This article was originally published in Conflict of Laws and is reproduced with the consent of the author, Meng Yu.

Key Takeaways:

• In June 2024, the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area Nanning International Commercial Tribunal under the Nanning Railway Transportation Intermediate Court in Guangxi ruled to recognize and enforce a Thai monetary judgment (Guangxi Nanning China Travel Service, Ltd. v. Orient Thai Airlines Co., Ltd. (2023) Gui 71 Xie Wai Ren No. 1).
• Apart from being the first case of enforcing Thai monetary judgments in China, it is also the first publicly reported case confirming a reciprocal relationship based on “presumptive reciprocity”.
• The Chinese court’s confirmation that “presumptive reciprocity”, as outlined in the Nanning Statement, is a form of mutual consensus between China and ASEAN countries helps to promote the circulation of judgments within the China-ASEAN region.

On 18 June 2024, the China-ASEAN Free Trade Area Nanning International Commercial Tribunal under the Nanning Railway Transportation Intermediate Court, Guangxi (hereafter the “Nanning Court”), ruled to recognize and enforce a Thai monetary judgment.

This case marks the first time that a Chinese court has recognized and enforced a Thai monetary judgment. It is also the first publicly reported case to confirm a reciprocal relationship based on “presumptive reciprocity” (推定互惠). The “presumptive reciprocity” test, outlined in the Nanning Statement of the 2nd China-ASEAN Justice Forum in 2017, has now been confirmed by the Nanning Court as a form of reciprocal consensus (互惠��p��)[i] between China and ASEAN countries. This explains the use of the term “presumptive reciprocity consensus” (推定互惠关系��p��) in the Chinese news report (cf. Guangxi High People’s Court’s news).

Although the full text of the judgment has not yet been made publicly available, the Chinese news report and related court announcements provide valuable details about the case. This case marks the latest application of the new reciprocity requirement by Chinese courts and actively promotes the circulation of judgments within the China-ASEAN region.

I. Case background

In July 2015, Guangxi Nanning China Travel Service Co., Ltd. (“Nanning China Travel”), a Chinese company, and Orient Thai Airlines Co., Ltd. (“Orient Thai Airlines”), a Thai company, entered into an airline ticket sales contract based on their long-term cooperation in charter flights. The contract was signed in Nanning and stipulated that disputes would be settled by the court where the Orient Thai Airlines was located. Subsequently, disputes arose between the parties, and Nanning China Travel filed a lawsuit against Orient Thai Airlines in the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court of Thailand (“Thai Court”).

On 16 September 2019, the Thai Court issued a civil judgment No. GorKor 166/2562 (the “Thai Judgment”), ordering Orient Thai Airlines to pay CNY 18,002,676 (approx. USD 2,476,330) plus interest to Nanning China Travel.

In February 2023, in order to enforce the rights confirmed by the Thai Judgment, and considering that Orient Thai Airlines has multiple branches in China that may have executable assets, Nanning China Travel applied to the Nanning Court for recognition and enforcement of the Thai Judgment.

On 18 June 2024, the Nanning Court rendered the civil ruling (2023) Gui 71 Xie Wai Ren No. 1 to recognize and enforce the Thai Judgment.

II.Court views

Although China and Thailand have signed the “Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters and on Cooperation in Arbitration”, the treaty does not contain provisions on judgment recognition and enforcement. In the absence of a treaty, as this is the case with Thailand, recognition and enforcement can be pursued on the basis of the principle of reciprocity (New Art. 299 of the PRC Civil Procedure Law [former article 288 of the 2021 Amendment of the PRC Civil Procedure Law]).[ii]

Determining whether reciprocity exists between China and Thailand is, therefore, a crucial first step.

As Judge Huayan Wang of the Nanning Court explained, “We (the court) examined two issues: the time limit of the application for recognition and enforcement, and the existence of reciprocity. The key to this case is the determination of reciprocal consensus (互惠��p��), in the absence of de jure reciprocity (法律互惠) and de facto reciprocity (事实互惠) ”.

In doing so, the Nanning Court referred to the presumptive reciprocity test proposed in the Nanning Statement as a form of reciprocal consensus, and ultimately determined that reciprocity existed between China and Thailand.

