In 2016, the National Maritime adjudication team gave full play to the function of maritime adjudication, closely focused on the implementation of the maritime power and the "the Belt and Road" strategy, the development of the Yangtze River economic belt and the construction of the pilot Free Trade Zone, made new progress in safeguarding national territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests, leading the international maritime rules, improving the concept of maritime adjudication, and unifying the judgment standards of maritime cases, forming a number of typical maritime cases. In order to give play to the exemplary and reference role of typical cases, the Fourth Civil Adjudication Division of the Supreme People's Court specially selected 10 and published them as follows:
The dispute between 21 persons including Luan, ConocoPhillips China Inc. and CNOOC over liability for marine pollution damage
Basic Case
An oil spill accident occurred in Penglai 19-3 Oilfield, located in the south central Bohai Sea, in June 2011, which resulted in the sea water pollution around the oilfield and its northwest, covering an area of about 6200 square kilometers. The joint accident investigation team composed of seven administrative organs, including the State Oceanic Administration, determined that ConocoPhillips, as the operator, was fully responsible for the accident. In 2011, the North Sea Environmental Monitoring (product warehouse purchase and supply) Center of the State Oceanic Administration issued the Offshore Investigation Report, which recorded the pollution of relevant sea areas. After negotiation between the Ministry of Agriculture, CNOOC and ConocoPhillips, ConocoPhillips contributed 1 billion yuan of compensation, including 731.5 million yuan to compensate fishermen's breeding losses in the polluted areas. The people's government of Leting County has determined the compensation standard, and most local breeding rights holders have accepted administrative mediation and received compensation according to this standard. On October 6, 2011, Hebei Leting Aquaculture Association entrusted Boya Company to conduct technical analysis on the expected output and output value of more than 29 farmers in Daqing River Salt Farm in Leting County, Hebei Province due to water pollution and issue the Technical Consultation Report. Luan and other fishermen in 21 polluted areas did not accept administrative mediation. Taking the report as the appraisal conclusion, they filed a lawsuit with the Tianjin Maritime Court, requesting ConocoPhillips and CNOOC to jointly compensate for their breeding losses, appraisal costs and litigation costs.
[Judgment result]
Tianjin Maritime Court held in the first instance that according to the evidence of this case, it can be determined that the oil spill accident constituted pollution damage to the aquaculture sea area of 21 people, including Luan, and ConocoPhillips should compensate for this. CNOOC was not the operator of the oil field at the time of the accident, nor did it control the pollution source, and should not be liable for compensation. Luan and other 21 people should bear the burden of proof for the degree and amount of loss. As Boya Company did not obtain the Qualification Certificate for Investigation and Appraisal of Fishery Pollution Accidents issued by the Fishery Administration and Fishing Port Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture, and did not have the qualification for appraisal, the certification of the Technical Consultation Report issued by Boya Company was not recognized. Luan and other 21 people failed to provide sufficient and definite evidence for the degree and amount of aquaculture loss. In view of the fact that the conditions for assessing and identifying the loss of 21 people such as Luan are not available during the trial, the pollution degree and the amount of loss should be comprehensively determined in combination with the relevant evidence and facts of the case. Combined with relevant evidence and case facts, and referring to the compensation standard determined by the People's Government of Leting County, Tianjin Maritime Court decided that ConocoPhillips would compensate 21 people including Luan for the loss of 1683464.4 yuan. Luan and other 21 people refused and appealed. The second instance decision of the Tianjin Higher People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
Typical significance
