February 2016
Contents
Foreword
I. Chinese Court System and its Reform Process
II. Ensuring Independent and Impartial Exercise of Judicial Power Pursuant to Law
III. Strengthening the Judicial Protection Mechanism of Human Rights
IV. Improving the Functional Mechanism of Adjudicative Powers
V. Promoting Judicial Transparency
VI. Expanding Judicial Democracy
VII. Strengthening People-friendly Justice
VIII. Improving Professionalism of Court Personnel
IX. Enhancing the Information Technology Capacity of Courts
Conclusion
Foreword
The rule of law is the basic way of governing a country and the judiciary is the significant cornerstone of the rule of law system. Judicial courts apply laws to adjudicate cases in accordance with their statutory powers and procedures and play such roles as settling disputes, protecting rights and constraining public powers, so as to ensure the effective implementation of laws and maintain social fairness and justice. The improvement of the judicial administration system and the regulation of the operation of judicial powers are conducive to giving full play of the judicial system in law-based governance of a country and in accelerating the modernization process of China’s governance system and governance capability.
Chinese courts always attach great importance to the judicial reform, as they have been unceasingly enhancing the judicial credibility and the course of justice through deepening the reforms of judicial system and work mechanism in order to build up a just, efficient and authoritative Socialist judicial system. Since 2013, under the backdrop of deepening overall reform and with the goal of letting the people feel fairness and justice in each judicial case, China has been proactively, prudently and practically advancing the judicial reform based on China’s national conditions and current trends, which has made preliminary achievements.
I. Chinese Court System and its Reform Process
(I) Institutional Basis of China’s Court Reform
In accordance with the, the people’s courts are the judicial organs of the State. The State establishes the Supreme People’s Court (hereinafter as the “SPC”), the local people’s courts at various levels and the specialized people’s courts to adjudicate civil, criminal and administrative cases in accordance with the law and undertake such judicial activities as civil enforcement, administrative enforcement and state compensation.
The SPC, as the highest court in the People’s Republic of China, is responsible for hearing various cases that are of significant influence nationwide or subject to its jurisdiction by law, formulating judicial interpretations, and supervising and guiding the adjudication work of the local people’s courts at various levels and the specialized people’s courts. The SPC is also responsible for managing part of the judicial administrative work of the courts all over China pursuant to its scope of powers provided by laws. The president of the SPC is elected or removed by the National People’s Congress (hereinafter as the “NPC”), and the vice presidents, adjudication committee members, presiding judges, deputy presiding judges and judges of the SPC are appointed or removed by the Standing Committee of the NPC upon recommendation by the President of the SPC.
The local people’s courts at various levels include high people’s courts, intermediate people’s courts and primary people’s courts, while the specialized people’s courts include maritime courts, intellectual property courts and military courts, etc. The presidents of local people’s courts at the same level are elected and removed by the local people’s congresses at various levels, and the vice presidents, adjudication committee members, presiding judges, deputy presiding judges and judges are appointed or removed by the standing committees of the local people’s congresses at the same level upon recommendation by the presidents of the courts.
The superior people’s courts supervise and guide the adjudication work of the inferior people’s courts. In litigation activities, the people’s courts practice such systems as open trial, panel discussion, withdrawal, people’s assessors, defense system and second instance as final instance system in accordance with the laws.
(II) Brief History of Chinese Court Reform
Since the reform and opening-up, China’s economy and society has been developing in an all-round way, and progress has been made in democracy and rule of law. Under this context, people’s requirements and expectations for the judiciary are increasing gradually. The original judicial system thus cannot accommodate the needs of the changed situations. As early as 1990s, Chinese courts commenced their reform focusing on strengthening functions of court trial, expanding open trial and promoting judicial professionalism. Since the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (hereinafter as the “CPC”), the SPC has launched a series of large-scale reforms in terms of court structure, judge system, litigation procedure, adjudication method, enforcement system and judicial administration and issued three “Five-year Reform Programs for the People’s Courts” respectively in 1999, 2005 and 2009. These three Programs are the fundamental principles and basis for Chinese court reform prior to 2013.
The adopted by the 3rd Plenary Session of 18th Central Committee of the CPC sets the important task of advancing the law-based governance of China and deepening the judicial reform. The adopted by the 4th Plenary Session of 18th Central Committee of the CPC sets the development of a Socialist rule of law system with Chinese characteristics and a Socialist rule of law country as the overall objective of comprehensively advancing the law-based governance of China, and puts forward a series of major reform measures to ensure that a scientific approach is taken to legislation, that law is enforced strictly, that justice is administered impartially, and that the law is observed by everyone. The judicial reform has become a vital component of the comprehensively deepening reform in China and has been incorporated into the national overall development strategies.
For the purpose of deepening various reforms of the people’s courts, the SPC has formulated the after profound research and extensive solicitation of opinions, which puts forward 65 specific reform measures. These measures was promulgated and took effect on February 4, 2015 as the
(III) Organization and Implementation of Chinese Courts Reform
Under the backdrop of comprehensively deepening reform, each reform will have significant effect on other reforms and each reform requires coordination with other reforms. It is only when the mutual promotion and positive interaction among various reforms have been emphasized that comprehensive advancement and vital breakthroughs could be realized, which would ultimately form powerful joint force to advance the reform. Therefore, it is necessary to establish high-level and authoritative reform coordination mechanism and working agencies.
