Asiabizblog - Business and Law for China and Asia

« Shanghai Event: Interpreting the NDRC Rules | Main | Audio: Taiwanese Court Recognizes PRC Judgment? »

June 8, 2005

Taiwanese Court Recognizes PRC Judgment?

I include below the original of a press release found at the PRC Ministry of Justice site and also carried more or less verbatim in the Chinese online media, which claim that Taiwanese courts have for the first time recognized the validity of a PRC judgment.

However, I am as yet unable to verify the validity of the assertions in this article. Interestingly, it does not show up on media sites outside of China -- the meaning of which is as yet uncertain. I welcome anyone with information relating to this story.

[Rapid translation of the MOJ release immediately below. Original text directly below that.]

First Recognition by Taiwan Court of Chinese Judgment

Zhejiang Enterprise Crosses Taiwan Straits to Collect on Debt
Case in Taiwan Exhausts Appeal Process

(May 19) Zhejiang (PRC) Textile Import Export Group sued Taiwan’s Changrong International Storage and Transport Corp. to enforce rights to collect on a debt. Taiwan’s Supreme Court denied an appeal by Changrong, ruling that the judgments of the Shanghai Court of Admiralty and the High People’s Court of Shanghai were valid in Taiwan.

This case, involving a mainland Chinese company’s attempt to collect a large sum owed to it, has thus progressed to actual enforcement. It is believed to be the first case in which a Taiwan court, relying upon Article 74 of the “Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area,” recognized the judgment of a mainland court to enforce rights to collect a debt, and which exhausted the Taiwan appeals process.

[Editor's note: The Mainland Affairs Council can be accessed at this URL.]

In the fourth quarter of 2000, Zhejiang Textile hired Lirong Shipping to ship transport to Iraq in 21 bills of lading with a total value of over US$2.6 million. Zhejiang Textile did not receive payment, and upon investigation, discovered that Lirong, after shipping the cargo to Iraq, failed to deliver it to the correct receiver based on the original bill of lading. Zhejiang Textile sued Lirong, demanding damages of US$2.6 million and RMB6.36 million.

In December, 2002, the Shanghai Court of Admirality ordered Lirong to pay damages to Zhejiang Textile in the amount of US$2.6 million and RMB3.11 million, as well as interest accrued. Lirong then appealed to the High People’s Court of Shanghai.

On the eve of the judgment, Lirong merged into Changrong International Storage and Transport. Zhou Jiang-xiung, Assistant Managing Director of Zhejiang Textile, told this reporter that the company had originally planned upon enforcing the judgment by seizing Lirong’s ships in China. It was not foreseen that Lirong would dissolve, passing on its debt to Changrong, as well as its transport operations in China to another firm.

In September, 2003, the Shanghai City High Court sustained its original ruling, and the case entered the enforcement stage. Then the court discovered that Changrong had no assets in China upon which to enforce the judgment and the enforcement documentation could not be successfully sent to Taiwan, as both mailings had been returned. The judgment entered a period of stalemate.

This cross-straits debt collection case became known to the Taiwan Liaison Office in Zhejiang Province. Ma Li-hua of that Office told this reporter that in July 1992 the Taiwan Region promulgated the “Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area.” Article 74 of that act reads:

To the extent that an irrevocable civil ruling or judgment, or arbitral award rendered in the Mainland Area is not contrary to the public order or good morals of the Taiwan Area, an application may be filed with a court for a ruling to recognize it. Where any ruling or judgment, or award recognized by a court's ruling as referred to in the preceding paragraph requires performance, it may serve as a writ of execution.

This regulation clearly allowed for a breakthrough in this case. Despite the lack of a similar prior case, in the end, it had to be attempted.

The case thereafter formally began the debt collection process in Taiwan. In August, 2004, a Taoyuan (Taiwan) Local Court recognized the mainland court judgment. Changrong’s appeal was denied. Changrong then attempted to appeal once again to Taiwan’s Supreme Court. On May 19, 2005, that court denied Changrong’s second appeal. At this point, this cross-straits debt collection case entered the actual enforcement stage.

Zhejiang Textile’s Zhou Jian-xiung said that, even though three and one half long years had passed since the suit was filed, everyone could finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. They praised the Taiwan Region court’s ability to uphold the law and the judgment that safeguards the legal rights of mainland Chinese businessmen.

This reporter has come to understand that mainland courts have already ruled on judgments of Taiwanese courts. In 1998, the Regulation of the High Peoples Courts Regarding People’s Court Recognition of Taiwan Region Civil Judgments was promulgated. [In Chinese.] The Zhejiang Province, Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court, recognized for the first time the judgment of a Taiwan Nantou Local Court regarding the status of adoptive relationship between a Taiwanese and his nephew in Tiantai. In 1998, the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court recognized and enforced the judgment of the Taiwan Kaohsiung Local Court, in a case involving the repayment of a debt between Xu Ling-wen and Taiwan Changtaiyen Construction Development Company.

