Contract Law, which prescribes principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations of the parties. When the shipper exercises this right, the carrier may also exercise a certain right of defense. If it is difficult to realize the change of the contract of carriage of goods by sea or it will seriously affect the normal operation of the carrier, the carrier may refuse the shipper's request to change the port or return the goods, but should promptly notify the shipper of the reasons for the change.

2. 基本案情

2. Basic Facts

2014年6月，浙江隆达不锈钢有限公司（以下简称隆达公司）由中国宁波港出口一批不锈钢无缝产品至斯里兰卡科伦坡港，货物报关价值为366918.97美元。隆达公司通过货代向A.P.穆勒-马士基有限公司（以下简称马士基公司）订舱，涉案货物于同年6月28日装载于4个集装箱内装船出运，出运时隆达公司要求做电放处理。2014年7月9日，隆达公司通过货代向马士基公司发邮件称，发现货物运错目的地要求改港或者退运。马士基公司于同日回复，因货物距抵达目的港不足2天，无法安排改港，如需退运则需与目的港确认后回复。次日，隆达公司的货代询问货物退运是否可以原船带回，马士基公司于当日回复“原船退回不具有操作性，货物在目的港卸货后，需要由现在的收货人在目的港清关后，再向当地海关申请退运。海关批准后，才可以安排退运事宜”。2014年7月10日，隆达公司又提出“这个货要安排退运，就是因为清关清不了，所以才退回宁波的，有其他办法吗”。此后，马士基公司再未回复邮件。

In June 2014, Zhejiang Longda Stainless Steel Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Longda Company) exported a batch of stainless steel seamless products from Ningbo Port of China to the port of Colombo, Sri Lanka. The value of goods declaration was 366,918.97 US dollars. Longda Company subscribed to AP Moller-Maersk Company (hereinafter referred to as Maersk Company) through freight forwarding, and the goods involved were loaded and shipped in 4 containers on June 28 of the same year. When shipped, Longda Company requested to do the electric discharge treatment. On July 9, 2014, Longda issued an e-mail to Maersk Company through the freight forwarder, stating that the goods were shipped to the wrong destination and required to be changed or returned. Maersk Company replied on the same day that it was unable to arrange for the change of port because there are less than 2 days before the goods arrive at the port of destination. If it is necessary to return the goods, it must be confirmed with the destination port and then reply. On the next day, the freight forwarder of Longda Company asked whether the goods could be returned to the original ship. Maersk Company replied on the same day that “the original ship returned is not operational. After the goods are unloaded at the port of destination, the current consignee needs to be at the port of destination. After the customs clearance, thereafter a return shipment can be applied to the local customs. After the customs approval, the return shipment can be arranged." On July 10, 2014, Longda Company proposed that "this goods is arranged to be returned to Ningbo because the customs clearance is not clear. Is there any other way?" Since then, Maersk has not responded to the mail.

涉案货物于2014年7月12日左右到达目的港。马士基公司应隆达公司的要求于2015年1月29日向其签发了编号603386880的全套正本提单。根据提单记载，托运人为隆达公司，收货人及通知方均为VENUS STEEL PVT LTD，起运港中国宁波，卸货港科伦坡。2015年5月19日，隆达公司向马士基公司发邮件表示已按马士基公司要求申请退运。马士基公司随后告知隆达公司涉案货物已被拍卖。

The goods involved arrived at the port of destination around July 12, 2014. Maersk Company issued a full set of original bills of lading NO. 603386880 to the company on 15 January 2015 at the request of Longda. According to the bill of lading, the shipper is Longda, the consignee and the notifying party are VENUS STEEL PVT LTD, the port of departure is Ningbo, China, and the port of discharge is Colombo. On May 19, 2015, Longda sent an email to Maersk to indicate that it had applied for a return shipment as requested by Maersk. Maersk then informed Longda that the goods involved in the case had been auctioned.

3. 裁判结果

3. Judgment

宁波海事法院于2016年3月4日作出(2015)甬海法商初字第534号民事判决，认为隆达公司因未采取自行提货等有效措施导致涉案货物被海关拍卖，相应货损风险应由该公司承担，故驳回隆达公司的诉讼请求。一审判决后，隆达公司提出上诉。浙江省高级人民法院于2016年9月29日作出（2016）浙民终222号民事判决：撤销一审判决；马士基公司于判决送达之日起十日内赔偿隆达公司货物损失183459.49美元及利息。二审法院认为依据合同法第三百零八条，隆达公司在马士基公司交付货物前享有请求改港或退运的权利。在隆达公司提出退运要求后，马士基公司既未明确拒绝安排退运，也未通知隆达公司自行处理，对涉案货损应承担相应的赔偿责任，酌定责任比例为50%。马士基公司不服二审判决，向最高人民法院申请再审。最高人民法院于2017年12月29日作出（2017）最高法民再412号民事判决：撤销二审判决；维持一审判决。