In early 2014, the Central Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform was established in China, which takes charge of the overall design of the reform, overall coordination and promotion, and supervision and implementation of the reform plans. Since January 22, 2014 to the end of 2015, the Central Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform had convened 19 plenary sessions, 13 of which involve the judicial reform and have adopted upon deliberation 27 judicial reform documents.
There are 6 specialized sub-groups under the Central Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform, which are responsible for studying the major reform issues in relevant fields, coordinating and advancing the formulation and implementation of related specific reform policy and measures. The Social System Reform Specialized Group (the Central Leading Group for Judicial Reform) is in charge of the work of deepening the judicial reform.
Judicial reform involves many aspects and is policy-oriented. Improving the classified management of judicial personnel, the judicial accountability system, professional guaranty of judicial personnel and pushing forward the unified management of personnel, funds and properties of local courts below the provincial level constitute the fundamental measures of the judicial reform. Taking this into account and according to the principle that major reforms should pilot first, the above-mentioned four aspects of reform will be piloted in all provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under central government) of China in three batches, with the aim of accumulating experience for advancing overall reform. At present, the pilot work of the judicial reform has been progressing steadily.
For the purpose of coordinating courts reform, the SPC sets up a leading group for the judicial reform with Chief Justice Zhou Qiang as the group head. The leading group for the judicial reform of the SPC, as the deliberation, coordination and guidance body of the judicial reform of the people’s courts, convenes plenary sessions from time to time to define the reform essentials, study and deliberate the reform plans and discuss and decide the major issues on an overall basis.
Each high people’s court sets up its own leading group for the judicial reform which supervises, guides, and coordinates the judicial reform work within its jurisdiction. In the event that any high people’s court intends to initiate any judicial reform measure on a trial basis, such pilot plan shall be submitted for the approval and consent of the SPC. Major reform pilot plan shall only be implemented upon the approval of the Central Government through submission by the SPC.
II. Ensuring Independent and Impartial Exercise of Judicial Power Pursuant to Law
In accordance with the Constitution of China, the people’s courts shall exercise judicial power independently pursuant to the provisions of the law, and are not subject to interference by any administrative organ, public organization or individual. Judicial power belongs to the Central Government. The local courts are not courts belonging to local governments but the judicial courts established by the State at the local level to exercise judicial power on behalf of the State. Since 2014, the SPC has been cooperating with other departments of the Central Government to advance the judicial administrative reform, explore the improvement of court organization, build a recording system of case intervention and inquiry, and uphold judicial authority, thus forming an institutional environment and social atmosphere that respects judiciary, supports judiciary and trusts judiciary.
To push forward the unified management of personnel, funds and properties of local courts below the provincial level. A key point of the judicial reform is to push forward the unified management of personnel, funds and properties of local courts below the provincial level, which indicates the nature of the judicial power belonging to the Central Government. The pilot areas promote the unified management in an open, transparent and democratic way relying upon their provincial platforms. Firstly, the organizational establishment of courts will be managed in a unified way. The organizational establishment of the local courts below the provincial level will be primarily managed by their respective provincial organization departments with the coordinated management by the high people’s courts. The organization departments at city and county levels are no longer responsible for the organizational establishment of courts. Secondly, the personnel of courts will be managed in a unified way. The pilot areas will establish a mechanism under which the judges in local courts below the provincial level shall be nominated, managed, and appointed and removed according to statutory procedures by the provincial authority in a unified way. Prospective judges will be recruited by the high people’s courts in a unified way, and the newly-appointed judges will be selected by judge selection committee at the provincial level in terms of professionalism, and will be appointed and removed according to statutory procedures upon nomination by the provincial authority in a unified way. Thirdly, the funds of courts will be managed in a unified way. Necessary funds of the local courts below the provincial level will be fully guaranteed by the Central Government and the provincial governments within the budgets. The provincial fiscal departments manage the funds of local courts below the provincial level. The courts at provincial, municipal and county levels are all first-class budget units of the fiscal departments of the provincial governments, and will submit their budgets to the provincial fiscal departments. The relevant budget funds will be appropriated by the centralized payment system of the national treasury.
The SPC has established the circuit tribunals. In order to maintain the unification of national legal system, the SPC has established the First Circuit Tribunal in Shenzhen, Guangdong and the Second Circuit Tribunal in Shenyang, Liaoning, which have jurisdiction over major administrative cases and cross-administrative-division civil & commercial cases in Guangdong, Guangxi, Hainan Provinces/Autonomous Region and Liaoning, Jilin, Heilongjiang Provinces respectively. This has realized the shift-down of the exercise of judicial power of the SPC, and facilitated the people’s participation in the litigation and solving their disputes right on the spot. The circuit tribunals of the SPC are the standing trial organs of the SPC, and the judgments, rulings or decisions made by these circuit tribunals are the judgments, rulings or decisions made by the SPC. These two circuit tribunals take the lead to implement the accountability system of judge and the panel, profoundly promote the circuit trial system, and implement the system of interpretation of laws via cases by judges. These two circuit tribunals have become the “test fields” and “pacesetters” of the judicial reform of the people’s courts. As of December 31, 2015, the first and the second circuit tribunals of the SPC have accepted 1,774 cases and concluded 1,653 cases in total, with a conclusion percentage of cases within statutory time limit at 100%.
