南非法院对涉外离婚案件管辖权的确定

在1979年的《离婚法》实施前,南非法院主要根据普通法规则来确定对涉外离婚案件的管辖权,即由当事人的住所地法院对离婚诉讼行使管辖。在《离婚法》实施后,根据该法,南非法院可以根据任一方当事人的住所地或通常居所地为由来对涉外离婚诉讼行使管辖。     

尼日利亚法院处理涉外民商事案件的理论与实践

管辖权问题和法律适用问题是一国法院在处理涉外民商事案件时必须要解决的两个基本问题。尼日利亚法院通常依被告或诉讼标的物"出现"或"位于"其管辖权范围内、传票能够送达被告、被告接受法院的管辖或当事人之间的管辖权协议为由对涉外民商事案件行使管辖,对于涉外民商事案件的法律适用,尼日利亚法院通常适用法院地法,不过,在当事人选择了解决争议的准据法时,尼日利亚法院会尊重他们的选择。     

新加坡涉外民商事管辖权制度初探

新加坡的法院系统分为两大主要部分 :最高法院和下级法院。除了教会法院对部分婚姻和财产处分诉讼行使管辖权外 ,最高法院和下级法院对新加坡境内的所有其他民事或刑事诉讼行使管辖权。高等法院的民事管辖权建立在传票的送达和被告服从管辖的基础上。管辖权的限制主要表现在国家豁免 ,外交豁免和涉外管辖权条款方面。对于平行诉讼 ,新加坡法院可以“诉讼在另案进行”或“不方便法院”原则为由中止本院的诉讼或发布禁令限制外国的诉讼     

中国涉外网络侵权管辖权研究

我国当前有关立法和司法实践所确立的被告住所地一般管辖规则和侵权行为地特殊管辖规则,可继续适用于网络侵权争议管辖权的确定,但在司法实践中因为没有充分认识到网络侵权争议案件的复杂性,将场所化理念与多元分析要素切实注入管辖权分析之中,特别是在立法上也缺乏有关诽谤等人格侵权与知识产权侵权管辖权行使的特殊规定.我国的涉外网络侵权管辖权的立法和司法实践,有待在矫正传统被告住所地和侵权行为地管辖规则的基础上,通过注入以合理预见、利益中心、关联争议集中管辖等分析要素进一步予以考察重构.因信息网络传播所引起的侵权争议,侵权行为地法院管辖权的行使,应确立在有关争议与受案法院地存在紧密联系的基础之上,除非没有其他行使管辖权的可能,受案法院不能仅以有关侵权行为发生在该地为受理案件的唯一根据.     

以销售者为共同被告的知识产权侵权诉讼如何确定管辖

根据最高人民法院有关专利、商标和著作权司法解释的规定,原告起诉他人侵犯其专利权、商标权或著作权的,如果同时起诉制造商和销售者,在符合级别管辖及最高法院指定集中管辖的前提下,制造商和销售者的住所地及其行为地法院均有管辖权.如果仅对其中某一被告提起的诉讼,该被告的住所地或其行为地的人民法院有管辖权.     

越南民商事管辖权制度探析

越南国会是越南最高权力机关和立法机关.越南法院分为三级:最高人民法院、地方人民法院和地区人民法院.对于"商事纠纷"的含义,在一些重要方面越南的规则与国际标准不同.<经济纠纷法>列举了经济法庭有权裁决的争议类型.包含"涉外因素"的经济案件,由越南经济法庭审理.地方(区)人民法院行使管辖权的依据是被告营业地或住所在法院管辖区内.管辖权的排除主要表现在以下方面:外交豁免与领事豁免、外国土地和管辖权选择协议.未决诉讼案件原则和不方便法院原则并没有得到越南法学家们的广泛承认.管辖权冲突问题由越南最高人民法院解决.     

不动产纠纷专属管辖探析

【案例·】周某诉赵某离婚后财产纠纷一案，山西省晋城市城区人民法院受理后，被告赵某提出管辖权异议称，本案被告住所地及经常居住地均为晋城市泽州县辖区，本案应由泽州县人民法院管辖。城区法院经审理后裁定将本案移送泽州法院处理。泽州法院在收到案卷后经审查认为，本案双方当事人在婚姻登记机关协议离婚，其主要讼争的财产为不动产。不动产所在地位于晋城市城区北石店镇，本案应属于专属管辖，仍然应由城区法院管辖为宜，故向晋城市中级人民法院请示指定管辖。     