III.Comments

1. “Presumptive reciprocity” in this case

Interestingly, the Nanning Statement was adopted in Nanning in June 2017, and seven years later, in a striking coincidence, a local intermediate court in the same city confirmed the reciprocity between China and Thailand, relying on presumptive reciprocity proposed the Nanning Statement.

Simply put, the so-called “presumptive reciprocity” means that, unless proven otherwise, reciprocity is presumed to exist between the requested State and the State of origin, to the extent permitted by domestic law of the requested State.[iii] Here, “proven otherwise” refers to any existing case where the judgments from the requested State have been refused enforcement in the State of origin on the ground of the lack of reciprocity. Since no such cases were found by the Nanning Court, reciprocity is presumed to exist between Thailand and China.

It is, however, still unclear how Thai courts would react to the “first move” from Chinese courts: will they follow suit or not? Given that it is unlikely, if not impossible, to have any foreign judgment recognized and enforced in Thailand, as discussed in an post provided by Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI), should a Thai court refuse to recognize and enforce a Chinese judgment on the ground of lack of reciprocity one day, the presumed reciprocity might have to be reviewed, or even revoked. By then, will there be any other way out? More issues need to be clarified and settled in future cases.

2. Wider Implication: reciprocal understanding or consensus in China-ASEAN region

What is more noteworthy is that the reciprocity consensus applied by Nanning court is considered to be a subcategory of "reciprocal understanding or consensus" (互惠谅解与共�?, which is one of the three new reciprocity tests in addition to de jure reciprocity (法律互惠) and reciprocal commitment (互惠承诺).

Chart - Reciprocity tests in China

Compared to the other two current reciprocity tests—de jure reciprocity and reciprocal commitment—reciprocal understanding or consensus is a more easily overlooked test, because it is neither as well-known as de jure reciprocity nor as novel as the reciprocal commitment (cf. other related posts including: (i) De jure reciprocity - The First Time China Recognizes English Judgment, Implementing 2022 Judicial Policy in Full; (ii) Reciprocal commitment - First Case of Reciprocal Commitment: China Requests Azerbaijan to Enforce its Judgment Based on Reciprocity; (iii) How Chinese Courts Determine Reciprocity in Foreign Judgment Enforcement - Breakthrough for Collecting Judgments in China Series (III); (iv) China’s 2022 Landmark Judicial Policy Clears Final Hurdle for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments.)

Although the presumptive reciprocity proposed in the Nanning Statement is considered the best example of reciprocal consensus, from the time the Nanning Statement was adopted in 2017 until June 2024, the “presumptive reciprocity” remained largely theoretical. Prior to this case, there were no publicly reported cases indicating whether, and if so, how, Chinese courts applied “presumptive reciprocity” when dealing with cases involving the recognition and enforcement of judgments from ASEAN countries.

This case changed this situation.

The “presumptive reciprocity” outlined in the Nanning Statement, as a form of reciprocal consensus between China and ASEAN countries, has been confirmed by the Chinese court in this case. This means that for the ten ASEAN countries, apart from Laos and Vietnam, which already have applicable bilateral treaties with China, the remaining eight countries—Brunei Darussalam, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand—can have their civil and commercial judgments recognized and enforced in China based on the presumptive reciprocity.

In addition, for monetary judgments from Singapore, there is also the China-Singapore Memorandum of Guidance (MOG), which can be considered another example of “reciprocal understanding or consensus”. This MOG serves as a practical guideline for Chinese courts on how to recognize and enforce Singaporean monetary judgments. (Cf. other related posts including: (i) Series - Singapore-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement; (ii) Chinese Court Recognizes Singaporean Judgment Again: No Bilateral Treaty But Only Memorandum?)

Another commentary on this case can be found here on the website of Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI).

[i] Since the 2000s, the standards to establish reciprocity have evolved significantly, reflecting China’s efforts to liberalize its rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The 2021 “Conference Summary of the Symposium on Foreign-related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts Nationwide” issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court introduces new standards for determining reciprocity that replace the previous de facto reciprocity test. The new reciprocity standards include de jure reciprocity, reciprocal understanding or consensus, and reciprocal commitment. These standards coincide with possible outreaches of legislative, judicial, and administrative branches.