The cross-administrative-division people’s courts have been established. In order to solve the vulnerability of the cross-administrative-division cases to local influence, upon the approval of the Standing Committee of the NPC, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court in Beijing and Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court in Shanghai have been set up in December 2014, as the pilot projects of the cross-administrative-division people’s courts. These two courts are responsible for cross-region administrative cases, major civil & commercial cases, major environment and resources protection cases, major food and drug safety cases and some major criminal cases, with the aim to ensure the impartial treatment of cases relating to local interests and explore the new litigation structure that the ordinary cases would be heard in the administrative-division courts while the extraordinary cases would be heard in the cross-administrative-division courts. As of December 31, 2015, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court has accepted 1,893 cases and concluded 1,799 cases in total; Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court has accepted 1,370 cases and concluded 1,162 cases in total.
The intellectual property courts have been established. For the purpose of strengthening the judicial protection of the intellectual property rights and the unification of the adjudication standard for the intellectual property cases, pursuant to the decisions of the Standing Committee of the NPC, three intellectual property courts were established successively in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou in November and December of 2014. The SPC has issued a judicial interpretation that determines the jurisdiction of the intellectual property courts and has put forward guiding opinions on the selection and appointment of the judges and the participation of the technology investigators in the litigation activities in the intellectual property courts. As of December 31, 2015, the three intellectual property courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou have accepted over 14,000 intellectual property rights cases of all kinds. Through the concentrated trials of typical cases, the issuance of typical cases, holding press conference and other approaches, the intellectual property courts has built up a new image of the judicial protection of the intellectual property rights in China.
To explore centralized jurisdiction of the administrative cases beyond administrative divisions. In order to find solutions to the prominent difficulties of accepting, trying and enforcing administrative cases, the SPC has promulgated the Guiding Opinions on the Cross-Administrative-Division Centralized Jurisdiction of Administrative Cases of the People’s Courts to authorize the high people’s courts to designate several people’s courts to hear cross-administrative-division administrative cases based on the situations of their adjudication work. Fujian High People’s Court has designated some administrative cases of first instance to the jurisdiction of the primary or intermediate people’s courts other than the original courts of jurisdiction in a unified way. Such practice leads to impartial adjudication of various administrative cases in accordance with the law and eliminate the people’s concern that “all bureaucrats shield each other”.
To improve the specialized jurisdiction system of maritime cases. The number of established maritime adjudication organs and the accepted maritime cases in China top the world. In order to expand blue economy and promote “One Belt And One Road” initiative, the SPC reasonably adjusts maritime litigation jurisdiction system, expands the case acceptance scope by maritime courts through issuing judicial interpretation, and facilitates the establishment of a specialized jurisdiction system of maritime cases which centers on civil and commercial cases with a reasonable coverage of other areas. On December 16, 2015, with the aims of advancing maritime judicial innovation in terms of theory and practice, training excellent maritime adjudication talents and strengthening judicial communication and cooperation between China and foreign countries, the SPC established the International Maritime Justice Research Base and the Qingdao Maritime Branch of National Judges College in Qingdao, Shandong province.
To strengthen judicial protection of environment and resources. The SPC set up an environment and resources tribunal in June 2014 and directs local courts to establish environment and resources adjudication organs. As of December 31, 2015, in China, the people’s courts in 24 provinces/autonomous regions/municipalities directly under the central government have set up environment and resources tribunals, collegial panels, circuit courts, with the total of 456. Guizhou High People’s Court has, based on the basin perimeter of the main rivers, divided Guizhou province into four ecological judicial protection areas, and directed 4 intermediate people’s courts and 5 primary people’s courts to adjudicate environmental protection cases in a unified way. Since 2014, all courts in China have accepted 29,677 criminal cases, 43,917 administrative cases and 191,935 civil and commercial cases in relation to environment and resources, greatly maintaining the environmental interests of the people. Tianjin Maritime Court rendered the first instance judgment on the ConocoPhillips oil spill case to confirm that ConocoPhillips shall be responsible for civil compensation to the damages caused by the oil spill accident and pay RMB1.683 million to plaintiffs Luan Shuhai and other 20 fishermen. Jiangsu High People’s Court concluded the environmental public interests litigation initiated by Taizhou City Environmental Protection Association by sentencing six enterprises paying damages of RMB160 million in total for environmental repair.
To improve the system that defends judicial authority. The SPC has cooperated with the Standing Committee of the NPC to promote the amendment to relevant crimes in the Criminal Law to defend the judicial authority. The Amendment (IX) to the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China adopted on August 29, 2015 amended relevant crimes: first, amended the crime of refusal to enforce a judgment or a ruling, by adding a statutory sentence and a provision of crime committed by unit; second, amended the crime of disturbing court order, by listing the activities severely disturbing court order as crimes, including assault litigation participants, insult, defame or threaten judicial personnel or litigation participants, disobey of court injunction; third, added a crime of fraud litigation,criminalizing the acts of bringing civil litigation on concoctive facts, and jeopardizing judicial order or severely infringing upon others’ lawful rights and interests.
