Chinese Courts and Internet Judiciary
中國(guó)法院的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法
Contents
目錄
Preface.
前言
I. Overall Development of Internet Judiciary.
一、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法的總體發(fā)展
II. Strengthening the Judicial Specialization for the Internet.
二、推進(jìn)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)專業(yè)化審判機(jī)構(gòu)建設(shè)
III. Promoting Access to and Benefits from Internet Judiciary for the People.
三、創(chuàng)新互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法便民利民機(jī)制
IV. Perfecting Online Litigation Procedures for Internet Judiciary.
四、完善互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法在線訴訟機(jī)制
V. Improving the Intelligent Application Scenarios in the Judicial System.
五、健全互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法智能化應(yīng)用機(jī)制
VI. Improving Governance over the Internet through Collaboration and Coordination.
六、深化互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法協(xié)同治理機(jī)制
VII. Forming Legal Rules Governing the Cyberspace.
七、構(gòu)建互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法裁判規(guī)則體系
Conclusion.
結(jié)束語(yǔ)
Appendix Influential Cases of Internet Judiciary in China
附錄：中國(guó)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法典型案例
Preface
前言
Nowadays, the cutting-edge information technology has evolved in leaps and bounds, and the Internet has become a leading force for innovation-driven development. The Internet has profoundly changed the lifestyle and working patterns, and propelled the world’s economy and society forward. The year 2019 marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and the 50th anniversary of the birth of the Internet. Since its full access to the Internet in 1994, China has always taken the development of Information Technology as a historic opportunity to speed up the Internet Power Strategy, to deepen the reform and opening-up, and to accelerate the process of modernization. In the meantime, significant progress has been achieved in the information technology and Internet industry. As of June 30, 2019, China had 854 million netizens ballooned from 620,000 in 1997, and the number of mobile Internet users reached 847 million, both ranking first in the world. Instant messaging ranked first in online activities with 824 million users, followed by online video users at 759 million. Meanwhile, online shoppers and online users of electronic government service increased to 639 million and 509 million, respectively. The data traffic consumption of mobile phones and devices reached 55.39 billion GB.
當(dāng)今世界，信息技術(shù)革命日新月異，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)日益成為創(chuàng)新驅(qū)動(dòng)發(fā) 展的先導(dǎo)力量，深刻改變著人們的生產(chǎn)生活方式，有力推動(dòng)著經(jīng)濟(jì)社 會(huì)發(fā)展。2019 年是中華人民共和國(guó)成立70 周年，世界互聯(lián)網(wǎng)誕生50 周年，也是中國(guó)全功能接入互聯(lián)網(wǎng)25 周年。中國(guó)牢牢把握信息化時(shí)代 的重大歷史機(jī)遇，加快推進(jìn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)強(qiáng)國(guó)戰(zhàn)略，將互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)展作為推進(jìn)改 革開放和現(xiàn)代化建設(shè)事業(yè)的重要支撐，信息技術(shù)和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)業(yè)取得了 顯著發(fā)展成就。截至2019 年6 月30 日，中國(guó)網(wǎng)民由1997 年的62 萬(wàn) 人增加至8.54 億人，手機(jī)網(wǎng)民規(guī)模達(dá)8.47 億，數(shù)量均位居全球第一。 其中，在線即時(shí)通訊用戶達(dá)8.24 億，網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻用戶規(guī)模達(dá)7.59 億，網(wǎng) 絡(luò)購(gòu)物用戶規(guī)模達(dá)6.39 億，在線政務(wù)服務(wù)用戶規(guī)模達(dá)5.09 億。移動(dòng)互 聯(lián)網(wǎng)接入流量消費(fèi)達(dá)553.9 億GB。
Both national governance and administration of justice face the challenges and opportunities brought by the development and innovation of Information Technology and the Internet industry. Across the board spread of the Internet, problems such as unbalanced development, inadequate rules and inequitable order have become more evident. Citizens, corporations, and social organizations now expect greater access to justice and to guarantee the socio-economic development in the digital age, which urges the courts to harness the technology to keep pace with the rapidly changing demands of society. Since 2013, Chinese courts have been following the peoplecentered principle, actively implementing national Internet Power Strategy, and Big Data Strategy and the Internet Plus initiative, and exploring a broad spectrum of new approaches, fields, and models of integrating Internet technologies into trial procedures and the judicial system. Until now, online frameworks for Diversified Dispute Resolution and litigation service have taken shape, judicial rules and policies on cyberspace governance have been established, the cyberspace has become well regulated and in order, the national governance system and governance capability have been modernized accordingly.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)和產(chǎn)業(yè)的新發(fā)展、新應(yīng)用，也為國(guó)家治理和司法審判 工作帶來(lái)新挑戰(zhàn)、新機(jī)遇?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)領(lǐng)域發(fā)展不平衡、規(guī)則不健全、秩 序不合理等問(wèn)題日益凸顯，廣大人民群眾、企業(yè)和社會(huì)組織對(duì)推進(jìn) 信息惠民、促進(jìn)司法便民、保障社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展方面的需求日益迫切。 2013 年以來(lái)，中國(guó)法院始終踐行以人民為中心的發(fā)展思想，積極推動(dòng) 實(shí)施網(wǎng)絡(luò)強(qiáng)國(guó)戰(zhàn)略、國(guó)家大數(shù)據(jù)戰(zhàn)略、“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+”行動(dòng)，探索推動(dòng)審 判方式、訴訟制度與互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)深度融合的新路徑、新領(lǐng)域、新模式， 網(wǎng)絡(luò)多元解紛和訴訟服務(wù)體系框架初步搭建，網(wǎng)絡(luò)治理的司法裁判規(guī) 則逐步完善，網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間日漸清朗有序，有力促進(jìn)了國(guó)家治理體系和治 理能力現(xiàn)代化。
I. Overall Development of Internet Judiciary
一、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法的總體發(fā)展
Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the Supreme People’s Court of China (SPC), benefiting from the scale advantages and the achievements of the Internet industry, has incorporated the Online Judiciary development into the overall strategic plan for deepening the judicial reform and implementing overall progress in different fields, and at different levels step by step. With the deepening of the reform, the application scenarios of information technologies in the judiciary have gradually expanded. The platforms become multi-functional, and the litigation mode transformed into an integrated and intelligent mode. The law-based cyberspace governance has been promoted constantly, achieving a historical shift from technical innovation to mechanism reformation and from procedural improvements to the distillation of substantive rules. Application fields have extended from judicial openness to whole judicial activities. Chinese courts take judicial openness as the kickoff project for the application of Internet technologies in the judiciary. Since 2013, Chinese courts have been striving for and have accomplished the construction of four official websites, i.e. China Judicial Process Information Online, China Judgment Online, China Trial Live Broadcast, and China Executive Information Online, to promote judicial openness and transparency. To satisfy diverse needs for justice, Chinese courts continually experiment with the Internet judicial practice, such as in Diversified Dispute Resolution, litigation service, trial, and enforcement etc. A litigation service system connecting online and offline litigation service system has been built. A model of One-Stop online dispute resolution service, including mediation, case-filing, fee-payment, hearings, and e-delivery, has been developed, which covers the whole online process in courts’ judicial activities.
黨的十八大以來(lái)，最高人民法院依托互聯(lián)網(wǎng)發(fā)展的規(guī)模優(yōu)勢(shì)、應(yīng)用優(yōu)勢(shì)和產(chǎn)業(yè)優(yōu)勢(shì)，將推動(dòng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法發(fā)展納入深化司法體制改革的 整體規(guī)劃，分領(lǐng)域、分步驟、分層次統(tǒng)籌推進(jìn)。隨著改革不斷深入，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域不斷擴(kuò)展，網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)日趨豐富多元，訴訟模式向 網(wǎng)絡(luò)化、智能化演進(jìn)。網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間法治建設(shè)不斷健全完善，實(shí)現(xiàn)了從技術(shù)運(yùn)用到機(jī)制變革，從訴訟程序完善到實(shí)體規(guī)則治理的歷史性發(fā)展。 應(yīng)用領(lǐng)域由司法公開向全流程全方位拓展。中國(guó)法院將司法公開 作為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)在司法領(lǐng)域應(yīng)用的重要切入點(diǎn)。自2013 年以來(lái)，中國(guó) 法院積極推進(jìn)審判流程、庭審公開、裁判文書、執(zhí)行信息等四大平臺(tái) 建設(shè)，先后建立中國(guó)審判流程信息公開網(wǎng)、中國(guó)裁判文書網(wǎng)、中國(guó)庭 審公開網(wǎng)、中國(guó)執(zhí)行信息公開網(wǎng)，不斷促進(jìn)司法公開透明。為進(jìn)一步 滿足人民群眾多元司法需求，中國(guó)法院不斷推動(dòng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法實(shí)踐向多 元解紛、訴訟服務(wù)、審判執(zhí)行等領(lǐng)域延伸，建立線上線下相結(jié)合的訴 訟服務(wù)體系，打造網(wǎng)上調(diào)解、網(wǎng)上立案、網(wǎng)上繳費(fèi)、網(wǎng)上開庭、電子 送達(dá)等一體化、一站式在線解紛模式，逐步實(shí)現(xiàn)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法全流程、 全方位覆蓋。
One-dimension platforms have transformed into multi-functional systems. The Internet technology infrastructure has dramatically improved since official websites and intranets started to be developed for the judiciary’s activities. Now internal and external networks, mobile networks, and office automation platforms covering all courts across the country have gradually developed and functioned well. In 2016, Smart Court Construction became part of the National Development Strategy (NDS). Since then, the level of digitalization in the judiciary has advanced at a fantastic speed. By June 2019, the Smart Court System had taken shape, offering whole-process transparent and intelligent online services to the public in accordance with the law. The internal judicial work systems and external litigation service systems are interconnected. The service carriers have expanded from PCs only to all smart mobile devices. A shared big-data platform connects government agencies, industry organizations, legal firms, and Internet companies.
平臺(tái)載體由單一維度向多元化系統(tǒng)化延伸?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)司法平臺(tái)建設(shè)從官方網(wǎng)站、內(nèi)網(wǎng)辦公系統(tǒng)起步，逐步建成覆蓋全國(guó)法院的內(nèi)外專網(wǎng)、 移動(dòng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)和辦案平臺(tái)，信息化基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施建設(shè)日益完備。2016年，“智慧 法院”建設(shè)被納入國(guó)家整體發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略，司法信息化水平全面提升。截至2019 年6 月，全業(yè)務(wù)網(wǎng)上辦理、全流程依法公開、全方位智能服務(wù) 的“智慧法院”體系已基本建成，不僅實(shí)現(xiàn)內(nèi)網(wǎng)審判業(yè)務(wù)與外網(wǎng)訴訟 服務(wù)系統(tǒng)互聯(lián)互通，服務(wù)平臺(tái)也從電腦擴(kuò)展至移動(dòng)終端，與政府機(jī)關(guān)、行業(yè)組織、律師事務(wù)所和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)聯(lián)通的大數(shù)據(jù)共享平臺(tái)初具規(guī)模。
Litigation model has shifted from linear and isolated into integrated, open, and intelligent. With the assistance of Internet technologies, judicial activities have profoundly shifted from the classic pattern into an online-and- offline integration pattern. Compared with the past, all the participants of court proceedings can benefit from the convenience and flexibility provided by the all-weather, multi-scenes, and interactive litigation system. Chinese courts have endeavored to conduct the process of judicial activities online. The routine work used to be operated manually, and the judicial practice across the whole nation’s court system was scattered. Now an open-access, sharing, and intelligent integrated model and approach have been set up for courts nationwide. By introducing new technologies like big data, cloud computing, blockchain and artificial intelligence, the application of modules such as voice recognition in hearings, digitalized evidence presentation, automatic document verification, and simultaneous generation of e-files, intelligence-assisted case handling, and case management are all included in the toolkits for the judiciary.
訴訟模式由線性封閉向集成開放智能轉(zhuǎn)變。在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)支持下，司法活動(dòng)和訴訟方式從時(shí)間線單一、場(chǎng)景封閉、參與方固定的傳統(tǒng)模式，逐步轉(zhuǎn)向時(shí)間線開放、場(chǎng)景靈活、多方參與交互的線上線下融合 新模式。各地法院大力推動(dòng)各項(xiàng)訴訟活動(dòng)在線完成，通過(guò)庭審語(yǔ)音識(shí)別、電子證據(jù)展示、文書自動(dòng)糾錯(cuò)、電子卷宗隨案生成、智能輔助辦案、審判流程管理等模塊化應(yīng)用，借助大數(shù)據(jù)、云計(jì)算、區(qū)塊鏈、人工智能等新技術(shù)，逐步將個(gè)體分散的司法實(shí)踐和經(jīng)驗(yàn)，深度集成整合為開放、共享、智能的綜合運(yùn)用模式。
The main focus has shifted from the application innovation to lawbased governance of the Internet. In the early stages, the focus of the Internet Judiciary was utilizing online litigation mechanisms, strengthening the application of technologies, and enhancing people’s access to justice via keeping pace with trends of technologies. As the Internet industry deeply integrated with economic and social development, Chinese courts improve Internet judicial governance in an all-round manner by following the latest innovation in time. The official establishment of the Internet courts is the opening for a new era, which provides an opportunity for the judiciary to extract and to summarize the judicial rules from new Internet-related cases through its administration.
工作重心由機(jī)制創(chuàng)新向推動(dòng)依法治網(wǎng)演進(jìn)?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)司法發(fā)展起步階段，工作重點(diǎn)是緊跟技術(shù)發(fā)展趨勢(shì)，探索在線訴訟機(jī)制，強(qiáng)化技術(shù)應(yīng)用，促進(jìn)司法便民利民。隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)業(yè)與經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)發(fā)展深度融合，中國(guó)法院準(zhǔn)確把握時(shí)代脈搏，以設(shè)立互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院為契機(jī)，通過(guò)審理新類型互聯(lián)網(wǎng)案件，不斷提煉總結(jié)裁判規(guī)則，全面提升互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法治理能力。
II. Strengthening the Judicial Specialization for the Internet
二、推進(jìn)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)專業(yè)化審判機(jī)構(gòu)建設(shè)
Echoing the development of the Internet era, courts nationwide have innovated the “Internet plus judiciary” mechanism according to local conditions. In April 2015, the High People’s Court of Zhejiang Province initiated online e-commerce tribunals in the courts within its jurisdiction, concentrating on handling cases on online monetary claims, copyright infringements, transaction disputes, and so forth. Based on the experiences from the pilot mentioned above, Hangzhou Internet Court was officially established on August 18th, 2017. Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court were successively established on September 9 and September 28, 2018. The three Internet courts have set up eight specialized divisions in total. All of the first assigned 84 judges are equipped with more than ten years of professional experience, and each concludes more than 700 cases per year.
為適應(yīng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代發(fā)展需要，各地法院因地制宜，推動(dòng)“互聯(lián)網(wǎng) +司法”審判機(jī)制創(chuàng)新。2015 年4 月，浙江省高級(jí)人民法院率先在轄區(qū)法院開展電子商務(wù)網(wǎng)上法庭試點(diǎn)，集中審理網(wǎng)絡(luò)支付糾紛、網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)糾紛、網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易糾紛等案件。在充分總結(jié)試點(diǎn)經(jīng)驗(yàn)基礎(chǔ)上，2017年8月18日，杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院正式成立。2018 年9月9日、9月28日，北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院、廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院先后成立。三家互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院共設(shè)置8 個(gè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)專業(yè)審判庭，配備84 名法官，法官平均從事審判工作年限10 年以上，年人均結(jié)案700 件以上。
Internet courts, designed as primary courts with designated jurisdiction over Internet-related cases, have implemented the new trial mechanism following the approach of “Online Disputes Tried Online”. The centralized jurisdiction covers 11 types of internet-related cases, including contracts for financial loans, goods purchase, services, and online disputes about torts, such as copyright infringements. A series of experiences have been accumulated and become the benchmark in the fields of online case handling, online platform developments, litigation guidelines and rules, technology application, Internet governance, etc.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院作為集中管轄互聯(lián)網(wǎng)案件的基層人民法院，主要實(shí)行“網(wǎng)上案件網(wǎng)上審理”的新型審理機(jī)制，集中管轄所在市轄區(qū)內(nèi)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)金融借款合同糾紛、網(wǎng)絡(luò)購(gòu)物合同糾紛、網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)合同糾紛、網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)糾紛、網(wǎng)絡(luò)著作權(quán)糾紛等十一類互聯(lián)網(wǎng)案件，在案件審理、平臺(tái)建設(shè)、訴訟規(guī)則、技術(shù)運(yùn)用、網(wǎng)絡(luò)治理等方面，形成了一批可復(fù)制可推廣的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。
As of October 31, 2019, Hangzhou Internet Court, Beijing Internet Court, and Guangzhou Internet Court had accepted 118,764 Internet-related cases and concluded 88,401. The rate of online filing (the lawsuits filed via the Internet) was 96.8%, and 80,819 cases concluded were proceeded online throughout the whole process. Compared with the case handling before, on average, it took 45 minutes in an online hearing and 38 days to conclude a case, which respectively saved time by about 3/5 and 1/2. Up to 98% of the parties accepted first-instance judgments and ceased further appeals. It indicates that the judicial quality, efficiency, and effect of Internet courts in a widely recognized condition. Subjected to local practices and conditions, several courts across China set up specialized divisions or units for Internet-related case, to explore an innovative and specialized judicature system for the Internet. More specialized judicature tribunals and units throughout national courts have been established, leading to a better judiciary with more expertise in the Internet-related cases. For example, Internet tribunals were set up in Changning Primary People’s Court of Shanghai, Binhai New District People’s Court of Tianjin, Shenzhen Futian Primary People’s Court of Guangdong Province, Wuhan Jiangxia Primary People’s Court of Hubei Province, Chengdu Pidu Primary People’s Court of Sichuan Province etc. Some other courts formed specialized collegiate panels or units for Internet cases, such as Zhenjiang Economic and Technological Development Zone People’s Court of Jiangsu Province, Ningbo Yuyao Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang Province, Xiamen Siming Primary People’s Court of Fujian Province ect.
截至2019 年10 月31 日，杭州、北京、廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院共受理互聯(lián)網(wǎng)案件118764 件，審結(jié)88401 件，在線立案申請(qǐng)率為96.8%，全流程在線審結(jié)80819 件，在線庭審平均用時(shí)45 分鐘，案件平均審理周期約38 天，比傳統(tǒng)審理模式分別節(jié)約時(shí)間約五分之三和二分之一，一審服判息訴率達(dá)98.0%，審判質(zhì)量、效率和效果呈現(xiàn)良好態(tài)勢(shì)。各地法院結(jié)合自身工作實(shí)際，積極組建互聯(lián)網(wǎng)審判機(jī)構(gòu)或辦案組織，大力探索創(chuàng)新新型互聯(lián)網(wǎng)審判機(jī)制。上海市長(zhǎng)寧區(qū)人民法院、天津市濱海新區(qū)人民法院、廣東省深圳市福田區(qū)人民法院、湖北省武漢市江夏區(qū)人民法院、四川省成都市郫都區(qū)人民法院等設(shè)立了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)審 判庭，江蘇省鎮(zhèn)江經(jīng)濟(jì)開發(fā)區(qū)人民法院、浙江省余姚市人民法院、福建省廈門市思明區(qū)人民法院、廣東省廣州市中級(jí)人民法院、貴州省黔南州惠水縣人民法院等組建了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)合議庭或?qū)徟袌F(tuán)隊(duì)，有力提升了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)審判專業(yè)化水平。
Based on the distinctive features of Internet disputes and the Internet industry within their jurisdiction, the newly-established specialized tribunals and panels integrate online and offline resources, explore various approaches and strategies, and enrich the legal practices of the Internet judiciary. Changning Primary People’s Court of Shanghai studied against the fact that in its jurisdiction, service-oriented Internet enterprise gathered, which leads to new types of Internet disputes emerging in the form of class lawsuits. The court also delivered 12 times legal risk’s alerts to Internet intermediaries after concluded the test case, which helped the intermediaries mediated other disputes in the shadow of the law and amended their platform protocols successfully. Shenzhen Futian Primary People’s Court of Guangdong Province set up Internet and Finance tribunal and “Jujingzhi (Whale Intelligent Platform)” to realize financial cases processed online; Since June 2017, cases accepted and concluded on the platform are 42,987 and 37,503, respectively. The adjudicature units doubled the number of annual concluded cases while cutting down the time consumption per trial to a half. The Internet tribunal in Chengdu Pidu Primary People’s Court of Sichuan Province, upon the judicial demands of local creative projects and industries, upgraded the measures for intellectual property protection, encouraging creative works and products to take advantage of authentic blockchain to preserve their copyrights in advance. Qian’nan Huishui Primary People’s Court of Guizhou Province established a specialized tribunal to hear cases across Qian’nan related to big data protection, online transaction and online torts, making most use of centralization and specialization of judicial resources.
