【法宝引证码】CLI.C.410379345
[CLI Code] CLI.C.410379345 (EN)
其他
最高院公报案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
本期双语案例推送梁某某诉徐州市云龙区民政局离婚登记行政确认案等最高院公报案例。
目录
Contents
1.梁某某诉徐州市云龙区民政局离婚登记行政确认案 Liang v. Bureau of Civil Affairs of Yunlong District, Xuzhou City (case regarding administrative confirmation of divorce registration) 2.陈某某诉无锡市妇幼保健院医疗服务合同纠纷案 Chen v. Wuxi Maternal and Child Health Hospital (case regarding dispute over medical service contract) 3.OPPO广东移动通信有限公司等与夏普株式会社等标准必要专利许可纠纷管辖权异议纠纷案 Guangdong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., et al. v. Sharp Corporation., et al. (case regarding dispute over objection to jurisdiction of standard-essential patent licensing)
一、梁某某诉徐州市云龙区民政局离婚登记行政确认案
Liang v. Bureau of Civil Affairs of Yunlong District, Xuzhou City (case regarding administrative confirmation of divorce registration)
【裁判要旨】
离婚登记是婚姻登记机关依当事人的申请，对当事人之间就自愿解除婚姻关系及对于子女抚养、财产分配等问题所达成的协议予以认可，并以颁发离婚证的形式确认当事人之间婚姻关系解除的行政行为。离婚登记一经完成，当事人之间的婚姻关系即告解除，婚姻解除情况即产生对外效力，具有社会公信力。
不具有级别管辖权的婚姻登记机关为符合离婚实质要件的涉外婚姻当事人进行离婚登记，其后又以无管辖权为由、以自行纠正方式确认离婚登记行为无效的，对于该自行纠正的行政行为，人民法院不予支持。
[Judgment Abstract]
Divorce registration is an administrative act that a marriage registration authority, according to the divorce petition filed by the parties, recognizes the agreement reached by the parties on voluntary dissolution of marriage, child support, property distribution and other issues, and confirms the dissolution of marriage between the parties in the form of issuing divorce certificates. The marital relationship between the parties is dissolved upon the completion of divorce registration, and the dissolution of marriage will have external effect and social credibility.
Where a marriage registration authority without jurisdiction concludes divorce registration for a couple to a foreign-related marriage that meets the substantive requirements of divorce, and later invalidates the act of divorce registration by means of self-correction on the grounds that it has no jurisdiction over the matter, the people’s court will not uphold such an administrative act of self-correction.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第1期（总第305期）第37-43页
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 1, 2022 (Total No. 305) Page 37-43
二、陈某某诉无锡市妇幼保健院医疗服务合同纠纷案
Chen v. Wuxi Maternal and Child Health Hospital (case regarding dispute over medical service contract)
【裁判摘要】
夫妻双方与医疗机构订立“体外受精—胚胎移植”医疗服务合同并已经完成取卵、胚胎培养等合同内容，在胚胎正式移植前丈夫死亡且生前并未向医疗机构表示拒绝履行合同，妻子要求医疗机构继续履行胚胎移植义务，既是当事人真实意思的反映，亦具备可履行的内容，且并不违反法律法规及公序良俗，医疗机构应当继续履行医疗服务合同。
丧偶妇女符合国家相关人口和计划生育法律法规情况下以其夫妇通过实施人类辅助生殖技术而获得的胚胎继续生育子女，有别于原卫生部实施人类辅助生殖技术规范中的单身妇女，不违反社会公益原则。医院不得基于部门规章的行政管理规定对抗当事人基于法律所享有的正当生育权利。
[Judgment Abstract]
A couple and a medical institution have signed a medical service contract for “in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET)”, under which the procedures such as ovum retrieval and embryo culture have been completed. The husband, however, died prior to the formal embryo transfer, without indicating his intention of whether to terminate the contract or not, while the wife requested the medical institution to continue the performance of its duty in embryo transfer. In such a case, the medical institution should continue the performance of medical service contract because the couple has expressed their true will, which is enforceable and doesn’t violate regulations, laws, public order, or good customs.
As widows are different from the single women as defined under the Specifications on Assisted Reproductivity Technology (ART) issued by the former Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China, it is not contrary to the principle of public welfare for a widow to obtain embryos and continue to breed children through the aid of ART for husband and wife provided that such acts meet relevant laws and regulations of China on population and family planning. Therefore, the hospital may not counter the party’s legitimate reproductive rights by referring to administrative regulatory provisions under departmental rules.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第2期（总第306期）第44-48页
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 2, 2022 (Total No. 306) Page 44-48
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.410379347
[CLI Code] CLI.C.410379347 (EN)
三、OPPO广东移动通信有限公司等与夏普株式会社等标准必要专利许可纠纷管辖权异议纠纷案
GuangDong Oppo Mobile Telecommunications Corp., Ltd., et al. v. Sharp Corporation., et al. (case regarding dispute over objection to jurisdiction of standard-essential patent licensing)
【裁判要旨】
一、在确定标准必要专利全球许可条件纠纷的管辖时，可以考虑当事人就涉案标准必要专利许可磋商时的意愿范围，许可磋商所涉及的标准必要专利权利授予国及分布比例，涉案标准必要专利实施者的主要实施地、主要营业地或者主要营收来源地、许可磋商地，当事人可供扣押或可供执行财产所在地等。
二、在当事人具备达成全球许可的意愿且纠纷与中国具有更密切联系时，即便当事人未达成管辖合意，中国法院仍有权依一方当事人的申请，对标准必要专利全球许可条件作出裁决。
[Judgment Abstract]
First, in determining the jurisdiction of a dispute over global licensing conditions for standard-essential patents (SEP), the people’s courts can take into consideration several elements such as the willingness of the parties in their negotiation of the involved SEP licensing, the nations licensed and the distribution of the SEP involved in the negotiation of licensing, the major places where the involved SEP can be implemented by the implementer, the principal place of business or major revenue sources, or the place for negotiation of licensing, and the place where the party’s property can be seized or enforced.
Second, provided that the parties are willing to pursue a global licensing and the dispute between them has a deeper connection with China, a Chinese people’s court may, upon the application of one of the parties, render an award on the global licensing conditions for the SEP, even if the parties fail to reach consent on jurisdiction.
来源：《最高人民法院公报》2022年第2期（总第306期）第23-30页
Source Note：SPC Gazette, Issue 2, 2022 (Total No. 306) Page 23-30
【法宝引证码】CLI.C.410379339
[CLI Code] CLI.C.410379347 (EN)
北京北大英华
科技有限公司
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
PKULaw
Chinalawinfo
-END-
侵害计算机软件著作权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
仿冒混淆不正当竞争案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
环境损害赔偿纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
子女抚养纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
继承纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
人身损害赔偿纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
离婚财产分割案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
担保合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
垄断纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例环境公益诉讼案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例房屋拆迁安置补偿合同纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例工伤保险待遇纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
破产纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例著作权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例商标权权属、侵权纠纷案例汇编 | 法宝双语案例
关注下方公众号，获取更多法律信息