“船王”家族跨越77年的索赔战-“中威”案审理、执行纪实

2014年4月19日，上海海事法院依法扣押了日企一艘22万吨贷船。在促使其履行判决义务后，上海海事法院依法解除了对该船的扣押。“中威”案的这一强制执行措施引起了国内外广泛关注，同时各种不解亦随之而来，有的媒体称此案为“中国民间对日索赔胜诉第一案”。     

中国“辩诉交易第一案”质疑

最近，在美国等西方国家盛行的辩诉交易制度引起了中国司法界的兴趣。起因是牡丹江铁路运输法院审理的盂广虎故意伤害一案。该案被媒体称为中国“辩诉交易第一案”。据4月19日《法制日报》报道：面对证据收集困难或办案成本高昂的刑事案件，牡丹江铁路运输法院试用新审理方式——国内辩诉交易第一案审结。该案基本案情为：被告人盂广虎因车辆争道与被害人王玉杰等人发生争执后撕打，致王玉杰重伤。     

警偷勾结案何必“闭门审理”

10月9日,轰动全国的“成都火车站警匪勾结案”在贵阳铁路运输法院开庭审理。虽是公开审理,但法院却以“旁听证发完了”为由,将来自全国各地的记者拒之门外。据悉,此次庭审仅有95个旁听席位,而且绝大多数为铁路公检法部门人员占据。如此“闭门审理”,显然与“审判公开”相背。根据我国刑事诉讼法规定,人民法院审理刑事案件,除了法律规定的涉及国家秘密、个人隐私和商业秘密的以外,一律公开审理。公开的标志有二:一是允许公民旁听,二是允许记者采访报道。另据最高人民法院有关规定,除精神病人、醉酒的人和未经人民法院批准的未成年人外,其他公…     

“未签提单非法开航案”初探──兼论“提单即财产”概念的确立

撰写本文的初衷来源于大连海事法院的一个判例。尽管在我国是不承认判例法的，但该判决的生效也许就意味着“提单即财产”这一概念在司法实践中的确立，并对今后类似案件的审理和物权法与海商法的理论和立法研究产生积极的价值。因此，笔者撰写本文表达对该案的一些不尽成熟的观点，意在就教于民商法和海商法学界专家和同仁。 一、“非法开航案”的由来 本文中“非法开航”一词是专由本案事实特定而为我们自行确定的一个概念，这一概念特指当船舶未签提单时即开航是非法开航的专有判断。这个概念与船舶被合法留置或依法扣押情形下的“强行开…     

共同犯罪案件的分案审理研究

共同犯罪案件的特征以及实现刑事诉讼价值的目标决定了共同犯罪案件原则上应该并案审理。分案审理只有在两种情形下才可以采用:一种是被告人人数众多、案情复杂,并案审理无法保障庭审质量和效率的;另一种是为保护被告人的利益而有必要分案审理的。分案审理,应该设立科学合理的决定程序:赋予法院分案审理的审查决定权,赋予被告人对分案审理决定的参与权、救济权,明确分案审理违法的程序性后果等。分案审理后,应该保障被告人的对质权,尤其应该赋予被告人对共犯的完整对质权。妥善处理前案裁判与后案裁判的关系,明确前案裁判对后案裁判没有预决效力,最多只具有参考价值。     

指控“渝东南第一涉黑案”——重庆市检察院第四分院办理33人涉黑案纪实

由重庆市检察院第四分院提起公诉，被告人多达33人的“渝东南涉黑第一案”，经市第四中级法院审理并作出一审判决后，判决书于2008年11月21日送到了罪犯手中——     

海盗羁押不构成停租——评2010年the“Cosco Bulk Carrier v．Team—Up Owning”案

简要介绍the“Cosco Bulk Carrierv．Team—Up Owning”案的案情。按照争点审理的顺序，分别分析法庭对纽约租约停租条款中“海损事故”“不履行职责”“其他原因”等词的解释，提出可能的与判决相反的解释，论证法院判决的合理性。最后得出结论，出于公平分担船方和租方所负担的风险的目的，法院判决海盗羁押不构成停租。     

论“第一案”现象

米兰·昆德拉在小说《慢》中借一位角色之口说过:“我们没法选择我们出生的时代。我们大家都生活在摄像机镜头前面。这从此成为人类处境的一部分。”在这个传媒时代,一切事件都可能成为新闻素材,而最容易成为新闻素材的法律事件便是“某某第一案”或“法院首次如何”。在一个健全的社会中,不同的主体可以坚守自我的立场,绝不轻易趋附。媒体自有其追求轰动效应的立场,只要法院和学术界另有立场,“第一案”也算不得需要特别讨论的现象。但是,近来一些法官撰写的案例评析与论文也开始强调“第一案”,“第一案”似乎成为创新改革的象征,在新问题层出不穷的知识产权法领域,“第一案”更是层出不穷。如此一来,“第一案”就变成可供评说的现象了。     