On March 4, 2016, Ningbo Maritime Court made (2015)Yonghai Fashangchuzi No. 534 civil judgment, arguing that Longda Company did not take effective measures such as picking up the goods and caused the goods involved to be auctioned by the customs. The corresponding damage risk should be burdened by Longda company so that the claim of Longda Company was rejected. After the judgment of the first instance, Longda filed an appeal. On September 29, 2016, the Higher People's Court of Zhejiang Province made (2016) the civil judgment of Zhemin No. 222: the first-instance judgment was revoked; Maersk Company compensated Longda for the loss of goods of USD183,459.49 and interest within 10 days from the date of delivery of the judgment. The court of second instance held that according to Article 308 of the Contract Law, Longda Company had the right to request to change port or return shipment before Maersk Company delivered the goods. After the company submitted the return request, Maersk Company did not expressly refuse to arrange the return shipment, nor did it notify Longda to handle it by itself. It should bear the corresponding liability for the damage caused by the case, and the discretionary responsibility ratio is 50%. Maersk Company refused to accept the judgment of the second instance and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. On December 29, 2017, the Supreme People's Court made (2017) the highest Judgant No. 412 civil judgment: the second-instance judgment was revoked; the first-instance judgment was upheld.

4. 裁判理由

4. Holdings

最高人民法院认为，合同法与海商法有关调整海上运输关系、船舶关系的规定属于普通法与特别法的关系。根据海商法第八十九条的规定，船舶在装货港开航前，托运人可以要求解除合同。本案中，隆达公司在涉案货物海上运输途中请求承运人进行退运或者改港，因海商法未就航程中托运人要求变更运输合同的权利进行规定，故本案可适用合同法第三百零八条关于托运人要求变更运输合同权利的规定。基于特别法优先适用于普通法的法律适用基本原则，合同法第三百零八条规定的是一般运输合同，该条规定在适用于海上货物运输合同的情况下，应该受到海商法基本价值取向及强制性规定的限制。托运人依据合同法第三百零八条主张变更运输合同的权利不得致使海上货物运输合同中各方当事人利益显失公平，也不得使承运人违反对其他托运人承担的安排合理航线等义务，或剥夺承运人关于履行海上货物运输合同变更事项的相应抗辩权。

The Supreme People's Court held that the provisions of the Contract Law and the Maritime Law relating to the adjustment of maritime transport relations and ship relations belong to the relationship between common law and special law. According to the provisions of Article 89 of the Maritime Law, the shipper may request the termination of the contract before the ship sails at the port of loading. In this case, Longda Company requested the carrier to return or change the port during the maritime transport of the goods involved. Since the maritime law does not stipulate the shipper’s right to change the contract of carriage in the voyage, Article 308 of the contract law concerning the shipper’s request to change the rights of the contract of carriage can be applied. Based on the basic principles of the law applicable to the common law, Article 308 of the Contract Law is subject to common law, which stipulates that in the case of a contract for the carriage of goods by sea, so it should be subject to the basic value orientation and mandatory restrictions of the maritime law. The shipper’s right to change the contract of carriage in accordance with Article 308 of the Contract Law shall not result in the unfairness of the interests of the parties in the contract of carriage of goods by sea, nor shall the carrier violate the obligation to arrange reasonable routes to other shippers, nor deprive the carrier of the corresponding right of defense to perform changes to the contract of carriage of goods by sea.

合同法总则规定的基本原则是合同法立法的准则，是适用于合同法全部领域的准则，也是合同法具体制度及规范的依据。依据合同法第三百零八条的规定，在承运人将货物交付收货人之前，托运人享有要求变更运输合同的权利，但双方当事人仍要遵循合同法第五条规定的公平原则确定各方的权利和义务。海上货物运输具有运输量大、航程预先拟定、航线相对固定等特殊性，托运人要求改港或者退运的请求有时不仅不易操作，还会妨碍承运人的正常营运或者给其他货物的托运人或收货人带来较大损害。在此情况下，如果要求承运人无条件服从托运人变更运输合同的请求，显失公平。因此，在海上货物运输合同下，托运人并非可以无限制地行使请求变更的权利，承运人也并非在任何情况下都应无条件服从托运人请求变更的指示。为合理平衡海上货物运输合同中各方当事人利益之平衡，在托运人行使要求变更权利的同时，承运人也相应地享有一定的抗辩权利。如果变更运输合同难以实现或者将严重影响承运人正常营运，承运人可以拒绝托运人改港或者退运的要求，但应当及时通知托运人不能执行的原因。如果承运人关于不能执行原因等抗辩成立，承运人未按照托运人退运或改港的指示执行则并无不当。