To improve the system of appearance of the heads of the administrative organs in court in answer to litigation. The people’s courts have put the newly amended Administrative Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China into practice, to improve responses to suits by the administration, and promote the the system of appearance of the heads of the defendant administrative organs in court as respondents. The percentages of appearance of the heads of the administrative organs of Jiangsu Province in court as respondents for administrative cases have reached 90% for two consecutive years and the percentage of appearance of the head of the administrative organs in court as respondents in 9 prefecture-level cities such as Nantong exceeds 90% and that in 59 counties (cities, districts) such as Kunshan reaches 100%. The county head of Haian County People’s Government as well as two of his/her predecessors have appeared in court as respondent in person for 6 consecutive years, making the percentage of the appearance in court as respondent by the heads of its administrative organs reach 100%.
To build a system of recording and reporting officials’ intervention in judicial activities and interference with the handling of specific cases. The people’s court at various levels set up special databases of the inquiry of the case information by external personnel within the case information management system. The personnel of a people’s court will comprehensively, accurately and timely record the documents, letters or oral opinions with respect to the specific cases forwarded outside the litigation process by any organization or individual outside the people’s courts. The people’s courts will summarize and analyze the content relating to the interference of officials within the special database of the inquiry of the case information by external personnel on a quarterly basis, and make a list of special reporting matters, and then submit the same to the relevant departments and the peoples court at the superior level. Personnel of the people’s courts who fail to make record or do not make accurate record and the court leaders who direct others not to make record or not to make accurate record shall be imposed corresponding discipline sanction based on the circumstances.
To build a system of recording and accountability of the insiders of the judicial organs who intervene in case proceedings. The people’s court at various levels set up special databases of the information of the interference in case proceedings by the insiders of the judicial organs within the case information management system. The case handlers of the people’s courts, who encounter interference of case by any insider of the judicial organs outside the statutory proceedings or relevant working procedures when handling a case, will timely, comprehensively and accurately record the name, unit and title of such insider and the interfered case information into the special database of the information of the interference in case proceedings by the insiders of the judicial organs, and keep relevant materials.
III. Strengthening the Judicial Protection Mechanism of Human Rights
Respecting and protecting human rights is an important principle established by the Constitution of China and embodies the significant natures of the Socialist judicial system with Chinese characteristics. Through the litigation system reform focusing on adjudication, Chinese courts strictly implement the principles of legally prescribed punishment for a specified crime etc. and adopt criminal policy of tempering justice with mercy in a scientific way in order to prevent unjust, false and wrong cases and legally protect the attorney’s rights to exercise their duties. Positive results in terms of constructing judicial protection mechanism of human rights have been achieved.
To prevent and correct unjust, false and wrong cases. The SPC has put forward guiding opinions on the perfection of the working mechanism of preventing unjust, false and wrong criminal cases, which require legally declaring the defendant innocent without rendering a judgment in a downgrading way “with certain leeway”. From 2013 to 2015, the courts at various levels have legally declared 2,369 defendants innocent. The innocents are effectively protected from being held liabilities. Since 2013 to date, the SPC, adhering to the principles of being practical and realistic and righting every wrong, has supervised and directed the courts at various levels to correct 23 major unjust, false and wrong criminal cases, including “the Case of Zhang and His Nephew in Zhejiang”, “the Case of Huugjilt in Inner Mongolia”, and other cases. The confidence of whole society in judicial justice has been enhanced thereby.
To highlight modern judicial civilization in a court trial.The SPC has successively issued circulars together with the Ministry of Public Security on the dressing issues of the defendant or appellant of criminal cases and criminal serving a sentence who appear in court for trial. According to these circulars, in a people’s court, the defendant or appellant shall no longer dress the clothes from a detention house to appear in court for trial and the criminals serving a sentence shall no longer dress the prison uniform to appear in court for trial. Where a people’s court goes to a detention house to bring out a detained criminal defendant or appellant, the detention house shall hand over the detained criminal defendant or appellant in formal wear or casual wear to the people’s court.
To ameliorate the rapid handling mechanism of minor criminal cases. According to the authorization of the Standing Committee of the NPC, in August 26, 2014, the SPC together with other departments of the Central Government launched the pilot areas of rapid adjudication proceeding of criminal cases in Beijing and other 17 cities. As of December 31, 2015, 212 pilot primary people’s courts of China has applied rapid adjudication proceeding to adjudicate and close 31,086 criminal cases, concerning 32,188 persons, which accounts for 33.13% of the criminal cases with a sentence of less than one year imprisonment by the pilot courts within the same period and accounts for 15.48% of all criminal cases within the same period. The percentage of cases that have been adjudicated and closed by courts within 10 days is 92.77% and the percentage of passing a judgment or sentence in court reaches 95.94%. The percentage of appeal lodged by the plaintiff of incident civil action is zero and the percentage of appeal lodged by the defendant is only 2.13%. By reducing the pre-trial detention period, accelerating the handling of the case of the defendant and sentencing the defendant with more leniency, such mechanism fully shows the spirit of lenient punishment for persons who acknowledge their guilt and punishment. The community correction functions have also been attached more emphasis. All of these are conducive for the reformation and return to society of a criminal. The NPC Standing Committee meeting convened in November 2015 deliberates the pilot interim report and fully affirms the pilot work.
