{"id":129,"thumbnail":"https://jilailawyer.com//rails/active_storage/blobs/eyJfcmFpbHMiOnsibWVzc2FnZSI6IkJBaHBBbDhCIiwiZXhwIjpudWxsLCJwdXIiOiJibG9iX2lkIn19--7f500a4dbd5b3c707c4e3a555a6341e27df11589/2311.jpg","title_zh":"《关于互联网法院审理案件若干问题的规定》的理解与适用","title_en":"Understanding and Application of the \"Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts\"","content_zh":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e互联网已经渗透到了中国人日常生活的方方面面。为适应互联网发展趋势，探索网络空间治理法治化，2017年8月，杭州互联网法院挂牌成立，2018年9月，北京互联网法院、广州互联网法院也相继挂牌成立。2018年9月6日，最高人民法院发布实施《关于互联网法院审理案件若干问题的规定》（法释〔2018〕16号，以下简称《规定》），对互联网法院的管辖范围、上诉机制和诉讼平台建设，以及在线诉讼的相关规则作出一系列规范。本文将详细解读《规定》，对互联网法院的管辖范围、适用原则、方式进行明晰。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e一、确立了全程在线审理原则\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e互联网法院审理案件应当以全程在线为基本原则，切实践行网上纠纷网上审理。所谓全程在线，是指案件的受理、送达、调解、证据交换、庭前准备、庭审、宣判等诉讼环节一般应当在互联网上完成。对于当事人对互联网法院审理的案件提起上诉的，第二审法院原则上同样采取在线方式审理。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e不过，如果当事人申请或者根据案件审理需要，互联网法院可以决定在线下完成部分诉讼环节，这是因为可能存在确需现场查明身份、核对原件、查验实物等情形。但其他诉讼环节仍应当在线上完成。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e因此，互联网法院办理案件的原则系线上为主，线下为例外。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e二、互联网法院的管辖范围\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e由于目前仅有北京、广州、杭州三地设立了互联网法院，因此上述三地互联网法院负责管辖所在市的辖区内应由基层人民法院受理的十一种互联网纠纷案件。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2、管辖案件类型\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e互联网法院管辖的案件类型主要有以下十一种：\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1、通过电子商务平台签订或者履行网络购物合同而产生的纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e本类案件目前仅限定于\u0026ldquo;通过电子商务平台签订或者履行\u0026rdquo;的网络购物合同。所谓\u0026ldquo;电子商务平台\u0026rdquo;，是指在电子商务中为交易双方或者多方提供网络经营场所、交易撮合、信息发布等服务，供交易双方或者多方独立开展交易活动的平台。网络购物合同纠纷主要发生在电子商务平台经营者、平台内经营者和平台使用者之间，交易全程在线、相对固定、整体留痕，适合互联网法院在线审理。实践中，仅通过电子合同形式订立或者履行的买卖合同，不涉及电子商务平台的，暂不纳入管辖范围。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2、签订、履行行为均在互联网上完成的网络服务合同纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e《规定》将本类案件涉及的网络服务合同纠纷界定为\u0026ldquo;签订、履行行为均在互联网上完成\u0026rdquo;的服务合同。需要指出的是，互联网法院受理的网络服务合同原则上应以明确约定权利义务的要式服务合同为限，不能认为只要接受一般性的、免费的互联网服务即成立网络服务合同关系。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3、签订、履行行为均在互联网上完成的金融借款合同纠纷、小额借款合同纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e《规定》将\u0026ldquo;签订、履行行为均在互联网上完成\u0026rdquo;作为管辖互联网金融借款、小额借款纠纷的限定条件。这里的\u0026ldquo;互联网金融借款、小额借款合同\u0026rdquo;特指与金融机构、小额贷款公司订立的借款合同，并不包含P2P网络借贷平台，互联网法院也不受理P2P借贷纠纷。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4、在互联网上首次发表作品的著作权或者邻接权权属纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e对于著作权或临界区权属纠纷案件方面，《规定》限定为在互联网上\u0026ldquo;首次\u0026rdquo;发表的作品，即\u0026ldquo;网络作品\u0026rdquo;。\u0026ldquo;非网络作品\u0026rdquo;的权属问题并不因网络传播而改变，互联网特性并不突出，可不纳入管辖范围。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5、在互联网上侵害在线发表或者传播作品的著作权或者邻接权而产生的纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e对于著作权或临界区侵权纠纷案件方面，《规定》要求必须是在\u0026ldquo;互联网\u0026rdquo;上侵害\u0026ldquo;在线发表或者传播\u0026rdquo;作品的著作权或者邻接权的纠纷。之所以包括\u0026ldquo;在线传播\u0026rdquo;行为，是因为著作权侵权行为的主体、手段、方式与互联网传播形式密切相关。通过互联网对\u0026ldquo;非网络作品\u0026rdquo;实施的侵权行为，会因互联网载体、技术、手段的变化呈现出新的样态，新类型案件较多，便于通过审判创制规则。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6、互联网域名权属、侵权及合同纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7、在互联网上侵害他人人身权、财产权等民事权益而产生的纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8、通过电子商务平台购买的产品，因存在产品缺陷，侵害他人人身、财产权益而产生的产品责任纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9、检察机关提起的互联网公益诉讼案件；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10、因行政机关作出互联网信息服务管理、互联网商品交易及有关服务管理等行政行为而产生的行政纠纷；\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11、上级人民法院指定管辖的其他互联网民事、行政案件。\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e《规定》授权互联网法院管辖\u0026ldquo;上级人民法院指定管辖的其他互联网民事、行政案件。\u0026rdquo;实践中，互联网法院对应的中级、高级人民法院只能对符合本《规定》要求的具体案件进行指定管辖，对类型化案件的指定管辖权、对管辖范围的调整权统一由最高人民法院行使。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3、上述案件二审的管辖法院\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e在二审管辖方面，当事人对北京互联网法院作出的判决、裁定提起上诉的案件，由北京市第四中级人民法院审理，当事人对广州、杭州互联网法院作出的判决、裁定提起上诉的案件，由所在市中级人民法院审理。但须注意的是，对于北京、广州互联网著作权权属纠纷和侵权纠纷、互联网域名纠纷的上诉案件，则分别由所在市的知识产权法院审理。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4、关于协议管辖的规定\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e《规定》第三条规定，当事人可以在上述管辖的案件范围内，依法协议约定与争议有实际联系地点的互联网法院管辖。根据该规定，如果当事人协议约定由互联网法院管辖，那么相关互联网法院必须与争议有实际连接点，也就是说在案件与上述三个互联网法院没有任何关联性的情况下，当事人约定由互联网法院管辖，该约定是无效的，还需按照民事诉讼法的规定确定管辖法院。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e与争议有实际连接点的地点可以为：原告住所地、被告住所地、签订或者履行合同的互联网平台经营者住所地等。侵权类纠纷也可能由当事人事前作出管辖约定，因此被诉侵权行为的网络服务器、计算机终端等设备所在地、被侵权人住所地等也可以作为协议管辖连接点。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e需要注意的是，为防止电子商务经营者、网络服务提供商利用格式条款订立管辖协议，侵犯消费者或网络用户的诉讼权利，《规定》第三条第二款明确了协议管辖适用格式条款的规则。制定提供格式合同一方未按法律要求对协议管辖条款进行特别提示和说明的，互联网法院应当认定协议约定管辖无效。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e三、明确了在线诉讼规则\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e互联网法院审理案件除了遵循我国现行民事诉讼法诉讼规则外，《规定》还建立了适用于互联网案件的独特的诉讼规则。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1、诉讼平台\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e互联网法院应当建设互联网诉讼平台，作为当事人开展在线诉讼活动和法官在线办理案件的专用平台。