各地互聯(lián)網(wǎng)審判庭和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)合議庭針對(duì)轄區(qū)內(nèi)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)糾紛和互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)業(yè)的不同特點(diǎn)，積極整合線上線下資源，探索具有地域特色的發(fā) 展途徑，不斷豐富互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法的實(shí)踐樣本。上海市長(zhǎng)寧區(qū)人民法院互 聯(lián)網(wǎng)審判庭針對(duì)轄區(qū)內(nèi)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)服務(wù)型企業(yè)眾多、糾紛批量化類型化等 特點(diǎn)，從個(gè)案審判出發(fā)，以司法建議的形式向互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)企業(yè)提出合 規(guī)警示，先后推動(dòng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)修改完善平臺(tái)管理和自治規(guī)則12 批次，有效推動(dòng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)糾紛訴源治理。廣東省深圳市福田區(qū)人民法院設(shè)立互 聯(lián)網(wǎng)和金融審判庭，建設(shè)“巨鯨智平臺(tái)”，推動(dòng)金融類案要素式、全 流程在線審理，不斷提升審判質(zhì)效；2017 年6 月以來(lái)，平臺(tái)受理案件 42987 件，結(jié)案37053 件，法官團(tuán)隊(duì)年均辦案量增長(zhǎng)兩倍以上，案件審 理周期縮短二分之一。四川省成都市郫都區(qū)人民法院互聯(lián)網(wǎng)審判庭針 對(duì)轄區(qū)內(nèi)文創(chuàng)園區(qū)和項(xiàng)目眾多的情況，加大對(duì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和創(chuàng)新保護(hù)力 度，上線司法區(qū)塊鏈平臺(tái)，推動(dòng)文創(chuàng)作品進(jìn)行鏈上新技術(shù)存證，解決 電子證據(jù)取證難、認(rèn)證率低的問(wèn)題。貴州省黔南州惠水縣人民法院設(shè) 立專門審判庭，跨區(qū)域集中管轄全州范圍內(nèi)涉及互聯(lián)網(wǎng)數(shù)據(jù)保護(hù)、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)交易和網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵權(quán)等案件，利用集中化、專業(yè)化審理優(yōu)勢(shì)公正高效 處理互聯(lián)網(wǎng)糾紛。
III. Promoting Access to and Benefits from Internet Judiciary for the People
三、創(chuàng)新互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法便民利民機(jī)制
In the information age, people’s judicial demands are increasingly diversified, and the public expects a more impartial, efficient, convenient, accurate, and transparent operation mode of the judiciary. Empowered by Internet technology, Chinese courts have improved litigation services and dispute resolution continuously. Access to justice has been greatly improved by fully implementation of Online Filing and Cross-regional Filing Mechanisms, as well as One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution and One-Stop Litigation Service, which enables litigants to participate at their convenience with lower costs.
信息化時(shí)代，人民群眾的司法需求日趨多元化，期待更加公正、高效、便捷、精準(zhǔn)、透明的司法運(yùn)行模式。中國(guó)法院以互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)為依托，不斷完善訴訟服務(wù)體系和糾紛化解機(jī)制。全面推行在線立案和跨域立案機(jī)制，健全一站式多元解紛平臺(tái)和一站式訴訟服務(wù)平臺(tái)，不斷提升訴訟便利程度，降低當(dāng)事人訴訟成本。
Constructing a One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution. Taking advantage of the openness, rapidness, and efficiency of the Internet, Chinese courts expand the dispute resolving channels, optimize dispute resolution methods, and establish a One-Stop Diversified Dispute Resolution step by step. This One-Stop system provides online access to court proceedings, converges complete tracks of dispute resolution, and successfully integrates online and offline services. The system provides parties with early assistance to balance the gains and costs of multiple dispute resolution, and supports their decision-making with accurately-matched solutions and wellconnected resolution tracks, including mediation, arbitration, and litigation.
構(gòu)建一站式多元解紛平臺(tái)。中國(guó)法院充分利用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)開放、快捷、 高效的特點(diǎn)，拓展糾紛化解渠道，優(yōu)化糾紛解決方式，逐步建立在線 流程全貫通、解紛業(yè)務(wù)全覆蓋、線上線下全融合的一站式多元化糾紛 解決平臺(tái)，支持糾紛當(dāng)事人根據(jù)糾紛性質(zhì)、解紛成本等理性權(quán)衡，為 當(dāng)事人精準(zhǔn)匹配解紛力量及方案，實(shí)現(xiàn)調(diào)解、仲裁、訴訟程序之間的 順暢轉(zhuǎn)換。
In October 2016, the SPC launched a unified online mediation platform covering mediation processes from acceptance, classification, resolution to feedback. The platform has multiple functions such as court-annexed mediation before and after filing, and application for court approval. By October 31, 2019, the SPC online mediation platform had assembled services of 2,679 courts, 21,379 professional mediation organizations, and 79,271 mediators, and resolved a total of 1,369,134 cases via mediation. Under the Diversified Dispute Resolution connected with Fast Track Trial mechanism launched by Beijing courts, 304,000 cases were referred to court-annexed mediation prior to commencement of litigation procedures in 2018. Out of those,178,000 cases were successfully concluded, accounting for 39.0% of the closed civil cases of the first instance in the same period. Chengdu Intermediate People’s Court of Sichuan Province has constructed a HeheZhijie (Harmonization and Intelligent Resolution) platform, which is interconnected to Chengdu Municipal Public Service TianfuShiminyun (Clouds Platform for Chengdu Citizens). This integrated platform provides litigants with online judicial services for assessing disputes, filing the mediation application, choosing a mediator, consulting pro bono service, smart Q&A and so on, which enables the litigants to conduct self-service over the boundaries of location and time. Guangzhou Internet Court’s DDR platform gathers 25 mediation organizations and 284 mediators from the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, with 22 professional mediators from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. Recently one online infringement of portrait rights with participants from Beijing, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Macao, and Singapore and other cross-border cases have been successfully concluded online.
2016 年10 月，最高人民法院?jiǎn)?dòng)統(tǒng)一在線調(diào)解平臺(tái)，推動(dòng) 覆蓋糾紛受理、分流、調(diào)解、反饋等流程，實(shí)現(xiàn)在線辦理當(dāng)事人訴前 調(diào)解、訴中和解和司法確認(rèn)等事項(xiàng)。截至2019 年10 月31 日，最高人 民法院在線調(diào)解平臺(tái)有2679 個(gè)法院入駐，在線匯集21379 個(gè)專業(yè)調(diào)解 組織和79271 名專業(yè)調(diào)解員，共調(diào)解案件1369134 件。北京法院2018 年通過(guò)“多元調(diào)解+ 速裁”方式導(dǎo)入訴前調(diào)解30.4 萬(wàn)件，多元調(diào)解成 功和速裁結(jié)案17.8 萬(wàn)件，占同期一審民事案件結(jié)案數(shù)的39.0%。四川 省成都市中級(jí)人民法院上線“和合智解”在線司法服務(wù)平臺(tái)，并與成 都市公共服務(wù)平臺(tái)“天府市民云”對(duì)接，為當(dāng)事人提供解紛指引、申 請(qǐng)調(diào)解、調(diào)解智庫(kù)選擇、訴訟咨詢、智能問(wèn)答等多項(xiàng)服務(wù)，實(shí)現(xiàn)全流程便捷操作,形成一體多元、集約全域的全天候普惠式訴訟服務(wù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)體系。廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院多元解紛平臺(tái)匯聚粵港澳大灣區(qū)25個(gè)調(diào)解機(jī)構(gòu)、284位調(diào)解員,其中港澳專業(yè)調(diào)解員22名,成功調(diào)處跨北京、廣州、新加坡、香港、澳門五地的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)肖像權(quán)侵權(quán)等案件。
Building a One-Stop Litigation Services. Relying on Internet technology, Chinese courts have promoted online filing, provided litigation services online and offline, standardized the procedures, and improved the quality of litigation service. Litigants and their representatives have access to 24-hour online self-service through the computer or mobile phone without leaving home or office, who can enjoy functions including online consultation, filing application, materials submission and fee payment, and remarkably saved time and costs for them. By December 31, 2018, 2,995 courts across the country had established official websites for litigation services, 1,623 courts had launched litigation service mobile applications, and 2,813 courts had set up 12368 hotline services. Beijing courts launched the Online Filing System to provide full-coverage online filing services for the parties and their representatives to resort to anytime and anywhere, which includes online reservation, Wechat reservation and other services. During the one-year pilot period, 100,361 cases were filed online, accounting for 14.2% of all cases filed at Beijing courts. In response to nearly 10,000 frequently-asked procedural questions accumulated over the years, Shanghai courts sorted out such issues following the procedural laws, has produced FabaoZhicha, a Q&A database containing 2,300 prepared answers. Multiple resources and links such as official websites, litigation service robots and WeChat official accounts are provided, to satisfy parties’ diversified needs throughout the litigation. The litigation service platform of Nanjing courts in Jiangsu Province has established 5 channels to provide accurate, timely litigation information and services designed for needs from litigants, lawyers, prosecutors, people’s assessors, and the public. At the same time, based on the data analysis of mediation outcomes and relevant judgments, parties are guided to adopt the appropriate approach to resolve disputes.
打造一站式訴訟服務(wù)平臺(tái)。中國(guó)法院依托互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù),大力推進(jìn)在線立案,健全線上線下一體化訴訟服務(wù)渠道,規(guī)范訴訟服務(wù)流程,提升訴訟服務(wù)質(zhì)量。當(dāng)事人通過(guò)電腦或手機(jī)客戶端,足不出戶即可享受24小時(shí)在線自助服務(wù),實(shí)現(xiàn)在線咨詢立案、提交材料、交納費(fèi)用,大大節(jié)約了時(shí)間和經(jīng)濟(jì)成本。截至2018年12月31日,全國(guó)2995個(gè)法院開通訴訟服務(wù)網(wǎng),1623個(gè)法院上線訴訟服務(wù)應(yīng)用程序,2813個(gè)法院設(shè)立12368服務(wù)熱線。北京法院推出“立體化線上立案系統(tǒng)”,為當(dāng)事人及其代理人提供全天候、零距離、全方位在線立案服務(wù),包括網(wǎng)上預(yù)約立案、微信預(yù)約立案等主要業(yè)務(wù);系統(tǒng)試運(yùn)行一年期間,共在線立案100361件,占全市法院案件的14.2上海法院針對(duì)歷年訴訟服務(wù)中積累的近萬(wàn)個(gè)常見程序性問(wèn)題,根據(jù)訴訟法梳理后,收錄形成了關(guān)于訴訟程序2300個(gè)常見問(wèn)答的“法寶智查”知識(shí)庫(kù),以訴訟服務(wù)機(jī)器人、微信公眾號(hào)等方式,多端口多渠道向公眾開放,滿足當(dāng)事人多元訴訟需求。江蘇南京法院訴訟服務(wù)平臺(tái)開通五大通道,為當(dāng)事人、律師、檢察官、人民陪審員、社會(huì)公眾提供精準(zhǔn)、及時(shí)的訴訟信息和服務(wù),同時(shí)依據(jù)對(duì)調(diào)解及裁判結(jié)果的大數(shù)據(jù)分析,引導(dǎo)當(dāng)事人適時(shí)選擇合適的糾紛解決途徑和方案。
Exploring a new mode of cross-regional filing service. Chinese courts actively promote online filing and explore the cross-regional case-filing service. Litigants and their representatives could choose to file a case in any court nearby. The recipient court, via the inter-court platform, is able to transfer the filing application to the court with jurisdiction, and the court in charge could process filing and acceptance of cases online. The crossregional mode enables the litigation services to transcend limits of time and space, dramatically reduces the litigation costs, reshapes the case filing and acceptance mode, and creates a new method of cross-regional, crosscourt, and cross-level services. In January 2015, Quanzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Fujian Province took the lead in introducing the crossregional mode and realized the acceptance of filing applications across the city. Such an approach was gradually promoted nationwide. In 2018, more than 120,000 cases were successfully filed cross-regionally all over the country. From January to June 2019, online filing and cross-regional filing services have fully implemented within Zhejiang province, with 100% of the courts providing such services. A total of 253,000 civil cases had been filed online, accounting for 59.7% out of the total. In August 2019, courts in Beijing-Shanghai-Guangzhou, the Yangtze River Delta, and the Beijing- Tianjin-Hebei region have implemented cross-regional and cross-level filing services. Filings can be processed across courts from different regions and levels, which cut off the costs and expenses of litigants at most.
探索實(shí)行跨域立案新模式。中國(guó)法院積極推進(jìn)“互聯(lián)網(wǎng)+立案”，探索實(shí)行跨域立案機(jī)制。當(dāng)事人及其代理人可以選擇就近的法院提交立案申請(qǐng)，通過(guò)法院之間信息系統(tǒng)的數(shù)據(jù)聯(lián)通流轉(zhuǎn)，提交到有管轄權(quán)的法院，在線完成案件受理工作?？缬蛄笝C(jī)制打破時(shí)空限制，極大降低了當(dāng)事人訴訟成本，重塑了法院立案模式，開創(chuàng)了跨地域、跨法院、跨層級(jí)的訴訟服務(wù)新格局。2015年1月，福建省泉州市中級(jí)人民法院首創(chuàng)推出跨域立案機(jī)制，在全市范圍內(nèi)實(shí)現(xiàn)異地受理立案申請(qǐng)，隨后跨域立案模式逐步在全國(guó)法院推廣。2018年，全國(guó)法院跨域立案超過(guò)12萬(wàn)件。2019年1月至6月，浙江法院網(wǎng)上立案和跨域立案已實(shí)現(xiàn)省內(nèi)全面暢通，網(wǎng)上立案開通率達(dá)100%，全省法院民事案件網(wǎng)上立案數(shù)為25.3萬(wàn)件，網(wǎng)上立案率達(dá)59.7%。2019年8月，北上廣、長(zhǎng)三角、京津冀地區(qū)法院之間已實(shí)現(xiàn)省市區(qū)三級(jí)法院跨域立案，跨區(qū)域遠(yuǎn)程辦理、跨層級(jí)聯(lián)動(dòng)辦理，最大限度地便利當(dāng)事人。
Promoting the use of “Mobile Court” application. Acknowledging the prevalence of mobile phones and WeChat application in the Internet era, Chinese courts have built and promoted the “Mobile Court” litigation service platform, a well-structured WeChat Mini Program. Upon the employment of facial recognition, remote audio and video system, e-signature and other technologies, litigants, and judges can easily use mobile phones to conduct online litigation activities such as filing, service, hearing, evidence exchange, mediation, and so forth. Back in October 2017, Ningbo Yuyao Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang Province initiated the “Mobile Court” platform. In January 2018, a similar platform was launched by the Ningbo Intermediate People’s Court in Zhejiang Province, which subsequently adopted on the provincial scale in October of the same year. In March 2019, the SPC distilled the success achieved by Zhejiang courts and decided to expand the “Mobile Court” pilot scheme into12 provinces, including Beijing. As of October 31, 2019, the number of registered litigants in Mobile Courts amounted to 1.16 million and registered lawyers 73,200. These registered users had completed a total of 3.14 million litigation activities on this platform.
推廣“移動(dòng)微法院”訴訟平臺(tái)運(yùn)用。針對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代手機(jī)和微信廣泛普及應(yīng)用新趨勢(shì)，中國(guó)法院大力建設(shè)推廣以微信小程序?yàn)橐劳械摹耙苿?dòng)微法院”電子訴訟平臺(tái)，利用人臉識(shí)別、遠(yuǎn)程音視頻、電子簽名等技術(shù)，用手機(jī)登錄移動(dòng)端在線完成立案、送達(dá)、開庭、證據(jù)交換、調(diào)解等訴訟活動(dòng)，實(shí)現(xiàn)當(dāng)事人指尖訴訟、法官掌上辦案。2017年10月，浙江省余姚市人民法院率先上線“移動(dòng)微法院”訴訟平臺(tái)。2018年1月，浙江省寧波市中級(jí)人民法院開通“寧波移動(dòng)微法院”，并于同年10月向浙江全省法院推廣。2019年3月，最高人民法院在總結(jié)浙江法院實(shí)踐經(jīng)驗(yàn)的基礎(chǔ)上，推動(dòng)在北京等12個(gè)省區(qū)市轄區(qū)內(nèi)法院全面試點(diǎn)，截至2019年10月31日，移動(dòng)微法院注冊(cè)當(dāng)事人已達(dá)116萬(wàn)人，注冊(cè)律師73200人，在線開展訴訟活動(dòng)達(dá)314萬(wàn)件。
Improving online services for the legal profession. On December 30, 2015, the SPC officially established an online platform for lawyers, which aims to effectively protect lawyers’ right to practice and to maximize supports and conveniences for lawyers to perform their duties following the law. Services provided on this online platform include but not limited to case filing, access to case files, case status inquiry, rescheduling due to time clashes, contact with judges, and e-service of legal documents. A pilot scheme was launched by Shanghai courts back to 2011. At the start, the Shanghai scheme provided only basic information of courts, and it has gradually expanded to 26 services of five fundamental categories, covering virtually all services that lawyers may demand from courts. By June 30, 2019, the Shanghai scheme had provided services to lawyers nationwide and received 4.41 million visits. Xiamen courts of Fujian province connect its lawyer service platform with the lawyer information and management system of the Municipal Bureau of Justice. The connected platform is open to more than 160 law firms in Xiamen. It enables lawyers to file cases, submit materials, check case status and access to case files online, and effectively strengthens communications among lawyers, judges, and the authority of judicial administration.
完善律師執(zhí)業(yè)在線服務(wù)機(jī)制。2015年12月30日,最高人民法院正式開通律師服務(wù)平臺(tái),為律師提供網(wǎng)上立案、網(wǎng)上閱卷、案件進(jìn)程查詢、庭審排期避讓、聯(lián)系法官、電子送達(dá)等多項(xiàng)訴訟服務(wù),切實(shí)保障律師執(zhí)業(yè)權(quán)利,為律師依法履職提供最大支持和便利。上海法院自2011年開始建設(shè)在線律師服務(wù)平臺(tái),訴訟服務(wù)項(xiàng)目從僅限于法院基本信息公開逐步擴(kuò)大至5大項(xiàng)26小項(xiàng),覆蓋律師執(zhí)業(yè)各個(gè)領(lǐng)域。截至2019年6月30日,上海律師服務(wù)平臺(tái)已面向全國(guó)律師開放,累計(jì)使用達(dá)441.4萬(wàn)人次。福建廈門法院的律師服務(wù)平臺(tái)與司法局律師綜合管理系統(tǒng)無(wú)縫對(duì)接,面向廈門市160多家律師事務(wù)所開放,有效搭建律師、法官和司法行政機(jī)關(guān)之間的聯(lián)系交流通道。
Comprehensively furthering the judicial openness. Since 2013, the SPC has invested in the construction of four open online platforms for publication of information regarding judicial process, court hearings, court decisions, and enforcement proceedings. With details on all court-related proceedings virtually available online, people’s rights to know, to participate, and to supervise are well safeguarded. As of October 31, 2019, more than 1.1 billion case status information of no less than 22 million cases had disclosed on China Judicial Process Information Online. The court hearing of 5.5 million cases had been broadcasted live on China Court’s Live Trial website, attracting more than 20 billion views. China Judgment Online has published 80 million court decisions and attracted over 37 billion visits from more than 210 countries and regions, which makes the website the world’s largest judicial information database. China Enforcement Information Online presents consumption restriction orders in announcement against 6.13 million discredited judgment debtors, 10.06 million cases successfully enforced or legally terminated, and had earned more than 220million visits. As of October 31, 2019, a total of 3,585 courts had started to run official Weibo accounts, and the total number of followers amounted to 81.30 million. Among them, the SPC’s official Weibo account is subscribed by over 17.50 million users and had published more than 20 thousand posts. Another of 1.51 million users subscribed to the SPC’s official account on WeChat, where 14,000 pieces of information were posted. The scope, profundity, and dimension of judicial openness in Chinese courts have expanded continuously. The disclosure of judicial information is furthered in timely and substantive manner, which effectively promotes authority and accountability of the judiciary.
全面深化司法信息公開。2013年以來(lái)，最高人民法院以互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)為載體，全面推進(jìn)審判流程、庭審活動(dòng)、裁判文書和執(zhí)行信息四大公開平臺(tái)建設(shè)，覆蓋審判執(zhí)行全部環(huán)節(jié)，及時(shí)、有效、充分地保障人民群眾知情權(quán)、參與權(quán)、監(jiān)督權(quán)。截至2019年10月31日，中國(guó)審判流程信息公開網(wǎng)公開案件超過(guò)2200萬(wàn)件，公開案件信息超過(guò)11億條，電子送達(dá)訴訟文書超過(guò)5萬(wàn)件；中國(guó)庭審公開網(wǎng)直播庭審550萬(wàn)件，點(diǎn)擊率超過(guò)200億次；中國(guó)裁判文書網(wǎng)公開各類裁判文書8030萬(wàn)份，網(wǎng)站訪問(wèn)量突破370億次，訪客覆蓋210多個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)，建成全世界最大的司法公開數(shù)據(jù)信息資源庫(kù)；中國(guó)執(zhí)行信息公開網(wǎng)正處于公布中的限制消費(fèi)信息613萬(wàn)人次，公開終結(jié)本次執(zhí)行案件1006萬(wàn)件，訪問(wèn)量超過(guò)2.2億人次。截至2019年10月31日，全國(guó)法院入駐新浪微博賬戶3585個(gè)，粉絲總數(shù)達(dá)8130萬(wàn)人；其中最高人民法院官方微博粉絲總數(shù)超過(guò)1750萬(wàn)人，累計(jì)發(fā)布微博超過(guò)2萬(wàn)條；最高人民法院微信公眾號(hào)發(fā)布1.4萬(wàn)期圖文信息，訂閱用戶達(dá)151萬(wàn)人。中國(guó)法院司法公開的廣度、深度、維度不斷拓展，司法信息的及時(shí)公開、充分公開，有效推動(dòng)了以公開促公正、樹公信。
IV. Perfecting Online Litigation Procedures for Internet Judiciary
四、完善互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法在線訴訟機(jī)制
The rapid development of Internet technology has brought unprecedented opportunities and challenges to the law and the judicial system. Online litigation has become an inevitable trend of judicial development. Adhering to the latest developments and social needs, Chinese courts strive to promote the online litigation device and to perfect the rules of online litigation. By deeply applying new technologies such as big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and so forth, Chinese courts revolutionary reshape litigation processes and judicial operation in the Internet era.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)技術(shù)飛速發(fā)展，給傳統(tǒng)司法運(yùn)行機(jī)制帶來(lái)前所未有的機(jī)遇和挑戰(zhàn)，在線訴訟成為司法發(fā)展的必然趨勢(shì)。中國(guó)法院緊扣時(shí)代脈搏和現(xiàn)實(shí)需求，大力推進(jìn)在線訴訟機(jī)制建設(shè)，完善在線訴訟規(guī)則，深度應(yīng)用大數(shù)據(jù)、云計(jì)算、人工智能、區(qū)塊鏈等新興技術(shù)，推動(dòng)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代訴訟流程和司法模式實(shí)現(xiàn)革命性重塑。
Exploring the whole-process online trial mechanism. Based on the pilot project of Internet Courts Reform, Chinese courts make great efforts to explore a new judicial mechanism of “online trial for online disputes”. As a result, all litigation procedures such as case filing and acceptance, court referred mediation, proofing, evidence examination and challenge, hearing, judgment announcement, and enforcement could be conducted online. Compared with traditional approach, Beijing Internet Court recorded 100% online submission of litigants’ filing applications, 90.3% online payment of litigation fees and costs, and 98.7% online hearing. The average duration of court hearings was reduced to 52 minutes. 96.8% of judicial documents are serviced in electronic forms. Hangzhou Internet Court, taking into consideration the “time difference” of litigation caused by the litigants’ being at work or on business trip or going abroad, explored the approach of “asynchronous trial” which allows the litigants and their representatives to log in at different times and places to participate in mediation, cross-examination and other litigation activities. A total of 2,495 cases were successfully concluded through this system, saving 6 hours in traveling for litigants each case on average. Guangzhou Internet Court has creatively launched an online test trial scheme for contract disputes of similar or class lawsuits. One case is selected from the same class as a test case to be scheduled for the hearing. In order to promote resolutions of similar disputes, parties of those cases are invited to audit the hearing online. Statics reveal a strong demonstration effect that, among parties audited the hearing, 37% has resorted to voluntary performance and proactive reconciliation.
