Bracing for Conflicts

The most significant interpretations in the civil and commercial sphere are the Supreme People's Court (SPC)'s Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Property Investigations in Civil Enforcement and Several Provisions on the Publication of Lists of Parties Subjected to Enforcement in Breach of Trust which—by resolving the age-old problem of enforcement challenges—offer more comprehensive enforcement measures and prevent parties from neglecting their obligations.

Meanwhile, the SPC's Implementing Opinions on Comprehensively Promoting Reform of a Criminal Procedure System with Adjudication as its Core have modified the previous criminal procedure model that placed “investigation as its core”, and emphasize the judges' authority in terms of determining guilt, assessing penalties, and protecting the defendants' right to a defense.

The SPC's Opinions on Providing Judicial Protection for the Development of the Pilot Free Trade Zones are also important for litigation relating to China's free trade zones.

4. What should foreign investors be aware of when litigating in China?

Foreign investors must pay attention to: (1) the collection of evidence, particularly the fixed procedural requirements involving cross-border evidence, which must be dually notarized by a notary office in the country in question and certified by the Chinese embassy or consulate in that country before it can be lawfully accepted by a Chinese court; (2) in foreign-related civil cases, the time limit for a trial is not subject to the provisions governing the same for domestic trials which can make it difficult to settle a dispute in a timely manner; and (3) the foreign party to a foreign-related case is entitled to a response period and appeal period twice the lengths available in domestic cases, taking into account the more time required for the service of documents.

5. Which were some landmark cases involving a foreign element from the past year?

With the continuous increase in cross-border transactions and the development of the “Belt and Road” initiative, the SPC, with a view to aid foreign-related dispute resolution and clarify judicial practice issues, has issued two batches of 10 typical cases that have a bearing on the Belt and Road. Among them are:

• Sino-Environment Technology Group Ltd. v. Thumb Env-Tech Group (Fujian) Co. Ltd., a shareholder capital contribution dispute in which the SPC stressed an impartial and efficient judiciary and the equal protection of the lawful rights and interests of Chinese and foreign investors;
• Runipsys (Wuhan) Injection Systems Co. Ltd. v. TNT Express Worldwide (China) Ltd., Wuhan Branch, a contractual air cargo dispute where accurate understanding of the provisions of a convention and clarification of the adjudication rules for an international air transport dispute were emphasized;
• Polish FreeGuPohl Co. Ltd.'s application for the recognition and enforcement of a judgment rendered by a court of the Republic of Poland, demonstrating due performance of a judicial assistance agreement and the recognition and enforcement of a foreign civil/commercial judgment in accordance with the law;
• China Construction Bank Corp., Guangzhou Liwan Sub-branch v. Guangdong Lanyue Energy Development Co. Ltd. et al., the retrial of a letter of credit dispute where the court highlighted the need to apply contractual interpretation principles accurately and clarified the nature of the rights of a bill of lading holder;
• Siemens International Trading Ltd., Shanghai v. Shanghai Golden Landmark Co. Ltd., a case involving an application for the recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award, demonstrating adherence to the New York Convention and the creation of a high-quality legal environment in China's free trade zones; and
• Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. v. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Ltd., Zhejiang Branch, the appeal of an independent guarantee claim dispute in which the ICC Uniform Rules for Demand Guarantees were applied to validate the trade order involving the independent guarantee.

Furthermore, the SPC published 10 major maritime cases in 2016, including: A certain person surnamed Luan and 20 other persons v. Conoco Phillips China Inc. and China National Offshore Oil Corp., which was a maritime pollution liability case; Wartsila Finland Oy and Spliethoff`s Bevrachtingskantoor B.V. v. Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipyard Co. Ltd. and Yingqin Engine (Shanghai) Co. Ltd., an infringement dispute involving the sale and purchase of ship equipment; Shaoxing County Kingstone Knitting & Textile Co. Ltd. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., which revolved around a contract for the carriage of goods by sea; and DVB Bank SE v. ISIM Amin Ltd. and Shokooh Sahar Kish Shipping Co., a vessel title dispute.

These cases all bear significance for guiding judicial practice and should be studied carefully by practitioners.

6. Can you describe the latest trends in PRC arbitration?

The importance of arbitration as a major alternative dispute resolution mechanism has been widely accepted in industry circles in China. More and more parties are inking arbitration clauses, particularly in foreign-related contracts.