[ii] Art. 299 After examining an application or request for recognition and enforcement of a legally effective judgment or ruling of a foreign court in accordance with an iInternational treaty concluded or acceded to by the People's Republic of China or under the principle of reciprocity, a people's court shall render a ruling to recognise the legal force of the judgment or ruling and issue an order for enforcement, as needed, to enforce the judgment or ruling in accordance with the relevant provisions of this Law, if   the people's court deems that the judgment or ruling neither violates the basic principles of the laws of the People's Republic of China nor damages the sovereignty, security, and public iInterest of the State (emphasis added).

[iii] Below is the original statement from the Nanning Statement:“If two countries have not been bound by any international treaty on mutual recognition and enforcement of foreign civil or commercial judgments, both countries may, subject to their domestic laws, presume the existence of their reciprocal relationship, when it comes to the judicial procedure of recognizing or enforcing such judgments made by courts of the other country, provided that the courts of the other country had not refused to recognize or enforce such judgments on the ground of lack of reciprocity.”(emphasis added)

Photo by chris robert on Unsplash

On 11 May 2024, China’s State Administration for Market Regulation issued the “Interim Provisions on Anti-Unfair Competition on the Internet” (�|�络反不正当竞争暂行规定, hereinafter referred to as the “Interim Provisions”), which will come into force on 1 Sept. 2024.

The Interim Provisions, focusing on unfair competition in the digital platform economy (including new issues such as fabricated reviews and illegal data scarping), aims to encourage innovation, regulate competition, protect the legitimate rights and interests of operators and consumers, and promote sustainable development of the digital economy.

The Interim Provisions comprises 43 articles in 5 chapters: General Provisions, Acts of Unfair Competition in the Internet Industry, Supervision and Inspection, Legal Liabilities, and Supplementary Provisions.

The highlights of the Interim Provisions are as follows:

• Operators shall not use technical means (e.g. the Internet, big data, and algorithms) to interfere with users’ choices or otherwise, thereby impeding or sabotaging the normal operation of any online product or service lawfully provided by other operators. Specifically, operators shall not take any of the following actions:

(a) inserting a link or forcing a URL redirection in other operators’ internet products or services without their consent;

(b) misleading, tricking or forcing users to modify, shut down, or uninstall other operators’ internet products or services; or

(c) maliciously causing incompatibility with other operators’ internet products or services.

• Operators shall not induce users into making certain favorable comments by means of cash rebates or rewards, nor shall operators make false or misleading commercial advertisements about the producers, operators, sales, transaction information, business data, user evaluations, etc. of the commodities in order to deceive or mislead consumers or the relevant public.

• The dominant platform operator shall not, without justifiable reasons, utilize technical means to abuse management rules and information advantages such as back-end transaction data and Specifically, the dominant platform operator shall not block third-party business information or improperly interfere with the order of commodity display, thereby impeding or sabotaging the normal operation of any online product or service lawfully provided by other operators and disturbing the order of fair competition in the market.

Photo by Yu S on Unsplash

On 7 May 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court published a judicial policy document entitled the “Working Regulations for Construction and Operation of the People’s Court Case Database” (人民法院案例库徏设运行工作规�E? hereinafter referred to as the “Regulations”) ,which came into force on 8 May.

The Regulations consist of 30 articles, providing for the entry process of reference cases, the entry process of socially recommended reference cases, the retrieval and use of the cases in the database, and the dynamic adjustment of reference cases.

The highlights of the Regulations are as follows:

• Where the court refers to a similar case in the database when trying a pending case, the court reasoning and key points in the judgment of the similar case can be considered and referred to, but shall not be used as the legal basis for a ruling.

• Where the procuratorates, the parties to the case, their defenders or litigation agents, etc. submit cases in the database as reasons for prosecution and defense, the court shall respond to them in the reasoning of the judgment.
• State organs, law schools, bar associations, professionals, scholars, lawyers, and other citizens or units can recommend reference cases to the database.

On 27 Feb. 2024, the People’s Court Cases Database (https://rmfyalk.court.gov.cn) was officially launched and made accessible to the public. It is the latest “public legal service product” established by the SPC. The database contains authoritative cases that have been reviewed by the SPC and are deemed to have reference value for similar cases, including guiding cases and reference cases.