探索全流程在線審理機(jī)制。中國(guó)法院依托互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院改革試點(diǎn)，大力探索“網(wǎng)上糾紛網(wǎng)上審理”司法新模式，推動(dòng)實(shí)現(xiàn)案件起訴、立案、調(diào)解、舉證、質(zhì)證、庭審、宣判、執(zhí)行等訴訟環(huán)節(jié)全部在線完成。北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院實(shí)現(xiàn)當(dāng)事人立案申請(qǐng)?jiān)诰€提交率100%，訴訟費(fèi)用在線交納率90.3%，在線庭審率98.7%，平均庭審時(shí)長(zhǎng)52分鐘，裁判文書電子送達(dá)率96.8%。杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院針對(duì)當(dāng)事人因上班、出差、出國(guó)等原因產(chǎn)生的訴訟“時(shí)間差”問(wèn)題，探索“異步審理”模式，允許當(dāng)事人不同時(shí)、不同地、不同步登錄平臺(tái)參與調(diào)解、質(zhì)證等訴訟活動(dòng)，“異步審理”結(jié)案2495件，平均每案節(jié)約當(dāng)事人在途時(shí)間約6小時(shí)。廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院創(chuàng)造性推出“在線示范性庭審”，針對(duì)同類型合同糾紛，選定一起案件作為先導(dǎo)案件排期開庭，并通知同類型案件當(dāng)事人在線旁聽庭審，以個(gè)案示范審理促進(jìn)類案糾紛化解；目前該院受邀旁聽庭審的其他案件當(dāng)事人，在庭后自動(dòng)履行和主動(dòng)和解率達(dá)37%，有效實(shí)現(xiàn)“審理一件、化解一片”的示范作用。
Improving the rules of online litigation procedures. In September 2018, the SPC issued Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts, which established the original jurisdiction of and the appellate jurisdiction over the Internet courts, and clarified the procedural rules for online litigation such as identity authentication, case filing, responding, proofing, hearing, service, signature and archiving, advancing the development of the online litigation system. In light of judicial practices, Internet courts in Beijing, Hangzhou and Guangzhou have made efforts to refine the online litigation protocols. A series of procedural directions, litigation guidelines, trial instructions and documents alike have been promulgated to regulate online filing and hearing, court disciplines and e-service, so as to ensure that online litigation is open, orderly, interactive and solemn, and procedural rights of the litigants fully protected.
完善在線訴訟程序規(guī)則。2018年9月，最高人民法院印發(fā)《關(guān)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院審理案件若干問(wèn)題的規(guī)定》，確定了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院案件管轄范圍和上訴機(jī)制，明確了身份認(rèn)證、立案、應(yīng)訴、舉證、庭審、送達(dá)、簽名、歸檔等在線訴訟規(guī)則，有力推動(dòng)電子訴訟制度機(jī)制發(fā)展完善。北京、杭州、廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院立足審判工作實(shí)際，細(xì)化在線訴訟操作規(guī)范，針對(duì)網(wǎng)上立案、在線庭審、法庭紀(jì)律、電子送達(dá)等方面，制定出臺(tái)審理規(guī)程、訴訟指引、審判指南等文件，確保在線訴訟開放有序、交互充分、莊嚴(yán)規(guī)范，有效保障當(dāng)事人合法訴訟權(quán)利。
Innovating online preservation and authentication of e-evidence. Aiming at tackling the difficulties in the e-evidence collection, preservation and authentication, Chinese courts explored to apply the blockchain technology in combination with big data and cloud storage in the judicial process. Distinctive features of the blockchain such as traceability, postaudit, data-tampering prevention, and high security are utilized so that the credibility and authenticity of e-evidence has been improved significantly. As of October 31, 2019, courts in 22 provinces (municipalities) including Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Jilin, Shandong, Shaanxi, Henan, Zhejiang, Guangdong, and Hubei had interconnected with national e-evidence platform underpinned by blockchain, which is widely linked to 27 sites including National Time Service Center, Diversified Dispute Resolution platforms, notary offices, and forensic sciences centers. 194 million pieces of e-evidence have been preserved on the platform, supporting for evidence authentication and examination in future hearings. The TianpingLian (Libra Chain) e-evidence platform built by Beijing Internet Court was incorporated into the first blockchain units filed at the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC). The platform has access to 18 blockchain nodes, realizing data docking of 9 categories and 25 application nodes, including copyright and Internet finance. The number of online evidence collection has exceeded 4.72 million, and the record of cross-chain evidence preservation has reached 10 million. Hangzhou Internet Court examined and admitted the electronic evidence provided by plaintiff in Huatai v. Daotong, which facts of infringement were preserved on the third-party platform in the form of blockchain. The court for the first time provided an approach for the review of electronic evidence stored by the blockchain. Guangzhou Internet Court, joint by more than 50 local institutions including judicial administration authorities, telecommunication operators, and Internet enterprises, built an intelligent credit ecosystem named WangtongFalian(Law Network Chain). Since March 30, 2019, more than 5.45 million pieces of evidence have been preserved therein.
創(chuàng)新電子證據(jù)在線存證方式。針對(duì)在線訴訟中電子證據(jù)取證難、存證難、認(rèn)證難的問(wèn)題，中國(guó)法院積極探索“區(qū)塊鏈+司法”模式，以大數(shù)據(jù)、云存儲(chǔ)和區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)為基礎(chǔ)，利用區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)防偽造、防篡改的優(yōu)勢(shì)，大幅提高電子證據(jù)的可信度和真實(shí)性。截至2019年10月31日，全國(guó)已完成北京、上海、天津、吉林、山東、陜西、河南、浙江、廣東、湖北等?。ㄊ校┑?2家法院及國(guó)家授時(shí)中心、多元糾紛調(diào)解平臺(tái)、公證處、司法鑒定中心的27個(gè)節(jié)點(diǎn)建設(shè)，共完成超過(guò)1.94億條數(shù)據(jù)上鏈存證固證，支持鏈上取證核驗(yàn)。北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院建設(shè)“天平鏈”電子證據(jù)平臺(tái)，被納入中央網(wǎng)絡(luò)安全和信息化委員會(huì)辦公室首批備案的區(qū)塊鏈單位，完成跨鏈接入?yún)^(qū)塊鏈節(jié)點(diǎn)18個(gè)，實(shí)現(xiàn)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)金融、著作權(quán)等9類25個(gè)應(yīng)用節(jié)點(diǎn)數(shù)據(jù)對(duì)接，在線采集證據(jù)數(shù)超過(guò)472萬(wàn)條，跨鏈存證數(shù)據(jù)達(dá)1000萬(wàn)條。杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在杭州華泰公司與深圳道同公司侵害作品信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)一案中，對(duì)通過(guò)第三方平臺(tái)對(duì)侵權(quán)事實(shí)形成的區(qū)塊鏈存證記錄予以審核確認(rèn)，肯定了區(qū)塊鏈電子存證的效力。廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院會(huì)同當(dāng)?shù)厮痉ㄐ姓C(jī)關(guān)、電信運(yùn)營(yíng)商、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)等50余個(gè)單位，共建“網(wǎng)通法鏈”智慧信用生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，自2019年3月30日上線以來(lái)，在線存證數(shù)據(jù)超過(guò)545萬(wàn)條。
Improving the online document service mechanism. Chinese courts have widened the channels of e-service and optimized service methods to realize the transformation of litigation document services. In 2018, the SPC developed a unified online document service platform for courts nationwide. The platform is now being piloted in selected courts. Through this platform, litigation materials and documents can be served to litigants and legal representatives via e-mail, SMS, instant messaging applications, and alike. A column specialized for e-service has been launched on the website China Judicial Process Information Online. Litigation participants using their ID number and a unique signature code can log in to the platform to check document service information and sign for e-documents online. Courts around China have made great efforts in building specialized e-service platforms, expanding the application of e-service, and advancing the e-service to a more standard and intensified stage. As of October 31, 2019, three Internet courts had served 96,857 documents through telephone, e-mail, WeChat, SMS, and official online accounts. By establishing a centralized provincial service center, Jiangxi courts unified the process, standards, and assessment mechanism of judicial documents service. All services are carried out under the unified litigation service hotline number 12368. By June 30, 2019, 77.4% out of 564,292 people served by Jiangxi courts were completed in electronic methods, including 47.7% recipients via WeChat application. The average time for service has decreased to 0.9 day, accounting for only 1/11 of the time by mail. Jiaxing Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province builds an intelligent service platform sustained by big data technology, which collects litigants address information with mobile phone numbers, active addresses of civil activities, addresses registered with governmental agencies and successful service records in courts included. The platform is able to intelligently filter addresses collected, automatically generate documents to be served, and trigger service processes.
完善在線文書送達(dá)機(jī)制。中國(guó)法院大力完善電子送達(dá)機(jī)制,拓寬電子送達(dá)渠道,優(yōu)化電子送達(dá)方式,推動(dòng)送達(dá)模式重構(gòu)2018年,最高人民法院開發(fā)上線全國(guó)法院統(tǒng)一送達(dá)平臺(tái),目前已在部分地方法院試點(diǎn)運(yùn)行,通過(guò)該平臺(tái)可以向當(dāng)事人及訴訟代理人的電子郵箱、手機(jī)號(hào)碼、即時(shí)通訊賬號(hào)等電子地址送達(dá)訴論材料及文書。中國(guó)審判流程信息公開網(wǎng)設(shè)置電子送達(dá)專欄,訴訟參與人可以通過(guò)證件號(hào)和唯一簽名碼,登錄該平臺(tái)獲取法院送達(dá)信息,在線簽收電子文書。各地法院大力建設(shè)專門電子送達(dá)平臺(tái),加大電子送達(dá)適用力度,促進(jìn)電子送達(dá)規(guī)范化、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化、集約化。截至2019年10月31日,三家互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院通過(guò)電話、郵箱、微信、短信、公眾號(hào)等在線送達(dá)文書96857次。江西法院建立全省法院集約送達(dá)中心,統(tǒng)一送達(dá)流程、服務(wù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和評(píng)估機(jī)制,以統(tǒng)一的12368號(hào)碼對(duì)外開展送達(dá),截至2019年6月30日全省法院累計(jì)送達(dá)564292人,電子送達(dá)成功率達(dá)77.4%,47.7%的電子送達(dá)由微信簽收，平均用時(shí)0.9天，較郵寄送達(dá)快11倍。浙江省嘉興市中級(jí)人民法院利用大數(shù)據(jù)信息技術(shù)建設(shè)智能化送達(dá)平臺(tái)，匯集當(dāng)事人手機(jī)號(hào)、民事活動(dòng)活躍地址、行政部門登記地址和法院成功送達(dá)記錄等地址信息，由平臺(tái)智能篩選送達(dá)地址、自動(dòng)生成送達(dá)文書，觸發(fā)送達(dá)任務(wù)。
Promoting the electronic mechanism of property investigation, seizure, and disposal. In 2014, the SPC established the “Zong Dui Zong(General to General)”system, a national inter-departmental network for assets investigation and seizure, which assembles credit information shared by 16 authorities such as the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the People’s Bank of China, the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and more than 3,900 financial institutions. “Zong Dui Zong” allows the court, in accordance with the law, access to records of the judgment debtor’s real estate, deposits, financial investments, ships, vehicles, securities, online assets, and alike nationwide. With full coverage of main property forms and records, this system fundamentally transforms the traditional, outdated offline enforcement mode and effectively clears the stumbling blocks such as low efficiency, limited coverage, and high human resource costs. To improve the efficiency, transparency, and credibility of property disposal, the SPC, in cooperation with significant Internet platforms, adopts big data methods to appraise the property and push ahead with the online auction scheme. Since the implementation of an online auction scheme nationwide on January 1, 2017, the take-up rate and price premium of property disposal have doubled, and the rate of failed auctions, the price reduction rate, as well as the auction cost, have decreased significantly. In the meanwhile, none complaint about the violation of disciplines and laws during auctions has been petitioned. From the launching of this online auction system to October 31, 2019, more than 3,300 courts have entirely moved their judicial auctions online. Over 1.59 million online judicial auctions have been conducted nationwide, with 436 thousand succeeding and turnover of 938.7 billion yuan. The take-up rate arrived at 66.8%, with an 89.8% price premium on average, saving 29.1 billion yuan in commission fees for parties concerned.
推進(jìn)執(zhí)行財(cái)產(chǎn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)查控處置機(jī)制建設(shè)。2014年，最高人民法院建立“總對(duì)總”網(wǎng)絡(luò)查控系統(tǒng)，陸續(xù)與公安部、交通部、民政部、中國(guó)人民銀行、中國(guó)銀行保險(xiǎn)監(jiān)督管理委員會(huì)等16家單位和3900多家銀行業(yè)金融機(jī)構(gòu)建設(shè)信息共享機(jī)制，可以依法查詢被執(zhí)行人在全國(guó)范圍內(nèi)的不動(dòng)產(chǎn)、存款、金融理財(cái)產(chǎn)品、船舶、車輛、證券、網(wǎng)絡(luò)資金等16類25項(xiàng)信息，全面覆蓋被執(zhí)行人主要財(cái)產(chǎn)形式和信息，從根本上改變了傳統(tǒng)線下執(zhí)行模式，有效破解執(zhí)行效率低、覆蓋財(cái)產(chǎn)范圍窄、查控人力成本高等難題。為提高執(zhí)行財(cái)產(chǎn)處置效率、透明度和公信力，最高人民法院與主要互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)合作，通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)大數(shù)據(jù)詢價(jià)方式對(duì)涉案財(cái)產(chǎn)進(jìn)行估價(jià)，并大力推進(jìn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣。自2017年1月1日全國(guó)法院實(shí)行網(wǎng)絡(luò)拍賣起，財(cái)產(chǎn)處置成交率、溢價(jià)率成倍增長(zhǎng)，流拍率、降價(jià)率、拍賣成本明顯下降，拍賣環(huán)節(jié)違紀(jì)違法“零投訴”。自網(wǎng)絡(luò)拍賣系統(tǒng)上線至2019年10月31日，全面實(shí)行網(wǎng)絡(luò)拍賣的法院超過(guò)3300家，全國(guó)網(wǎng)絡(luò)司法拍賣超過(guò)159萬(wàn)次，成交43.6萬(wàn)件，成交額9387億元，標(biāo)的物成交率66.8%，溢價(jià)率89.8%，為當(dāng)事人節(jié)約傭金291億元。
V. Improving the Intelligent Application Scenarios in the Judicial System
五、健全互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法智能化應(yīng)用機(jī)制
Chinese courts have seized the opportunity in the era of artificial intelligence to construct the system of “Smart Court”, comprehensively promoting the in-depth utilization of intelligent technologies in the judiciary. This innovation has provided with intelligent assistance and decision-making references for case trials, trial supervision, judicial administration, and social governance. The routine operation in the judiciary has been empowered by more smart assistance than merely networked, advancing the modernization of the judicial system and capacities.
中國(guó)法院緊緊抓住人工智能蓬勃發(fā)展的時(shí)代機(jī)遇，大力建設(shè)智慧法院，全面推進(jìn)智能技術(shù)在司法工作中的深度應(yīng)用，為案件審理、審判監(jiān)督、司法管理、社會(huì)治理提供全方位智能輔助和決策參考，推動(dòng)司法運(yùn)行從網(wǎng)絡(luò)化向智能化迭代升級(jí)，促進(jìn)審判體系和審判能力現(xiàn)代化。
Establishing the simultaneous generation system of digital case files. The digitization of case files is the foundation and prerequisite of “Smart Court”. Since 2016, the SPC has been attaching great importance to promote the simultaneous generation and in-depth application of digitized files. As of October 31, 2019, 3,363 Chinese courts had built up the digitized files simultaneous generation system, applied in 67% cases. Paper-free has been realized throughout the whole process in judicial activities in some courts. Based on the application of digitized files simultaneous generation system, Kunshan Primary People’s Court of Jiangsu Province has implemented a paper-free case handling process, called “Qiandeng Model”. It has included the functions of pre-filing documents scanning and quick indexing and cataloguing, and simultaneous files transfer along with the procedure proceeding, centralized property preservation, and service, one-click file archiving, the whole-process monitoring, and tracking. Consequently, case handling, litigation service, and case management have become more automated and smarter. Due to the paper-free case handling process, the cases concluded per person monthly amount to 41, which rises by 16.5% year-on-year, while the quantity of long-term pending cases has declined by 18.2%.
建立電子卷宗隨案同步生成機(jī)制。卷宗電子化是智能化審判的基礎(chǔ)和前提。2016年，最高人民法院開始在全國(guó)法院部署推廣電子卷宗隨案同步生成和深度應(yīng)用工作。截至2019年10月31日，全國(guó)3363個(gè)法院建設(shè)電子卷宗隨案生成系統(tǒng)，全國(guó)67%的案件隨案生成電子卷宗并流轉(zhuǎn)應(yīng)用，部分地方法院已基本實(shí)現(xiàn)全流程無(wú)紙化辦案。江蘇省昆山市人民法院在電子卷宗同步生成的基礎(chǔ)上，全面推行全流程無(wú)紙化辦案的“千燈模式”，實(shí)行立案掃描前置、快速標(biāo)注編目、卷宗同步流轉(zhuǎn)、集中保全送達(dá)、一鍵精準(zhǔn)歸檔，動(dòng)態(tài)監(jiān)管、全程跟蹤，實(shí)現(xiàn)案件辦理、訴訟服務(wù)和司法管理的自動(dòng)化、智能化。在無(wú)紙化辦案模式下，該院人均月結(jié)案41件，同比上升16.5%，長(zhǎng)期未結(jié)案件同比下降18.2%。
Promoting a comprehensive and smart assistant system for case handling. Chinese courts have been developing various smart assistant platforms for case handling and administrative works. Smart functions developed under circumstance, such as risk management in case-filing, the identification of case-complexity, text recognition of digitized files, voiceto- text transcription, smart case-element profiling, automatic monitor of misconducts in court hearings, accurate recommendation of related laws and similar cases for reference, automatic generation and correction of judicial documents, warnings of decision-making risk deviation have been applied at various levels, facilitating court decisions with higher quality and efficiency. The SPC has initiated the Faxin(Global China Law) Platform for legal information and resources such as laws and regulations, judicial documents, cases, and academic research and studies, providing judges with smart search and recommendation services. By October 31, 2019, the number of registered users of the Faxin Platform had reached 937 thousand with 16.49 million visits and 141 million page views. The High People’s Court of Beijing has established an intelligent case identification system. By applying the “algorithm and manual identification” mechanism, fast-track cases under 93 causes of action from 11 default and 9 optional case classifications can be identified. Since 2018, the case identification of 150 thousand cases has conducted by this system. The integrated smart court system of Suzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province stands out with advanced applications of digitized case files, voice recognition, and intelligent services throughout the whole litigation process. The goal of paper-free has been achieved by such system integrating functions of simultaneous generation of digitized case files, documents transfer via smart drop boxes, voice-to-text transcription for the court hearing, voice-command navigation of e-evidence, and one-click generation of judgments of simple cases. The workload of judges’ administrative affairs has decreased by about 40%, while clerks’ has nearly reduced by 50%.