To practically protect the attorney’s rights to legally exercise their duties. The SPC has issued guidelines on legally protecting the attorney’s rights to litigation, which provide for the protection of the attorney’s information right, case files reviewing right, right of appearance on court, debating and defending rights, right of applying for obtaining evidence, right of applying for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, right of petition on agency, and other practice rights such as guaranteeing personal safety and provision of convenience for performing duties. The SPC has safeguarded attorney's rights of inquiring the information on case filing and reviewing case materials by stipulating that an attorney may directly state his defense opinions vis-à-vis the judge of the SPC, ensuring the quality of the death penalty review case. The SPC has opened up a lawyer service platform on December 30, 2015 to ensure the smooth realization of such functions of online case filing, online case files review and contact with judges. As of December 31, 2015, the SPC attorney service platform has already collected information of 21,707 law firms and input 81,476 attorneys’ information. Shanghai and Zhejiang courts have established attorney service platforms which connect with the administration system of the local bar associations, whereby an attorney may complete case filing, payment, submission of evidential materials and application for evidence preservation, application for attendance of witness, postpone of time-limit for adducing evidence, online review of case files and other litigation matters online by simply inputting his license number.
To strictly regulate commutation, parole and serving sentences outside of prison temporarily. The SPC promulgates the Provisions on the Hearing Procedures for Cases of Commutation and Parole, which sets up open hearing system for cases of commutation and parole and the regular publication system of classic cases, and tightens the application conditions of commutation and parole for felony offenses. In 2015, a website of information on commutation, parole and serving sentences outside of prison temporarily of all Chinese courts is launched which is a uniform platform for the publicity, announcement, court trial and openness of judgements of relevant cases.
To strengthen the work related to state compensation. In order to give full play to the rights remedy function of the state compensation, the SPC has formulated the Interpretations on Several Issues concerning the Application of Law in the Handling of Criminal Compensation Cases, published guiding cases of state compensation, improved cross-examination procedures of compensation cases, regulated and discretion standard of mental damage solatium and put forth opinions on strengthening the state compensation work over criminal unjust and wrong cases. Since 2014, the people’s courts at various levels have accepted 10,881 state compensation cases with a compensation amount of RMB113.389 million.
To standardize the judicial procedure concerning disposition of properties involved in cases. On October 30, 2014, the SPC issued a judicial interpretation to standardize such enforcement procedures of properties involved in criminal cases as confiscation of property, recovery, realization of properties at current rate and objection to enforcement. After the General Office of the CPC Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the , the SPC together with other departments of the Central Government explores constructing a cross-department centralized management information platform for properties involved in local cases, and improves the pre-disposition procedure of properties involved in cases, pre-trial return procedure, and defines the litigation rights of interested parties, perfects the rights relief mechanism and ameliorates the accountability mechanism. In May 2015, Zhuji County of Zhejiang Province set up the first cross-department management center of properties involved in criminal litigation cases in China. The establishment of the unified information platform for management of properties involved in cases, into which various political and legal departments input the information of properties involved in cases under their respective administration to this platform, has realized the transfer of properties involved in cases in digital form and greatly facilitated the procedures of handling a case and standardized the procedures of disposition of properties involved in cases.
IV. Improving the Functional Mechanism of Adjudicative Powers
Judicial power is a judging power in essence and emphasizes impartiality, neutrality and personal experience. It is the objective requirements of laws of judiciary to let the adjudicator judge and let the judge be accountable. On the basis of the pilot work, the SPC has been improving the operation mechanism of adjudicative powers, and determines the jurisdiction of the adjudicative organs and the duties of adjudicators in a scientific way, reasonably defines the accountability standards and process, and strengthens the basic and overall status of the judicial accountability system reform in deepening the judicial reform.
To reform the internal operation mechanism of adjudicative powers. Pilot courts have, taking into account their local situations, optimized the personnel allocation, reformed their internal organs, cancelled approval requirement and promoted the handling of major, difficult and complicated cases by the presidents or presiding judges of such courts in person.
Firstly, to optimize the allocation mode of adjudication personnel. The primary and intermediate people’s courts have established a relatively fixed adjudication team consisting of judges, judge assistants, court clerks and other necessary support personnel and implemented a flat management structure. The people’s courts will form a panel consisting of judge(s) or judge(s) together with people’s assessors at random according to the category of the accepted case. The people’s court of Jiangyin City, Jiangsu Province has formed 40 adjudication combinations of “sole judge + assistant judge (s) + court clerk(s) (1+N+N)”, which contributes to 53.1% growth of the number of closed cases comparing with that prior to the reform, despite the increasing total volume of cases and no addition of adjudication personnel and 96.8% cases are directly decided by a sole judge or a panel. The People’s Court of Qianhai Cooperation Zone of Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province and the People’s Court of Hengqin New Zone of Zhuhai City established according to the new mode have provided replicable and propagable experience for the reform of internal organs of the people’s courts.
Secondly, to reform the signature mechanism of judgments. It makes clear except as the cases discussed and decided by the adjudication committee that, the president, vice president and presiding judge shall no longer approve, verify, sign or issue the judgment for case that they have not directly participated in. The percentage of cases that have been adjudicated directly by a sole judge or a panel in the pilot courtsof Shanghai reaches 99.9% and there is only 0.1% submitted to the discussion by the adjudication committee.
Thirdly, to promote the normalization of president/presiding judge handing cases. In order to give full play to the extensive adjudication experience of the president and presiding judges of a court, the president, vice presidents and adjudication committee members shall directly form a panel to hear major, difficult and complicated cases. All of 873 presidents and presiding judges from Beijing courts at three levels appeared in court to handle cases, and the number of cases handled by them accounts for 15.5% of the cases closed by all the judges from Beijing courts in 2015. The Second Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Dongguan reasonably determines the number and types of cases handled by president/presiding judge, and the number of cases handled by them account for 32% of the cases handled by the whole court in 2015, with most of the cases being difficult, complicated and of new type.