Related Post:

• China Launches People's Courts Case Database for Public

Photo by Miranda Richey on Unsplash

On 26 Apr. 2024, the Chinese legislative body, the National People’s Congress (NPC) Standing Committee, adopted the “Tariff Law of the People’s Republic of China”(中华人民共和国关�E�法, hereinafter the “Tariff Law”), which shall come into force on 1 Dec. 2024. On the same day, the “Import and Export Tariff Rules of the People’s Republic of China”(中华人民共和国进出口�E�则) was issued and implemented simultaneously with the Tariff Law.

The Tariff Law was promulgated based on its predecessor “Regulations on Import and Export Duties of the People’s Republic of China”(中华人民共和国进出口关税条例), a piece of administrative regulation, and recent practices in the field of tariffs. By changing its nature from an administrative regulation to a law, the Tariff Law establishes the basic tariff system at the legislative level.

The highlights of the Tariff Law are as follows.

• It clarifies the authority of the NPC Standing Committee, the State Council, and the Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council to adjust tariff items and rates, as well as the basic system of tariff collection and management.
• The consignees of imported goods, the consignors of exported goods, and the carriers or recipients of entry articles are tariff payers. In response to the requirements of developing cross-border e-commerce, it clearly provides withholding agents of tariffs in relevant fields.
• It specifies items that are exempt from tariffs or subject to reduced tariffs, and authorizes the State Council to formulate special preferential tariff policies based on the needs of safeguarding national interests, promoting international exchanges, economic and social development, scientific and technological innovation, or due to emergencies, subject to record filing with the NPC Standing Committee.

Photo by 五玄�?ORIENTO on Unsplash

On 26 Apr. 2024, China’s legislature, the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, passed the “Law of the People’s Republic of China on Academic Degrees”(中华人民共和国学位法, hereinafter the “Law”), which shall come into force on 1 Jan. 2025.

In 1980, China enacted its first education law, the “Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Academic Degrees” (中华人民共和国学位条�? hereinafter the “Regulations”), which laid the foundation for the establishment of the academic degree system.

This time, the “Regulations” has been renamed the “Law” and comprehensively revised to regulate degree-granting activities, guarantee the quality of degrees, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of degree applicants.

The highlights of the Law are as follows.

• While adhering to the three-tier system of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees, it specifies the types of degrees including academic degrees, professional degrees, and other types.
• It clarifies the conditions for obtaining degree-granting qualifications and the bodies and procedures for approval, and establishes a system of autonomous examination for the granting of master’s and doctoral degrees, thereby expanding the autonomy of degree-granting institutions.
• It authorizes the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council to set separate conditions and procedures for the establishment and organization of relevant disciplines and degree-granting institutions, emphasizing the orientation of strengthening the construction of basic disciplines, emerging disciplines, and interdisciplinary disciplines, and serving the needs of major national strategies.

Photo by Jay on Unsplash

On 15 Apr. 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP), together with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions and the All-China Women’s Federation, released typical cases on safeguarding the rights and interests of women and children, aiming to provide guidance to courts in handling similar cases.

This series of 12 cases highlights the judicial authorities’ “zero tolerance” and strict punishment of crimes against women and children in accordance with the law.

Taking Case One, the “Zhou Forced Indecent Assault Case”, as an example, the recruiter took advantage of the unequal positions during the job-seeking process to verbally threaten the job-seeking woman, so that the victim was psychologically coerced to the extent that she dared not to resist. Such behavior is identified as “coercion” under the crime of forced indecent assault. The defendant, Zhou, was found guilty of forcing the woman through verbal threats to commit indecent assault and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

By publicizing such cases, the SPP and other departments not only illustrate the Chinese judicial authorities’ strict punishment of sexual crimes against women in the workplace but also encourage women who experience such offenses to protect their legitimate rights and interests through a legal approach.

Photo by Matt Zhang on Unsplash

On 25 Apr. 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Procuratorate (SPP) released the “White Paper of Intellectual Property Crime Prosecution (2021-2023)” (知识产权���察工作白皮书(2021—2023�q?).