《规定》第五条对当事人通过诉讼平台作出的诉讼行为的法律效力问题予以确认，并规定了涉案数据的接入机制。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2、身份认证规则\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e确认诉讼参与人的身份关乎主体适格问题，是民事诉讼必须履行的程序，由于互联网审理案件是在线审理，如何在线确认当事人身份，以及在线确认的法律效力如何则需要通过法律予以明确。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e根据《规定》第六条，当事人及其他诉讼参与人可以通过证件证照比对、生物特征识别或者国家统一身份认证平台认证等在线方式认证。实践中，微信、支付宝、微博等网络实名认证方式已较成熟，《规定》虽未明确可采用网络实名认证方式，但亦未排斥互联网法院在实践中适用。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3、举证规则\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e首先，互联网法院有权在线调取电子商务平台经营者、网络服务提供商、相关国家机关所存储的涉案数据，并依法接入诉讼平台，当事人可以根据需要使用已接入诉讼平台的数据举证；其次，在举证环节，当事人既可将电子数据上传导入诉讼平台，也可将线下证据电子化后上传导入诉讼平台进行举证；再次，在质证环节，对于当事人提供的电子化线下证据，对方当事人对材料真实性有异议且有合理理由的，互联网法院应该要求提供原件。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e《规定》第十一条明确了，对于真实性有异议的电子数据，互联网法院的审查标准，即\u0026ldquo;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e（1）电子数据生成、收集、存储、传输所依赖的计算机系统等硬件、软件环境是否安全、可靠；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e（2）电子数据的生成主体和时间是否明确，表现内容是否清晰、客观、准确；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e（3）电子数据的存储、保管介质是否明确，保管方式和手段是否妥当；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e（4）电子数据提取和固定的主体、工具和方式是否可靠，提取过程是否可以重现；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e（5）电子数据的内容是否存在增加、删除、修改及不完整等情形；\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e（6）电子数据是否可以通过特定形式得到验证。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4、电子送达规则\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e《民事诉讼法》第八十七条明确规定，电子送达应该经当事人同意，互联网法院既然是全程在线审理，通过电子送达也是应有之义，《规定》第十五条至第十七条，明确了电子送达的电子送达的条件、方式和范围、电子送达地址的确认和告知规则、有效送达的情形和判断标准等。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e总的来说，互联网法院的成立及《规定》的出台，是中国司法审判改革的积极探索，顺应了时代发展，有效节省了当事人的诉讼成本，而随着实践的发展，特别是当前疫情期间，法院在线审理案件的趋势，对在线审理规则的进一步探讨和完善尤为必要。\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","content_en":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eThe Internet has penetrated into every aspect of Chinese daily life. In order to adapt to the development trend of the Internet and explore the legalization of cyberspace governance, Hangzhou Internet Court was established in August 2017, and Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court were also established in September 2018. On September 6, 2018, the Supreme People\u0026#39;s Court issued and implemented the \u0026quot;Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts\u0026quot; (Fa Shi [2018] No. 16, hereinafter referred to as the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot;), which regulates the jurisdiction, appeal mechanism and litigation of Internet courts. The platform construction and related rules for online litigation make a series of norms. This article will interpret the Provisions in detail and clarify the jurisdiction, applicable principles and methods of Internet courts.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eI. Established the principle of full online trial\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eInternet courts should take the whole process online as the basic principle when trying cases, and practically implement online trial of online disputes. The so-called whole-process online means that litigation links such as case acceptance, service, mediation, evidence exchange, pre-trial preparation, court trial, and judgment should generally be completed on the Internet. Where a party appeals a case tried by an Internet court, the court of second instance also adopts an online trial in principle.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eHowever, if the parties apply or according to the needs of the case trial, the Internet Court may decide to complete some of the litigation links offline, because there may be situations in which it is necessary to identify the identity, verify the originals, and check the physical objects on the spot. However, other litigation links should still be completed online.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eTherefore, the principle of Internet court handling cases is mainly online, and offline is the exception.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e2. Jurisdiction of Internet Courts\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eSince only Beijing, Guangzhou, and Hangzhou have established Internet courts, the above-mentioned three Internet courts are responsible for the jurisdiction of eleven types of Internet disputes that should be accepted by the basic people\u0026#39;s courts within the jurisdiction of the city where they are located.