Fourthly, to establish the specialized judges’ council system. The people’s courts shall respectively build specialized judges’ councils consisting of civil, criminal and administrative judges, which will provide consultancy opinions for the panels to correctly understand and apply laws for the reference of the panels. The Fourth Intermediate People’s Court of Chongqing has built a specialized judges’ council system which can be categorized into criminal law, civil law and administrative law, each of which is composed of corresponding adjudication committee members, presiding judges and senior judges. The members of the specialized judges’ council are on equal footing and will provide their opinions independently for the purpose of offering consultancy service for the handling judges and promoting the unification of adjudication standards.
Fifthly, to regulate the adjudication administration and supervision. In order to build an appraisal system and evaluation mechanism of case quality in compliance with the laws of judiciary, the SPC has cancelled the assessment ranking of all high people’s courts and guided high people’s court to cancel unreasonable assessment index of courts within their own jurisdiction so that except for several necessary obligatory indexes kept by operation of laws such as the case closing rate within trial time limit, all of other assessment indexes shall be referential indexes for statistical analysis. It makes clear that the adjudication administration and supervision activities of the presidents and presiding judges of courts shall be strictly limited to their own duties and scope of powers, and shall be conducted openly in the working platform. Except for participating in the adjudication committee meeting and specialized judges’ council, a president or a presiding judge of a court may neither express his or her tendentious opinions on a case that he or she does not hear nor directly deny the opinions of a sole judge or a panel.
To reform the adjudication committee system. The SPC has put forward guiding opinions on the reform of the adjudication committee system, and strengthening the macro-direction functions of the adjudication committee in terms of summarizing judicial experience, unifying the application of law and deciding major matters of the adjudication work upon discussion. In order to regulate the scope of cases submitted for discussion by the adjudication committee, there will be a pre-filtering mechanism of matters submitted for discussion by the adjudication committee. Besides major and complicated cases concerning national diplomacy, security and social stability and those required by law, the adjudication committee primarily discusses the law application issues of major, difficult and complicated cases. The deliberation of the adjudication committee shall be made audio and/or video recording for the whole course. All the members participating in the deliberation and voting shall sign on the meeting minutes of the adjudication committee meeting. The performance assessment and internal publicity mechanism of the members of the adjudication committee shall be established.
To perfect judicial accountability system. In September 2015, the SPC released the , which makes clear the duties and scope of power of court personnel and builds the determination and accountability mechanism of adjudicative liabilities. Firstly, to elaborate the position duties of court personnel. The trial management and supervision duties of the presidents, vice presidents and presiding judges of courts are defined by means of making a list. And the respective duties of the sole judge, presiding judge and judges of a panel and other judges, judge assistants and court clerks in the adjudicatory activities are well articulated. Secondly, to make clear the constituent elements and assumption form of adjudicative liabilities. It makes clear that judges shall assume the liabilities of their conduct of performing adjudicative duties and be responsible for the case handling quality within their scope of duties. A judge, who intentionally violates the laws during adjudicative procedure or renders erroneous ruling by gross negligence which causes serious consequences, shall assume liabilities of illegal adjudication. For cases tried by a sole judge, the sole judge shall assume full liabilities for the fact finding and the law application of the cases. For cases tried by a panel, the members of the panel shall jointly assume liabilities for the fact finding and the law application of the cases. Thirdly, to make clear the circumstances and conditions for exemption of adjudicative liabilities. For instance, where there are discrepancies of understanding and knowledge of the specific provisions of the laws, regulations, rules and judicial interpretations, reasonable explanation could be given within the scope of professional knowledge; where there are disputes or doubts on the fact finding of the cases, reasonable explanation could be given according to the rules of evidence; where the party concerned waives or partly waives his claims, etc. In case that the judgment of a case is amended in a retrial initiated according to the trial supervision procedure caused by any of the above circumstance, the judge concerned shall not be held liable for adjudicative liabilities on the ground of a wrong case. Fourthly, to make clear the supervision management responsibilities of the president and presiding judges of courts. On the spirits that powers shall always be accompanied by responsibilities and malpractice shall always be accompanied by liabilities, it makes clear that the president and/or the presiding judges of courts shall assume supervision management responsibilities for his inappropriate exercise of adjudicative supervision rights and adjudicative management rights intentionally or by gross negligence. Fifthly, to ameliorate the procedures of holding judges accountable. A judge discipline committee consisting of judges mainly and a small part of relevant social members shall be established at provincial level for the purpose of ameliorating the procedures of judge discipline. At the same time, the rights and interests of statement, defense, testification and petition for reconsideration of the judge concerned shall be safeguarded. All these are to realize the unification between the legal and timely punishment and strengthening professional guarantee.
To promote the improvement of trial-level system. In order to accommodate the needs of social development and civil litigation and reasonably define the civil & commercial adjudicative duties of courts at four levels, the SPC has issued the . According to this Circular, (i) the value of the subject matter of the action of the civil & commercial cases of first instance over which primary people’s courts have jurisdiction has been enhanced; (ii) cases of disputes over marriage, inheritance, family, property management services, personal injury compensation, reputation, traffic accidents and labor activities, as well as cases of mass disputes shall generally be under the jurisdiction of primary people’s courts; (iii) as regards major and complicated cases, cases of new types and cases of universal significance in terms of the application of law, superior people’s courts may decide to hear such cases on their own either independently or upon requests by inferior people’s courts.
