People’s Daily: Blockchain smart contract technology is conducive to practically solving judicial enforcement difficulties

In recent years, from the promotion of comprehensive online judgment documents, to the simultaneous generation of electronic files, mobile micro-courts, to the establishment of Internet courts, and the exploration of blockchain evidence deposits, the people’s courts have promoted Internet justice in the application of technology, procedural rules, and entity judgments. All-round upgrading of the field. The “People’s Court Online Litigation Rules” came into effect this month to further standardize online litigation, improve the quality and effectiveness of trials, and facilitate the people’s participation in litigation.

Online litigation must be legal and voluntary; parties who do not participate in online court hearings without justified reasons are deemed to be “refusal to appear in court”; the scanned copy of evidence has the same effect as the original after being reviewed by the court… “People’s Court Online Litigation Rules” (hereinafter referred to as “Rules” 》) Effective this month, the “Rules” has 39 articles, which clarify the legal effect, basic principles, and applicable conditions of online litigation. The content covers online case filing, mediation, evidence exchange, court trial, judgment, and service.

For the first time, the “Rules” has established a comprehensive, clear-oriented, pragmatic and effective online litigation rule system from the level of judicial interpretation. It is currently the most integrated, widely applicable, and legal-level normative document related to online litigation. It is regarded as a ” The most authoritative rules for online lawsuits.”

More than 3,500 courts across the country have connected to the platform, and parties can choose whether to take online litigation

Search for the “China Mobile WeChat Court” applet on WeChat, and after authentication, enter the court of your province and click “I want to open a case” to open a case online. Up to now, more than 3,500 courts across the country have connected to the “China Mobile Micro Court” online litigation platform, which has accumulated more than 1.265 billion visits, providing the public with diversified, full-chain, one-stop online litigation services. According to Li Shaoping, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, the “Rules” made it clear for the first time that online litigation can be handled either in the whole process or in only a certain part of the litigation.

The Rules also make it clear that online litigation should follow the principles of lawfulness, voluntariness, safety and reliability. The principle of “lawful voluntariness” refers to the respect and protection of litigants and other litigation participants’ right to choose the method of litigation. Without the consent or active choice of the litigants and other litigation participants, the people’s courts shall not force or compulsorily apply online litigation in a disguised form. The principle of “safety and reliability” refers to maintaining national security in accordance with the law, protecting state secrets, business secrets, personal privacy and personal information, and effectively guaranteeing the security of online litigation data and information. Standardize technical application, strictly observe technical neutrality, and ensure technical reliability.

From January 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021, the national courts filed 12.197 million online cases, accounting for 28.3% of the total number of cases opened; the total number of online mediations was 6.513 million, and 6,142,900 cases were successfully mediated before litigation; There were 1.288 million online court hearings, and the average online trial time was 42.34 minutes; electronic delivery was 33.833 million times, accounting for 37.97% of the total number of deliveries.

“In terms of organizational structure, technology integration and application, litigation rules construction, network judicial governance, basic theoretical research, etc., the development of Internet justice in China has moved from’following’ to’leading’, and is in a leading position.” Introduction by Deputy Director He Fan.

Except for network failures, force majeure, etc., non-participation in online court hearings will be regarded as “refusal to appear in court”

Ms. Wang, the operator of the online shop, lives in a foreign country and was sued to the court for product quality issues. Although the court’s full-process online litigation model allows her to complete all litigation procedures without leaving home, the opening time of the case is 4 pm Beijing time, which makes her worry. Due to the time difference between the local area and China, she needs to attend the court hearing at 4 am local time. With the help of the asynchronous trial platform of the Hangzhou Internet Court, Ms. Wang wakes up in the morning and turns on her mobile phone to “participate” the online trial, and she can reply to the plaintiff and the judge’s questions.