涉外知识产权诉讼管辖权的地域限制——以标准必要专利纠纷管辖权冲突为切入点

严格地域性管辖的推翻为涉外知识产权诉讼的管辖权冲突提供了条件。当前,涉外知识产权诉讼的管辖权冲突主要显见于标准必要专利纠纷,美国、英国、中国等国家的法院在近年来的一些案件中签发了禁诉令。鉴于“超地域管辖”所导致的管辖权冲突,涉外知识产权诉讼的管辖权方面应当存在地域限制规则,即一国法院可以基于特别管辖审理与利用知识产品相关的诉讼,此时所管辖的诉讼标的应当限于本国知识产权的相关事项或在本国实施的行为。地域限制规则旨在确保涉外知识产权诉讼具有合理的管辖连接点,防止过多国家的法院对于同一知识产权纠纷行使管辖权,从而维护跨国知识产权交易的安定秩序。鉴于“异判现象”的存在,地域限制规则的缺失会滋长当事人的择地行诉,甚至进而形成各国司法管辖的逐底竞争。鉴于地域限制规则的正当性及其在各个国际权威示范法中的共识,我国立法和司法实践应当遵循地域限制规则。针对外国法院的“超地域管辖”及其禁诉令,我国司法实践可以在符合地域限制规则的前提下采取禁诉令和反禁诉令予以反制。     

论跨国污染损害索赔诉讼的管辖权

跨国污染损害索赔诉讼首先涉及到管辖权问题,即哪国法院拥有管辖权.针对在某国领土和管辖范围内发生的事故所造成的损害,污染事故发生地国法院、损害发生地国法院、被告的惯常居所地或主要营业地国法院都可能对索赔诉讼享有管辖权.如果发生了管辅权的冲突,大致有以下几种不同的解决办法:协议管辖;最密切联系原则;一事不再理;受害者自己选择.     

试论新民诉法对特殊地域管辖制度修改的得失

<正> 特殊地域管辖,是一般地域管辖规则的例外,是管辖制度中的重要内容,各国民事诉讼法均对此做了详细致微的规定。新的民诉法对原试行民诉法中的有关内容做了重要的修改。新法第24条至第31条规定的是特殊地域管辖制度,除第25条协议管辖无可非议之外,其他各条均把被告住所地的法院列为管辖法院,这是旧法中所没有的。例如关于合同纠纷案件,原试行法规定由合同履行地或合同签订地的法院管辖,新法规定由被告住所地或者合同履行地的法院管辖。又如关于侵权行为的纠纷,原试行法规定由侵权行为地的法院管辖,新法则规定由侵权行为地或被告住所地的法院管辖。     

The Recognition,and Res Judicata Effect,of a United States Class Actions Judgment in England: A Rebuttal of V ivendi

United States' courts have proven willing to certify multi‐jurisdictional class actions which purport to adjudicate the claims of both American and foreign (i.e., non‐US‐domiciled) class members. This article contends, however, that a class actions judgment/settlement issued by a US court would not be recognised, and would not be given preclusive effect, in England, should absent English class members wish to re‐litigate the same grievance before an English court. Specifically, it is argued that two separate preconditions for such recognition and preclusive effect would fail, viz, a US court would usually lack the requisite ‘personal jurisdiction’ over absent English class members; and the necessary ‘identity of parties’ would be absent. The article seeks to anticipate the appropriate answer to a conundrum which is certain to arise for future English judicial consideration, whilst acknowledging the uneasy fit which currently exists between English private international law and multi‐jurisdictional class actions.     

涉网案件地域管辖规则修改问题刍议

互联网空间地址与现实空间地址的非对应性,使运用《民事诉讼法》中的地域管辖规定去判断涉及互联网案件的管辖法院会有一定困难。目前学者们解决该问题的思路,主要集中于针对互联网的特点,建构新的地域管辖规则。但本文认为,目前《民事诉讼法》规定的地域管辖制度具有合理性,不需要也不能够针对互联网的特点去修改法典的规定。解决地域管辖规定适用困难的方向,应当是发展包括解释地域管辖法律和认定地域管辖事实在内的司法技术。     

论内地与香港特区间刑事诉讼转移制度的构建

针对同一起跨境犯罪,内地与香港特区在双方根据各自刑事法律均享有刑事管辖权,且均已启动刑事诉讼程序时,可进行区际刑事诉讼转移,即就该案件刑事管辖权的实际行使达成共识,由一方来行使刑事管辖权,对犯罪予以追究,他方承认实际管辖方所做出的刑事判决。在"一国两制"原则的指导下,中国内地与香港特区间开展刑事诉讼转移的刑事司法合作活动,须遵循"双重犯罪原则"、"有限的犯罪地管辖原则"和"一事不二审原则"。内地与香港特区刑事诉讼转移制度的构建,可以从包括原则、条件、程序和刑事诉讼转移的拒绝4个方面入手予以考虑。     

Jurisdiction for Consumer Contracts: European Union: Modified Rules of Jurisdiction for Electronic Consumer Contracts

The Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the Brussels Convention) is to be replaced in 2002 by a Community Instrument: The Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the Regulation).¹ The Regulation is an important measure approved by the European Union to simplify rules of jurisdiction and recognition of judgments for the benefit of the Internal Market. Amongst other matters, the Regulation updates existing jurisdiction rules for a consumer contracts. The rules for consumer contracts apply where a consumer and a business are domiciled in a Member State or the business has a:“branch, agency or other establishment” in a Member State. Importantly, the Regulation clarifies jurisdiction rules for consumer contracts conducted over the World Wide Web (WWW). These rules are to be welcomed, as they provide guidance on what rules of jurisdiction apply to consumer contracts over the Web, albeit that they are limited to where the parties are domiciled in Europe. This article outlines the rules of jurisdiction for consumer contracts provided by the Regulation, and where appropriate, highlights some aspects of the new rules that will possibly require further discussion and clarification by the European Court of Justice once the new rules are in force.     