推進(jìn)全方位智能化輔助辦案機(jī)制。中國(guó)法院積極開發(fā)各類智能化辦案輔助平臺(tái),不同程度實(shí)現(xiàn)了立案風(fēng)險(xiǎn)主動(dòng)攔截、案件繁簡(jiǎn)甄別分流、電子卷宗文字識(shí)別、語(yǔ)音識(shí)別轉(zhuǎn)錄、案件智能畫像、庭審自動(dòng)巡查、法條及類案精準(zhǔn)推送、文書自動(dòng)生成、文書瑕疵糾錯(cuò)、裁判風(fēng)險(xiǎn)偏離度預(yù)警等智能輔助功能,促進(jìn)審判質(zhì)效大幅提升。最高人民法院牽頭建設(shè)“法信”平臺(tái),匯聚法律法規(guī)、司法文件、案例、學(xué)術(shù)成果等法律知識(shí)資源,為法官辦案提供全面、便捷的智能檢索、智推服務(wù)截至2019年10月31日,法信平臺(tái)注冊(cè)用戶數(shù)達(dá)到93.7萬(wàn)人,訪問(wèn)量達(dá)1649萬(wàn)，瀏覽量達(dá)1.41億。北京市高級(jí)人民法院建設(shè)智能分案系統(tǒng)，運(yùn)用“系統(tǒng)算法+人工識(shí)別”機(jī)制，對(duì)11類通用型案件和9類自選案件共93個(gè)案由進(jìn)行繁簡(jiǎn)分流，2018年以來(lái)，該系統(tǒng)已甄別分流案件15萬(wàn)余件。江蘇省蘇州市中級(jí)人民法院建設(shè)以“電子卷宗+全景語(yǔ)音+智能服務(wù)”為核心內(nèi)容，覆蓋審判全流程的智慧審判系統(tǒng)，集成電子卷宗隨案生成、材料云流轉(zhuǎn)、庭審語(yǔ)音轉(zhuǎn)寫、電子質(zhì)證隨講隨翻、簡(jiǎn)易判決一鍵生成等功能，實(shí)現(xiàn)審判活動(dòng)無(wú)紙化，法官事務(wù)性工作分離約40%，書記員事務(wù)性工作減少約50%。
Enhancing the smart supervision and management of judicial operations. Chinese courts have been improving the case management system by developing various intelligent methods. These platforms function the identification of public-concerned cases, tracking of key cases and profiling of negative features, and mark misconduct measures, forming a smart, automatic, least interference but accurate management mechanism. The SPC founded the enforcement management platform to manage the enforcement units of courts nationwide. The platform provides a real-time monitoring of case-handling, judicial cooperation between courts, petitions and complaints, and online opinions based on data from the enforcement and trial systems of courts across the country. The High People’s Court of Hebei Province has developed the supervision and management platform for critical cases, formulated unified supervision rules, and established a case-feature identification database. The platform has functions including automatic big-data analysis, case-feature tagging, real-time alerts, whole process recording to ensure that the case management operates orderly, standardized, and in accordance with the law. Taizhou Intermediate People’s Court of Zhejiang Province has developed the risk management system for judicial integrity of courts. Within the system, 60 risk indicators of 7 categories have been set, which can evaluate risks arising from trial, enforcement and administration activities, using a red, yellow, and blue alert labels. By April 2019, a total of 248 alerts had been triggered and effectively strengthened judicial integrity by reducing the risks of judicial misconduct.
加強(qiáng)司法運(yùn)行智能化監(jiān)督管理。中國(guó)法院積極應(yīng)用智能化手段完善監(jiān)督管理機(jī)制，開發(fā)應(yīng)用各類智能化、自動(dòng)化、靜默化監(jiān)督管理平臺(tái)，推動(dòng)實(shí)現(xiàn)敏感案件自動(dòng)標(biāo)識(shí)、重點(diǎn)案件自動(dòng)追蹤、負(fù)面畫像自動(dòng)生成，監(jiān)管行為全程留痕。最高人民法院建立執(zhí)行指揮管理平臺(tái)，以全國(guó)法院執(zhí)行辦案等系統(tǒng)的數(shù)據(jù)為基礎(chǔ)，通過(guò)對(duì)案件辦理、事項(xiàng)委托、申訴信訪、網(wǎng)絡(luò)輿情的實(shí)時(shí)監(jiān)控和督辦，實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)全國(guó)法院執(zhí)行工作的監(jiān)督管理。河北省高級(jí)人民法院創(chuàng)新研發(fā)“重點(diǎn)案件監(jiān)督管理平臺(tái)”，制定統(tǒng)一規(guī)范的監(jiān)管規(guī)則，建立案件特征識(shí)別庫(kù)，并以此為基礎(chǔ)實(shí)現(xiàn)大數(shù)據(jù)自動(dòng)分析、系統(tǒng)自動(dòng)標(biāo)記、平臺(tái)實(shí)時(shí)提示、全程在線記錄等，確保審判監(jiān)督管理依法有序、規(guī)范到位。浙江省臺(tái)州市中級(jí)人民法院研究開發(fā)“臺(tái)州法院清廉司法風(fēng)險(xiǎn)防控系統(tǒng)”，設(shè)置7大類60個(gè)審判、執(zhí)行和綜合風(fēng)險(xiǎn)點(diǎn)指標(biāo)和紅黃藍(lán)三色風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)警提示，截至2019年4月，共計(jì)觸發(fā)248個(gè)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)節(jié)點(diǎn)監(jiān)控，實(shí)現(xiàn)司法廉政風(fēng)險(xiǎn)有效防控。
Improving the management and application of judicial big data. Courts through China have attached great importance to the development of data sharing and integrated application of big data in judicial activities. With the scientific, objective, and accurate analysis concerning the trial and enforcement trend based on the development, courts’ decision making is offered with better reference, which enhances the accuracy and effectiveness of the judicial decision-making and judicial governance. In July 2014, the SPC officially launched the big data management and service platform of the people’s court (China Justice Big Data Service Platform). It is capable of collecting real-time data of trials and enforcement, judicial administration, and researches from 3,507 courts across the country, automatically updating every five minutes. By October 31, 2019, the platform had collected 193 million cases’ data. More than 700 thematic analysis reports had been conducted, 38 of which had been released to the public. The center of judicial big data established by the High People’s Court of Fujian Province, has advanced the judicial governance of courts across the province, by providing with tools of lawsuits trend analyses, case-handling quality and efficiency monitoring, connection-between cases search, special-category-data analyses and so forth. Thus, the center has offered valuable references for strengthening collective management of case handling, optimizing resource allocation, and bringing solutions for outstanding problems. Chongqing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court has constructed a highly integrated, intelligent, and visualized data management center with the function of real-time automatic data generation. All data is updated every 30 seconds. Information about case analyses, case-handling quality and efficiency monitoring, and trend analyses can be produced and delivered automatically to the presidents of courts and the heads of divisions for references.
提升司法大數(shù)據(jù)管理和應(yīng)用水平。中國(guó)法院大力推進(jìn)司法大數(shù)據(jù)建設(shè)，利用大數(shù)據(jù)平臺(tái)深度分析審判執(zhí)行工作態(tài)勢(shì)，為科學(xué)決策提供參考，提升審判工作和司法治理的精準(zhǔn)性、有效性。2014年7月，最高人民法院正式上線人民法院大數(shù)據(jù)管理和服務(wù)平臺(tái)，可以實(shí)時(shí)收集全國(guó)3507個(gè)法院的審判執(zhí)行、人事政務(wù)、研究信息等數(shù)據(jù)，每5分鐘自動(dòng)更新一次，截至2019年10月31日，已匯集全國(guó)法院1.93億條案件數(shù)據(jù)，已經(jīng)累計(jì)完成700余項(xiàng)專題分析報(bào)告，并向社會(huì)公開發(fā)布38份專題報(bào)告。福建省高級(jí)人民法院建設(shè)司法大數(shù)據(jù)中心，為全省法院提供運(yùn)行態(tài)勢(shì)分析、質(zhì)效指標(biāo)檢測(cè)、案件關(guān)聯(lián)檢索、主題數(shù)據(jù)分析等服務(wù)，有力促進(jìn)審判資源合理調(diào)配，推動(dòng)審判質(zhì)效全面提升。重慶市第二中級(jí)人民法院建成數(shù)據(jù)實(shí)時(shí)自動(dòng)生成的高集成度、高智能化、可視化信息管理中心，所有數(shù)據(jù)以每30秒流動(dòng)刷新方式實(shí)時(shí)更新，兩級(jí)法院案件分析、審判質(zhì)效、動(dòng)態(tài)趨勢(shì)等信息自動(dòng)生成發(fā)送，為院庭長(zhǎng)審判管理決策提供參考。
VI. Improving Governance over the Internet through Collaboration and Coordination
六、深化互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法協(xié)同治理機(jī)制
Chinese courts have made use of the decentralized, interactive, and fast Internet to speed up the development of an inter-departmental, multi-tiered, smoothly-connected, and all-dimensional judicial collaboration in critical areas. The courts have made efforts to accelerate judicial information exchange, optimize the online case handling mechanism, and the integrated resolution model of disputes, which benefits the creations of a new interconnected and collaborative governance mode among different sectors in cyberspace.
中國(guó)法院充分利用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)去中心化、交互式、快捷性優(yōu)勢(shì)，在部分重點(diǎn)領(lǐng)域加快建設(shè)跨部門、多層次、無(wú)縫隙、全方位在線司法協(xié)作體系，推動(dòng)暢通司法信息交流渠道、優(yōu)化在線辦案機(jī)制和糾紛一體化解決模式，打造網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間多部門聯(lián)動(dòng)、協(xié)同治理新格局。
Exploring online cooperative mechanisms for dealing with criminal cases. In order to advance the trial-centered reform of criminal procedure and to prevent wrongful convictions, Chinese courts explore the application of big data to optimize the handling of criminal cases. Online cooperative mechanisms shared with other judicial authorities have been established. Shanghai courts have developed an inter-departmental supporting IT system for criminal trials, which unifies the evidence rules and ensured criminal procedural activities conducted by the police and the procuratorates to be visible, traceable, and monitorable. This system equips Shanghai courts with cutting-edge technologies such as image recognition, natural language processing, evidence identification and auto-display, and automatic extraction of key case information.
探索刑事案件在線協(xié)作辦理機(jī)制。為推進(jìn)以審判為中心的刑事訴訟制度改革，防范冤假錯(cuò)案，中國(guó)法院探索運(yùn)用大數(shù)據(jù)手段規(guī)范刑事案件辦理，推進(jìn)公檢法司協(xié)同辦案機(jī)制。上海法院積極開發(fā)刑事案件審判輔助系統(tǒng)，制定統(tǒng)一適用的證據(jù)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、證據(jù)規(guī)則指引，運(yùn)用圖文識(shí)別、自然語(yǔ)言理解、證據(jù)識(shí)別展示、案件要素自動(dòng)提取等技術(shù)，確保刑事案件辦理過(guò)程從偵查到起訴全程可視、全程留痕、全程監(jiān)督。
By June 30, 2019, it had grown into an integrated platform keeping records of all procedural activities under common criminal offenses to which relevant authorities have proportionate clearance in Shanghai. A total of 24,873 cases have been registered in this system by the police, 8,811 arrests approved and 7,442 prosecutions brought up by the procuratorate, 4,812 cases accepted and 3,483 cases concluded by the court. The High People’s Court of Guizhou Province has also established a data-sharing platform with the public security department and the procuratorates, with five types of criminal offenses, namely the intentional homicide, intentional injury, robbery, theft and drug crimes processed on this platform. The High People’s Court of Hubei Province has established a collaborate working platform for penalty reduction and parole with the People’s Procuratorate of Hubei and the Bureau of Prisons Administration of Hubei. With functions such as real-time data transmission and information sharing, this system enables Hubei courts to conduct remote hearings and to process penalty reduction and parole cases entirely online. From March 2018 to June 30 2019, Hubei courts transmitted files of 95,924 cases via this online system, processed 8,335 cases of penalty reduction and parole, and concluded 8,186 cases.
截至2019年6月30日，上海市常見刑事罪名案件辦理已實(shí)現(xiàn)從立案、偵查、報(bào)捕、起訴、審判均可在刑事辦案系統(tǒng)內(nèi)運(yùn)行，公安機(jī)關(guān)累計(jì)登記案件24873件，檢察院批準(zhǔn)逮捕8811件，審查起訴7442件，法院立案4812件，審結(jié)3438件。貴州省高級(jí)人民法院積極推動(dòng)跨部門大數(shù)據(jù)辦案平臺(tái)建設(shè)，針對(duì)實(shí)踐中多發(fā)的故意殺人、故意傷害、搶劫、盜竊、毒品等五類案件，聯(lián)合公安、檢察和司法機(jī)關(guān)，搭建數(shù)據(jù)信息互聯(lián)共享平臺(tái)。湖北省高級(jí)人民法院會(huì)同省人民檢察院、省監(jiān)獄管理局，共同建立全省“減刑假釋辦案工作平臺(tái)”，實(shí)現(xiàn)業(yè)務(wù)協(xié)同辦理、流程全面覆蓋、數(shù)據(jù)即時(shí)傳輸、信息互通共享，全省法院、檢察院、監(jiān)獄三方可遠(yuǎn)程在線庭審，實(shí)現(xiàn)減刑、假釋案件全流程線上辦理。2018年3月至2019年6月30日，湖北法院在線流轉(zhuǎn)案件卷宗材料95924份，辦理減刑、假釋類案件8335件，審結(jié)8186件。
Promoting an integrated mechanism to resolve traffic accident disputes. The number of traffic disputes has been rising owing to the increase in vehicle possessions. The dispute resolution mechanism, which involves multiple departments, was gradually perceived to be lengthy and tedious. In 2013, Hangzhou Yuhang Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang province has initiated an online integrated data processing platform to deal with traffic accident disputes. Yuhang Court, via this platform, has access to all the data shared by related agencies such as the traffic police, judicial administration, and social security, appraisal institutions, and commercial insurance companies. By introducing meditation, Yuhang Court ensures that these cases are dealt with more effectively and transparently, and the compensation settled more quickly. In November 2017, the SPC with the Ministry of Public Security, the Ministry of Justice, and China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission experimented with an online resolution scheme of traffic disputes in Beijing and the other 13 different provinces. The One-Stop scheme assembles post-accident services, including damage assessment, liability ascertainment, appraisal, mediation, litigation, and compensation. By October 31, 2019, under this scheme 125,616 traffic disputes have been concluded nationwide, that is 83.2% of 150,984 cases reached a satisfied mediation.
推進(jìn)道路交通糾紛一體化解決機(jī)制。隨著機(jī)動(dòng)車數(shù)量持續(xù)增加，中國(guó)道路交通糾紛日益增多，傳統(tǒng)糾紛解決模式涉及部門機(jī)構(gòu)繁多，存在處置時(shí)間長(zhǎng)、流程繁瑣等問(wèn)題。2013年，浙江省杭州市余杭區(qū)人民法院率先開展道路交通事故糾紛“網(wǎng)上數(shù)據(jù)一體化處理”綜合改革試點(diǎn)，通過(guò)數(shù)據(jù)共享，實(shí)現(xiàn)法院與公安交警、司法行政、人力社保、鑒定機(jī)構(gòu)、保險(xiǎn)公司等多機(jī)構(gòu)聯(lián)動(dòng)，引入調(diào)解資源，案件處理高效透明、快處快賠。2017年11月，最高人民法院與公安部、司法部、中國(guó)銀保監(jiān)會(huì)聯(lián)合決定在北京等14個(gè)省市區(qū)開展試點(diǎn)，推行道路交通事故糾紛網(wǎng)上數(shù)據(jù)一體化處理，實(shí)現(xiàn)交通事故發(fā)生后定損、定責(zé)、鑒定、調(diào)解、訴訟、理賠一站式服務(wù)。截至2019年10月31日，全國(guó)道路交通事故損害賠償一體化平臺(tái)已完成調(diào)解150984件，成功調(diào)解各類糾紛125616件，調(diào)解成功率為83.2%。
Promoting the digitalization of bankruptcy proceedings. By introducing more market-oriented, law-based, digitalized, and specialized approaches into bankruptcy proceedings, Chinese courts have functioned more significantly in supply-side structural reform. In August 2016, the SPC set up a national information platform, National Enterprise Bankruptcy Information Disclosure Platform, for both liquidation and reorganization cases, given the circumstances that bankruptcy cases involve a large number of creditors, complicated legal relations and significant social impacts. Judges, bankruptcy administrators, and lawyers share this platform and are able to proceed with bankruptcy procedures online. Relevant information is disclosed timely and proportionately, while creditors, debtors, market investors and other stake holders can participate online. By October 31, 2019, 53,641 bankrupt cases had been disclosed on this website involving 504,013 creditors and defaulted debts worth 903 billion yuan. A total of 312 online meetings of creditors had been convened, and debtors’ assets valued 297.8 billion yuan disposed of. Utilization of this new platform effectively optimizes the free distribution and reallocation of capital, technology, assets, and other essential factors for economy. Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province presided over the bankruptcy proceedings of Jade Cargo International Airlines Co., Ltd in November 2017, introduced online auction to dispose of assets. With foreign capital attracted and the competition intensified, three Boeing 747 airplanes were sold with a 49% price premium, effectively alleviating creditors’ losses. In March 2019, the Court extended the online auction model to the cross-border context. Entrusted by a Hong Kong bankruptcy trustee, five Hong Kong vehicle licenses with distinctive registration marks were online auctioned by Shenzhen Court. It is the first case within China to dispose of bankruptcy assets upon cross-jurisdiction cooperation.
推動(dòng)破產(chǎn)審判信息化建設(shè)。為充分服務(wù)和保障供給側(cè)結(jié)構(gòu)性改革，中國(guó)法院大力加強(qiáng)破產(chǎn)工作市場(chǎng)化、法治化、信息化和專業(yè)化建設(shè)。針對(duì)破產(chǎn)案件涉及債權(quán)人眾多、法律關(guān)系和社會(huì)關(guān)系復(fù)雜的客觀情況，2016年8月，最高人民法院開通全國(guó)企業(yè)破產(chǎn)重整案件信息平臺(tái)，法官、破產(chǎn)管理人、律師共享工作平臺(tái)，在線辦理破產(chǎn)案件，分級(jí)披露發(fā)布信息，債權(quán)人、債務(wù)人企業(yè)、市場(chǎng)投資者、其他利害關(guān)系人均可在線參與破產(chǎn)進(jìn)程。截至2019年10月31日，通過(guò)全國(guó)企業(yè)破產(chǎn)重整案件信息網(wǎng)公開破產(chǎn)案件53641件，網(wǎng)上召開債權(quán)人會(huì)議312次，涉及債權(quán)人504013人次、破產(chǎn)債權(quán)9030億元，處置破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)2978億元，有效促進(jìn)資本、技術(shù)、資產(chǎn)等要素的自由流動(dòng)和再配置。深圳市中級(jí)人民法院2017年11月在線平臺(tái)公開拍賣翡翠航空公司破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)，成功吸引外國(guó)資本參與競(jìng)拍，3架波音747飛機(jī)溢價(jià)49%處置，最大限度保障債權(quán)人權(quán)益。2019年3月，該院通過(guò)在線平臺(tái)協(xié)助香港破產(chǎn)管理人適用內(nèi)地破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)網(wǎng)拍模式，在線處置5個(gè)香港特殊車牌號(hào)，首次實(shí)現(xiàn)跨境協(xié)作處置破產(chǎn)財(cái)產(chǎn)。
Assisting the construction of the national social credit system. Chinese courts have improved the mechanism of credit management, warning, and reward and punishment for discredited judgment debtors. The establishment of the discredited judgment debtor blacklist and the judicial credit reporting system sufficiently strengthen the protection for interests of both creditors and debtors and contributes to the development of China’s social credit system. Since 2016, the SPC in alliance with 60 authorities, including the National Development and Reform Commission, and entities set up the social credit management network underlain by multiple departments, sectors, and enforcing measures. Owing to this network, discredited judgment debtors would receive restrictions in the application for public office, traveling at high costs, purchasing houses, making an investment, and participating in tender and bid. Almost 40% discredited judgment debtors of all voluntarily fulfill their obligation specified by court judgments. By October 31, 2019, case information of 5.61 million discredited judgment debtors are in the process of disclosure. Guangzhou Internet Court created the report of judicial credit to promote social credit online. Subject to consent from litigants, positive judicial credit information of these litigants can be sent to market supervision authority, financial institutions, and credit agencies. As to the discredited litigants, related discredit records would be taken into account by the Court when imposing penalties such as consumption restrictions, online disclosure, enlisted as discredited judgment debtors.
助力社會(huì)信用體系建設(shè)。中國(guó)法院大力完善失信被執(zhí)行人信用監(jiān)督、警示和獎(jiǎng)懲機(jī)制，建立失信被執(zhí)行人名單制度和司法信用報(bào)告制度，充分保障債權(quán)人、債務(wù)人合法權(quán)益，推動(dòng)形成“失信者寸步難行，守信者暢行無(wú)阻”的社會(huì)信用評(píng)價(jià)體系。2016年以來(lái)，最高人民法院與國(guó)家發(fā)改委等60家單位和機(jī)構(gòu)合作，對(duì)失信被執(zhí)行人擔(dān)任公職、出行、購(gòu)房、投資、招投標(biāo)等進(jìn)行限制，聯(lián)合構(gòu)建信用懲戒網(wǎng)絡(luò)，形成多部門、多行業(yè)、多手段共同發(fā)力的信用懲戒體系。近40%失信被執(zhí)行人在信用懲戒壓力下自動(dòng)履行義務(wù)。截至2019年10月31日，全國(guó)法院正處于發(fā)布中的失信被執(zhí)行人達(dá)561萬(wàn)人次。廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院推出互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法信用報(bào)告，對(duì)于守法守信的當(dāng)事人，征得其同意后，向市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管、金融和征信機(jī)構(gòu)推送當(dāng)事人司法信用優(yōu)良評(píng)價(jià)信息；對(duì)于違法失信的當(dāng)事人，將相關(guān)評(píng)價(jià)信息作為個(gè)案執(zhí)行中采取限制消費(fèi)、網(wǎng)絡(luò)曝光、納入失信被執(zhí)行人名單等執(zhí)行措施的參考，推動(dòng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間誠(chéng)信建設(shè)。
VII. Forming Legal Rules Governing the Cyberspace
七、構(gòu)建互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法裁判規(guī)則體系
Internet-related disputes are characterized as newly emerged categories, wide ranges, cutting-edge technologies, and high complexity. To promote Internet judiciary, Chinese courts have explored the advantages of centralized jurisdiction, standardization of similar cases and specialization of trials, and tried a series of influential cases. Underlined by such, online transaction rules have been clarified, online activities held in order, and the scope of rights defined. Consequently, the legal system governing the Internet has been improved, and the rule of law in cyberspace has been furthered.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)糾紛具有類型新、領(lǐng)域廣、技術(shù)性強(qiáng)、復(fù)雜程度高等特點(diǎn)，中國(guó)法院大力推進(jìn)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法，利用管轄集中化、案件類型化、審理專業(yè)化的優(yōu)勢(shì)，審理了一批具有社會(huì)影響力的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)案件，不斷明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間交易規(guī)則、行為規(guī)范和權(quán)利邊界，完善互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法裁判規(guī)則體系，推進(jìn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間治理法治化。
Legal rules governing online transactions have been established. The information age is characterized by widespread Internet business activities and emerging new business models, while conventional transactions have also evolved with new modes and features. Chinese judiciary has clarified the courts inclination regarding online transactions and managed to facilitate compliance in business activities and to maintain an orderly online market.
