最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送上海中燃船舶燃料有限公司诉上海市质量技术监督局行政处罚决定案等最高院公报案例。
目录
Contents
1.上海中燃船舶燃料有限公司诉上海市质量技术监督局行政处罚决定案 Shanghai Chimbusco Marine Bunker Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision (case regarding dispute over an administrative penalty decision) 2.上海法率信息技术有限公司诉北京奇虎科技有限公司名誉权纠纷案 Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over right of reputation) 3.海南南洋房地产有限公司、海南成功投资有限公司与南洋航运集团股份有限公司、陈霖、海南金灿商贸有限公司第三人撤销之诉案 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)
一、上海中燃船舶燃料有限公司诉上海市质量技术监督局行政处罚决定案
【裁判要旨】
行政规范性文件经制定、发布、公布、施行，具备作为实施行政处罚依据的行政法律效力。是否报送备案并非行政规范性文件的生效要件；行政规范性文件应当报备而未报备的，该问题应通过行政机关内部督促检查的法定途径予以解决。
根据有关法律、法规、规章规定，涉诉行政规范性文件如果与国家标准、行业标准、地方标准和企业标准存在一定区别，且构成检验、判定在一定地域生产、销售的普通柴油产品质量依据的，对该行政规范性文件的实施问题应当在行政处罚适当性审查中予以衡平考量。故从行政裁量上依法调整处罚结果，进一步提升行政处罚决定的适当性，以更好地体现坚持处罚与教育相结合的行政处罚原则。
[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.
来源:《最高人民法院公报》2020年第10期（总第288期）第42-48页
Source Note : SPC Gazette, Issue 10, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.116443168
[CLI Code] CLI.C.116443168(EN)
二、上海法率信息技术有限公司诉北京奇虎科技有限公司名誉权纠纷案
Shanghai Falv Information Technology Co., Ltd. v. Beijing Qihoo Technology Co., Ltd. (case regarding dispute over right of reputation)
【裁判摘要】
手机用户使用安全软件对呼入号码进行评价性标注，即使评价带有负面性特征，也属于公众正当社会评价的范畴。安全软件平台根据公众用户的标注，将被标注号码的负面性评价在手机用户接听界面中予以自动展示的，其行为不具有违法性。除号码权利人能够证明平台故意捏造虚假评价外，即使展示内容对号码权利人声誉产生一定影响，平台也不构成名誉权侵权或帮助侵权。
[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.
来源:《最高人民法院公报》2020年第10期（总第288期）第38-41页
Source Note : SPC Gazette, Issue 10, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.116443055
[CLI Code] CLI.C.116443055(EN)
三、海南南洋房地产有限公司、海南成功投资有限公司与南洋航运集团股份有限公司、陈霖、海南金灿商贸有限公司第三人撤销之诉案
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)
【裁判要旨】
第三人撤销之诉的制度功能，是为因不可归责于本人的事由未能参加诉讼，而生效判决、裁定、调解书存在错误且损害其民事权益的案外人提供救济。实践中，既要依法维护案外人的正当权利，也要防止滥用第三人撤销之诉导致损害生效裁判的稳定性。提起撤销之诉的案外人不能充分证明生效判决、裁定、调解书确实存在错误且损害其民事权益的，应当驳回诉讼请求。
[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.
来源:《最高人民法院公报》2020年第9期（总第287期）第29-46页
Source Note : SPC Gazette, Issue 9, 2020
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.101400864
[CLI Code] CLI.C.11509289(EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
证券纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
银行卡纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
最高人民法院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
最高人民法院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
无因管理类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
质押合同类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
知识产权类型案件汇编 | 法宝双语案例
点击相应图片识别二维码
获取更多信息
北大法宝
北大法律信息网
法宝学堂
法宝智能