This is the first time that the SPP has published a white paper related to IP crimes, which provides an overview of IP cases involving criminal, civil, administrative, and public interest prosecution handled by Chinese procuratorates over the past three years.

From 2021 to 2023, the number of IP crimes accepted, reviewed, and prosecuted by procuratorates nationwide rose from 22,000 to 30,700. In addition, the number of IP cases involving civil or administrative prosecution supervision has been increased significantly year by year, with a 3.1-fold year-on-year increase in 2021, a 72.2% year-on-year increase in 2022, and another 1.7-fold year-on-year increase to 2,508 cases in 2023.

The white paper selects several typical cases for illustration. The SPP has guided procuratorates at all levels to handle a number of criminal cases involving infringement of enterprises’ key technologies in emerging fields such as chip manufacturing, power batteries, artificial intelligence, and biomedicine. Take, for example, the case of Zhang and others infringing on commercial secrets. In this case, the Shanghai Procuratorate determined in accordance with the law that the defendant company had colluded with employees of the victim company to illegally obtain the chip technology for the design and production of the same type of chips, and that the reasonable licensing royalties on the technology involved amounted to hundreds of millions of CNY.

Photo by Kayla Kozlowski on Unsplash

On 15 Apr. 2024, China’s Supreme People’s (SPC) Court issued the “Opinions on Carrying out the Work of ‘Caring for Minors Reminders’ in Divorce Cases Involving Minors” (关于在涉及未成年子女的离婚案件中开�?ldquo;关爱未成�q��h提示”工作的意�? hereinafter the “Opinions”), requiring courts at all levels nationwide to guide the parties in divorce cases involving minors to raise their awareness of their responsibilities, fulfill their guardianship duties, prevent juvenile delinquency, and promote the physical and mental health of minors.

The highlights of the Opinions are as follows.

• Courts shall use real cases to remind and emphasize to parties in divorce cases their legal obligations and rights as parents towards their minor children, as well as the adverse consequences of violating the law. For instance, neither parent may violate the principle of acting in the best interest of minors to compete for the right of custody by snatching or hiding the minor children, etc., or they may bear adverse consequences; if the circumstances are serious, the courts may impose a fine or detention, and if the case constitutes a crime, they will also be held criminally liable according to the law.
• Courts may use various methods such as online and offline channels to conduct “care for minor children reminders” at various stages, including case filing, pre-litigation mediation, trial, and enforcement, through oral notices, on-site prompt reading, video playback, and issue “reminder cards” or “reminder brochures”, etc.
• When necessary, the court can combine with family education counseling work.

It is reported that in the same month, courts in various regions, such as the Leping Primary People’s Court, Jiangxi, and the Yushan Primary People’s Court, Ma’anshan, Anhui, have issued reminder cards on the care of minor children to parties involved in divorce disputes.

Photo by Vidar Nordli-Mathisen on Unsplash

On 22 Apr. 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released the Top 10 Intellectual Property (IP) Cases and 50 Typical IP Cases heard by Chinese courts in 2023. On the same day, the SPC also published the “Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2023” in both Chinese and English.

The selected cases cover various fields including innovation of core technologies in key fields, digital economy, and seed industry, showing the determination of Chinese courts to protect IP rights.

Take one of the Top 10 Cases – the “Siemens” trademark infringement and unfair competition case – as an example. The defendant (an electrical appliance company based in Ningbo), knowing the reputation and popularity of the trademark “SIEMENS”, deliberately labeled its washing machine products with “Shanghai Siemens Electric Appliance Co., LTD”, which caused confusion and misidentification on the part of consumers and constituted trademark infringement. The defendant’s use of the Siemens logo in product packaging and advertising also constituted unfair competition and should be liable for damages.

As for the amount of compensation, since the defendant refused to provide the financial materials related to the infringement, which constituted an obstruction of evidence, the court of first instance calculated the sales of the allegedly infringing products as 1/15 of the defendant’s total annual sales of CNY 1.5 billion by referring to the data in the media reports and according to the relevant facts of the case. The SPC upheld the verdict in the second trial.

In this case, the system of obstruction of evidence is strictly applied. Infringers who deliberately fail to provide evidence and obstruct the court from determining the facts of the case will be dealt with unfavorably in accordance with the law.