有效確立網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易行為規(guī)則。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代在線商業(yè)活動(dòng)頻繁，新商業(yè)模式不斷涌現(xiàn)，傳統(tǒng)交易活動(dòng)在網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境中呈現(xiàn)出新樣態(tài)、新特點(diǎn)。中國(guó)法院通過(guò)典型案例不斷確立各類網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易活動(dòng)行為規(guī)則，引導(dǎo)網(wǎng)絡(luò)商業(yè)活動(dòng)規(guī)范化，維護(hù)良好的市場(chǎng)秩序。
In Yu Binhua v. Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co. Ltd., Guangzhou Internet Court opined that gratuities given to the streamers during live-streaming are gifts unless evidence demonstrates that the streamers are under clear and specific contractual obligations which provide otherwise. Shanghai Financial Court sorted out the rules in terms of the burden of risks and responsibilities in online debit card fraud cases. In XU v. China Merchants Bank, this court decided that the bank, unless being able to prove the existence of defaults on the cardholder side, shall take full responsibilities of the losses induced by such fraud.
廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在俞彬華訴華多公司等網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)合同糾紛案中，判定除非有證據(jù)證明網(wǎng)絡(luò)主播應(yīng)當(dāng)履行明確、具體的合同義務(wù)，否則用戶在網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播中的打賞行為通?？烧J(rèn)定為贈(zèng)與，完善了對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)活動(dòng)中贈(zèng)與行為的認(rèn)定。上海金融法院通過(guò)審理徐欣訴招商銀行儲(chǔ)蓄合同糾紛案，判定存在網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜刷的情況下，發(fā)卡行無(wú)證據(jù)證明持卡人自身存在違約行為的，發(fā)卡行就被盜刷的款項(xiàng)對(duì)持卡人承擔(dān)全部支付責(zé)任，明確了網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜刷后風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及責(zé)任的分擔(dān)。
Xiamen Siming Primary People’s Court of Fujian Province, in ZHANG v. Yetong Online Merchant, issued a judgment against the defendant who sold the online shop and regained the control of it by taking the advantages of the platforms biometric security system to reset the password. The defendant modified the bound mobile number and changed the default log-in methods. The defendant was held liable for breach of the contract and ordered to repay the claimant twice the money illegally transferred. Chengdu Wenjiang Primary People’s Court of Sichuan Province, in PENG v. LI, decided that transactions of brand-new goods with nonspecific counterparts on secondhand e-commerce platforms fall into the scope of consumer protection laws. Once the transaction constitutes fraud, the buyer is entitled to treble damages.
福建省廈門市思明區(qū)人民法院通過(guò)審理張勝源訴葉通網(wǎng)絡(luò)店鋪買賣合同案，認(rèn)定被告在出售網(wǎng)店后，通過(guò)平臺(tái)生物識(shí)別安全機(jī)制“找回密碼”，擅自修改店鋪賬戶綁定的手機(jī)號(hào)、登錄方式收回網(wǎng)店，轉(zhuǎn)移賬號(hào)內(nèi)資金，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任，雙倍返還轉(zhuǎn)讓費(fèi)用。四川省成都市溫江區(qū)人民法院通過(guò)審理彭湃與李華龍網(wǎng)絡(luò)購(gòu)物合同糾紛案，認(rèn)定通過(guò)個(gè)人閑置物品二手交易平臺(tái)，向不特定消費(fèi)者出售普通商品并獲利的行為，受消費(fèi)者權(quán)益保護(hù)法調(diào)整，構(gòu)成欺詐的，應(yīng)當(dāng)予以消費(fèi)者三倍賠償。
Legal responsibilities of online platforms have been clearly defined. Online platforms have become a market participant of ascending significance, and the scope of their rights and obligations need to be delimited. Through the following judgments, Chinese courts have clarified the duties imposed on online platforms and advanced the online ecosystem to the greater fairness, transparency, and predictability.
準(zhǔn)確判定網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)責(zé)任。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)日益成為重要的市場(chǎng)主體，平臺(tái)權(quán)利義務(wù)邊界亟待明確。中國(guó)法院通過(guò)司法裁判，清晰界定網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)責(zé)任，推動(dòng)網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)向用戶提供更加公平、透明、可預(yù)期的網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)和環(huán)境。
Beijing Internet Court ruled in Music Copyright Society v. Douyu that a webcast platform company, when enjoys the intellectual property rights and business interests of the webcast works of the streamer who has contracted with the company, shall bear the corresponding tort compensation liability if the streamer plays the music of others without authorization. In Daodou Technology v. Changsha Baizan & Tencent, Hangzhou Internet Court held that Tencent WeChat mini-program only offers fundamental services of framing and data traffic to mini-program developers, but no service of data storage and search engine to users of mini-program. The fact is that Tencent has no control over specific service or data provided by the developer within the miniprogram; thus, it would be disproportionate to follow the “notice and action rule” (aka. the safe harbor doctrine) and block the sued Mini Program as a whole.
北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院通過(guò)審理中國(guó)音著協(xié)訴斗魚公司等侵犯網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)案，明確以直播為主營(yíng)業(yè)務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)公司，在享有其簽約主播直播成果的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和商業(yè)利益的同時(shí)，還應(yīng)當(dāng)為簽約主播未經(jīng)授權(quán)播放他人音樂的行為，承擔(dān)相應(yīng)侵權(quán)賠償責(zé)任。杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院通過(guò)審理刀豆科技訴長(zhǎng)沙百贊、騰訊公司等侵犯網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)案，明確由于微信僅向小程序開發(fā)者免費(fèi)提供網(wǎng)頁(yè)架構(gòu)與數(shù)據(jù)接入等基礎(chǔ)性網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)，未直接面向小程序用戶提供數(shù)據(jù)存儲(chǔ)或搜索鏈接服務(wù)，實(shí)際上對(duì)開發(fā)者提供的具體服務(wù)和數(shù)據(jù)沒有管理權(quán)限。同時(shí)，如對(duì)小程序內(nèi)的特定侵權(quán)行為直接采取整體下架的方式，超出必要限度，所以不適用“通知—?jiǎng)h除”規(guī)則。
Changning Primary People’s Court of Shanghai, in deciding Fuzhou Jiunong v. Xunmeng Technology, distinguished the “consumer compensation” on e-commerce platforms from the liquidated damages in a conventional contractual context, the former should be considered a self regulated behavior of the online community. The court so ordered that when online merchant sells counterfeits on the platform that constituting a breach of contract, the e-commerce platform is entitled to hold the sum of the compensation from the merchant’s accounts, and directly make payments to the compensated consumers. Chongqing No.5 Intermediate People’s Court in Chongqing Transit v. GUO ordered that online car rental providers, who verified the lessees only by name and national ID number when written statements or any other forms of authorization are absent, shall be deemed as failing to fulfill the duty of care and not entitled to enforce the contract.
上海市長(zhǎng)寧區(qū)人民法院通過(guò)審理福州九農(nóng)訴尋夢(mèng)公司科技網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)合同糾紛案，明確電商平臺(tái)消費(fèi)者賠付金制度與傳統(tǒng)違約金制度的區(qū)別，電商平臺(tái)消費(fèi)者賠付金制度應(yīng)當(dāng)被視為是電商平臺(tái)與商家的自治行為。法院判定商家利用平臺(tái)售假行為構(gòu)成違約，平臺(tái)有權(quán)將賠付金直接扣付給消費(fèi)者。重慶市第五中級(jí)人民法院通過(guò)審理重慶交運(yùn)公司訴郭寧車輛租賃合同糾紛案，認(rèn)定網(wǎng)絡(luò)租車經(jīng)營(yíng)者在沒有獲得授權(quán)委托書或其他授權(quán)憑證的情況下，僅憑姓名、身份證號(hào)等身份信息認(rèn)定對(duì)方為交易對(duì)象，未盡審慎核實(shí)義務(wù)，無(wú)權(quán)要求履行合同。
Legal protection of personality rights in cyberspace has been reinforced. Violations of personality rights in the digital age have become more inter-related and of more new connotations. A diversity of methods and consequences of such breaches can be found both online and offline. Chinese courts have made efforts to consolidate the protection of personality rights, especially the right to portrait and right to the reputation of individuals.
加大網(wǎng)絡(luò)侵害人格權(quán)行為規(guī)制力度?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代人格權(quán)具有集合性、擴(kuò)展性特征，以及侵犯人格權(quán)方式和后果線上線下并行的特點(diǎn)，中國(guó)法院充分發(fā)揮審判職能作用，加大對(duì)公民網(wǎng)絡(luò)肖像權(quán)、名譽(yù)權(quán)等人格權(quán)保護(hù)力度。
In HUANG v. YUE & Micro Dream, Beijing Internet Court examined the conditions of an online violation of the right to reputation. The Court clarified relevant rules in its conclusion that the existence of fault is one of the indispensable elements, and the duty of care varies according to the behavior’s social impact and profession. In Meimingyu Home Services v. ZHANG & Hantao Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Internet Court opined that consumers shall not be held liable for publicizing negative feedbacks online against the services they received provided that those feedbacks did not constitute defamation or slander.
北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在黃淑芬訴岳屾山、微夢(mèng)創(chuàng)科公司網(wǎng)絡(luò)名譽(yù)侵權(quán)案中，判定構(gòu)成侵犯網(wǎng)絡(luò)名譽(yù)權(quán)應(yīng)當(dāng)適用過(guò)錯(cuò)原則，明確行為人身份變化可能引發(fā)不同程度的注意義務(wù)要求，細(xì)化了侵犯網(wǎng)絡(luò)名譽(yù)權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件。廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在美明宇家政公司訴張思瑤、漢濤公司名譽(yù)權(quán)糾紛案中，判定消費(fèi)者若未構(gòu)成誹謗、詆毀，僅在網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)對(duì)自己接受的服務(wù)進(jìn)行主觀描述并給予差評(píng)的，無(wú)需承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。
In ZHANG v. China Online News Center, Beijing No.2 Intermediate People’s Court decided that using one individual’s portrait in negative news reports, unless proven to be necessary, constitutes unfair use and shall be held liable for the violation of one’s right to portrait. In Falv (ilaw66.com) v. Qihoo, Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court was requested to decide whether the security software for mobile phones which assembles and displays negative labels of incoming phone numbers constitutes a tort against the right to reputation of the calling party. The Court concluded that such labeling made by mobile phone users is legitimate comments, and the mobile phone security software which displays the contexts and quantities of such negative labels on users’ mobile phones shall not be held liable in any form.
北京市第二中級(jí)人民法院在張艷霞訴中國(guó)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)新聞中心肖像權(quán)糾紛案中，判定除非有使用必要，將公民肖像用于負(fù)面新聞報(bào)道構(gòu)成不當(dāng)使用行為，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵犯肖像權(quán)的法律責(zé)任。上海市第二中級(jí)人民法院在法率公司訴奇虎公司名譽(yù)權(quán)糾紛案中，判定手機(jī)用戶在安全軟件平臺(tái)對(duì)呼入號(hào)碼進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)性標(biāo)注，屬于公眾正當(dāng)社會(huì)評(píng)價(jià)行為，安全軟件平臺(tái)在手機(jī)用戶接聽界面展示公眾負(fù)面評(píng)價(jià)及數(shù)量的，不構(gòu)成名譽(yù)權(quán)侵權(quán)或幫助侵權(quán)。
Internet-based monopolization and unfair competition have been constrained. Abuses of dominant position and unfair competition practices are more prevalent in online marketplaces. Chinese courts have refined the standards and doctrines in monopolization and unfair competition practices in order to ensure a well-regulated and balanced market competition between participants.
遏制互聯(lián)網(wǎng)壟斷及不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為。相較于傳統(tǒng)行業(yè)，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位和不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為更為普遍，中國(guó)法院進(jìn)一步細(xì)化明確壟斷和不正當(dāng)行為的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和規(guī)則，保障各類市場(chǎng)主體公平參與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。
In Sogou v. Qihoo Beijing Intellectual Property Court ruled that Internet products or service providers shall not obstruct the functioning of other products and services, nor shall they conduct any such obstruction on users’ terminals. Shanghai Intellectual Property Court, in iqiyi v. Sogou ruled that the design of the defendant, an input methods (IME) developer, which simultaneously displays input options and search options, does not restrict consumers’ choices in the marketplace or substantively obstruct the operation of the claimant’s video website. Hence, none unfair competition practice existed in the present case.
北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院在搜狗公司等訴奇虎公司等不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)糾紛案中明確，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)提供者不得干擾其他互聯(lián)網(wǎng)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)的正常運(yùn)行，不得在網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶終端排斥其他產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)。上海市知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院在愛奇藝訴搜狗等不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)糾紛案中，認(rèn)定輸入法軟件提供者在提供“輸入候選”詞和“搜索候選”詞的功能設(shè)置，并未破壞市場(chǎng)選擇功能或?qū)嵸|(zhì)性妨礙視頻網(wǎng)站的經(jīng)營(yíng)，不構(gòu)成擾亂市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序。
Hangzhou Yuhang People’s Court of Zhejiang Province, in XU v. TONG & Jin Xin Plastics, ruled against using the complaint mechanism of an e-commerce platform to make a malicious complaint against other proprietors’ goods so that links of those goods are deleted by the platform and lose sales opportunities constitutes unfair competition. In Wei Ma Yuan v. Tencent, the claimant sued against the WeChat Official Accounts Platform operated by the defendant for abuse of dominant position. When analyzing the relevant product market at issue, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province distinguished general users of the social media function from users for the online advertisement services. It defined the online advertisement service market as relevant. This Court’s efforts furthered the definition rules of relevant market for Internet platforms and the services they provided and guaranteed the integrity of competition analysis from its starting point.
浙江省杭州市余杭區(qū)人民法院在許先本與童建剛、玉環(huán)縣金鑫塑膠有限公司不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)案中，認(rèn)定利用電商平臺(tái)投訴機(jī)制，惡意投訴其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者商品，使得其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者商品被平臺(tái)刪除，喪失銷售機(jī)會(huì)的行為，構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng),有效遏制了惡意投訴行為，為電子商務(wù)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展?fàn)I造良好的環(huán)境。廣東省深圳市中級(jí)人民法院在深圳微源碼訴微信公眾號(hào)壟斷案中，認(rèn)定利用平臺(tái)公眾號(hào)開展市場(chǎng)推廣有別于使用社交功能的普通用戶，相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)應(yīng)為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)在線推廣宣傳服務(wù)市場(chǎng)，進(jìn)一步明確了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)及其所提供服務(wù)“相關(guān)市場(chǎng)”的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，推動(dòng)完善互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行業(yè)中濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位的認(rèn)定規(guī)則。
Security of personal data has been firmly consolidated. With the prevalent adoption of artificial intelligence, data and security have become more closely linked to individual lives and possessed more commercial values than ever. In the following cases, Chinese courts strived to check the commercial use of personal data, facilitate the Internet enterprises’ compliance therein, and strengthen the security of personal data.
維護(hù)個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)信息安全。人工智能時(shí)代，數(shù)據(jù)信息安全與個(gè)人生活緊密相連，同時(shí)也成為重要商業(yè)資源。中國(guó)法院通過(guò)司法裁判明確用戶個(gè)人數(shù)據(jù)信息商業(yè)使用規(guī)則和邊界，督促互聯(lián)網(wǎng)企業(yè)收集使用數(shù)據(jù)時(shí)合法合規(guī)，加強(qiáng)對(duì)個(gè)人信息安全的保護(hù)。
In Xu Yong v. Zhima Credit, Hangzhou Internet Court decided that using personal credit records for commercial purposes violated the right of privacy of data subjects. The liability can be exempted only if such usage is (1) consented by the data subject, or (2) based on public information disclosed by the Court or governmental agencies and fed back to that exact data subject. The liability of abusing credit records has been clarified therein.
杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在徐永訴芝麻信用隱私權(quán)糾紛案中，判定對(duì)個(gè)人征信數(shù)據(jù)的商業(yè)使用行為侵犯隱私權(quán)，但經(jīng)用戶同意，收集政府、法院等國(guó)家機(jī)關(guān)依法在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)公開的信息并反饋用戶的除外，明確濫用個(gè)人征信數(shù)據(jù)的法律責(zé)任。
In PANG Lipeng v. China Eastern Airlines & Qunar, Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court held that the airlines and online ticket agencies at fault shall take liabilities for leakage of users’ personal information. In ZHU v. Baidu, the claimant sued for alleged violation of the right of privacy in personal browsing histories. Nanjing Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province recognized the private nature of personal browsing history, yet found that the information of anonymous site preference collected via cookies, which underlies the targeted advertising of the defendant, cannot be used to identify individual Internet users. The Court concluded that such a lack of personally identifiable information does not satisfy the legal requirement of invasion of personal privacy, and thus the defendant shall not be held liable.
北京市第一中級(jí)人民法院在龐理鵬訴東方航空、趣拿公司侵犯?jìng)€(gè)人隱私權(quán)案中，明確航空公司和網(wǎng)絡(luò)售票平臺(tái)應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)因在線購(gòu)票泄露用戶個(gè)人信息的行為承擔(dān)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任。江蘇省南京市中級(jí)人民法院在朱燁訴百度公司隱私權(quán)糾紛案中，認(rèn)定雖然網(wǎng)絡(luò)瀏覽記錄具有隱私屬性，但網(wǎng)絡(luò)精準(zhǔn)廣告中使用cookie技術(shù)收集、利用的匿名網(wǎng)絡(luò)偏好信息，不能與網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶個(gè)人身份對(duì)應(yīng)識(shí)別，不符合個(gè)人隱私和個(gè)人信息的“可識(shí)別性”要求，因而不構(gòu)成侵犯隱私權(quán)。
Relevant criminal laws were further clarified by Yichang Dangyang People’s Court of Hubei Province. This Court found the prosecuted guilty of criminal invasion of personal data for their acquisition and sales of individuals’ personal data through fake loan websites, which are seriously illegal. The prosecuted that knowingly helped to set up and advertised for the above mentioned website was also condemned as an accomplice.
湖北省宜昌當(dāng)陽(yáng)市人民法院在李金波、裴家好、李國(guó)樂侵犯公民個(gè)人信息罪案中認(rèn)定，利用虛假貸款網(wǎng)站非法獲取、出售可能影響財(cái)產(chǎn)安全的公民個(gè)人信息，情節(jié)嚴(yán)重，構(gòu)成侵犯公民個(gè)人信息罪；明知并幫助他人設(shè)立虛假貸款網(wǎng)站、提供廣告推廣的，屬共同犯罪，依法予以刑事制裁。
Legal protection for a healthy and thriving digital economy has been consolidated. In order to facilitate rapid and healthy growth of emerging industries such as big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, blockchain and Internet of Things, Chinese courts in delivering a series of judgments have strived to squeeze out those grey-area businesses, backup the executive branch in supervising the market in an inclusive and prudential manner, and delimit the industrial developments.
保障數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)健康發(fā)展。為保障促進(jìn)大數(shù)據(jù)、云計(jì)算、人工智能、區(qū)塊鏈、物聯(lián)網(wǎng)等新興技術(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)快速健康發(fā)展，中國(guó)法院通過(guò)依法裁判有效治理網(wǎng)絡(luò)黑灰產(chǎn)業(yè)，支持行政部門包容審慎履行監(jiān)管職責(zé)，明確行業(yè)發(fā)展的法律邊界。
In CHANG v. XU, Beijing Internet Court voided the contract between the parties which utilize illegal technical means to increase the click volume and to create fake Internet traffic in order to mislead online game players. This judgment signaled the Chinese courts’ solid stance in suppressing grey-area Internet businesses. In Realsoft infotech Co., Ltd vs. Guangzhou Market Supervision Authority and Guangzhou Municipal Government, Guangzhou Internet Court upheld the administrative decision of sanctioning illegal online pyramid schemes disguised in the name of online marketing, and thus helped to cleanse the online business environment.