Fom 1998 until March of this year, cross-straits indirect trade exceeded US$420 billion. In 2003, cross-straits trade exceed US$50 billion, and last year exceeded US$70 billion.

Ma Li-hua of the Zhejiang Taiwan Liaison Office told this reporter that, in the recent few years, cross-straits trade grows daily, and that cooperation between mainland and Taiwan courts with regards to similarities in civil law processes to help safeguard the legal rights of individuals, legal persons and enterprises may become a possibility. Thus, the risk-related costs of cross-straits trade will decrease, helping to stimulate that trade and popular interaction.

台湾法院首次认可大陆法院裁决

浙江一企业大陆跨海峡追赔案在台走完三审程序

　　本网讯　记者余东明5月19日，浙江纺织品进出口集团有限公司诉台湾长荣国际储运股份有限公司执行债权一案，台湾最高法院判决驳回长荣公司的再抗告，最终裁定了上海海事法院、上海市高级人民法院关于此案的判决在台湾有效。至此，这起大陆企业跨海峡追付巨额赔偿案在台取得了阶段性的进展，进入实际执行债权阶段。据悉，此案是台湾法院根据《两岸关系条例》第74 条规定认可大陆法院裁决执行债权成功的首例案件，也是第一个在台湾走完三审程序的案子。

　　2000年四季度，浙纺公司委托立荣海运股份有限公司运输21票提单项下价值260多万美元的服装至伊拉克，此后浙纺公司一直没有收到货款，经过查询，浙纺公司发现，立荣公司将货物运到伊拉克后，没有凭正本提单就将货物交给了他人。为此，浙纺公司一纸诉状将立荣公司告上法庭，要求赔偿损失260 万美元和 636万元人民币。

　　2002年12月，上海海事法院作出一审判决，判决立荣公司赔偿浙纺公司260万美元和311万人民币及相应的利息损失。立荣公司遂向上海高级人民法院提起上诉。

　　一审判决前夕，立荣公司与长荣国际储运公司合并，长荣公司成为续存公司。浙纺公司副总裁周建雄告诉记者，原本他们打算在法院进入执行程序后，可以直接扣留立荣公司在大陆的船只进行执行。没想到立荣公司注销了，它把债权债务转给了长荣公司，将大陆的运输业务转给了另一家公司。

　　2003年9月，上海市高级人民法院作出“维持原判”的终审判决，该案进入执行程序。然而正如周建雄所介绍的，一方面，法院发现长荣公司在大陆无财产可供执行；另一方面，执行文书又无法成功送达到台湾，法院两次邮寄都被退回。执行陷入僵局。

　　这起跨海峡巨额追赔案在咨询了浙江省台湾事务办公室后峰回路转。浙台办的马礼华告诉记者，1992年7月，台湾地区曾出台《台湾地区与大陆地区人民关系条例》，该条例第74条规定：“在大陆地区作成之民事确定裁判、民事仲裁判断，不违背台湾地区公共秩序或善良风俗者，得声请法院裁定认可。前项经法院裁定认可之裁判或判断，以给付为内容者，得为执行名义。”这条规定显然给此案的执行找到了突破口，虽然此前，没有同类案件进入过司法实践，但毕竟得尝试一下。

　　此后，该案的追赔程序正式在台湾启动。2004年8月，台湾桃园地方法院裁定，对大陆法院的判决予以认可。长荣公司遂向台湾高等法院提起抗告，被驳回；此后，长荣公司又向台湾最高法院提起再抗告。今年5月19日，该院驳回了长荣公司的再抗告。至此，这起大陆公司跨海峡巨额追赔案进入实际执行阶段。

　　浙纺公司周建雄表示，此案从起诉开始，虽然历经长达三年半的时间，但毕竟让人们看到了成功的曙光。他们对台湾地区法院能尊重法律、维护大陆商人合法利益的裁定表示赞赏。

　　记者了解到，此前大陆法院曾对台湾法院的判决做过裁定。1998年，《最高人民法院关于人民法院认可台湾地区有关法院民事判决的规定》出台，浙江省台州中级人民法院首次裁定认可了台湾南投地方法院关于台湾人褚春裁对天台侄儿褚金绸收养关系的裁定。1998年，上海第一中级人民法院还裁定认可了台湾高雄地方法院关于高雄人许玲雯诉台湾长泰庄建设开发有限公司有偿借款纠纷一案的判决，并进行了强制执行。

　　有资料显示，自1998年至今年3月，两岸间接贸易总额累计超过4200亿美元，2003年两岸贸易额突破500亿美元，而去年这一数字突破700亿美元。

　　浙台办马礼华告诉记者，近几年来，两岸经贸活动日趋频繁，大陆法院和台湾法院类似的司法程序合作使依法保障两岸公民、法人、企业的合法权益成为可能，从而降低了两岸间贸易的风险成本，对推动两岸经贸发展和民间交流有着积极的作用。

Comments

Post a comment