To regulate the remand for retrial system. In February, 2015, the SPC released judicial interpretation on the . Such judicial interpretation unifies the standards of ordered retrial of a case and review of a case and strictly prohibits the practice of arbitrarily remanding of a case for retrial. It makes clear that in case of a ruling of ordered retrial of a case and/or remanding of a case for retrial, the superior people’s courts shall elaborate the specific causes for such ordered retrial of a case and/or remanding of a case for retrial in the ruling.
To advance the standardization construction of courts. The SPC has formulated and published the Several Regulations on Case Number of Cases of the People’s Courts and its companion standards, and the Business Standards for Information of Cases of the People’s Courts (2015) and other standardization documents, which codify 3,512 courts all over China and set up a three-level case types system that could be divided into 10 categories, 52 sub-categories and 131 items. It covers more than 130 types of judicial authenticity activities and over 15 million cases each year, laying a solid foundation for the construction of new standard system of case information.
To improve the guiding cases system. As of December 31, 2015, the SPC has successively published 56 guiding cases in 11 batches successively and promulgated rules of implementation on the guiding cases work. In the event that a case heard by a people’s court at any level is similar to a guiding case published by the SPC in terms of basic facts and the application of law, the people’s court shall render a judgment/ruling by reference to the headnotes of the judgment/ruling in the guiding cases and quoted such guiding cases as a juridical reason. In April 2015, the SPC set up an intellectual property guiding cases study base in Beijing Intellectual Property Court where guiding cases will be collected, compiled, systemized and adjudication rules and experiences for intellectual property cases will be timely summarized and published in an appropriate way.
V. Promoting Judicial Transparency
With the aims of further safeguarding judicial justice, satisfying the people’s information right, participation right and supervision right, and improving judicial transparency and judicial credibility, the SPC has taken the lead of, made overall plan of, deployed as an organic whole and simultaneously promoted the construction of three platforms of trial process disclosure, judgments and verdicts openness and enforcement information openness. The width and depth of judicial disclosure have been expanding relying upon the modern information technologies and the new media platforms.
To push forward the openness of trial process. In November, 2014, China’s Trial Process Information Disclosure website (http://www.court.gov.cn/zgsplcxxgkw/) has been officially launched. Currently, 32 provinces in China have basically established their trial process information disclosure platforms within their jurisdictions and provided links to the China’s Trial Process Information Disclosure website. The case parties and their litigation agents may lodge on to inquire and download the process information and materials relating to their cases by their valid ID numbers at any time since the acceptance of cases by courts. The procedural litigation documents of cases may be served through the website. Up to December 31, 2015, the total visits of the China’s Trial Process Information Disclosure website have reached 878,500; the trial process information of 10,883 newly accepted cases by the SPC has all been opened up for the parties concerned and their litigation agents; and more than 230,000 items of information have been opened up.
To push forward the openness of judgments and verdicts. In November, 2013, the SPC has launched the China Judgments & Verdicts website (http://www.court.gov.cn/zgcpwsw/), a nationwide platform for disclosure of judgments and verdicts and takes the lead to publish the judgments made by the SPC. The SPC requires that the publication of judgments and verdicts on the internet shall follow the principle of disclosure as a general rule and non-openness as an exception. Since January 1, 2014, the effective judgments and verdicts of the people’s courts at various levels have been successively published on the China Judgments & Verdicts website. This website has become the largest judgments website all over the world. Up to December 31, 2015, 3,499 courts in China have uploaded their judgments and verdicts to China Judgments & Verdicts website which add the number of published judgments and verdicts to 14,481,804 and the total visits have reached 410 million; among which, the SPC has published 11,379 judgments and verdicts. The law schools of many world class universities such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford have listed the judgments published on the China Judgments & Verdicts website as their research object. On December 15, 2015, the China Judgments & Verdicts website has completed the comprehensive revision and upgrade. The revised China Judgments & Verdicts website insists on demand-orientation and issue-orientation, provides various intelligent services, further improves the search function and promotes the publication of judgments and verdicts in minority languages, which better satisfies the diversified needs of the people and professional users on the judgments.
To push forward the openness of enforcement information. In November, 2014, the SPC has integrated four types of public information, namely information of persons subject to enforcement, the name list of dishonest persons subject to enforcement of courts across China, the enforcement case process information and the judgments of enforcement, into the China Enforcement Information Disclosure website (http://shixin.court.gov.cn/). Up to December 31, 2015, 34,347,288 items of information of persons subject to enforcement have been published by China Enforcement Information Disclosure website and responded to 36.85 million times of enforcement case information inquiries. Since December 2014, the SPC has launched the enforcement direction system and realized special connection to 21 national banking and financial institutions and as of December 31, 2015, provided 3,124 courts with online enforcement checking and controlling system. Most of high people’s courts have built up three-tiered connected “point to point” online checking and controlling systems for courts within their jurisdictions. The people’s courts have been enhancing the exposure of “deadbeats”. The information of those “deadbeats” who refuse to execute judgments or rulings has been published on the internet. They will be restricted from going abroad, conducting bid and tender and making high consumption. The SPC and Zhima Credit have executed the credit punishment memorandum on dishonest persons subject to enforcement and cooperated in carrying out credit punishment on them. As of December 31, 2015, Zhima Credit has restricted more than 130,000 dishonest persons subject to enforcement from purchasing air tickets, renting cars and making loans in total through its credit platform, which caused 5300 dishonest persons subject to enforcement pay off their debts, among which over 1500 persons are “deadbeats” eluding enforcement for more than three or four years.