海上保险中第三人对保险人的诉权

某海事法院受理了这样一桩案件：1996年1月16日，原告中国A公司与美国B公司签订了关于秘鲁鱼粉的购买合同，合同签订后B公司作为托运人同罗马尼亚的C航运公司签订了航次租船合同，将货物交由G轮运送。1996年1月30日，G轮装船后签发清洁提单，G轮从秘鲁CHICAMA港开航。由于不适航等原因，该轮于1996年6月份才迟迟抵达国内的目的港。收货人提货时发现货物不但数量短缺，而且许多货物已变质。收货人A公司向海事法院申请扣押G轮并提起诉讼，诉讼请求额共达15o多万美元。海事法院依法扣押了G轮，并对该案进行了审理。审理中G轮的船东和其…     

关于“调查核实证据”的思考

新刑诉法第158条规定：“法庭审理过程中，会议庭对证据有疑问的．可以宣布休庭．对证据进行调查核实。”“人民法院调查证据，可以进行勘验、检查、扣押、鉴定和查询、冻结。”也就是说，人民法院在开庭过程中，如果合议庭对证据感到有疑问的，即对证据的客观性与案件的关联性及合法性发生疑问，而不能当庭作出判断时，可以对证据进行调查核实．而且可以采用勘验、检查、扣押、鉴定和查询、冻结等调查方法。根据此条规定，一些人提出，法院调查核实之后获取的证据如何在法庭上认证，的确，根据新刑诉法规定，法院在刑事诉讼中的职能是审判…     

Of Values and Legitimacy – Discourse Analytical Insights on the Copyright Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) increasingly faces societal value‐conflicts in EU law disputes. For example, in EU copyright law, in the digital age, diverse fundamental values, as well as cultural and societal developments, are at stake. This article discusses the role of the CJEU in the European value discourse, using copyright law as a case study. The methodological approach used, critical discourse analysis, is seldom applied in jurisprudential studies, but is well suited for teasing out value‐related aspects of case law. Exploratory research of seminal copyright cases suggests that the CJEU's discourse of the various values seems unnecessarily one‐sided and shallow. A lack of discursiveness in the jurisprudence would diminish the legitimacy of the Court's decisions, and would not offer adequate guidance to national courts or private decision‐makers, to whom the Court at the same time may be leaving more of the task of value reconciliation.     

Who is steering the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice? The influence of Member State submissions on copyright law

The juridification of the European policy process is increasingly fragile, and little understood. This study develops a novel methodology to investigate the influence of Member States on the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The focus is on the domain of copyright law which has seen a dramatic escalation of preliminary references to the Court, indicating a normative void. Examining 170 documents relating to 42 cases registered between 1998 and 2015, we measure empirically the impact of submissions by Member States and the European Commission on the interpretation of copyright concepts. We show that France is the most influential country by some distance, both in terms of the number of interventions (an ‘investment’ in policy) and in terms of persuasive power (arguments adopted by the Court). The evidence also suggests that the departure of the UK from EU litigation will disturb the delicate balance of CJEU jurisprudence.     

Once more with ‘sympathy’ but no resolution for intended mothers: the EU,Ireland and the surrogacy dilemma

This article examines the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Z v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School and the court’s interpretation of existing EU legislation on whether commissioning or intended mothers are entitled to paid leave equivalent to maternity benefit. It highlights the failure of the CJEU in this case to call for specific EU legislation on the issue of surrogacy. The Irish Courts have been more proactive in this regard. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that ‘pending the introduction … of legislation dealing with this field, it is … not for the courts to attempt to resolve the complex questions that need to be addressed’. This article compares recent decisions of the Irish Courts to that of the CJEU as they struggle to keep abreast with modern society in the absence of legislation at national and EU level.     

Data retention and the future of large-scale surveillance: The evolution and contestation of judicial benchmarks

Recent and upcoming judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have resurfaced a much-debated topic on the legal limitations of law enforcement authorities and intelligence services under EU law in implementing surveillance operations. In its decisions, the CJEU has reinstated and at times remoulded its case-law on data retention, unearthing a variety of legal issues. This article aims to critically analyse the legal limitations of (indiscriminate) surveillance measures, the role of the private sector in the scheme, and the line between the competence of the Member States and that of the EU on national security matters. It also aims to remark on the latest developments on the reception of the decisions by the Member States and the EU legislator, as well as on the ongoing dialogue between the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).     