In the process of Sino foreign cooperative development of Penglai 19-3 Oilfield, an oil spill accident occurred due to the operator, which caused a group claim dispute involving foreign factors in the three provinces and one city around the Bohai Sea, with considerable international and domestic influence. The successful handling of this case is of great significance in many aspects. First, the trial of this case is to hold the polluters accountable according to law, which is conducive to enhancing the awareness of marine environmental protection responsibility of the whole society. The judgment of this case indicates that any civil subject engaged in production and operation shall comply with the law; Both Chinese companies and foreign companies are equal before the law. Those who cause environmental pollution and damage to others due to illegal operations must bear legal liabilities such as compensation for losses. Second, the judgment of this case fully demonstrated that the process of cross examination and certification of evidence has been widely recognized by the society around the focus of the dispute, which once again shows the importance of promoting public trust. 1、 According to the law and judicial interpretation, the court of second instance made it clear that the infringee should provide evidence to prove the relevant pollution behavior, pollution damage, and the correlation between pollutants and damage, and then determine the probative force of the parties' evidence one by one, and finally determine that the loss identification report provided by the infringee has no probative force, and the argument is clear and sufficient. Although the case is a major sensitive case, the Tianjin Maritime Court conducted a full online live broadcast of the hearing, which fully demonstrated the reasoning process of the referee's analysis and obtained social understanding and support. Third, the court made great efforts to explore alternative methods for identifying losses, fully reflecting the substantive pursuit of fairness and justice, and further proposed a new topic of deepening the construction of environmental protection system and mechanism. In the case that 21 people such as Luan could not provide effective evidence to prove their pollution loss, the court of first and second instance decided the amount of compensation for the loss and made a judgment accordingly by referring to the compensation standard determined by the Leting County Government, thus avoiding the situation that fishermen lost the lawsuit completely due to their inability to provide evidence, which has exploration value and enlightenment significance in environmental judicial technology.
Wartsila Finland Oy, Splithoff ` s Bevrachtingskantoor B.V., Rongcheng Xixiakou Shipbuilding (Location Review News) Co., Ltd. and Yingqin Engine (Product Warehouse Purchase and Supply) (Shanghai) Co., Ltd
Basic Case
Xixiakou and Spliethoff signed two ship building contracts at the same time on June 3, 2006, agreeing that Xixiakou would build two 12500 multi-purpose ships (ship 038 and ship 039) for Spliethoff, each costing 20.49 million dollars. Both parties supplement and agree that Xixiakou must use Wartsila main engine (to be purchased and supplied from the product warehouse). Xixiakou and Wartsila signed two purchase agreements for main engine and propulsion system (purchase and supply of product library) on January 17, 2007. The two agreements were signed by Yingqin's sales manager on behalf of Wartsila and Xixiakou's general manager. Later, Spliethoff consigned Wartsila's main engine to Xixiakou, which also paid the corresponding price. Since Xixiakou failed to deliver the ship within the period agreed in the contract, Spliethoff canceled the sales contract of ship 038 on July 13, 2009. In April 2011, when the engineers of Yingqin Company were responsible for the commissioning of the main engine of ship 038, they found that the trial oil pressure did not meet the requirements, and sent an email to Xixiakou Shipyard saying that: through checking the engine records, the engine of ship 038 was an old Wartsila engine purchased by Spliethoff, which was sold to Wartsila after being refurbished in the Dutch factory. Xixiakou has entrusted the maritime judicial appraisal institution to identify that the two main engines are refurbished second-hand ones. Xixiakou Shipbuilding filed an infringement lawsuit against the main engine of ship 038 with the Qingdao Maritime Court. On the grounds that Yingqin, Wartsila and Spliethoff sold old machinery as new machinery, which constituted commercial fraud, they requested the three companies to "provide the same main engine and propulsion system as agreed in the contract", and jointly and severally compensate for the derogation and other losses of the ship. Xixiakou filed a similar lawsuit on the main engine of ship 039, and the case and final settlement result were similar to that of ship 038.