Photo by Emmanuel Appiah on Unsplash

On 22 Apr. 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) published a report titled “Intellectual Property Protection by Chinese Courts in 2023” (中国法院知识产权司法保护) in both Chinese and English, and released the Top 10 Intellectual Property (IP) Cases and 50 Typical IP Cases heard by Chinese courts in 2023.

According to the report, the courts nationwide accepted 544,126 IP cases of various types and concluded 544,112 cases in 2023, up 3.41% and 0.13%, respectively, from 2022.

In 2023, punitive damages were applied in 319 cases throughout the country, a year-on-year increase of 117%, with the total amount awarded reaching CNY 1.16 billion. For example, in the case involving trademark infringement and unfair competition against “PANPAN” (盼盼,  one of China’s top door manufacturers), the SPC applied 4 times punitive damages for maliciously parasitic use of similar trademarks while knowing the popularity and influence of others’ registered trademarks, and ruled the defendant to compensate over 100 million yuan.

Related Post:

• China’s Record CNY 100M Judgment in Landmark Trademark Battle: 'Xin Pan Pan' Loses to PANPAN

The Top 10 Influential Cases and Top 50 Typical Cases cover various fields including core technology innovation in key fields, digital economy, and seed industry. For more information, please see our post “SPC Releases Top 10 Influential IP Cases of 2023”.

Photo by shark ovski on Unsplash

On 13 Mar. 2024, the Shanghai Bankruptcy Court released the “Typical Cases in 2023”.

A total of 10 cases were selected, including the previously reported case of in re Shanghai International Corporation (上�v国际株式会社), in which a Japanese bankruptcy decision has been recognized in China for the first time, and in re Hong Kong Fresh Water International Group Ltd (香港港浩泽国际集团有限公�?, which involved a Mainland Chinese court’s recognition of and assistance to Hong Kong bankruptcy proceedings.

Related Posts:

• Turning Point: China First Recognizes Japanese Bankruptcy Decision
• Decoding the Turning Point: A Closer Look at China’s Recognition of Japanese Bankruptcy

On 30 Mar. 2023, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court rendered a ruling in in re Hong Kong Fresh Water International Group Ltd, recognizing the Hong Kong liquidation proceedings and the status as Hong Kong liquidators in accordance with the pertinent provisions of the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law and the “Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Launching the Pilot Program of Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy Proceedings in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (最高�h民法院关于开展认可和协助香港特别行政区破产程序试点工作的意见, hereinafter referred to as the “SPC Opinions”). The court also defined the scope of the Hong Kong liquidator’s functions and provided assistance to the liquidator in discharging its duties in the Mainland.

This is the first time that the Shanghai Third Intermediate Court has recognized and assisted a Hong Kong insolvency proceeding since it was designated as a pilot court by the “Record of Meeting of the Supreme People's Court and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region”(《关于内��C��香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破��E�序的会谈纪要�? and the SPC Opinions. This case marks a positive breakthrough in mutual recognition and assistance in cross-border insolvency proceedings between the Mainland and Hong Kong.

Photo by Kido Dong on Unsplash

On 6 Apr. 2024, Premier Li Qiang signed the Order No. 779 of the State Council, promulgating the “Regulation on Ecological Protection Compensation” (生态保护补偿条�? hereinafter the “Regulation”), which came into force on 1 July 2024.

According to the Regulation, ecological protection compensation is an incentive institutional arrangement for providing compensation to entities and individuals engaged in ecological protection according to regulations or agreements through mechanisms such as vertical fiscal compensation, inter-regional horizontal compensation, and market mechanism compensation. The Regulation specifies the categorization of compensation in eight major areas, including forests, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, and oceans.

The highlights of the Regulation are as follows.

• It regulates vertical fiscal compensation. The State shall provide compensation, through fiscal transfers or other methods, to the entities and individuals engaged in the protection of important ecological and environmental factors as well as those who carry out ecological protection in major functional ecological zones.
• It improves inter-regional horizontal compensation. The State shall encourage, guide, and promote the establishment of an ecological protection compensation mechanism through negotiation and other means between the people’s governments of ecologically benefited areas and ecological protection areas.
• It promotes market mechanism compensation. The State shall maximize the role of market mechanisms and encourage social forces and local people’s governments to make ecological protection compensation through the purchase of ecological products and services and other methods according to market rules.