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e2. Types of jurisdiction cases\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eThere are mainly eleven types of cases under the jurisdiction of Internet courts:\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e1. Disputes arising from the signing or performance of online shopping contracts through e-commerce platforms;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eSuch cases are currently limited to online shopping contracts \u0026quot;signed or performed through an e-commerce platform\u0026quot;. The so-called \u0026quot;e-commerce platform\u0026quot; refers to a platform that provides online business premises, transaction matching, information release and other services for two or more parties to a transaction in e-commerce, so that two or more parties can independently conduct transaction activities. Online shopping contract disputes mainly occur between e-commerce platform operators, on-platform operators and platform users. The entire transaction is online, relatively fixed, and overall traces are left, which is suitable for online trial by Internet courts. In practice, sales contracts concluded or performed only in the form of electronic contracts, which do not involve e-commerce platforms, are not included in the jurisdiction for the time being.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e2. Disputes over network service contracts in which both signing and performance are completed on the Internet;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eThe \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; define the network service contract disputes involved in this type of cases as service contracts in which \u0026quot;signing and performance are completed on the Internet\u0026quot;. It should be pointed out that, in principle, the network service contracts accepted by the Internet Court should be limited to the essential service contracts that clearly stipulate rights and obligations.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e3. Disputes over financial loan contracts and small loan contracts where both signing and performance are completed on the Internet;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eThe \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; regard \u0026quot;signing and performance are completed on the Internet\u0026quot; as a qualification for the jurisdiction of Internet financial loans and small loan disputes. The \u0026quot;Internet finance loan and small loan contract\u0026quot; here refers specifically to the loan contract concluded with financial institutions and small loan companies. It does not include P2P online lending platforms, and the Internet Court does not accept P2P lending disputes.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e4. Disputes over the ownership of copyright or neighboring rights of works published for the first time on the Internet;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eRegarding disputes over copyright or critical area ownership, the Provisions are limited to works published \u0026quot;for the first time\u0026quot; on the Internet, that is, \u0026quot;network works\u0026quot;. The issue of ownership of \u0026quot;non-network works\u0026quot; does not change due to network dissemination, and the characteristics of the Internet are not prominent, so they may not be included in the jurisdiction.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e5. Disputes arising from infringement of copyright or neighboring rights of works published or disseminated online on the Internet;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eFor copyright or critical area infringement disputes, the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; require that the copyright or neighboring rights of works \u0026quot;published or transmitted online\u0026quot; be infringed on the \u0026quot;Internet\u0026quot;. The reason why \u0026quot;online communication\u0026quot; is included is that the subject, means and method of copyright infringement are closely related to the form of Internet communication. Infringements committed against \u0026quot;non-network works\u0026quot; through the Internet will take on new forms due to changes in Internet carriers, technologies, and means, and there are many new types of cases, which facilitate the creation of rules through trials.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e6. Internet domain name ownership, infringement and contract disputes;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e7. Disputes arising from infringement of personal rights, property rights and other civil rights and interests of others on the Internet;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e8. Product liability disputes arising from products purchased through e-commerce platforms due to product defects that infringe upon the personal and property rights of others;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e9. Internet public interest litigation cases brought by procuratorial organs;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e10. Administrative disputes arising from administrative acts such as Internet information service management, Internet commodity trading and related service management by administrative organs;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e11. Other Internet civil and administrative cases under the jurisdiction designated by the higher people\u0026#39;s court.