[Judgment result]
The Qingdao Maritime Court held in the first instance that the facts and evidence of this case are sufficient to prove that Yingqin, Wartsila and Spliethoff jointly committed the fraud of selling second-hand main engines to Xixiakou and installing them on new ships by pretending to be new ones, and should bear joint and several tort liability. Accordingly, the court decided to support Xixiakou's claim. Yingqin, Wartsila and Spliethoff were not satisfied and filed an appeal. The Shandong Higher People's Court also held in the second instance that Wartsila and Spliethoff had jointly committed fraud against Xixiakou. However, since Xixiakou did not submit evidence to prove that Yingqin knew or should have known that the involved host was a second-hand host when signing the contract, Yingqin should not bear tort liability. The conclusions of the second trial and the first trial are basically the same, but Xixiakou does not support the claim that the infringer should compensate for the propulsion system and the loan interest of the ship payment advanced. Wartsila and Spliethoff refused to accept the judgment of the second instance and applied for retrial. The Supreme People's Court held that the retrial of this case focused on the determination of fraud and tort liability. The main engine of a ship is one of the most critical parts of the ship. It is common for the buyer or the entrusting party to designate the supplier and model of the main engine of the ship during the construction of the ship. It cannot be determined that Spliethoff has the subjective malice of colluding with others to provide the old main engine according to the fact that Spliethoff explicitly requires the use of the main engine produced by Wartsila; Spliethoff terminated the contract because Xixiakou did not deliver the ship on time, but the ship construction progress was controlled by Xixiakou, and the abandonment of the ship by Spliethoff could not be deemed as premeditated at the time of contracting; The relevant evidence in this case cannot prove that Spliethoff and Yingqin knew or should have known that the engine was a reconditioned old engine before Wartsila delivered the engine and propulsion system, and cannot prove that Spliethoff, Yingqin and Wartsila had malicious collusion. Xixiakou requested Spliethoff and Yingqin to bear joint tort liability, lacking factual and legal basis. In this case, Xixiakou's relevant requests are all based on the agreement of the contract, belonging to the category of breach of contract losses and contractual claims in nature. In this case, there is no evidence to show that Wartsila's provision of old main engines has caused Xixiakou to suffer from damages other than contract claims such as contract performance itself and available interests. The simple contract creditor's rights between contract parties belong to the scope of contract law, not the scope of tort liability law. In principle, the interests of pure contract performance should be protected according to the contract law, and the parties should not be supported to seek relief for tort liability. Xixiakou requested Wartsila, the opposite party of the contract, to bear the tort liability for the loss of benefits arising from the performance of the contract, without any legal basis. The Supreme People's Court made a retrial judgment, rescinded the judgment of the first and second instance of the case, and rejected Xixiakou's claim.
Typical significance
This case is an infringement dispute over the sale of ship equipment, involving China, the Netherlands, Finland and other countries along the "the Belt and Road". This case was tried fairly according to law around the overall situation of the "the Belt and Road" construction, and played an exemplary and guiding role for the people's court to play its service guarantee function. First, the case ensures the international credibility of China's maritime justice by strictly implementing the principle of equal protection. In the trial of this case, the Supreme People's Court adopted the evidence, affirmed the facts, accurately interpreted the law, and reasoned one by one in accordance with the "syllogism" reasoning method. It found that the basic facts identified in the original trial judgment lacked evidence and applied the law wrongly, and resolutely corrected them without bias due to the nationality of the parties. Second, according to the evidence reasoning, it fully reflects the principle of evidence judgment. The retrial decision allocates the burden of proof in accordance with the law, strictly complies with the rules of evidence adjudication, takes full account of the international maritime trading practice of ship building clients generally designating ship main engines, and finds that the relevant evidence in this case can only prove that Spliethoff insists on selecting the engine produced by Wartsila, the engine involved in the case is a second-hand refurbished main engine, and Wartsila knows or should know three relatively isolated facts, It does not form a chain of evidence proving that Wartsila and Spliethoff have malicious collusion. Third, to accurately explain the legal principle that the tort liability law does not adjust the contractual claims in principle plays a role in regulating the judgment scale. As an important civil right, contractual claims are not explicitly included in the scope of protection of the Tort Liability Law of the People's Republic of China in Article 2, which indicates that the Tort Liability Law does not regulate liability for breach of contract. The basic value of the contract law is the autonomy of private law, which allows the parties to the contract to freely agree on the rights and obligations such as liability and rights relief without violating the mandatory provisions of the law. Tort liability law is a mandatory law to protect civil rights and interests other than contractual claims. If the tort liability law is arbitrarily extended to apply to contractual claims, allowing contract parties to circumvent the effective agreement of the contract with tort liability litigation to make the contract null and void, it is bound to damage the realization of private law autonomy, confuse the normative system of tort liability law and contract law, and weaken the predictability of the parties' rights and obligations. The retrial concluded that in principle, the interests of pure contract performance should be protected according to the contract law, rather than supporting the parties to seek relief for tort liability, which has legal and jurisprudential basis.