北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在常文韜訴許玲等合同糾紛案中，判定雙方簽訂的、以非法技術(shù)手段提高點(diǎn)擊量，制造虛假流量誤導(dǎo)網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲玩家的網(wǎng)絡(luò)游戲服務(wù)合同無(wú)效，有力打擊網(wǎng)絡(luò)灰色產(chǎn)業(yè)。廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院在聚賢科技訴廣州市市場(chǎng)監(jiān)管局行政處罰、廣州市市政府行政復(fù)議案中，支持行政監(jiān)管部門依法查處以新型網(wǎng)絡(luò)營(yíng)銷為名發(fā)展上下線、進(jìn)行網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳銷的行為，有效凈化互聯(lián)網(wǎng)市場(chǎng)環(huán)境。
In Guangdong Consumers Association v. Yueqi Biking, a public interest lawsuit, Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province was required to clarify the legal rules concerning the ownership of deposits made by users. The Court ordered the defendant to refrain from procrastination in refunding users’ deposits, to disclose information of deposits, and to make a public apology. Such order deterred further attempts to hoarding deposits as financing methods and thus safeguards stable and healthy growth of the sharing economy. In Goome v. Yuanguang, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court of Guangdong Province ruled that big data resources collected, analyzed, edited and integrated by business operators which have commercial value, shall be legally protected by the Anti Unfair Competition Law. The unauthorized use of such big data resources via web crawler technologies consequently constitutes unfair competition practice. Such a judgment furthered the establishment of fair competition rules concerning the big data industry.
廣東省廣州市中級(jí)人民法院在廣東省消費(fèi)者委員會(huì)訴悅騎公司小鳴單車公益訴訟案中，通過(guò)判令被告停止拖延并退還消費(fèi)者押金、公開披露押金信息、公開道歉，明確共享單車使用押金的權(quán)利歸屬關(guān)系，遏制互聯(lián)網(wǎng)業(yè)態(tài)中的“圈錢”行為，推動(dòng)共享經(jīng)濟(jì)健康發(fā)展。深圳市中級(jí)人民法院在谷米科技訴元光科技等不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)糾紛案中，判定經(jīng)營(yíng)者收集、分析、編輯、整合具有商業(yè)價(jià)值的大數(shù)據(jù)資源的行為，受反不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)法保護(hù)，他人未經(jīng)許可利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)爬蟲技術(shù)盜用大數(shù)據(jù)資源，并用于經(jīng)營(yíng)同類應(yīng)用程序，構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，推動(dòng)確立了大數(shù)據(jù)行業(yè)的公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)規(guī)則。
Legal rule for protecting IP rights online has been strengthened. Court decisions in various Internet-related cases have lain down the rules defining emerging types of intellectual property rights, the legal protection threshold, and accountability mechanism. With the legal protection increased and the remedies sufficing, related standards have been clarified, and the innovation-friendly business environment has been sustained and fostered.
完善網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)保護(hù)規(guī)則。中國(guó)法院著力通過(guò)司法裁判明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)環(huán)境下新類型知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)的權(quán)利屬性、保護(hù)范圍和追責(zé)機(jī)制，加大司法保護(hù)和救濟(jì)力度，完善知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)領(lǐng)域治理規(guī)則，有效保護(hù)和鼓勵(lì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)創(chuàng)新。
In Music Copyright Society vs. Douyu, Beijing Internet Court defined that if the webcast platform, according to the contract with the streamer, owns the intellectual property and business benefits of the webcast works, then it should be responsible for the corresponding infringement if the streamer plays the music of others without authorization. In Astley Baker Davies et al. v. Jufan, one of the Peppa Pig lawsuits in China, Hangzhou Internet Court found copyright infringement existed where former licensee continued to produce and sell “Peppa Pig” toys online beyond the authorized time, scope and methods. This judgment reinstated the Chinese court’s solid position in providing equal protection for right holders regardless of the nationality.
北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院通過(guò)審理“音著作協(xié)會(huì)訴斗魚公司網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播侵權(quán)案”，明確網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播公司如享有其簽約主播直播成果的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和商業(yè)利益，應(yīng)當(dāng)就主播未經(jīng)授權(quán)播放他人音樂的行為承擔(dān)侵權(quán)賠償責(zé)任。杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院通過(guò)審理艾貝戴公司等訴聚凡公司等“小豬佩奇”著作權(quán)侵權(quán)案，判定被授權(quán)商超出授權(quán)范圍、期限、方式生產(chǎn)并銷售玩具的行為，侵害了權(quán)利人著作權(quán)，依法支持了著作權(quán)人跨國(guó)維權(quán)訴求，實(shí)現(xiàn)國(guó)內(nèi)外知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人的平等保護(hù)。
In Tencent v. ByteDance, Guangzhou Intellectual Property Court granted an injunction order against unauthorized live-streaming of online games. It ruled that such unauthorized live streaming caused damages to the rights holder and constituted unfair competition practice, and shall be banned accordingly. In Yu Qu v. Mai Miao, a dispute between competing live streaming websites of online games, Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court of Hubei Province ruled against the defendant who knowingly poached a live streaming host bound by an exclusive contract with the claimant and declared the poaching constituted an unfair competition practice. In terms of the patentability of motion pictures in online games, the Court found the game player’s claim for copyright groundless for all the pictures are pre-designed by the developers, despite that player contributed to the final presentation of motion pictures to some extent.
廣州知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院在騰訊公司訴字節(jié)跳動(dòng)公司等侵犯游戲著作權(quán)案中，對(duì)未獲得授權(quán)的游戲直播行為下達(dá)了訴訟禁令，裁定未經(jīng)許可的游戲直播行為侵害了權(quán)利人合法權(quán)益并構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，應(yīng)立即停止相關(guān)未經(jīng)許可的游戲直播行為。湖北省武漢市中級(jí)人民法院通過(guò)審理魚趣公司訴脈淼公司等侵害著作權(quán)及不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)糾紛案，判定直播平臺(tái)明知而擅自使用他人培養(yǎng)并獨(dú)家簽約的知名主播資源的行為構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，同時(shí)認(rèn)定玩家對(duì)游戲動(dòng)態(tài)畫面的形成具有一定貢獻(xiàn)，但仍為游戲預(yù)設(shè)畫面的展現(xiàn)，不享有著作權(quán)。
Cybercrimes have been combated resolutely. With the development of Internet technologies, cybercrime has displayed such features as the wide use of high-tech, specialized sectors, intricate organization, and chained operation. Acknowledging these latest circumstances, Chinese courts have intensified the crackdown on crimes such as operating online casinos, Internet frauds, thefts of digital assets and infringements of personal information and have managed to guarantee the safety and order of the cyberspace.
堅(jiān)決打擊網(wǎng)絡(luò)刑事犯罪?；ヂ?lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代，網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪出現(xiàn)手段技術(shù)化、領(lǐng)域?qū)I(yè)化、主體組織化、獲利機(jī)制產(chǎn)業(yè)化等新樣態(tài)。中國(guó)法院根據(jù)網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪新特點(diǎn)，立足刑事審判職能，加大打擊懲處力度，嚴(yán)厲打擊開設(shè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)賭場(chǎng)、實(shí)施網(wǎng)絡(luò)詐騙、非法盜取數(shù)字財(cái)產(chǎn)、侵犯公民個(gè)人信息等各類犯罪，確保網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間秩序安定有序。
Confronting criminal charges against Internet traffic hijackings, Pudong New Area People’s Court of Shanghai convicted the defendants of the crime of causing damage to computer information systems where the convicted were proven to use malware to forcedly reroute Internet users to specific webpages and cause severe consequences. The denounced technical methods include modifying Internet routers and Internet browser settings, locking the browser homepage, and popping up new windows.
上海市浦東新區(qū)法院通過(guò)審理“流量劫持案”，認(rèn)定通過(guò)利用各種惡意軟件修改路由器、瀏覽器設(shè)置、鎖定主頁(yè)或彈出新窗口等技術(shù)手段，強(qiáng)制網(wǎng)絡(luò)用戶訪問(wèn)指定網(wǎng)站等“流量劫持”行為，后果嚴(yán)重的，構(gòu)成破壞計(jì)算機(jī)信息系統(tǒng)罪。
江蘇省宿遷市中級(jí)人民法院通過(guò)審理“詐騙信息發(fā)布案”，認(rèn)定以非法獲利為目的，通過(guò)信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)發(fā)送刷單詐騙信息，其行為本質(zhì)上屬于詐騙犯罪預(yù)備，情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的，構(gòu)成非法利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)罪。遼寧省沈陽(yáng)市鐵西區(qū)人民法院通過(guò)審理“微信紅包賭場(chǎng)案”，判定犯罪團(tuán)伙通過(guò)在微信群里組織被害人，以搶微信紅包比金額大小的方式進(jìn)行賭博，并從中漁利的，構(gòu)成開設(shè)賭場(chǎng)罪。Suqian Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province ruled that the defendants who clearly knew that the “click-farming advertising” of their customer was a fraudulent act, but still provided advertising promotion assistance in committing the crime for the purpose of obtaining illegal gains, shall be considered to constitute the crime of illegal use of information networks where the circumstances are serious. In Liaoning Province, defendants who organized people to gamble on the randomly allocated results of WeChat Hongbao (a sum of money distributed randomly to the WeChat group members) and profited from such was found guilty of the crime operating casinos by Shenyang Tiexi Primary People’s Court of Liaoning Province.
In the Treasure Box case, decided by Tai’an Intermediate People’s Court of Shandong Province, where defendants developed a Media Aggregation Portal of obscene live streaming via hacking and recruited subordinates to disperse and sell these obscene products, the Court found the defendants guilty of the crime distributing obscene materials for profits. Taizhou Wenling Primary People’s Court of Zhejiang Chinese Courts and Internet Judiciary Province targeted at online campus bullying in a criminal defamation case. It ruled that subject to the severity of the circumstances, the criminal defamation occurs when one purposely fabricates, and online disseminates false information for sabotaging others’ reputation. Another crime combated is online fundraising fraud. Putian Licheng Primary People’s Court of Fujian Province in deciding such case, convicted defendants of the crime of fraud for illegally faking themselves with others’ identities, soliciting donation online and defrauding Internet users of a huge amount of money. Such charity fraud that deceived goodwill of the public was contained so as to maintain a society of trust and honesty.
山東省泰安市中級(jí)人民法院通過(guò)審理“月光寶盒案”，判定犯罪團(tuán)伙利用黑客技術(shù)聚合涉黃直播平臺(tái)，以發(fā)展下線代理的方式傳播和買賣淫穢視頻，達(dá)到入罪標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的，構(gòu)成傳播淫穢物品牟利罪。浙江省臺(tái)州市溫嶺區(qū)人民法院審理的“蔣琪誹謗案”,判定故意捏造事實(shí)損害他人名譽(yù),在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上散布,情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的行為,構(gòu)成誹謗罪,有力遏制了校園網(wǎng)絡(luò)霸凌行為。福建省莆田市荔城區(qū)人民法院通過(guò)審理“網(wǎng)絡(luò)詐捐案”,判定犯罪人冒用他人身份信息,利用網(wǎng)上募捐平臺(tái),發(fā)布虛假募捐消息,騙取網(wǎng)友巨額捐款的行為,構(gòu)成詐騙罪,嚴(yán)厲打擊利用公眾愛心善心進(jìn)行騙捐的行為,維護(hù)了社會(huì)公序良俗。
Conclusion
結(jié)束語(yǔ)
Internet Judiciary in China is the crystal of the times and the practice, which evolves with social progress, technological innovation and judicial reform. Chinese judiciary has, in the digital age, restructured the litigation processes, optimized the procedural rules, and improved the judicature models underpinned both innovations of information technology and reforms of the judicial system. All of the citizens and legal persons now have greater access to a more just, transparent, inclusive and efficient judicial system. The levels of judicial capacity, quality, efficiency and credibility of Chinese courts have been considerably improved.
中國(guó)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法是時(shí)代發(fā)展和司法實(shí)踐的結(jié)晶，必將伴隨著社會(huì)發(fā)展、科技創(chuàng)新和法治建設(shè)與時(shí)俱進(jìn)，日臻完善。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代，通過(guò)信息技術(shù)革新和司法體制改革的共同推動(dòng)，中國(guó)司法有效實(shí)現(xiàn)了訴訟流程重構(gòu)、訴訟規(guī)則完善和司法模式變革，人民群眾獲得了更加公平公正、公開透明、高效便捷、普惠均等的司法服務(wù)，中國(guó)法院司法能力、質(zhì)量、效率和公信力得到全面提升。
Chinese courts will continue to be open, prudent, and inclusive, and hold the philosophy of sustainable development. To secure the diverse needs of the public and to serve the prosperity of the digital economy, Chinese courts will continue to explore the information and intelligent technologies to create new dynamics for systematic reform and court construction, and to tailor a more efficient, fair and credible judicial system to national objectives with Chinese characteristics. In the meantime, Chinese courts are willing to contribute to the global Internet governance system and rules with Chinese approaches and experiences, and to jointly promote global governance in cyberspace and strive to build a community of shared future in cyberspace.
中國(guó)法院將繼續(xù)秉持開放共享、審慎包容、可持續(xù)發(fā)展的理念，以信息化智能化培育司法體制革新和司法體系建設(shè)新動(dòng)能，服務(wù)社會(huì)公眾多元司法需求，服務(wù)國(guó)家數(shù)字經(jīng)濟(jì)社會(huì)繁榮發(fā)展，建設(shè)更加公正、高效、權(quán)威的中國(guó)特色社會(huì)主義司法制度，推進(jìn)全球互聯(lián)網(wǎng)治理體系變革和治理規(guī)則完善，為實(shí)現(xiàn)互聯(lián)互通、共享共治的網(wǎng)絡(luò)空間命運(yùn)共同體貢獻(xiàn)中國(guó)智慧。
Appendix Influential Cases of Internet Judiciary in China
附錄：中國(guó)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)司法典型案例
Case 1
案例一：
Fuzhou Jiunong Trade Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. Disputes over contracts for Internet services
福州九農(nóng)貿(mào)易有限公司訴上海尋夢(mèng)信息技術(shù)有限公司網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)合同糾紛
[Significance]
【典型意義】
Since online shopping have characteristics such as rapid trading, large trading volume, broad cross-regional scope, decentralized subjects, it is increasingly difficult for administrative departments to supervise e-commerce, and the self-regulated rules of platforms are playing an increasingly significant role. This case clarified that the registration agreement signed between the platform and the merchants stipulating the “consumer compensation” belongs to a self-regulated behavior of the online community, provided that the content of the agreement does not violate the compulsory provisions under the laws and administrative regulations. When a merchant sells counterfeits on the platform that constitutes a breach of contract, according to the agreed “consumer compensation” rules the e-commerce platform is entitled to hold the sum of the compensation from the merchant’s accounts and directly make payments to the compensated consumers, which helps affirm the effectiveness of the self-regulated rules of the Internet platform.
基于網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)發(fā)生的購(gòu)物活動(dòng)，具有買賣迅速、交易量大、跨地域廣、主體分散等特點(diǎn)，行政部門監(jiān)督難度不斷加大，網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)自治規(guī)則的作用不斷增強(qiáng)。本案明確平臺(tái)與商家在入駐協(xié)議中約定“消費(fèi)者賠付金”，屬于平臺(tái)自治行為，且協(xié)議內(nèi)容不違反法律、行政法規(guī)的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定。當(dāng)商家在平臺(tái)上發(fā)生售假行為構(gòu)成違約時(shí)，平臺(tái)有權(quán)按照約定的“消費(fèi)者賠付金”規(guī)則，直接扣付相關(guān)錢款給消費(fèi)者，肯定了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)自治規(guī)則的效力。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
On July 4, 2016, Fuzhou Jiunong Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jiunong”) and Shanghai Xunmeng Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Xunmeng”)’s e-commerce platform signed an agreement which stipulated that: The merchant shall pay liquidated damages ten times of the historical sales of the counterfeit goods, and the platform shall have the right to directly freeze the merchant’s account and deduct the payment therefrom. If the merchant cannot prove that the suspected counterfeit goods are genuine after receiving a notice from the platform, the platform will compensate the consumer with the deposit in the merchant’s account. As Jiunong sold counterfeit goods on Xunmeng’s platform, Xunmeng froze the Jiunong’s account and paid the full amount of the deducted money to the corresponding consumers of the counterfeit goods. Jiunong claimed that it did not sell any counterfeit goods, and Xunmeng’s unilateral request of the ten-times penalty, formulation of other harsh punishment rules, and freezing Jiunong’s account violated its legitimate rights and interests Therefore, Jiunong brought this civil case before a court asking for a refund and compensation.
2016年7月4日，福州九農(nóng)貿(mào)易有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱九農(nóng)公司）與上海尋夢(mèng)信息技術(shù)有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱尋夢(mèng)公司）在其電商平臺(tái)上簽署協(xié)議約定：商家售假需按涉假商品歷史銷售額的十倍承擔(dān)違約金，平臺(tái)有權(quán)直接凍結(jié)并自商家賬戶扣款；商家在接到平臺(tái)通知后不能證明疑似假貨商品為正品的，平臺(tái)將以商家賬戶內(nèi)的保證金對(duì)消費(fèi)者進(jìn)行賠付。因九農(nóng)公司在尋夢(mèng)公司平臺(tái)出售假貨，尋夢(mèng)公司遂凍結(jié)其賬戶并將扣款全額賠付給涉假訂單對(duì)應(yīng)消費(fèi)者九農(nóng)公司認(rèn)為其并無(wú)售假行為,尋夢(mèng)公司單方制定十倍違約金等苛刻的處罰規(guī)則并凍結(jié)賬戶,侵犯其合法權(quán)益,故訴至法院要求被告尋夢(mèng)公司退款并賠償損失。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held that, the merchants had full freedom to choose when registering in the e-commerce platform, and the platform company had fully performed the obligation of reminder when signing the contract. Therefore, when the plaintiff Jiunong registered on the platform operated by the defendant Xunmeng , the terms of the contract signed online became valid. The plaintiff Jiunong’s selling activities was a sale of counterfeits according to rules of the platform and was considered as a violation of the agreement between both parties. Therefore, it had no right to request the defendant Xunmeng to refund or compensate for its loss. The consumer compensation system set up by the defendant Xunmeng’s e-commerce platform was different from the traditional liquidated damages system in terms of the beneficiary subject, source of rights, responsibility target, applicable standards, etc. The purpose of the consumer compensation system was not to make profit, but to maintain an honest and credible e-commerce environment, to protect the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, which complies with the principle of public order and good customs, and its effect should be affirmed.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定,商家在入駐電商平臺(tái)時(shí)有充分選擇的自由,平臺(tái)公司在合同簽訂時(shí)充分履行了提示義務(wù)故原告九農(nóng)公司入駐被告尋夢(mèng)公司運(yùn)營(yíng)的平臺(tái)時(shí),網(wǎng)簽合同的條款有效。原告九農(nóng)公司的銷售行為屬于平臺(tái)規(guī)則規(guī)定的售假行為,違反了雙方合同約定,無(wú)權(quán)要求被告尋夢(mèng)公司退款并賠償損失。被告尋夢(mèng)公司電商平臺(tái)設(shè)置的消費(fèi)者賠付金制度與傳統(tǒng)違約金制度在受益主體、利來(lái)源、責(zé)任承擔(dān)對(duì)象及適用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等方面均有區(qū)別,其目的并非盈利,而是為了維護(hù)誠(chéng)實(shí)信用的網(wǎng)絡(luò)交易環(huán)境、保護(hù)消費(fèi)者合法權(quán)益,符合公序良俗原則,故應(yīng)對(duì)其效力予以肯定。
On May 31, 2018, Shanghai Changning District People’s Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all relieves requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an appeal after the first instance judgment was pronounced, but failed to pay the appeal fee on time. The court of second instance ruled that the appeal should be considered as withdrawn, and the judgment of first instance had become effective.
上海市長(zhǎng)寧區(qū)人民法院于2018年5月31日判決駁回原告全部訴訟請(qǐng)求。一審宣判后原告提起上訴,但未按時(shí)交納上訴費(fèi),二審法院裁定按撤訴處理,本案判決已發(fā)生法律效力。
Case 2
案例二：
Yu Binhua v. Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co., Ltd., Wang Zirong, Harbin Xingrong Culture Media Co., Ltd., and Liu Qiqi Disputes over Contracts for Internet Services
俞彬華與廣州華多網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技有限公司、王子戎、哈爾濱興戎文化傳媒有限公司、劉奇琪網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)合同糾紛
[Significance]
【典型意義】
In recent years, the webcast industry has developed rapidly and become an emerged form of digital economy, and the number of related disputes also increased. This case clearly defines the legal relationship among the users, the live broadcast streamer and the live broadcast platform, and specifies the legal nature of “l(fā)ive broadcast gratuity”. By defining the legal nature of relations and behaviors related to webcast, this case clarifies the rights and obligations of parties involved, helps regulate webcast activities and promotes the healthy development of the live broadcast industry.
近年來(lái)網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播行業(yè)發(fā)展迅猛，成為一種新興的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)形態(tài)，相關(guān)糾紛也日益多發(fā)。本案清晰界定了網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播中用戶、直播發(fā)布者與直播平臺(tái)之間法律關(guān)系，明確了“直播打賞”行為的法律性質(zhì)。本案通過(guò)對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播相關(guān)法律關(guān)系和法律行為的界定，明確了各方主體的權(quán)利義務(wù)，有助于規(guī)范網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播行為，促進(jìn)網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播行業(yè)健康發(fā)展。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
Liu Qiqi is a streamer of Harbin Xingrong Culture Media Co., Ltd. (“Xingrong”) who performed live broadcasts on the YY live-broadcasting platform operated by Guangzhou Huaduo Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Huaduo”). Liu Qiqi’s live broadcast room is opened with the YY account of Wang Zikai, the legal representative of Xingyi Company. February 2017 and April 2017, Yu Binhua spent a total of RMB 59,291.28 yuan (including gifts and enabling functions of “Duke” and “Guardian”) in Liu’s live broadcast room. On March 17, 2017, Yu Binhua was the top gift-giver that day and was set as VP of the room by Liu. On April 7, 2017, Liu canceled Yu Binhua’s VP permission, because Liu Qiqi objected to Yu Binhua’s activities including transferring money through WeChat or giving gifts to Liu privately. Yu Binhua filed a civil lawsuit before a court, requested to cancel the contract regarding offering gifts in the live broadcast room, and requested for ten prayers for relief including requesting Huaduo, Wang Zirong, Xingrong, and Liu Qiqi to jointly return a total of RMB 49,291.28 Yuan.
