Putting 10 Guiding Cases in Perspective™: Limitations of Guiding Cases and Solutions

The launch of the In depth Utilizing Guidelines on the “Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court Concerning Perform on Situation Guidance” by the Supreme People’s Court in Could 2015 delivered far more instruction on how to refer to Guiding Cases in subsequent, equivalent instances, particularly by instructing judges to refer to the “Main Factors of the Adjudication” part of Guiding Cases (“GCs”). To provide a further comprehension of the evolution of these critical “Main Points”–and the troubles they raise–the China Guiding Cases Job (“CGCP”) proudly announces the launch of ten new Guiding Cases in Standpoint sets geared up by CGCP Founder and Director Dr. Mei Gechlik and around two dozen CGCP Editors, who incorporate former govt lawyers, current lawyers of major legislation corporations, and legislation learners enrolled in prestigious legislation schools inside of and outdoors of China.

These ten Guiding Cases in Standpoint sets clearly show that the Supreme People’s Court and its Business office for the Perform on Situation Direction have performed great perform in making ready GCs for use in the adjudication of subsequent, equivalent instances, but not with out leaving behind inquiries, as illustrated by two illustrations underneath:

• GC10: LI Jianjun v. Shanghai Jiapower Environment Safety Science and Technology Co., Ltd., A Company Resolution Revocation Dispute. Its “Main Points” part includes the next:

A people’s courtroom, when dealing with a company resolution revocation dispute, must overview: No matter if or not the process for convening meetings and the strategy of voting violate regulations, administrative regulations, or the posts of association, as very well as regardless of whether or not the written content of the resolution violates the posts of association.

The higher than paragraph is dependent on Write-up 22, Paragraph 2 of China’s Firm Law. But should not courts to start with require to confirm regardless of whether the written content of the resolution is in accord with the provisions of regulations and administrative regulations, as demanded by Write-up 22, Paragraph 1, which, unfortunately, is not talked about at all in GC10?

• GC29: Tianjin China Youth Travel Provider v. Tianjin Guoqing Worldwide Travel Agency, A Dispute around an Unauthorized Use of Another’s Organization Name. The “Main Points” part is:

The place, with out authorization, [a organization operator] employs another’s abbreviated company name, which in fact now functions as a trade name, as an Web bid-for-position key phrase in organization functions, creating the related public to be puzzled and to misidentify [the company], [the unauthorized use of the abbreviated company name] is an act of unfair opposition.

Suppose that, in a subsequent case, an company only employs another’s abbreviated company name that in fact functions as a trade name in its internet site resource code, somewhat than as a bid-for position key phrase, and brings about the related public to be puzzled by the look for results and misidentify the internet site, must the courtroom that handles the case refer to GC29? What is intriguing is that the defendant of GC29 in fact employed another’s abbreviated company name in its internet site resource code, but this vital point is not talked about in the “Main Points”.

Beneath these inquiries is a larger concern nonetheless to be dealt with by the Supreme People’s Court: can GCs be revised? At existing, related guidelines on GCs only allow for a GC to drop its guiding result if it is in conflict with a new piece of legislation or judicial interpretation or if it is replaced with a new GC. Our investigation displays that there is a authentic require for a revision system to enrich the value of GCs in guiding subsequent adjudication.

Guiding Cases in Standpoint is a special serial publication of the China Guiding Cases Job that identifies the original judgments chosen by the Supreme People’s Court, examines their transformation into Guiding Cases, and explores the treatment method of the Guiding Cases in subsequent instances. For the total in Standpoint sets of the other eight GCs (like GCs 1, eight, 11, 15, sixteen, 19, thirty, 32), please take a look at: https://cgc.legislation.stanford.edu/guiding-instances/.