浅议涉外网络名誉侵权案件的管辖权问题

涉外网络名誉侵权行为的实施地不易确定,损害结果地为数众多,传统民事管辖权的规则面临挑战,目前国际上在理论和司法实践中存在着不同的观点和做法。我国立法也没有明确的规定。针对网络名誉侵权行为的特点,网络名誉侵权案件应由侵权行为地法院或被告住所地法院管辖,侵权行为地包括实施被诉侵权行为的网络服务器、计算机终端等设备所在地和受害人受损害的结果地,损害结果地是指诽谤言论的传播地,同时又是原告的住所地或居所地或工商营业所所在地或法人的营业地,如果侵权行为地和损害结果地不一致,由原告选择管辖法院。     

The Impact of the Hague Conference's Proposed Judgments Convention for Electronic Commerce and Intellectual Property Disputes

Since the OECD and other organizations issued model conventions and guidelines on various aspects of electronic commerce, the quest for harmonization and global agreement for electronic commerce laws and procedures has intensified. International private law has become one of the most contentious issues where the legislative development and practical application of electronic commerce is concerned. When an e-commerce contract (a contract concluded by electronic means) is disputed, questions of jurisdiction and choice of law have arisen with increasing frequency. Indeed, questions of jurisdiction and choice of law are even more pertinent when the parties to the contract are domiciled in different jurisdictions. Equally, when one party acquires an intellectual property right in one country and the infringement of this right is alleged in another country, the question of which jurisdiction the holder of the IP right should be entitled to raise proceedings.     

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区内知识产权保护的价值抉择——以区内商标平行进口的司法应对为视角

中国(上海)自由贸易试验区内知识产权保护应秉持怎样的价值理念是法院在审理区中国内知识产权案件面临的首要问题。自贸区内"先行先试"的要求并不会改变法院管辖、程序法的普适性适用。知识产权实体法律、尤其是对侵权行为的实体评判尺度也应得到普适的适用。我们也不应为便利贸易的自由化而放松对知识产权的管理和保护。在维护区内外适法统一的前提下,我们应当以已经加入、待加入的多边或双边条约为目标,进一步优化知识产权保护的措施手段,在实体评判尺度上,可结合国内的政策需要谨慎做出统一的适法性安排。     

A rational jurisdiction for cyber terrorism

Cyberspace is a cross-national world that transcends geopolitical national borders. Jurisdiction is the focal point for any dispute arising in the international arena, because it determines which state court has the authority to settle a dispute. The objective of this paper is to analyse territorial and universal jurisdiction principles which can be specifically related to cyberspace to determine which of them is best suited to providing the appropriate jurisdiction in combating cyber terrorism and how conflicts arising between them can be settled. The transnational nature of cyber terrorism offences leads to jurisdictional complexity, thereby investigation and prosecution is difficult. Lack of harmonisation in legislating among countries leads to difficulty in investigation and prosecution of cyber terrorism offences. This paper notes that universal jurisdiction is the most feasible and effective method to deter cyber terrorism.     

CHOICE OF COURT AGREEMENT WITH FOREIGN ELEMENTS IN CHINA: SHANDONG JUFENG V. SOUTH KOREA MGAME

Unlike statutory and discretionary jurisdiction, jurisdiction by choice of court agreement concluded in foreign-related civil and commercial matters should be decided by the parties. As a special contract, the choice of court agreement is so independent that its validity is governed by the law chosen by the parties or by the law of the country where the chosen court is situated in case that the choice of law is invalid. Amendments to the Civil Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as “CPL”) of People’s Republic of China (2012) should not only include the jurisdiction by choice of court agreement with foreign-related elements, but also stipulate it in a more standardized way, rather than simply refer to provision of jurisdiction by choice of court agreement in domestic cases. At the same time, the CPL should make the scope of application of choice of court agreement more clear, and provide choice of law clause and its confirmative elements when deciding its effectiveness.     

"仰融案"中的豁免与诉讼

一个主权国家在另一国家成为某一诉讼的被告,若该被告国出庭的目的仅仅是为了主张豁免权,则不该被视为同意该法院地国的管辖.即使辽宁省在美国未能成功主张豁免,美国为了避免对外国财产采取强制措施而导致中美外交方面受损,也不会对辽宁省的绝大部分财产采取强制措施.