劉奇琪是哈爾濱興戎文化傳媒有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱興戎公司）旗下主播，其在廣州華多網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱華多公司）運(yùn)營(yíng)的YY直播平臺(tái)開展直播，該直播間系用興戎公司的法定代表人王子戎的YY賬號(hào)開通。2017年2月至2017年4月期間，俞彬華在劉奇琪的直播間消費(fèi)共計(jì)59291.28元（包括禮物和開通“公爵”“守護(hù)”）。2017年3月17日，俞彬華成為當(dāng)天打賞禮物最多的人，被劉奇琪設(shè)置為該直播間的頻道總管理（VP）。2017年4月7日，劉奇琪取消了俞彬華的VP權(quán)限，原因是劉奇琪不認(rèn)可俞彬華私下通過(guò)微信轉(zhuǎn)賬、贈(zèng)送禮物的行為。俞彬華訴至法院，提出撤銷在直播間消費(fèi)禮物的合同及華多公司、王子戎、興戎公司、劉奇琪連帶返還消費(fèi)款項(xiàng)49291.28元等十項(xiàng)訴訟請(qǐng)求。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court concludes that, the webcast platform provides platform services for users, and charges service fees through users’ purchase and use of virtual currency. The two form a legal relationship of Internet service contract. Generally, a gift contract is established when a user offers “gratuity” to the streamer, unless there is evidence to prove that the streamer must perform specific and clear contractual obligations before and after accepting the “gratuity”. In this case, the plaintiff Yu Binhua’s act of offering “gratuity” to the defendant Liu Qiqi did not involve any agreement requiring the defendant to fulfill specific obligations, nor did it put forward any consideration of the “gratuity”, and so it should be deemed as a gift contract rather than a service contract.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定,直播平臺(tái)為用戶提供平臺(tái)服務(wù),通過(guò)用戶購(gòu)買和使用虛擬貨幣收取服務(wù)費(fèi),兩者形成網(wǎng)絡(luò)服務(wù)合同法律關(guān)系。用戶對(duì)直播發(fā)布者的“打賞”,一般成立贈(zèng)與合同,除非有證據(jù)證明直播發(fā)布者接受“打賞”前后須履行具體、明確的合同義務(wù)。本案中原告俞彬華對(duì)被告劉奇琪的“打賞”,并未約定要求對(duì)方履行特定義務(wù),沒有提出“打賞”的對(duì)價(jià),因此并非服務(wù)合同關(guān)系,應(yīng)當(dāng)認(rèn)定為贈(zèng)與合同。
On January 7, 2019, Guangzhou Internet Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all of the plaintiffs'claims. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has become effective.
廣州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院于2019年1月7日判決駁回原告全部訴訟請(qǐng)求。本案一審宣判并送達(dá)后,原、被告均未提出上訴,該判決已發(fā)生法律效力。
Case 3
案例三：
Music Copyright Society of China v. Wuhan Douyu Network Technology Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right to Disseminate Music Work on the Internet
中國(guó)音樂著作權(quán)協(xié)會(huì)訴武漢斗魚網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技有限公司侵害音樂作品信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)糾紛案
[Significance]
【典型意義】
Driven by user demand and technological innovation, Internet content platforms with abundant forms of communication and creative industries such as short video and stream have developed rapidly, which leads to a sharp growth of intellectual property disputes and increased difficulty in legal protection. This case clarified that a network company with the main business of webcast when enjoying the intellectual property rights and business interests of the webcast works of the streamer who has contracted with the company shall bear the corresponding tort compensation liability if the streamer plays the music of others without authorization. The case helps standardize the relationships among all parties in the content payment business model, and reasonably defines the responsibilities and obligations of the Internet content platform.
在用戶需求和技術(shù)創(chuàng)新的驅(qū)動(dòng)下，短視頻、網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播等傳播形式豐富、創(chuàng)作門檻低的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)內(nèi)容平臺(tái)快速發(fā)展，知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)糾紛頻發(fā)，保護(hù)難度大。本案中明確以直播為主營(yíng)業(yè)務(wù)的網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)公司，在享有其簽約主播直播成果的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)和商業(yè)利益的同時(shí)，還應(yīng)當(dāng)為簽約主播未經(jīng)授權(quán)播放他人音樂的行為，承擔(dān)相應(yīng)侵權(quán)賠償責(zé)任。本案有利于規(guī)范內(nèi)容付費(fèi)商業(yè)模式中各方主體之間的關(guān)系，合理界定互聯(lián)網(wǎng)內(nèi)容平臺(tái)的責(zé)任義務(wù)。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
On February 14, 2018, Feng Timo, the streamer contracted with Douyu Network Technology Co., Ltd. (“Douyu”) conducted online live broadcasting on the platform operated by Douyu. Users of the live broadcasting platform can buy virtual currency and gifts as gratuity. During the broadcast, Feng Timo played the song “Lovers Heart”, which lasted about one minute and ten seconds. After the live broadcast, the streamer made the live broadcast process into a video and saved it on the live broadcast platform for the audience to replay and share. The plaintiff Music Copyright Society of China, as the organization authorized by the songwriter of “Lovers Heart” to exercise copyright to the song, stated that the above behaviors of Douyu and the streamer violated the right of Music Copyright Society of China to disseminate the song over internet, and requested the court to order the defendant to compensate the copyright fee of RMB 30,000 Yuan and the reasonable expenses of RMB 12,600 Yuan including attorney fees, notarial cost and other fees.
2018年2月14日，武漢斗魚網(wǎng)絡(luò)科技有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱斗魚公司）簽約主播馮提莫在斗魚公司經(jīng)營(yíng)的直播平臺(tái)進(jìn)行在線直播，直播平臺(tái)用戶可以購(gòu)買虛擬幣和禮物進(jìn)行打賞。直播期間馮提莫播放了歌曲《戀人心》，時(shí)長(zhǎng)約1分10秒。直播結(jié)束后，主播將直播過(guò)程制作成視頻并保存在直播平臺(tái)上，觀眾可以回放觀看和分享。中國(guó)音像著作權(quán)協(xié)會(huì)（以下簡(jiǎn)稱音著協(xié)）經(jīng)歌曲《戀人心》的詞曲作者授權(quán)，可對(duì)歌曲《戀人心》行使著作權(quán)，認(rèn)為斗魚公司及其主播的上述行為侵害了其對(duì)歌曲享有的信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，請(qǐng)求法院判令被告賠償著作權(quán)使用費(fèi)3萬(wàn)元及律師費(fèi)、公證費(fèi)等合理開支12600元。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held that the webcast platform had agreed with the contracted streamer that the platform shall own the intellectual property rights of the audio and video works produced through live broadcast, and the platform makes profits from the virtual gratuity of the streamer given by the users who watch live programs online and play back live videos. Therefore, the live broadcast platform is not only its service provider but also the owner and beneficiary of audio and video works thereon. For the infringemen t of copyright, the obligation of the platform is not only limited in the "notice and action” obligations but also extended to higher attention paid to the content of the live broadcast and video. The platform bears the corresponding compensation liability for the infringement occurred in the production and dissemination of live broadcast programs and videos on the plattorm in addition to the “notification and deletion" obligations.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定,網(wǎng)絡(luò)直播平臺(tái)與簽約主播約定,直播產(chǎn)生的音視頻作品的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)歸平臺(tái)所有,同時(shí)平臺(tái)從用戶在線觀看直播、回放直播視頻時(shí)對(duì)網(wǎng)絡(luò)主播的虛擬打賞中盈利。所以,斗魚公司既是直播平臺(tái)服務(wù)的提供者,也是直播平臺(tái)上音視頻作品的權(quán)利人和收益者,對(duì)其平臺(tái)上的侵害著作權(quán)行為不應(yīng)當(dāng)僅限于承擔(dān)“通知一刪除”義務(wù)。斗魚公司應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)直播及視頻內(nèi)容的合法性負(fù)有更高的注意義務(wù);對(duì)平臺(tái)上直播及視頻的制作和傳播中發(fā)生的侵權(quán)行為,除履行“通知一刪除”義務(wù)外,還應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的賠償責(zé)任。
Beijing Internet Court ordered the defendant Douyu to compensate the plaintiff, Music Copyright Society of China, for the economic losses of RMB 2.000 Yuan and the reasonable expenses of RMB 3,200 Yuan. Douyu appealed to Beijing Intellectual Property Court, which made the final judgment that rejected the appeal and affirmed the original judgment.
北京互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院判決被告斗魚公司賠償原告音著協(xié)經(jīng)濟(jì)損失2000元和合理開支3200元。一審判決后,斗魚公司提起上訴。北京知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)法院二審判決駁回上訴,維持原判。
Case 4
案例四：
Hangzhou Huatai Media Culture Media Co., Ltd. v. Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right of Dissemination over Internet
杭州華泰一媒文化傳媒有限公司與深圳市道同科技發(fā)展有限公司侵害作品信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)糾紛案
[Significance]
【典型意義】
In the Internet era, electronic evidence has been enormously presented. The newly emerged information technology, such as blockchain has brought a brand-new renovation to the collection and storage of electronic evidence. At the same time, it is urgent to clarify the rules examining the effectiveness of electronic evidence. This case is the first one in China to determine the legal effect of the electronic evidence stored by blockchain, providing a review method for examination and admission of this new type of electronic evidence, detailing the consideration factors and clarifying the adjudication criteria. This case could promote the in-depth integration of blockchain technology and judiciary process by clarifying the rules of preservation and storage of blockchain evidence, which is of considerable significance to the improvement of the internet-related litigation rules in the information age.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代下，電子證據(jù)大量涌現(xiàn)，以區(qū)塊鏈為代表的新興信息技術(shù)，為電子證據(jù)的取證存證帶來(lái)了全新的變革，同時(shí)也亟待明確電子證據(jù)效力認(rèn)定規(guī)則。本案系全國(guó)首次對(duì)區(qū)塊鏈電子存證的法律效力進(jìn)行認(rèn)定的案件，為該種新型電子證據(jù)的認(rèn)定提供了審查思路，明確認(rèn)定區(qū)塊鏈存證的相關(guān)規(guī)則，有助于推動(dòng)區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)與司法深度融合，對(duì)完善信息化時(shí)代下的網(wǎng)絡(luò)訴訟規(guī)則具有重要意義。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
The plaintiff, Hangzhou Huatai Media Culture Media Co., Ltd (“Huatai”), alleged that the defendant’s, Shenzhen Daotong Technology Development Co., Ltd(“Daotong”), act of publishing the works of which Huatai had the copyright on the website without authorization infringed the plaintiff’s right of dissemination over information networks. Huatai collected evidence of infringement through the third-party evidence-storage platform, uploaded the relevant data as a hash value to the bitcoin blockchain and Factom blockchain, based on which Huatai requested Daotong to bear the liability of infringement.
杭州華泰一媒文化傳媒有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱華泰公司）認(rèn)為深圳市道同科技發(fā)展有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱道同公司）未經(jīng)許可在網(wǎng)站中發(fā)表其享有著作權(quán)的作品的行為侵犯其信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)傳播權(quán)，并通過(guò)第三方存證平臺(tái)對(duì)侵權(quán)事實(shí)予以取證，并將相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)計(jì)算成哈希值上傳至比特幣區(qū)塊鏈和Factom區(qū)塊鏈中形成區(qū)塊鏈存證，基于此請(qǐng)求道同公司承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held in this case that blockchain technology, based on its characteristics of distributed storage, tamper-proof mechanism and traceability, has advantages in the fixation, preservation and extraction of electronic evidence, but the court shall still determine the authenticity of electronic evidence stored on the blockchain according to certain standards and procedures. In this case, the electronic evidence data stored in the blockchain has a clear source, its generation and transmission path is definite and clear, and it can be mutually verified with the screenshots of web pages, source code information and call logs. Therefore, the generated electronic data is reliable.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定，區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)基于其分布式存儲(chǔ)、防篡改機(jī)制和可追溯性，在電子證據(jù)的固定、保存和提取方面具有優(yōu)勢(shì)，但仍應(yīng)按照一定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和程序認(rèn)定存儲(chǔ)于區(qū)塊鏈上電子證據(jù)的真實(shí)性。本案中華泰公司存儲(chǔ)于區(qū)塊鏈的電子證據(jù)數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源清晰,生成及傳遞路徑明確,且能與網(wǎng)頁(yè)截圖、源碼信息、調(diào)用日志相互印證,故其生成的電子數(shù)據(jù)具有可靠性。
On June 27, 2018, Hangzhou Internet Court made a judgment, which ordered the defendant to pay RMB 4,000 yuan to the plaintiff as the compensation for the economic loss. After the first instance judgment of the case was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has been effective.
杭州互聯(lián)網(wǎng)法院于2018年6月27日判決被告賠償原告經(jīng)濟(jì)損失4000元。本案一審宜判并送達(dá)后,原、被告均未提出上訴,該判決已生效。
Case 5
案例五：
Shenzhen Weiyuanma Software Development Co., Ltd. v. Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Abuse of Market Dominance
深圳微源碼軟件開發(fā)有限公司與騰訊科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市騰訊計(jì)算機(jī)系統(tǒng)有限公司濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位糾紛
[Significance]
【典型意義】
Nowadays, platforms on the Internet have played a critical role in the digital economy. The number of anti-monopoly claims brought against platforms recorded a sharp increase, and the norms and rules govern actions related to the abuse of market dominance should be further refined in such field. This case clarified the criteria for the delineation of the “relevant product market” for comprehensive Internet platforms. For comprehensive Internet platforms that provide various types of services, to delineate “relevant product market”, it is necessary to fully consider the products or services to which the abusive activities are specifically directed, to distinguish “relevant product market” for basic services from that for the value-added services, and to adopt the demand substitution analysis method according to the nature and characteristics of the products or services.
當(dāng)前大型互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)成為網(wǎng)絡(luò)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)重要的市場(chǎng)主體，對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)提起的反壟斷訴訟日漸增多，涉及濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位行為的相關(guān)市場(chǎng)認(rèn)定規(guī)則亟待明確。本案明確了綜合性互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)“相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)”的界定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。對(duì)于提供多種類型服務(wù)綜合性互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)，“相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)”的認(rèn)定需充分考慮涉案行為具體指向的產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)，區(qū)分互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)基礎(chǔ)性服務(wù)的“相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)”與增值服務(wù)的“相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)”，根據(jù)產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)的性質(zhì)、特點(diǎn)，運(yùn)用需求替代分析方法合理界定。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
Since October 2015, Shenzhen Weiyuanma Software Development Co., Ltd. (“Weiyuanma”) has registered twenty-six WeChat official accounts such as “Data Wizard Distribution Platform” on the WeChat platform operated by Tencent Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd and Shenzhen Tencent Computer System Co., Ltd. (“Tencent”). After that, Tencent banned the official accounts operated by Weiyuanma because the number of plug-in software promoted by the official accounts involved in this case obviously exceeded the scope of functions allowed by WeChat and violated WeChat’s service agreement, operation specifications and other regulations. Therefore, Weiyuanma brought a lawsuit to a court, requesting the court to order Tencent to stop abusing its market dominance and proposing nine prayers for relief, including unbanning its registered official accounts and compensating for its losses.
2015年10月以來(lái)，深圳微源碼軟件開發(fā)有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱微源碼公司）在騰訊科技（深圳）有限公司、深圳市騰訊計(jì)算機(jī)系統(tǒng)有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱騰訊公司）運(yùn)營(yíng)的微信平臺(tái)上注冊(cè)“數(shù)據(jù)精靈分銷平臺(tái)”等26個(gè)微信公眾號(hào)。之后，騰訊公司因涉案公眾號(hào)推廣的外掛軟件明顯超越微信所允許的功能范疇，違反微信服務(wù)協(xié)議及運(yùn)營(yíng)規(guī)范等多項(xiàng)規(guī)定，封禁了微源碼公司運(yùn)營(yíng)的公眾號(hào)。故微源碼公司訴至法院，請(qǐng)求法院判令騰訊公司停止濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位行為，提出包括解封其注冊(cè)的公眾號(hào)并賠償損失等九項(xiàng)訴訟請(qǐng)求。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held in this case that, the plaintiff Weiyuanma is not a general user of the WeChat instant messaging and social networking services, but a commercial entity who markets and promotes software products in the form of self-media on the platform. It has the demand of online promotion and publicity. Therefore, the “relevant product market” in this case should be the online promotion and publicity service market of the Internet platform. The plaintiff Weiyuanma had a wrong understanding of the “relevant product market" and failed to provide evidence to prove that the defendant Tencent had any activities of abusing its market dominance in the WeChat instant messaging and social networking services. As the operator of the WeChat platform, the defendant Tencent's necessary management of the plaintiff Weiyuanma's behavior which violated the service agreement and operation specifications concluded and agreed by both parties in advance is proper and does not constitute an abuse of its market dominance.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定,原告微源碼公司并非使用微信即時(shí)通信及社交服務(wù)的普通用戶,而是在平臺(tái)上以自媒體形式營(yíng)銷推廣軟件產(chǎn)品的商業(yè)主體,其需求為在線推廣宣傳,故本案“相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)”應(yīng)為互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)在線推廣宣傳服務(wù)市場(chǎng)。原告微源碼公司對(duì)“相關(guān)商品市場(chǎng)認(rèn)知錯(cuò)誤,亦未能提供證據(jù)證明被告騰訊公司具有濫用其微信即時(shí)通信及社交服務(wù)市場(chǎng)支配地位的行為。作為微信平臺(tái)運(yùn)營(yíng)方,被告騰訊公司依據(jù)雙方事先達(dá)成合意的服務(wù)協(xié)議及運(yùn)營(yíng)規(guī)范,對(duì)原告微源碼公司違規(guī)行為進(jìn)行必要管理并無(wú)不當(dāng),不構(gòu)成濫用市場(chǎng)支配地位。
On August 23, 2018, Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court ruled against plaintiff. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant filed an appeal, and the judgment has become effective.
深圳市中級(jí)人民法院于2018年8月23日判決駁回原告全部訴訟請(qǐng)求。本案一審宣判并送達(dá)后,原、被告均未提出上訴,該判決已發(fā)生法律效力。
Case 6
案例六：
Xu Xianben v. Tong Jiangang and YuhuanJinxin Plastics Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition
許先本與童建剛、玉環(huán)縣金鑫塑膠有限公司不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)糾紛案
[Significance]
【典型意義】
With the rise of the Internet economy, there are more and more activities taking advantage of the “notification-deletion” mechanism adopted by the Internet platforms for a quick handling of the infringement complaints, and infringing others’ legitimate rights and interests. This case clarified that it constituted unfair competition to make a malicious complaint against another undertaking’s goods through the complaint mechanism of an e-commerce platform and to make those goods deleted by the platform and lose the opportunities to be sold. It could effectively curb the filing of malicious complaints and maintain a good order of market competition.
隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的興起，利用互聯(lián)網(wǎng)平臺(tái)按照“通知—?jiǎng)h除”規(guī)則快速處理侵權(quán)投訴機(jī)制，侵犯他人合法權(quán)益的行為日益增多。本案明確了利用電商平臺(tái)投訴機(jī)制，惡意投訴其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者商品，使得其他經(jīng)營(yíng)者商品被平臺(tái)刪除，喪失銷售機(jī)會(huì)的行為，構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)，有效遏制了惡意投訴行為，維護(hù)了良好市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)秩序。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
On March 28, 2016, Tong Jiangang filed an infringement complaint to Taobao on the ground that the explosion-proof pressure cooker sold in Xu Xianben’s store on Taobao infringed his design patent, and submitted the Design Patent Certificate, the Design Patent Evaluation Report, etc. online. On April 7, 2016, Taobao recognized that the complaint made by Tong Jiangang was valid and deleted the link of the products being complained about. It was later found that Tong Jiangang altered the key content in the Design Patent Evaluation Report which was submitted when filing the complaint. Specifically, he maliciously changed “Preliminary conclusion: The whole design does not meet the requirements for the grant of a patent right” to “Preliminary conclusion: No defect has been found in the whole design that does not meet the requirements for the grant of a patent right”, and deleted “the design does not comply with the provisions of Article 23.2 of the Patent Law”. Xu Xianben brought a civil case before a court and requested the court to order the defendant to make a public apology and to compensate him RMB 500,000 Yuan.