Photo by manos koutras on Unsplash

On 2 Apr. 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court released five typical cases of crimes against public security, aiming to further clarify trial criteria in response to common problems in judicial practice.

Take the first case as an example, which involves the identification of the crime of endangering public security by dangerous means. The perpetrator intentionally threw empty beer bottles and glasses from a high-rise building, knowing that there was a playground where students were exercising. This act caused serious injuries to the victims. As a result, the perpetrator was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.

The above case has clarified the criteria for identifying the act of throwing objects from a height as the crime of endangering public safety by dangerous means. According to this case, the court should comprehensively assess the severity of social harm caused by the act, accurately judge the nature of the act, and decide on the appropriate punishment by taking into account such factors as the subjective motivation of the offender, the place where the object is thrown, the specifics of the case, and the harm caused.

Photo by Road Trip with Raj on Unsplash

On 15 Mar. 2024, Premier Li Qiang signed the Order No. 778 of the State Council, issuing the “Regulation on the Implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Consumer Rights and Interests (Consumer Law)” (中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法实施条例, hereinafter the “Regulation”), which came into force on 1 July 2024.

As the first administrative regulation accompanying the Consumer Law in its 30th year of implementation, the Regulation focuses on and addresses outstanding issues in both the traditional consumer sector and the platform economy, such as prepaid consumer infringement and abusive use of technological means by operators to infringe on consumers’ rights and interests.

The highlights of the Regulation are as follows.

• It further details and complements the obligations of operators to protect consumers’ personal and property safety, handle defective products, mark prices, use standard terms, and protect the rights and interests of the elderly and minors.
• It clarifies that operators shall not force consumers to purchase commodities or accept services and shall not engage in “price discrimination” or “discrimination with big data”. Live-streaming marketing platform operators shall fulfill their obligations to protect consumer rights and interests according to the law.
• It regulates the business activities of prepaid consumption and clarifies the rules on the collection and return of prepayments by operators.
• It strengthens the government’s responsibility for consumer rights protection, and stipulates that relevant administrative departments shall handle consumer complaints and reports in a timely manner and strengthen supervision, inspection, and law enforcement.

Photo by Diem Nhi Nguyen on Unsplash

In March 2024, a foreign financial corporation (hereinafter “the claimant”) filed a claim for arbitration at the Hong Kong International Arbitration Center (HKIAC), regarding a share repurchase dispute with a Beijing-based technology company and relevant natural persons (hereinafter collectively “the respondents”). In the meantime, the claimant sought interim measures from the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court (hereinafter “the Court”). The Court approved the interim measures to seize, detain, or freeze the respondents’ assets worth over CNY 400 million within 24 hours of the filing of the lawsuit.

After receiving the materials passed on by HKIAC, the Court reviewed the case and communicated respectively with the claimant and the guarantor of the interim measures. Upon examination of the materials and being satisfied that the application for interim measures complied with the relevant provisions of the PRC Civil Procedure Law and the “Arrangement Concerning Mutual Assistance in Court-ordered Interim Measures in Aid of Arbitral Proceedings by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” (最高�h民法院关于内��C��香港特别行政区法院就仲裁�E�序�怺�协助保全的安�?, the Court granted the interim measures sought by the claimant.

It took the Court only 24 hours from the filing of the case to the granting of the interim measures. On the date of the ruling, the Court transferred the case to the law enforcement department for implementation of the interim measures and promptly informed the HKIAC of the progress.

Since 1 Jan. 2024, the Court has had exclusive jurisdiction in Beijing over foreign-related cases involving interim measures in arbitral proceedings and enforcement of arbitral awards.  As of March 2024, 10 cases involving interim measures passed on by arbitration institutions—the Beijing Arbitration Commission (BAC), the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC), the Shenzhen International Arbitration Court (SIAC), and HKIAC—had been reviewed by the Court.