Arbitration in China will grow to meet international standards, including consistency with respect to arbitration law, rules, and procedures.

In order to enhance services for domestic and foreign parties, China will gradually encourage major international arbitration institutions to establish onshore representative offices, such as in Shanghai and Xiongan.

China is also studying and implementing ways to provide legal services in fields including arbitration and mediation, as well as establishing international dispute resolution institutions, to support investments along the Belt and Road. The nation will also actively participate in formulating international arbitration standards and rules, offering the experiences gained in China.

7. Do PRC courts recognize and enforce foreign arbitral awards? Will an award rendered by a Chinese arbitration centre gain recognition and enforcement in other countries?

China is member to the New York Convention, which has 157 signatories to date. Arbitral awards rendered in the country can be recognized and enforced in the territories of the other signatories, and vice versa.

China places stringent controls on upholding the recognition and enforcement of foreign-related arbitral awards (including both foreign arbitral awards, and foreign-related arbitral awards rendered by Chinese arbitration institutions). If recognition or enforcement is denied, the denial can be upheld only with the consent of the SPC through the internal court approval system.

8. What are the biggest challenges faced by a Chinese company involved in international arbitration?

A Chinese company must first have the determination to rationally manage and actively respond to a suit, rather than relying on the traditional practice of waiting for the case to return to China before presenting its defense. Secondly, it must perfect its lawsuit response mechanism, promptly engage domestic and foreign experts and lawyers to consider and analyze the details of the case, determine the validity of the arbitration clause, familiarize itself with the rules applicable to arbitration, select a suitable and competent arbitrator, analyze and prepare its defense outline, and stay on top of the time points of the arbitration procedure. Third, the company should assign an individual with the responsibility for the overall planning of the entire case, maintaining continuous and effective contact with the experts and lawyers, and coordinating with and guiding the company's internal departments or specific employees in collecting and collating evidentiary materials. Lastly, it needs to reasonably arrange for and disburse the legal costs and, as guided by professional opinions, keep an eye out for any suitable opportunity for settlement.

It is recommended for a Chinese enterprise to establish a dedicated department or assign a specific employee to familiarize itself/himself with the rules of the arbitration institution usually involved in its business contracts, prepare a list of experts and lawyers that can be called upon in the event of local arbitration, improve the working system for responding to any event that involves the company in an arbitration procedure, avoid passive handling and, more importantly, discard the “empiricism” generated by the traditional attitudes toward litigation or arbitration in China.

9. What is the status of mediation as an effective method of solving disputes in China?

Mediation is an extremely important dispute resolution mechanism in China, largely due to its unique people's mediator system.

The pre-trial mediation mechanism currently being implemented by Chinese courts allows litigation cases to be resolved through mediation.

The arbitration–mediation–arbitration system specific to China serves as a significant reference for the development of a mediation mechanism in international arbitration procedures.

The outcome of mediation requires court confirmation before it can be enforced. Accordingly, it is necessary to ensure the enforceability of the mediation outcome, making the method well received by parties.

10. What are the major dispute resolution trends you see emerging in 2018?

The biggest trend remains ADR (alternative dispute resolution), alternatively termed pre-trial mediation with Chinese characteristics. The explosive growth in the number of civil and commercial cases has presented challenges for courts. Parties in many new cases are being told by courts to wait at least two months before their cases can be opened, and existing pre-trial mediation centers affiliated with courts are facing an insufficiency of professionals.

In 2017, the Professional People's Mediation Center of Shanghai Pudong New Area was the first to openly recruit lawyers in Shanghai. Professional legal personnel were brought in to serve as specially invited mediators assigned on a rotating basis to mediation centers subordinate to the People's Court of Shanghai Pudong New Area, guide parties in simple and small claims cases to opt for pre-trial mediation, separate cases into different streams, and handle and resolve disputes before they enter court, which not only helps to reduce the courts' caseload but also assists parties in resolving their disputes quickly. Mediation is also free of charge, with the exception of cases in which specially invited lawyers serve as mediators (the charges are equivalent to those for legal aid cases and are mainly used to offset the mediating lawyers' travel expenses). Regardless, the method offers disputing parties the lowest cost and highest efficiency. Meanwhile, the specially invited lawyers, by taking the role of a neutral mediator,  are able to experience the difficulties inherent in the judge profession. As for the courts, pre-trial mediation is a quick solution to eliminating simple cases and saving large quantities of judicial resources to allow for handling more complex and difficult cases.