2016年3月28日，童建剛以許先本淘寶店鋪銷售的防爆壓力鍋侵犯其外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利權(quán)為由，向淘寶公司發(fā)起侵權(quán)投訴，并在線提交了外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利證書及外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利權(quán)評(píng)價(jià)報(bào)告等。2016年4月7日，淘寶公司認(rèn)定童建剛投訴成立，刪除了被投訴的商品鏈接。經(jīng)查，童建剛對(duì)其投訴時(shí)提供的《外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利權(quán)評(píng)價(jià)報(bào)告》的關(guān)鍵內(nèi)容進(jìn)行了篡改，將“初步結(jié)論：全部外觀設(shè)計(jì)不符合授予專利權(quán)條件”惡意修改成“初步結(jié)論：全部外觀設(shè)計(jì)未發(fā)現(xiàn)存在不符合授予專利權(quán)條件的缺陷”；同時(shí)將“外觀設(shè)計(jì)不符合專利法第二十三條二款的規(guī)定”刪除。許先本訴至法院，請(qǐng)求判令被告公開賠禮道歉，并賠償損失50萬(wàn)元等。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held that the defendant Tong Jiangang knew that the application for design patent he filed was not granted with a patent right. Still, he altered the conclusion in the Patent Evaluation Report and used forged evidence to maliciously complain about the products sold by Xu Xianben which are similar products of his. Eventually, the link of the complained products was deleted by the platform. His activity violated the universally accepted code of business ethics and caused damages to the plaintiff since the plaintiff Xu Xianben was unable to normally carry out its business operations and suffer from losses, and constituted unfair competition.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定，被告童建剛明知申請(qǐng)的外觀設(shè)計(jì)專利未獲得專利許可,篡改專利權(quán)評(píng)價(jià)報(bào)告的結(jié)論,并使用變?cè)斓淖C據(jù)向電商平臺(tái)惡意投訴原告許先本經(jīng)營(yíng)的同類商品,導(dǎo)致涉案商品鏈接被平臺(tái)刪除,其行為違背公認(rèn)的商業(yè)道德準(zhǔn)則,使原告許先本無(wú)法開展正常經(jīng)營(yíng)活動(dòng)并造成了損失,構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。
Hangzhou Yuhang District People's Court of Zhejiang Province ruled, after trial, that the malicious complaint made by the defendant Tong Jiangang tituted unfair competition and ordered the defendant Tong Jiangang to compensate the plaintiff Xu Xianben RMB 20,000 Yuan for the economic ng reasonable expenses. The first instance judgment had then become effective
浙江省杭州市余杭區(qū)人民法院經(jīng)審理認(rèn)定被告童建剛的惡意投訴行為構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng),判決被告童建剛賠償原告許先本經(jīng)濟(jì)損失(含合理費(fèi)用)2萬(wàn)元。一審判決已生效。
Case 7
案例七：
Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. v. Wuhan Yuanguang Science & Technology Co., Ltd., Shao Lingshuang et. al Case of Dispute over Unfair Competition
深圳市谷米科技有限公司與武漢元光科技有限公司、邵凌霜等不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)糾紛
[Significance]
【典型意義】
As an important resource in the information age, big data contains enormous economic and social value. With the boom of industries related to the big data industry, it is also urgent to establish industry norms and governance standards. This case clarified that using web crawler technology to steal big data resources for a similar business constitutes an unfair competition. This rule aims to encourage the big data industry players to follow the business ethics and carry out fair and benign competition.
大數(shù)據(jù)作為一種信息時(shí)代的重要資源，蘊(yùn)含著巨大的經(jīng)濟(jì)和社會(huì)價(jià)值，在當(dāng)前大數(shù)據(jù)行業(yè)蓬勃發(fā)展的同時(shí)，相關(guān)行業(yè)規(guī)范和行為準(zhǔn)則亟待樹立。本案明確他人未經(jīng)許可利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)爬蟲技術(shù)盜用大數(shù)據(jù)資源，用于經(jīng)營(yíng)同類應(yīng)用程序的，構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。本案判決有利于確立大數(shù)據(jù)行業(yè)行為規(guī)范，促進(jìn)經(jīng)營(yíng)者遵循商業(yè)道德，開展公平、良性競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
From November 2015 to May 2016, Wuhan Yuanguang Science & Technology Co., Ltd. (“Yuanguang”) to expand the market share and information query accuracy of the intelligent bus app “Chelaile”, Shao Lingshuang, the company’s legal representative and president then, authorized Chen Mao, the company’s technical director to instruct employees Liu Jianghong, Liu Kunpeng, Zhang Xiang and others to use web crawler technology to obtain a large number of real-time bus information data of “Kumike”, the like app run by Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. (“Goome”), use it for its own app “Chelaile” and provide inquiry service to the public. Goome sued to the court for the break of business ethics and the principle of good faith by Yuanguang and relevant responsible persons which constituted unfair competition.
自2015年11月起至2016年5月，武漢元光科技有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱元光公司）為了提高其開發(fā)的智能公交應(yīng)用程序“車來(lái)了”的市場(chǎng)份額及信息查詢的準(zhǔn)確度，由時(shí)任該公司法定代表人并任總裁的邵凌霜授意公司技術(shù)總監(jiān)陳昴，指使公司員工劉江紅、劉坤朋、張翔等人利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)爬蟲技術(shù)大量獲取競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手深圳市谷米科技有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱谷米公司）經(jīng)營(yíng)的同類公交應(yīng)用程序“酷米客”的實(shí)時(shí)公交信息數(shù)據(jù)，無(wú)償使用于其“車來(lái)了”應(yīng)用程序，并向公眾提供查詢服務(wù)。谷米公司以元光公司及相關(guān)責(zé)任人的上述行為違背了商業(yè)道德和誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則，構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)為由訴至法院。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held that the commercially valued big data resources legally obtained by the right owner of the plaintiff Goome through collection, analysis, edition and compilation are protected by the relevant law. The plaintiff Goome provides free data query to the public for reasons of its business model or other needs, but the defendant Yuanguang uses web crawler technology to steal the data and use it to run its similar business. Yuanguang had the subjective intention of seeking its own competitive advantages by destroying others’ market competitive advantages, which seriously disrupted the market order, and thus constituted unfair competition.
整合所合法擁有的、具有商業(yè)價(jià)值的大數(shù)據(jù)資源,應(yīng)當(dāng)受到相關(guān)法律保護(hù)。原告谷米公司出于商業(yè)模式或其他需要向公眾免費(fèi)提供數(shù)據(jù)查詢,被告元光公司未經(jīng)權(quán)利人許可,以網(wǎng)絡(luò)爬蟲技術(shù)入后臺(tái)盜用數(shù)據(jù),并將盜取數(shù)據(jù)用于經(jīng)營(yíng)同類業(yè)務(wù)的,具有破壞他人市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)、謀取競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)的主觀故意,屬于嚴(yán)重破壞市場(chǎng)秩序的行為,構(gòu)成不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。
On May 23, 2018, Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court made a civil judgment, which ordered the defendant Wuhan Yuanguang Technology Co., Ltd. to compensate the plaintiff Shenzhen Goome Technology Co., Ltd. for the economic losses and reasonable costs of RMB 500,000 yuan. After the first instance judgment was pronounced and served, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant appealed, and the judgment has become effective.
深圳市中級(jí)人民法院于2018年5月23日作出民事判決,判令被告元光公司向原告谷米公司賠償經(jīng)濟(jì)損失及合理維權(quán)費(fèi)用50萬(wàn)元。本案一審宜判并送達(dá)后,原、被告均未提出上訴,該判決已發(fā)生法律效力。
Case 8
案例八：
Pang Lipeng v. China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. and Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right of Privacy
龐理鵬訴中國(guó)東方航空股份有限公司、北京趣拿信息技術(shù)有限公司隱私權(quán)糾紛
[Significance]
【典型意義】
In the Internet era, various types of data and information are transmitted at a high speed and in a huge amount of volume, and are highly shared. Not only does it bring convenience to people, it also brings unprecedented challenges to personal information security. This case set up the rule that personal information security may be protected through the right of privacy, specifies that the standard of proof used for the determination of personal information leakage should be the high probability for civil evidence, and was of great significance to the scrutiny of the platform behaviors and the maintenance of personal information security.
互聯(lián)網(wǎng)時(shí)代下，各類數(shù)據(jù)信息高速流通、海量傳播、高度共享，在給人們帶來(lái)便利的同時(shí)，也對(duì)個(gè)人信息安全帶來(lái)前所未有的挑戰(zhàn)。本案確立了可通過(guò)隱私權(quán)對(duì)個(gè)人信息安全予以保護(hù)的規(guī)則，明確了認(rèn)定個(gè)人信息泄露應(yīng)適用民事證據(jù)高度蓋然性證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，在現(xiàn)行法律體系下對(duì)保護(hù)個(gè)人信息安全提供了有益探索和規(guī)則指導(dǎo)，對(duì)規(guī)范網(wǎng)絡(luò)平臺(tái)行為，維護(hù)個(gè)人信息安全具有重要意義。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
Pang Lipeng entrusted his assistant Lu Chao to book an air ticket of China Eastern Airlines Co., Ltd. (“China Eastern Airlines”) on the website (www.qunar.com) run by Beijing Qunar Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Qunar”), and then received a fraud SMS, showing Pang Lipeng’s flight departure time, landing time, the name of the airport, and the flight number. Pang Lipeng believed that his mobile phone number and the exact flight information were only known to Qunar and China Eastern Airlines. He concluded that the two companies leaked his personal information and filed a lawsuit with a court to request a compensation of RMB 1,000 yuan as the mental damage solatium.
龐理鵬委托其助理魯超通過(guò)北京趣拿信息技術(shù)有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱趣拿公司）運(yùn)營(yíng)的去哪兒網(wǎng)購(gòu)買中國(guó)東方航空股份有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱東航公司）機(jī)票，其后收到詐騙短信，短信內(nèi)容中顯示有龐理鵬航班的起飛時(shí)間、降落時(shí)間、機(jī)場(chǎng)名稱、航班號(hào)。龐理鵬認(rèn)為，自己的手機(jī)號(hào)及確切的航班信息只有趣拿公司和東航公司掌握，因而其斷定是二公司泄露了其個(gè)人信息，于是訴至法院，要求二公司賠償精神損害撫慰金1000元。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court concluded that, the plaintiff Pang Lipeng’s non-private information and his private information has been combined together and constituted an inseparable right as a whole. It should be protected in accordance with the protection rules for privacy.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定，原告龐理鵬的非隱私信息與隱私信息結(jié)合之后已形成不可分的權(quán)利整體，應(yīng)當(dāng)按照隱私權(quán)的保護(hù)規(guī)則一體救濟(jì)。
The defendants China Eastern Airlines and Qunar obtained the plaintiff Pang Lipeng’s ID number, mobile phone number and voyage information, and the related information was leaked within a reasonable time. According to the standard of proof of high probability, it was enough to conclude that the information leakage was caused by the defendant. Therefore, both defendant shall be responsible for the infringement of the plaintiff’s right of privacy. On January 20, 2016, Beijing Haidian Primary People’s Court made the first-instance judgment and denied all of Pang Lipeng’s claims. On March 27, 2017, Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People’s Court made the final civil judgment in which the court revoked the first instance judgment; Qunar shall apologize to Pang Lipeng; China Eastern Airlines shall apologize to Pang Lipeng; and Pang Lipeng’s other requests for relief shall be rejected.
被告東航公司和趣拿公司掌握了原告龐理鵬身份證號(hào)、手機(jī)號(hào)和航程信息,其后,相關(guān)信息又在合理時(shí)間內(nèi)發(fā)生泄露,根據(jù)高度蓋然性的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn),足以認(rèn)定信息泄露系被告導(dǎo)致,故二被告構(gòu)成對(duì)原告隱私權(quán)的侵犯,應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。北京市海淀區(qū)人民法院于2016年1月20日作出一審判決,駁回龐理鵬的全部訴訟請(qǐng)求。北京市第一中級(jí)人民法院于2017年3月27日終審判決,撤銷一審判決;趣拿公司向龐理鵬賠禮道歉;東航公司向龐理鵬賠禮道歉;駁回龐理鵬的其他訴訟請(qǐng)求。
Case 9
案例九：
Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. Case of Dispute over Right to Reputation
上海法率信息技術(shù)有限公司訴北京奇虎科技有限公司名譽(yù)權(quán)糾紛案
[Significance]
【典型意義】
With the popularization of Internet terminals, spam messages and nuisance calls appears more frequently due to the leakage of personal information or excessive promotion by merchants, and there is a growing public demand for the protection of personal information and the right to be undisturbed. This case clarified that labeling of calling numbers made by mobile phone users is legitimate comments, and the mobile phone security software which displays the contexts and quantities of such negative labels on users’ mobile phones shall not be held liable in any form. It is of positive significance to the effective management of nuisance calls, protection of the right to privacy and the public’s right to be undisturbed.
隨著互聯(lián)網(wǎng)終端的應(yīng)用普及，因個(gè)人信息泄露或商家過(guò)度推廣導(dǎo)致垃圾短信、騷擾電話事件頻發(fā)，公眾對(duì)保護(hù)個(gè)人信息安全和生活安寧的要求日漸強(qiáng)烈。本案明確手機(jī)安全軟件向用戶客觀展示不特定多數(shù)人對(duì)來(lái)電號(hào)碼的評(píng)價(jià)、標(biāo)注，不構(gòu)成名譽(yù)權(quán)侵權(quán)或幫助侵權(quán)，對(duì)有效治理通訊騷擾、維護(hù)個(gè)人信息安全和生活安寧具有積極意義。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
Established in March 2014, Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. (“Falv”) mainly relies on its huge call system to carry out legal consulting business. 360 mobile phone guard is a free software operated by Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd (“Qihoo”), the cloud marking function of which can be used to mark and classify strange calls. Later, Falv found that its consulting number was marked by 360 mobile phone guard as a nuisance call number. It then brought a case to a court and requested Qihoo to stop the infringement, make an apology publicly and compensate for its losses.
上海法率信息技術(shù)有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱法率公司）于2014年3月成立，主要依靠龐大的呼叫系統(tǒng)開展法律咨詢業(yè)務(wù)。360手機(jī)衛(wèi)士系北京奇虎科技有限公司（以下簡(jiǎn)稱奇虎公司）旗下運(yùn)營(yíng)的免費(fèi)軟件，其中的云標(biāo)記功能可以對(duì)陌生來(lái)電進(jìn)行標(biāo)記分類。之后，法率公司發(fā)現(xiàn)其咨詢號(hào)碼被360手機(jī)衛(wèi)士標(biāo)記為騷擾電話，遂訴至法院，請(qǐng)求判令奇虎公司停止侵權(quán)、公開道歉并賠償損失。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court found in this case that the mobile phone security software developed by the defendant Qihoo allowed users to classify and mark strange incoming calls through the cloud marking function of the software. When the number of markings reached a certain amount, it would be displayed to other users on the receiving interface to assist users to intercept nuisance calls. The court held that network evaluation has become a part of the public’s daily expression, and people’s actions and decisions often rely on collective evaluations. An evaluation with negative words does not constitute an infringement on the right of reputation unless it is seriously untrue and causes harm or is made out of the purpose of fraud. The defendant Qihoo, in order to meet its users’ needs, truthfully displayed users’ evaluations of the calls from the plaintiff Falv, which did not constitute a violation of the right of reputation. On January 25, 2017, Shanghai Yangpu District People’s Court made a civil judgment, which rejected all of the claims of Falv. Falv was not satisfied with the result and appealed to Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court. On May 15, 2017, the Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court made a final decision th l and upheld the original judgment.
法院在本案中查明，被告奇虎公司開發(fā)的手機(jī)安全軟件允許用戶通過(guò)軟件的云標(biāo)記功能對(duì)陌生來(lái)電進(jìn)行分類標(biāo)記，當(dāng)標(biāo)記達(dá)到一定數(shù)量后，在接聽界面向其他用戶展示，協(xié)助用戶攔截騷擾電話。法院認(rèn)定，網(wǎng)絡(luò)評(píng)價(jià)已成為公眾日常表達(dá)的一部分，人們的行動(dòng)和決策常常借助于公眾評(píng)價(jià),其中表達(dá)為負(fù)面性詞匯的評(píng)價(jià),除非嚴(yán)重不實(shí)并造成損害或者出于欺詐,否則不構(gòu)成名譽(yù)侵權(quán);被告奇虎公司出于滿足用戶需求目的,如實(shí)予以展示用戶對(duì)原告法率公司來(lái)電的評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)注行為,亦不構(gòu)成幫助侵權(quán)。上海市楊浦區(qū)人民法院一審判決駁回法率公司的全部訴訟請(qǐng)求。法率公司不服,向上海市第二中級(jí)人民法院提起上訴。上海市第二中級(jí)人民法院經(jīng)審理后,終審判決駁回上訴,維持原判。
Case 10
案例十：
Illegal Use of Information Networks by Tan Zhangyu, Zhang Yuan, et al. Case on the Crime of Illegal Use of Information Network
譚張羽、張?jiān)吹确欠ɡ眯畔⒕W(wǎng)絡(luò)案
[Significance]
【典型意義】
Cyber crimes in recent years has been showing the characteristics of diversified subjects, highly hidden means, refined division of work in a cybercrime chain, scattered places where the crime is committed, etc. In particular, cyber fraud is often committed via online communication by and between the upstream and the downstream of a cybercrime chain. This case clarified that a person who had a clear knowledge that the “clickfarming advertisement” of his client was a fraudulent act, but, with a purpose of obtaining illegal gains, still provided assistance to promote the advertisement for the crime committed, shall be considered as committed the crime of illegal use of information networks where the circumstances are severe. The specific rules set by the case could effectively crack down on criminal activities involving illegal use of information networks.
近年來(lái)，網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪呈現(xiàn)出主體多元化、手段隱蔽性高、分工鏈條精細(xì)、作案地域分散等特點(diǎn)，尤其是網(wǎng)絡(luò)詐騙犯罪經(jīng)常上下游之間通過(guò)網(wǎng)絡(luò)聯(lián)絡(luò)實(shí)施犯罪。本案明確行為人明知上家的“刷單廣告”是從事詐騙的行為，仍以非法獲利為目的，為其犯罪提供廣告推廣幫助，情節(jié)嚴(yán)重的，構(gòu)成非法利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)罪。本案判決細(xì)化了新類型網(wǎng)絡(luò)犯罪的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，有力打擊了非法利用網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息的犯罪活動(dòng)。
[Case Summary]
【基本案情】
In December 2016, to obtain illegal gains, the defendants, Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan planned to engage in sending fraud information about “gainning commissions by click-farming” to others via the Internet. Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan employed the defendant Qin Qiufa and other persons to send the fraud information. Zhang Yuan’s primary responsibility was to purchase “Alitalk” accounts and software, and to lease computer servers, etc. Qin Qiufa took charge of soliciting and contacting with customers who are in need of sending fraud information, receiving payments from the customers and guiding others to send fraud information. The three defendants provided assistance to publish the fraud information with the clear knowledge that the click-farming was not true and was used only for fraud. Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan would obtain RMB 30 to 70 Yuan from their client when each person added QQ numbers in the above-mentioned information. The victims Wang and Hong were defrauded of RMB 31,000 Yuan and RMB 30,049 Yuan respectively after adding QQ numbers in the fraud information prepared and sent by Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan.
2016年12月，為獲取非法利益，被告人譚張羽、張?jiān)垂餐潭?，利用注?cè)的公司開展在網(wǎng)絡(luò)上從事為他人發(fā)送“刷單獲取傭金”的詐騙信息業(yè)務(wù)。譚張羽、張?jiān)垂蛡虮桓嫒饲厍锇l(fā)等負(fù)責(zé)發(fā)送詐騙信息。張?jiān)粗饕?fù)責(zé)購(gòu)買“阿里旺旺”賬號(hào)、軟件、租賃電腦服務(wù)器等；秦秋發(fā)主要負(fù)責(zé)招攬、聯(lián)系有發(fā)送詐騙信息需求的上家、接收上家支付的費(fèi)用及帶領(lǐng)其他人發(fā)送詐騙信息。三被告在明知不存在刷單事實(shí)，系上家用于詐騙的情況下，仍然幫助發(fā)布詐騙信息，每一人添加上述信息里的QQ號(hào)，譚張羽、張?jiān)磸纳霞姨帿@取30至70元報(bào)酬。被害人王某甲、洪某在添加譚張羽、張?jiān)吹热私M織發(fā)送的詐騙信息中的QQ號(hào)后，分別被騙31000元和30049元。
[Decision]
【法院裁判】
The court held that the defendants Tan Zhangyu, Zhang Yuan, and Qin Qiufa sent fraud click-farming information via information networks with a purpose of obtaining illegal gains which was essentially an inchoate offense of fraud, and constituted the crime of illegal use of information networks. Although there was no evidence proving that the persons conducted the fraud act have been arrested and criminally prosecuted, many victims have appeared, without any prejudice to the constitution of the crime of illegal use of information networks. Tan Zhangyu, Zhang Yuan, and Qin Qiufa jointly committed the intentional offense, which is a jointly committed crime. Tan Zhangyu and Zhang Yuan played a leading role in this jointly committed crime and they are the principals in this case. Qin Qiufa played subordinate role in this jointly committed crime as an accessory criminal and shall be given lighter sentence.
法院在本案中認(rèn)定,被告人譚張羽、張?jiān)?、秦秋發(fā)以非法獲利為目的,通過(guò)信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)發(fā)送刷單詐騙信息其行為本質(zhì)上屬于詐騙犯罪預(yù)備,構(gòu)成非法利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)罪。雖然本案中尚無(wú)證據(jù)證實(shí)已有詐騙行為人歸案并受到刑事追究,但已有多位受害者出現(xiàn),不影響非法利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)罪的成立。譚張羽、張?jiān)?、秦秋發(fā)共同實(shí)施故意犯罪,系共同犯罪。在共同犯罪中,譚張羽、張?jiān)雌鹬饕饔?均系主犯;秦秋發(fā)起次要作用,屬?gòu)姆?依法予以從輕處罰。
Pursuant to the first-instance judgment of Shuyang Primary People's Court of Jiangsu Province and the second-instan judgment of Suqian Intermediate People's Court of Jiangsu Province the defendant Zhang Yuan was sentenced to two-year and one month imprisonment for the crime of illegal use of information networks and fined RMB 100,000 yuan as penalty; the defendant Tan Zhangyu was sentenced to one year and ten months imprisonment for the crime of illegal use of information networks and fined RMB 80.000 yuan as penalty; and the defendant Qin Qiufa was sentenced to one year and four months imprisonment for the crime of illegal use of information network and fined RMB 30,000 yuan as penalty.
江蘇省沭陽(yáng)縣人民法院一審判決、宿遷市中級(jí)人民法院二審判決,以非法利用信息網(wǎng)絡(luò)罪判處被告人張?jiān)从衅谕叫潭暌粋€(gè)月,并處罰金人民幣10萬(wàn)元;被告人譚張羽有期徒刑一年十個(gè)月,并處罰金人民幣8萬(wàn)元;被告人秦秋發(fā)有期徒刑一年四個(gè)月,并處罰金人民幣3萬(wàn)元。