It is understood that the “Rules” affirmed the “non-synchronized trial mechanism” for the first time, and proposed solutions to the situation where the parties cannot participate in litigation activities at the same time and space to further facilitate the people and improve the quality and efficiency of the trial. The “Rules” clarify that with the consent of all parties, the people’s court can designate the parties to log on to the litigation platform separately within a certain period of time to conduct mediation, exchange of evidence, investigation and inquiry, court hearings and other litigation activities in an asynchronous manner. “The “Rules” make special provisions for non-synchronized trials in court trials, and treat them as a special form of trial in which the parties have real difficulties and cannot participate in online trials at the same time, rather than the normal state of online trials.” Li Li, Deputy Director of the Guidance Office of the Supreme Judicial Department Reform Office Carrier said.

In response to the issue of court trial order during online litigation, the “Rules” stipulate the discipline of online court trials, requiring that court attendants should respect judicial etiquette and observe court discipline when participating in online court trials. Among them, except for network failure, equipment damage, power interruption, or force majeure, etc., the party who does not participate in the online court hearing without proper reason is regarded as “refusing to appear in court.” , It shall be regarded as “halfway withdrawing from court”. In the judicial practice of online litigation, once there is a “rejection to court” and “withdrawal from court”, they shall be dealt with in accordance with the relevant laws and judicial interpretations respectively.

“The above regulations clarify the rules of online court order, ensure the seriousness and standardization of online court trials, and help better guarantee procedural justice and resolutely defend judicial authority.” said Liu Zheng, deputy director of the Supreme Court of Justice Reform Office.

Li Shaoping introduced that the “Rules” emphasize the standardization, stability and authority of litigation, and prevent some parties from abusing their rights and affecting the litigation process. In order to ensure that online litigation activities are legal, authentic, and effective, the “Rules” clarify the identity authentication rules in detail to ensure the authenticity of the litigant’s identity and effectively prevent false mediation and false litigation.

Electronic materials that have been reviewed and approved by the court can be used directly in litigation

In an online copyright dispute, the plaintiff used the “non-litigation mediation platform for copyright disputes” jointly established by the Beijing Internet Court and Beijing Copyright Administration to resolve disputes through mediation. After both parties agree, the court will deploy the agreement between the parties to the blockchain. If the defendant fails to perform its obligations during the performance period, it will be automatically executed through blockchain smart contract technology.

“This case uses blockchain smart contract technology to achieve automatic execution. It is a transformative and innovative exploration of the use of blockchain technology in judicial scenarios, especially enforcement scenarios. It is conducive to practically solving enforcement difficulties.” Zhang Wen, President of Beijing Internet Court, introduced, 2018 Since the beginning of the year, the Beijing Internet Court has built the “Tianping Chain” judicial blockchain platform, focusing on solving the problems of electronic evidence storage and online verification of evidence on the chain, and gradually expanding the blockchain to areas such as enforcement and litigation source governance.

In recent years, with the gradual maturity of blockchain technology and the vigorous promotion of notary institutions and third-party deposit platforms, the use of blockchain deposit certificates has become more widespread, and blockchain disputes have also increased. However, the review of blockchain deposit certificates has always been a difficult problem in judicial practice. In this regard, the “Rules” for the first time stipulated the scope of validity of the blockchain storage certificate, and clarified that the data stored in the blockchain has the effect of presuming that it has not been tampered with after being on the chain. “This is conducive to standardizing the judicial application of blockchain technology, strict blockchain certification review standards, giving full play to the advantages of blockchain technology, and further promoting the orderly development of the blockchain certification industry.” Liu Zheng said.

Regarding the question of whether electronic materials can be directly used in litigation, the “Rules” pointed out that electronic materials after the People’s Court has passed the review can be used directly in litigation. At the same time, to ensure the authenticity of electronic materials, there are four Under circumstances, the people’s court should require the parties to provide the originals and originals.

“This means that the electronic materials reviewed and approved by the people’s court have the effect of’deeming the original’, and the parties do not need to submit the entity original materials repeatedly, which greatly reduces the litigation burden on the parties and makes better use of the convenience of online litigation. The role of the people.” He Fan said.


Posted by:CoinYuppie,Reprinted with attribution to:
Coinyuppie is an open information publishing platform, all information provided is not related to the views and positions of coinyuppie, and does not constitute any investment and financial advice. Users are expected to carefully screen and prevent risks.

Leave a Reply