Photo by Yux Xiang on Unsplash

On 19 Mar. 2024, the General Office of the State Council issued the “Action Plan for Steadily Advancing High-level Opening Up and Making Greater Efforts to Attract and Utilize Foreign Investment” (扎实推进高水�q�_��外开放更大力度吸引和利用外资行动�Ҏ��, hereinafter the “Action Plan”), which demonstrates the Chinese government’s emphasis on attracting foreign investment and aims to boost overseas investors’ confidence in investing in China through practical measures.

The Action Plan outlines 24 measures in five areas, with “expanding market access and enhancing foreign investment liberalization” as the first priority. It explicitly proposes reasonable reductions in the negative list for foreign investment, pilot programs to relax market access for foreign investment in the scientific and technological innovation field, expansion of access for foreign-funded financial institutions in banking and insurance sectors, expansion of the business scope of foreign-funded financial institutions to participate in the domestic bond market, and the implementation of pilot programs for qualified foreign limited partners to make domestic investments.

For instance, in the field of foreign investment access in scientific and technological innovation, it allows free trade pilot zones in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong, and others to select eligible foreign-invested enterprises to conduct expanded opening-up trials in areas such as gene diagnosis and treatment technology development and application.  Opening-up policies in areas such as information services (limited to app stores) are to be implemented in free trade pilot zones.

Photo by Hanson Lu on Unsplash

On 8 Mar. 2024, a labor dispute case (Li v. X, (2022) Jing 03 Min Zhong No. 9602 ((2022)�?3民终9602�?) decided by the Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court attracted public attention, according to Report on the Work of China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC),. The court ruled that workers who perform “invisible overtime work” through social media platforms such as WeChat outside of working hours and premises are entitled to overtime pay from their employers.

With the development of the Internet and the prevalence of online work, many workers are constantly in a state of “on-call”, leading to the subtle infringement of their right to rest.

Although the first-instance court did not support Li’s overtime claim, the Beijing Third Intermediate People’s Court, as the second-instance court, overturned the decision and ordered a technology company to compensate Li with CNY 30,000 in overtime pay.

As the first case in China to explicitly address the issue of “invisible overtime work” in the judicial document, the Beijing court creatively proposed the “provision of substantial work” principle and the “clear occupation of time” principle as criteria for identifying “invisible overtime work”, responding to the development trend of employment relationships in the digital age and safeguarding workers’ right to “offline rest”.

Photo by Jennifer Chen on Unsplash

On 27 Feb. 2024, China’s national legislature, the National People’s Congress, passed the newly revised “Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of State Secrets” (中华人民共和国保守国家秘密法, hereinafter the “PSS Law”), which came into force on 1 May 2024. This is the second revision since the Law was enacted in 1988.

The revised PSS Law further improves the system of information classification and declassification, emphasizes secrecy in technological innovation and protection, and strengthens the precise protection of state secrets.

The highlights of the Law are as follows.

• The scope of classified matters shall be determined under the principle of necessity and reasonableness through scientific evaluation and shall be promptly adjusted to changing conditions.
• Organs and entities shall review the state secrets they have identified on an annual basis. A state secret shall be automatically declassified if the specified period of classification expires.
• The state shall promote and support the research and application of secrecy science and technology, enhance the capability for independent innovation, and protect intellectual property rights in the secrecy field according to the law.

Photo by Rafik Wahba on Unsplash

In January 2024, China’s Supreme People’s Court (SPC) announced the “Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR)” (hereinafter the “Arrangement”, 关于内地与香港特别行政区法院�怺�认可和执行民商事案�g判决的安�?, which came into effect on 29 Jan. 2024.

Previously, the HKSAR government had promulgated the “Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance” (内地民商事判�?�怺�强制执行)条例), aiming to implement this Arrangement in the HKSAR through local legislation, which also took effect on 29 January 2024.

This marks the formal implementation of the Arrangement signed by the SPC and the HKSAR government in 2019, achieving the goal of basic full coverage of judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters between the two regions.

Under the new mechanism, courts in the Mainland and in Hong Kong can mutually recognize and enforce each other’s effective judgments in civil and commercial matters covered by this Arrangement, as well as effective judgments on civil compensation in criminal cases.

The new mechanism enables litigants to reduce or eliminate the need to litigate the same dispute separately in the Mainland and Hong Kong courts, thereby reducing the legal risks, costs, and time associated with potential parallel proceedings

Photo by Rafik Wahba on Unsplash