Co-effort Law Firm LLP has four lawyers who have been engaged as specially invited mediators, participated in the pre-trial mediation of cases, and applied their professional capabilities in successfully handling a large number of dispute cases, receiving high marks from everyone involved.

Steven Gu, Senior Partner

Co-effort Law Firm

Steven Gu provides legal support to numerous Fortune 500 companies and their local Chinese subsidiaries on commercial contracts, labor and personnel affairs, immovable property and intellectual property, and general commercial matters in business operations and management, including participating in business negotiations, issuing legal analysis opinions, guiding clients in risk prevention, conducting legal due diligence, and drafting and reviewing contracts. He has acted on New Third Board listings of many small and medium-sized enterprises, as well as investment/financing projects and other non-contentious projects of private funds.

Mr. Gu has represented domestic and foreign clients in close to 100 legal actions and arbitration cases before courts and arbitration commissions in China.

His major clients include Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation, Aoxi Office Equipment, China Great Wall Asset Management, China Orient Asset Management, Decathlon Group, Howard Johnson Hotels, and Tencent.

Mr. Gu is a member of the Education and Sports Committee of the Shanghai Bar Association.

1. 过去12个月，有哪些影响诉讼的重大法规变更？

最新的《民法总则》对诉讼带来重大的影响，主要体现在：

1. 诉讼时效期间由两年延长为三年（第188条），更有利于民事主体维权。诉讼时效虽然延长，但仍然存在中断、中止的特殊情形。
2. 厘清诉讼时效的适用范围（第196条）。《诉讼时效司法解释》第1条将适用范围限制在债权请求权，而《民法总则》在不适用诉讼时效方面包含了债权请求权和部分物权请求权。
3. 新增诉讼时效的特殊起算点（第191条：未成年人遭受性侵害的损害赔偿请求权的诉讼时效期间，自受害人年满十八周岁之日起计算。），给受性侵害的未成年人在成年以后提供寻求法律救济的机会，更好地保护未成年人利益。
4. 重大误解撤销权行使期间缩短为三个月（第152条）。与之相对应的是《合同法》第55条所规定的撤销权为一年。从一年缩短为三个月，隐含着要求重大误解受害人积极行使撤销权，逾期不行使撤销权将归于消灭，从而保护市场秩序，提高交易的稳定性。
5. 撤销死亡宣告对婚姻关系的影响（第51条）。原《民法通则》对死亡宣告被撤销后人身关系如何处理未作规定，《民通意见》第37条确立了原则恢复、例外不恢复的规则。《民法总则》则吸收了《民通意见》37条的内容，但增加“被宣告死亡者的配偶向婚姻登记机关书面声明不愿意恢复的，则婚姻关系不能自行恢复”，在法律上赋予了原配偶新的选择权。

2. 过去一年，最常见的是哪类型纠纷，为什么？

过去一年中最常见的纠纷类型是合同纠纷、知识产权纠纷。合同纠纷突出及常见的最主要原因在于反映了市场经济的活跃，尤其是各种民间投资、交易的增多凸显了中国经济的热度。游戏产业的崛起及电商平台交易的海量增长推动了知识产权载体的应用，人们越来越注重图片、视频、文字等信息所产生的商业价值，使得知识产权类的纠纷增多。另外工程建筑和金融纠纷发生频率也挺高。

3. 今年最高人民法院有哪些最重要的司法解释？

民商事领域最重要的司法解释是《最高人民法院关于民事执行中财产调查若干问题的规定》、《最高人民法院关于公布失信被执行人名单信息的若干规定》，主要在于解决执行难的老问题，以更全面的执行措施让社会生活中的“老赖”无处可遁。

刑事领域最重要的司法解释是《最高人民法院关于全面推进以审判为中心的刑事诉讼制度改革的实施意见》，改变过去的“以侦查为中心”的刑事诉讼模式，强调法官在定罪科刑方面的唯一性和权威性，继续保障对被告人辩护权的保护。