To make innovation on judicial openness in forms and contents. Under the guidance of the SPC, the people’s courts at various levels have built comprehensive and all-dimensional information disclosure platforms by means of building court administrative affairs websites and setting up Weibo and WeChat official accounts, news reader applications, court president’s mailbox etc. On December 15, 2015, the English website of the SPC has formally launched. As of December 31, 2015, the number of fans following the SPC on the official Sina Weibo has exceeded 13.69 million. 3,636 courts across China have opened their own official Weibos. In December 2013, China Live Court Trial website (ts.chinacourt.org) has been officially launched. In February 2015, China court mobile television client has been rolled out and will circulate major news of the people’s courts, the trial situation of important cases and other judicial information to the public the first time. As of December 31, 2015, this China court mobile television client has published 2,862 pieces of videos with an updated content of 22,245 minutes, and accumulatively attracted more than 651,800 users. Since January 1, 2015 Chinese courts have been carrying out the monthly meeting for press release and convened nearly 6,000 press conferences. The SPC has convened 26 press conferences and 12 news conferences for classic cases and released 362 classic cases.
VI. Expanding Judicial Democracy
Safeguarding the people’s participation in judiciary not only embodies the people-oriented Socialist judicial system with Chinese characteristics, but also is an objective requirement for the improvement of judicial credibility and the expansion of judicial democracy. The SPC has enhanced the recognition and trust of the public to the judiciary by means of reforming people’s assessors system, improving the acceptance system of supervision by case parties, and strengthening the comprehensiveness, orderliness and efficacy of accessing to, participating in and supervising judiciary by the people.
To carry out pilot reforms of people’s assessors system. In May 2015, according to the authorization of the Standing Committee of the NPC, the SPC and the Ministry of Justice have promulgated the and launched pilot work in 50 courts in 10 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under central government) of China. The pilot works include: to reform the selection and appointment conditions of people’s assessors, to improve the selection and appointment method, to expand the scope of trial participation, to define the duties of trial participation, to strengthen professional guarantee, to build exit mechanism, to give full play to the advantages of the familiarity of people’s assessors over social conditions and people’s opinions, and to gradually change the current situation of people’s assessors participating in the voting of law application into that people’s assessors shall only participate in the facts finding, etc. Up to November 8, 2015, the selection and appointment of people’s assessors in all pilot courts have been completed successively, which added over 7,800 new people’s assessors. The total number of people’s assessors has been increased to about 4 times of that of the quota judges. The diversity and representativeness of people’s assessors has been enhanced to a further level. All pilot courts have established the information database of people’s assessors, and have been continuously strengthening the pre-work training and daily management of people’s assessors. Pursuant to the requirements of the judicial reform, all pilot courts have been proactively improving the mechanism of participation in trial by people’s assessors. These courts generally explore a large panel with the participation of more than 3 people’s assessors through random selection, which plays a significant role in adjudicating major cases attracting wide attention such as land requisition and demolishing, environmental protection and food and drug safety. The number of cases with participation in trial by people’s assessors reaches 35,000, among which there are nearly 100 cases handled by a large panel with the participation of more than 5 people including judges and people’s assessors. Pilot courts in Heilongjiang Province and Shandong Province adopt a method of “directional classification, quotas control, random generation” to effectively solve the problems of uneven distribution, structure imbalance and trial participation inconvenience caused by random selection. Pilot courts in Chongqing has been actively promoting facts recognition list system, facts recognition direction system, two-stage tribunal deliberation system and mutual responsibility of facts recognition system, and obtains sound effect. Mentougou Primary People’s Court of Beijing, Shaanxi Huayin People’s Court and Xixia County People’s Courts of Henan have explored the practice of a panel consisting of 4 people’s assessors and 3 judges to openly try a portion of cases with relatively great social influence which are well received by the local people.
To build communications and contact platform for NPC members and CPPCC members. In order to comprehensively listen to and timely respond to the opinions and suggestions made by the NPC members and CPPCC members, the SPC has launched a communication platform for the NPC members and CPPCC members on January 1, 2014, containing such columns as contact work news, suggestions by and response to NPC members, proposal by and response to CPPCC members, and major cases circulation. This platform has formed an all-day communication channel between the SPC and the NPC members and CPPCC members.
To improve the acceptance system of supervision by case parties. In July 2014, the SPC has promulgated the which require the people’s courts to strictly comply with the integrity disciplines, constantly improve the judicial style, carry out integrity supervision card and integrity callback systems and voluntarily accept the parties’ supervision on their trial and enforcement activities. The case handling department of a people’s court shall send an integrity supervision card to a party when it serves the legal documents of case acceptance on a party. The supervision departments of the people’s courts shall randomly select a portion of cases from the trial or enforcement cases concluded within the year to carry out integrity callback, together with the handling departments of the respective cases. The supervision opinions provided by the case parties shall be dealt with in a timely manner. The results thereof shall be given back to the case parties concerned in due time.
Continue to Part 2 of Judicial Reform of Chinese Courts