Dispute over Crew Service Contract between 15 people including Wang and THREEFRIENDS INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING S. A
Basic Case
"Sequoia Shenglong" (SEQUOIADRAGON) is a Panamanian bulk carrier owned by Sanyou Company (sold by ship type shipyard). Due to the downturn in the shipping market, the ship was berthed at the anchorage of Damaiyu Port, Yuhuan, Taizhou, Zhejiang Province. On August 22, 2016, Mr. Wang and other 15 crew members on board applied to Ningbo Maritime Court for arrest of the ship because Sanyou Company had been in arrears with their wages for a long time, and filed a lawsuit against Sanyou Company in respect of the dispute over the crew's labor contract involved in the case within the statutory time limit, requiring Sanyou Company to pay the crew's wages, board expenses, repatriation expenses, etc., totaling more than 2 million yuan, and requesting confirmation that the above wages enjoyed the ship priority over the "Sequoia Shenglong" ship.
[Judgment result]
After hearing, Ningbo Maritime Court held that the application for preservation of maritime claims made by 15 sailors including Wang met the legal requirements, so it ordered to detain the "Sequoia Shenglong" ship. For the crew labor dispute subsequently filed by 15 crew members such as Wang, it was ruled that the lawsuit should be automatically withdrawn after the court mediation and confirmation that all crew members received the arrears of wages.
Typical significance
Crew members are one of the most important production factors in the shipping industry. At the present time when the international shipping industry continues to be depressed, the labor contract disputes involving foreign crew members are characterized by a large number of cases involved, a large amount of arrears, and fierce conflicts between crew members and ship enterprises. China is a large shipping country and a large seafarer country. It has become one of the countries with the largest number of seafarers in the world, accounting for about one third of the total number of seafarers in the world. The protection of seafarers' rights and interests urgently needs the support of maritime justice. In this case, the maritime court accurately grasped the shipping market situation, took the initiative to find out the business situation of the foreign defendants, and used the unique advantage of mediation in solving complex disputes. By arresting the ship, the maritime court facilitated the parties to reach a settlement, so that the crew involved in the case received the full amount of the arrears, protected the legitimate rights and interests of the crew, and also enabled the ship involved in the case to be released from arrest as soon as possible and resumed operation, avoiding the intensification of the conflict, Good legal and social effects have been achieved. The timely and efficient trial of the case has effectively enhanced the credibility of China's maritime justice, and better realized the mutual benefit and win-win situation of the ship owner and crew. Since November 12, 2016, the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 has officially entered into force in China. This case also has a high reference value for the accurate application of international conventions in the future, the proper settlement of labor disputes among seafarers, and the judicial guarantee for the stable development of the shipping economy.
Shaoxing County Kingston Knitting Co., Ltd. v. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd
Basic Case
In June 2013, Kingston entrusted Mitsui Co., Ltd. to ship a batch of goods from Ningbo to Saudi Arabia. Mitsui Co., Ltd. issues the bill of lading as the carrier. On June 17, the carrier ship "MOL"