Shanghai Chimbusco Marine Bunker Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision (case regarding dispute over an administrative penalty decision)

[Judgment Abstract]

Administrative regulatory documents have the administrative validity as the basis for the implementation of administrative penalty through formulation, issuance, promulgation and implementation. Whether an administrative regulatory document comes into force or not does not depend on whether it is filed for record or not. Therefore, if an administrative regulatory document should be filed for record but is not, this problem should be resolved through the statutory means of supervision and inspection within the administrative organ.

According to the relevant laws, regulations, and rules, if an administrative regulatory document involved is different to national standards, industry standards, local standards, and corporate standards, and constitutes the basis for inspection and determination of the quality of ordinary diesel products manufactured and sold in a certain area, the implementation of the administrative regulatory document should be considered in a fair manner in the review of the appropriateness of administrative penalty. Therefore, the punishment results are adjusted in accordance with the laws from the administrative discretion, and the appropriateness of the administrative penalty decision is further enhanced, so as to better reflect the administrative penalty principle that adheres to the combination of punishment and education.

Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over right of reputation)

[Judgment Abstract]

The commentary marks on call-in numbers made by mobile phone subscribers through security software, even if being negative, should be regarded as justifiable social evaluation. Security software platforms are not deemed illegal to display these negative marks at the calling interface of mobile phones. Even the contents displayed affect the reputation of the phone number owner to a certain degree, it should not determine that the platform infringes upon the right of reputation or aids the infringement, unless the phone number owner can prove that the platform fabricates false comments on purpose.

Hainan Nanyang Real Estate Co., Ltd. and Hainan Chenggong Investment Co., Ltd. v. Nanyang Shipping Group Stock Holding Co., Ltd., Chen Lin, Hainan Jincan Commercial and Trading Co., Ltd., et al. (case regarding dispute over third-party revocation actions)

[Judgment Abstract]

The system of third-party revocation actions is implemented to provide remedies for a third party that fails to participate in the action for any reasons not attributed to himself or herself, when the judgements, verdicts or meditations in force are erroneous and harmful to the civil interests of the third party. In practice, it is often required to strike a balance between safeguarding the legitimate rights of the third party and preventing the misuse of third-party revocation actions to damage the stability of the effective judgements. Where a third party filing the revocation action cannot fully prove the judgements, verdicts or meditations in force are erroneous and harm his or her civil interests, the court should dismiss the claims.

 From：www.chinalawinfo.com