In civil litigation, the biggest task and function of the people's court's adjudication activities is to distinguish the law and analyze the reasoning, determine the division and stop the dispute. Of course, the parties have different understandings and attitudes towards the adjudication, and there will often be appeals against a first-instance judgment in which the facts are clear, the procedures are proper, the law is correctly applied, and the distribution of rights and obligations is reasonable. Therefore, the review and reasoning of the court of second instance in the trial and judgment has a more prominent function of determining the division and stopping the dispute between the court of first instance and the parties to the appeal.
Recently, the Enterprise Integrity and Compliance Research Base of the China Anti-Corruption Judicial Research Center received a rights protection consultation from a private enterprise in Zhangjiajie, stating that the Zhangjiajie Intermediate People's Court conducted a procedural idling in the (2023) Xiang 08 Min Zhong No. 59 contract dispute case.
Zhangjiajie Dingtai Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. claimed that the company recovered nearly 20 million yuan in land transfer fees and land use deed taxes from another civil entity in the (2023) Xiang 08 Min Zhong No. 59 civil contract dispute case. The Zhangjiajie Intermediate People's Court found that the first-instance litigation procedures were illegal and the facts were unclear, revoked the original judgment, and remanded for a new trial, on the grounds that "the administrative organ was not added to the civil litigation in the first instance, the Municipal Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning, as a third party participated in the litigation".
According to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, we can clearly see that: 1. Failure to notify a third party to participate in the litigation in a civil litigation does not constitute a procedural violation. II. In civil appeal cases where the facts are unclear, the Intermediate People's Court of the second instance may make a direct judgment after ascertaining the facts.
After the case was remanded for retrial, the court of first instance did not add the Zhangjiajie Municipal Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning as a third party to participate in the trial in accordance with the decision of the Intermediate People's Court.
If the Zhangjiajie Intermediate People's Court's ruling pointed out that the first-instance trial procedure was illegal is a correct judgment, and the first-instance trial was not complied with in the retrial, then the first-instance retrial procedure is also wrong. If it is correct not to add the Zhangjiajie Municipal Bureau of Natural Resources and Planning as a third party in the first instance twice, then the ruling of the Municipal Intermediate People's Court is wrong......
Did the Zhangjiajie Intermediate People's Court borrow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law that "the original judgment should be revoked and remanded for retrial if the first-instance procedure is illegal", and casually find the reason that "the first-instance civil litigation did not add the administrative organ to participate in the litigation as a third party", and directly reversed the first-instance judgment and remanded it for retrial, so that it does not have to directly review and evaluate whether the first-instance judgment is correct?This is because if it is true that the facts of the first instance are unclear, the Intermediate People's Court can directly change or uphold the judgment after ascertaining the facts, rather than "should" revoke the original judgment and remand for a new trial.
In October, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Guiding Opinions on Optimizing the Legal Environment and Promoting the Development and Growth of the Private Economy", pointing out that the adjudication organs should protect the property rights of private enterprises and the legitimate rights and interests of entrepreneurs in accordance with the law, implement the judicial concepts such as the conclusion of detailed cases, and the harmony of politics, enhance the effectiveness of substantive resolution of contradictions and disputes involving private enterprises, and resolutely prevent the burden of litigation by private enterprises from being aggravated by "procedural idling".
The Hunan Provincial Party Committee and the Provincial Party Committee issued the "Several Policies and Measures to Support the Development and Growth of the Private Economy", proposing 30 specific measures in 6 aspects to optimize the development environment and strengthen the rule of law.
We believe that private enterprises will naturally have to pay the necessary litigation costs and burdens. However, if the enterprise is trapped in a "litigation cycle" due to other human reasons, then the private enterprise will suffer from unnecessary litigation. We must resolutely and effectively prevent procedural idling in the second-instance civil trial procedure.
Author: Liu Yaohua is the director of the Corporate Integrity and Compliance Research Base of the China Anti-Corruption Judicial Research Center.
Editor: Yi Sainan.