《最高人民法院关于为自由贸易试验区建设提供司法保障的意见》（法发〔2016〕34号）也呼应新时代的潮流，在自由贸易试验区（更先进的市场经济试验区）提供司法保障，凸显了司法为民的社会主义司法特色。

4. 外国投资者在中国进行诉讼时应当注意什么？

外国投资者需要注意：1、证据的收集，尤其涉及到跨国证据固定的程序性要求，即应经所在国公证机关予以证明，并经中国驻该国使领馆予以认证的双重程序，其合法性才能被中国法庭所接受；2、对于涉外民事案件，审理期限不受国内审理期限的规定，这也会使得涉外案件的审理期限较长，可能不能及时定纷止争；3、涉外案件的外国当事人享有比国内案件多一倍的答辩期和上诉期，这主要考虑文书送达所需时间长于国内送达时间。

5. 过去一年，有哪些含有涉外因素的具代表性案件？

随着我国跨境交易的不断增多和“一带一路”战略的深入发展，为解决涉外纠纷和阐释争端处理过程中的司法实践问题，最高院分两批发布了各十个涉“一带一路”建设的典型案例。其中包括：

• 公正高效司法，平等保护中外投资者合法权益的“新加坡中华环保科技集团有限公司与大拇指环保科技集团（福建）有限公司股东出资纠纷案”；
• 准确理解公约条款，明晰国际航空运输纠纷裁判规则的“朗力（武汉）注塑系统有限公司与天地国际运输代理（中国）有限公司武汉分公司航空货物运输合同纠纷案”；
• 切实履行司法协助协定，依法承认和执行外国民商事判决的“波兰弗里古波尔股份有限公司申请承认和执行波兰共和国法院判决案”；
• 准确适用合同解释原则，明晰提单持有人的权利性质的“中国建设银行股份有限公司广州荔湾支行与广东蓝粤能源发展有限公司等信用证开证纠纷再审案”；
• 恪守《纽约公约》裁决执行义务，营造自贸试验区优质法治环境的“西门子国际贸易（上海）有限公司与上海黄金置地有限公司申请承认和执行外国仲裁裁决案”；
• 依约适用国际商会见索即付保函统一规则，保障独立保函交易秩序的“现代重工有限公司与中国工商银行股份有限公司浙江省分行独立保函索赔纠纷上诉案”等。

此外，就国际海运贸易中常见的纠纷，最高院还发布了2016年十大典型海事案例，包括：“栾某某等21人与康菲石油中国有限公司（Conoco Phillips China Inc.）及中国海洋石油总公司海上污染损害责任纠纷案”、“瓦锡兰芬兰有限公司(Wartsila Finland Oy)、西特福船运公司(Spliethoff`s Bevrachtingskantoor B.V.)与荣成市西霞口船业有限公司、颖勤发动机（上海）有限公司船舶设备买卖侵权纠纷案”、“绍兴县金斯顿针纺织有限公司诉商船三井株式会社（Mitsui O.S.K. Lines，Ltd.）海上货物运输合同纠纷案”、“德国航运贷款银行（DVB Bank SE）诉艾斯姆阿明航运有限公司（ISIM Amin Limited）、舍库萨格凯斯航运有限公司（Shokooh Sahar Kish Shipping Co.）船舶权属纠纷案”等。

这些案例对于司法实践具有重要的指导意义，值得从业者认真研读。

6. 您是否可以描述一下中国仲裁领域最近的趋势？

仲裁作为主要替代性争议解决机制的重要性为中国的业界广为接受，越来越多的当事人约定通过仲裁方式解决争议，特别是涉外合同领域。

中国仲裁将逐步与国际接轨，包括仲裁法、仲裁规则和仲裁程序的国际接轨。

中国仲裁将为提高对国内外的当事人的服务，逐步引进国际主要仲裁机构在我国设立代表处，例如：上海和雄安。推动中国仲裁事业的发展。

为服务一带一路建设，我国在研究和落实如何在仲裁和调解等争端解决领域提供法律服务，成立国际争议解决机构问题。中国将积极参与国际仲裁等规则的研究和制定，提供中国经验。

7. 中国法院是否承认和执行外国仲裁裁决？中国仲裁机构作出的裁决在其他国家是否可获承认和执行？

到目前为止，纽约公约有157个缔约国，我国也是缔约国之一，因此，我国和纽约公约缔约国的仲裁裁决可以互相承认和执行。

中国对涉外仲裁裁决（包括外国仲裁裁决和我国仲裁机构的涉外仲裁裁决）的承认和执行把握非常严格，如果不予承认和执行，需要通过法院内部报批制度得到最高院的同意方可不予承认和执行。