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eThe \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; authorize Internet courts to have jurisdiction over \u0026quot;other Internet civil and administrative cases designated by the higher-level people\u0026#39;s court.\u0026quot; The designated jurisdiction over classified cases and the right to adjust the scope of jurisdiction shall be exercised by the Supreme People\u0026#39;s Court.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e3. The competent court for the second instance of the above case\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eIn terms of the jurisdiction of the second instance, the cases where the parties appeal against the judgments and rulings made by the Beijing Internet Court shall be heard by the Beijing Fourth Intermediate People\u0026rsquo;s Court, and the cases where the parties appeal against the judgments and rulings made by the Guangzhou and Hangzhou Internet Courts shall be tried by the Beijing Municipal Fourth Intermediate People\u0026rsquo;s Court. Intermediate People\u0026#39;s Court. It should be noted, however, that appeal cases concerning disputes over Internet copyright ownership, infringement disputes and Internet domain name disputes in Beijing and Guangzhou shall be heard by the intellectual property courts of the respective cities.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e4. Provisions on the jurisdiction of the agreement\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eArticle 3 of the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; stipulates that the parties may, within the scope of the above-mentioned cases under the jurisdiction, legally agree to the jurisdiction of the Internet court that has actual contact with the dispute. According to this provision, if the parties agree to be under the jurisdiction of the Internet Court, the relevant Internet Court must have an actual connection point with the dispute. , the agreement is invalid, and the competent court must be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eThe locations that have actual connection points with the dispute may be: the domicile of the plaintiff, the domicile of the defendant, the domicile of the Internet platform operator who signed or performed the contract, etc. Infringement disputes may also be agreed upon by the parties in advance, so the location of the network server, computer terminal and other equipment where the alleged infringement is located, and the domicile of the infringed party can also be used as the connection point for the jurisdiction of the agreement.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eIt should be noted that, in order to prevent e-commerce operators and network service providers from using standard terms to enter into jurisdictional agreements and infringing on the litigation rights of consumers or network users, Article 3, paragraph 2 of the Provisions clarifies the standard terms applicable to the jurisdiction of agreements. rule. If the party that formulates and provides a standard contract fails to give special reminders and explanations to the jurisdiction clauses of the agreement as required by law, the Internet Court shall determine that the jurisdiction stipulated in the agreement is invalid.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e3. Clarified the rules of online litigation\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eIn addition to adhering to the current procedural rules of my country\u0026#39;s Civil Procedure Law, the \u0026quot;Provisions\u0026quot; also establish unique procedural rules applicable to Internet cases.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e1. Litigation platform\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eInternet courts shall build an Internet litigation platform as a dedicated platform for parties to conduct online litigation activities and for judges to handle cases online. Article 5 of the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; confirms the legal validity of litigation actions made by the parties through the litigation platform, and stipulates the access mechanism for the data involved in the case.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e2. Identity authentication rules\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eConfirming the identities of litigation participants is related to the subject\u0026#39;s eligibility, and is a procedure that must be performed in civil litigation. Since Internet trials are conducted online, how to confirm the identity of the parties online and the legal effect of online confirmation need to be clarified through laws.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eAccording to Article 6 of the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot;, the parties and other litigation participants can be authenticated through online methods such as certificate and certificate comparison, biometric identification, or authentication on the national unified identity authentication platform. In practice, online real-name authentication methods such as WeChat, Alipay, and Weibo are relatively mature. Although the Regulations do not specify that online real-name authentication methods can be used, they do not exclude Internet courts from applying them in practice.