The basic principle stipulated in the general provisions of the contract law is the standard of contract law legislation, which is the standard applicable to all areas of contract law, and also the basis for the specific system and norms of contract law. According to Article 308 of the Contract Law, the shipper has the right to request a change of the contract of carriage before the carrier delivers the goods to the consignee, but the parties still have to follow the fairness principle stipulated in Article 5 of the Contract Law to determine party's rights and obligations. Sea cargo transportation has special characteristics such as large transportation volume, pre-planned voyage, and relatively fixed routes. Shippers' requests for port change or return are sometimes not only difficult to operate, but also hinder the normal operation of the carrier or ship to other cargoes or  bring greater damage to the consignee. In this case, it is unfair if the carrier is required to unconditionally obey the shipper’s request to change the contract of carriage. Therefore, under the contract of carriage of goods by sea, the shipper is not entitled to exercise the right to request a change without restriction, and the carrier is not in any case unconditionally obeying the shipper’s request for a change. In order to reasonably balance the interests of the parties in the contract of carriage of goods by sea, the carrier also has a certain right of defense while the shipper exercises the right to change the requirements. If the change of the transportation contract is difficult to achieve or will seriously affect the carrier's normal operation, the carrier may refuse the shipper's request to change the port or return the goods, but should promptly notify the shipper of the reasons for the failure to perform. If the carrier’s defense against the failure to enforce the cause is established, the carrier’s failure to comply with the shipper’s instructions to return or change the port is not inappropriate.

涉案货物采用的是国际班轮运输，载货船舶除运载隆达公司托运的4个集装箱外，还运载了其他货主托运的众多货物。涉案货物于2014年6月28日装船出运，于2014年7月12日左右到达目的港。隆达公司于2014年7月9日才要求马士基公司退运或者改港。马士基公司在航程已过大半，距离到达目的港只有两三天的时间，以航程等原因无法安排改港、原船退回不具有操作性为抗辩事由，符合案件事实情况，该抗辩事由成立，马士基公司未安排退运或者改港并无不当。

The goods involved in the case were transported by international liners. In addition to carrying the four containers consigned by Longda, the cargo ships carried a large number of goods consigned by other cargo owners. The goods involved were shipped on June 28, 2014, and arrived at the port of destination around July 12, 2014. On July 9, 2014, Longda Company requested Maersk to return or change its port. Maersk held that it is impossible to arrange for the change of the port due to the voyage, and returning the ship is beyond operability, when the voyage has been completed more than half, and there is only a couple of days from the destination, which is in line with the fact of the case, so the defense is established. It is not inappropriate for the Maersk not having arranged for a return or change port.

马士基公司将涉案货物运至目的港后，因无人提货，将货物卸载至目的港码头符合海商法第八十六条的规定。马士基公司于2014年7月9日通过邮件回复隆达公司距抵达目的港不足2日。隆达公司已了解货物到港的大体时间并明知涉案货物在目的港无人提货，但在长达8个月的时间里未采取措施处理涉案货物致其被海关拍卖。隆达公司虽主张马士基公司未尽到谨慎管货义务，但并未举证证明马士基公司存在管货不当的事实。隆达公司的该项主张缺乏依据。依据海商法第八十六条的规定，马士基公司卸货后所产生的费用和风险应由收货人承担，马士基公司作为承运人无需承担相应的风险。

After Maersk Company transported the goods involved to the port of destination, the unloading of the goods to the port of destination was carried out in accordance with the provisions of Article 86 of the Maritime Law. On July 9, 2014, Maersk Company replied by mail to Longda Company that it was less than 2 days from the arrival port. Longda has been aware of the general time of arrival of the goods and knows that the goods involved are not picked up at the port of destination, but did not take measures to deal with the goods involved in the case for up to eight months, which were finally auctioned by the customs. Although Longda has claimed that Maersk has not fulfilled its cautious obligation to manage the goods, it has not proved that Maersk has the fact that the goods are improperly handled. Longda’s claim is unfounded. According to the provisions of Article 86 of the Maritime Law, the costs and risks incurred by Maersk Company after unloading shall be borne by the consignee, and Maersk shall not bear the corresponding risks as the carrier.

本文版权归作者所有，对于本文有任何意见或者建议，欢迎和作者取得联系。沈彦炜，全球合伙人，邮箱：shenyanwei@yingkelawyer.com

All right reserved. If you have any suggestion, please feel free to contact me. Sean Shen, Global Partner, E-mail: shenyanwei@yingkelawyer.com