8. 在国际仲裁中，中国公司面临的最大挑战是什么？

首先，中国公司应有理性面对、积极应诉的决心和理念，不要轻易缺席或仰赖于案件回到国内再行抗辩的传统做法。其次，中国公司需完善应诉机制，及时地聘请国内外的专业人员、律师研究讨论案情，确定仲裁条款的效力，熟悉仲裁适用的规则规定，选择适当胜任的仲裁员，分析和准备抗辩提纲，掌握仲裁程序的时间节点。再者，中国公司应有专人负责整个案件的统筹安排，与聘请的国内外专业人员和律师保持持续有效的沟通，协调和指导公司内部各机构或具体操作人员收集和整理证据材料。同时，中国公司也应合理地安排和支出法律费用，并在专业意见的指导下把握适当可能的和解时机。

建议中国企业设立专门的部门或人员熟悉业务合同中经常涉及的仲裁机构的规则规定，编制如涉当地仲裁可选聘的专业人员和律师的名册，完善一旦涉及仲裁需如何应对的工作制度，切忌消极处置，更要摈弃按照国内诉讼或仲裁的思维模式而产生的错误的“经验主义”。

9. 在中国，调解作为有效解决争议的方法方面，具有怎样的地位？

调解是我国非常重要的争议解决机制之一，特别是我国独特的人民调解员制度。

我国法院正在推行诉前调解机制，有利于诉讼案件通过调解解决。

我国特有的仲裁-调解-仲裁制度对国际仲裁过程中的调解机制建设有重要借鉴作用。

调解的结果需要得到法院的确认才可得以执行，因此需要确定调解结果的可执行性，这样调解方式更为当事人接受。

10 . 您认为2018年，在争议解决方面会出现哪些主要趋势？

仍然是ADR（Alternative Dispute Resolution），也可以说是中国特色的诉前调解。在目前民商事案件爆炸性增长的当今中国，为了保证司法公正，法院无法快速及时的审理案件，大量的新案件在立案时就被告知需要等候至少两个月才能立案，既有的法院诉前调解中心已经面临专业人员不够的难题。

上海市浦东新区专业人民调解中心于2017年在上海市率先公开招募律师担任特邀调解员，从而引进专业法律人士作为特邀调解员轮流驻点上海市浦东新区人民法院的各个派出诉调中心，对简单、小额案件引导当事人选择诉前调解，分流案件，将争议在进入法院前就予以处理化解，既帮助法院消解了案件量，也帮助当事人快速的解决了对立矛盾。同时，调解中心对当事人参加调解是免费的，但对特邀律师作为调解员参与案件处理是付费的，支付费用约等于法律援助案件费用，主要还是用于贴补调解律师的差旅。对案件当事人而言，经济成本最低，效益最高；对特邀律师而言，转变为居中地位的调解员，角色转换中能够深刻体会法官职业的辛苦；对法院而言，诉前调解能快速消化简单案件，节省了大量的司法资源，从而能够更认真的处理复杂疑难案件。

协力律师事务所有四名执业律师被聘为特邀调解员，已经参与了案件诉前调解，运用专业能力成功地处理了大量争议案件，受到各方好评。

古锐 高级合伙人

协力律师事务所

古锐律师向许多知名的财富500强跨国企业及其在华的子公司提供商业合同、劳动人事、不动产、知识产权等方面的法律支持，负责处理公司运作及管理过程中的各类商业事务，包括参与商业谈判、出具法律分析意见、指导并协助客户进行风险防范、进行法律审慎性调查、起草及审查客户的各类合同文本等；也曾多次参与中小企业新三板上市项目，以及私募基金的投融资项目及其他非诉项目。

古律师代表国内外客户在中国多家法院以及在中国的各地仲裁委员会参与各类诉讼、仲裁案件近百起。主要客户包括三井住友银行、奥西办公、长城资产管理公司、东方资产管理公司、迪卡侬、豪生酒店、腾讯等企业。古律师是上海市律师协会教育与体育专业委员会委员，上海市浦东新区专业人民调解中心特邀调解员。