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e3. Rules of proof\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eFirst of all, the Internet Court has the right to online access to the involved data stored by e-commerce platform operators, network service providers, and relevant state agencies, and to access the litigation platform in accordance with the law. Secondly, in the proof stage, the parties can either upload the electronic data into the litigation platform, or upload the offline evidence electronically and upload it into the litigation platform for proof; again, in the cross-examination stage, for the electronic offline evidence provided by the party, the other party If the parties have objections to the authenticity of the materials and have reasonable reasons, the Internet Court should require the originals.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eArticle 11 of the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; clarifies that for electronic data with objections to its authenticity, the Internet Court\u0026#39;s review standard is \u0026quot;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e(1) Whether the hardware and software environments such as computer systems relied on for the generation, collection, storage, and transmission of electronic data are safe and reliable;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e(2) Whether the subject and time of the generation of electronic data are clear, and whether the content of the performance is clear, objective and accurate;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e(3) Whether the storage and storage medium of electronic data is clear, and whether the storage methods and means are appropriate;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e(4) Whether the subjects, tools and methods of electronic data extraction and fixation are reliable, and whether the extraction process can be reproduced;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e(5) Whether the content of electronic data is added, deleted, modified or incomplete;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e(6) Whether the electronic data can be verified through a specific form.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003e4. Electronic delivery rules\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eArticle 87 of the \u0026quot;Civil Procedure Law\u0026quot; clearly stipulates that electronic service should be subject to the consent of the parties. Since the Internet court conducts the entire online trial, electronic service is also due. Articles 15 to 17 of the \u0026quot;Provisions\u0026quot; Article 1, clarifies the conditions, methods and scope of electronic service, the confirmation and notification rules of electronic service address, the circumstances and judgment criteria of effective service, etc.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan style=\"font-size:16px;\"\u003eIn general, the establishment of the Internet Court and the promulgation of the \u0026quot;Regulations\u0026quot; are an active exploration of China\u0026#39;s judicial reform, which conforms to the development of the times and effectively saves the litigation costs of the parties. With the development of practice, especially during the current epidemic , the trend of courts hearing cases online, it is particularly necessary to further discuss and improve the rules of online trial.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n","_type":"继来法视界","position":5,"created_at":"2020-09-27T19:02:50.053+08:00","updated_at":"2020-12-09T15:20:00.000+08:00","pv":20064,"abstract_zh":"互联网已经渗透到了中国人日常生活的方方面面。为适应互联网发展趋势，探索网络空间治理法治化，2017年8月，杭州互联网法院挂牌成立，2018年9月，北京互联网法院、广州互联网法院也相继挂牌成立。2018年9月6日，最高人民法院发布实施《关于互联网法院审理案件若干问题的规定》（法释〔2018〕16号，以下简称《规定》），对互联网法院的管辖范围、上诉机制和诉讼平台建设，以及在线诉讼的相关规则作出一系列规范。本文将详细解读《规定》，对互联网法院的管辖范围、适用原则、方式进行明晰。","abstract_en":"The Internet has penetrated into every aspect of Chinese daily life. In order to adapt to the development trend of the Internet and explore the legalization of cyberspace governance, Hangzhou Internet Court was established in August 2017, and Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court were also established in September 2018. On September 6, 2018, the Supreme People's Court issued and implemented the \"Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Cases by Internet Courts\" (Fa Shi [2018] No. 16, hereinafter referred to as the \"Regulations\"), which regulates the jurisdiction, appeal mechanism and litigation of Internet courts. The platform construction and related rules for online litigation make a series of norms. This article will interpret the Provisions in detail and clarify the jurisdiction, applicable principles and methods of Internet courts.","link":""}