Independence of the Court of Justice of the European Union: Unchecked Member States power after the Sharpston Affair

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the apex of the EU legal order, and is the supreme arbiter of EU law. For decades, it has delivered judgments, collectively shaping European integration and ‘integration through law’. It has undoubtedly been an authoritative leader in entrenching a European judicial culture, and has benefited from the cardinal principle of judicial independence enshrined in the EU Treaties, which in turn, it has insisted on being upheld as regards national courts. Questions have rarely arisen, however, about judicial independence of the CJEU. The Sharpston Affair of 2020–2021 opened the door to questioning such judicial independence. Is the CJEU at the mercy of the Member States? If so, what are the consequences for the EU legal order? This article reflects on the judicial independence of the CJEU, and offers reflections on how it can be preserved in the future.     

The highest Dutch courts and the preliminary ruling procedure: Critically obedient interlocutors of the Court of Justice

Little is known about the motives of national courts to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) or their satisfaction with and implementation of answers. This article aims to fill this empirical gap on the basis of an analysis of judgments complemented with interviews with judges of the highest courts in the Netherlands. This article shows that judges extensively use the procedure and follow its outcome almost without exception, despite some dissatisfaction. This discontent has surprisingly not affected the courts' willingness to refer in future. The findings also downplay the bureaucratic politics and judicial empowerment theses emphasising strategic motives to refer. Instead, legal‐formalist considerations and the desire to contribute to the development of EU law explain most of the references of the Dutch Supreme Court. The decision (not) to refer of the three highest administrative courts is primarily based on practical and pragmatic considerations.     

Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof - ECJ decision creates further uncertainty about when e-businesses “direct activities” to a consumer’s state under the Brussels I Regulation

The European Court of Justice’s recent judgement in the joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09 will have substantial long-term implications for European e-businesses and e-consumers trading across borders.The key question considered was whether the fact that a website can be consulted on the Internet in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile is sufficient to justify a finding that commercial or professional activities are being directed to that Member State within the meaning of Article 15(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation.     

Unblocking the Digital Economy Act 2010; human rights issues in the UK

Through an example of a study utilizing the case-law research method, this paper critically assesses whether taking into account both the findings of Mr La Rue (the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights) as well as some Court of Justice of the European Union's (CJEU) case-law, website blocking could be implemented in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, with Article 10. Drawing upon, inter alia, Ofcom site blocking review, sections 17 and 18 of the Digital Economy Act 2010 (DEA), section 97A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), and some independent expert evidence, this paper's major argument is that in view of the CJEU SABAM v Scarlet and SABAM v Netlog, the UK government's decision to repeal the website blocking provisions of the DEA appears appropriate. The paper examines the findings of Fox v BT. It contrasts such findings with the CJEU's case-law and in light of the incompatibility of any website blocking measure with the cumulative three-part test set out in the United Nations Rapporteur on Human Rights discusses a number of implications. It concludes that given that the implementation of content blocking systems, such as Cleanfeed is likely to result in general monitoring being carried out; the UK government could possibly be in breach of EU law, namely, Article 15(1) of Directive 2000/31.     

Trade mark use in transit: EU-phony or cacophony?

Legal context The present article discusses the opinion of Advocate-GeneralJacobs in Case C-405/05 Class International BV v Unilever NVand others, according to which trade mark owners cannot opposethe entry into the European Union of grey market non-Communitygoods placed in external transit, on the grounds of Article5(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, or any equivalent provision,as such entry does not constitute trade mark use. Key points We examine the consistency of this approach withprior case law of the European Court of Justice, namely in theCommission v France, Rioglass, The Polo/Lauren and Rolex casesand draw a parallelism with Council Regulation (EC) 1383/2003. Practical significance We conclude that trade mark owners shouldbe allowed to prohibit the placing in transit of goods whichwould infringe an intellectual property right under the lawof the transit country, unless the owner or consignor of thelitigious goods can undeniably prove that the goods are notdestined for the internal market. Stop press. At the end of the article the authors provide abrief analysis of the European Court of Justice's decision of18th October 2005 in this case.     

The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the way in which it works can be seen as a microcosm of how a multilingual, multicultural supranationalisation process and legal order can be constructed—the Court is a microcosm of the EU as a whole and in particular of EU law. The multilingual jurisprudence produced by the CJEU is necessarily shaped by the dynamics within that institution and by the ‘cultural compromises’ at play in the production process. The resultant texts, which make up that jurisprudence, are hybrid in nature and inherently approximate. On the one hand, that approximation can lead to discrepancies between language versions of the Court’s case law and thus jeopardise the uniform application of EU law. On the other hand, that approximation and hybridity define EU law as a distinct, supranational legal order. This paper analyses the operation of the CJEU and considers whether a linguistic cultural compromise exists within that institution which exercises a formative influence on the character of its ‘output’—i.e. its jurisprudence—and what that may mean for our understanding of the development of EU law.