Source: https://npcobserver.com/tag/2020-npc-session/
Timestamp: 2020-08-06 10:58:29
Document Index: 36545661

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 115', 'art. 149', 'art. 359', 'art. 245', 'art. 285', 'art. 286', 'art. 979', 'art. 985', 'art. 494', 'art. 1002', 'art. 1003', 'art. 1004', 'art. 1007', 'art. 1008', 'art. 1011', 'art. 1010', 'art. 1012', 'art. 1013', 'art. 1015', 'art. 1015', 'art. 1017', 'art. 795', 'art. 1024', 'art. 1024', 'art. 1025', 'art. 1026', 'art. 1031', 'art. 1032', 'art. 1032', 'art. 1033', 'art. 1034', 'art. 1035', 'art. 1036', 'art. 1038', 'art. 1037', 'art. 1064', 'art. 1127', 'art. 1160', 'art. 1176', 'art. 1177', 'art. 1196', 'art. 1195', 'art. 1254']

2020 NPC session – NPC Observer
Tag: 2020 NPC session
Continue reading “2020 NPC Session: Documents List” →
Posted on June 2, 2020 July 19, 2020 by Taige HuPosted in Session WatchTagged 2020 NPC session. Leave a comment
Continue reading “2020 NPC Session: NPC’s Decision on National Security in Hong Kong Explained (Updated)” →
Posted on May 22, 2020 June 20, 2020 by Changhao WeiPosted in Original Research, Session WatchTagged 2020 NPC session, Hong Kong Basic Law. 9 Comments
Continue reading “2020 NPC Session: Agenda and Daily Schedule” →
Posted on May 22, 2020 May 28, 2020 by Taige HuPosted in Session WatchTagged 2020 NPC session. Leave a comment
UPDATE (July 5, 2020): The NPC adopted the Civil Code on May 28 with 2879 votes in favor, 2 against, and 5 abstentions. We have updated this guide (including all citations and quotations) in accordance with the Code’s final text. We also discussed some of the final substantive changes to the prior draft: additions made in response to the COVID-19 pandemic are listed under the heading “COVID-19 Update,” while other new provisions are incorporated into the summary itself and are indicated in red.
All citations to the Code below are to its final version; other sources are not always cited. You can find all relevant legislative documents and prior drafts on this page.
Instead, the legislature opted for a “retail” rather than “wholesale” approach. Since the 1980s, it has enacted a series of standalone civil laws in hopes of codifying them in the future. Those separate statutes currently include the 1980 Marriage Law [婚姻法] (amended in 2001); 1985 Inheritance Law [继承法]; 1986 General Principles of Civil Law [民法通则] (amended in 2009); 1991 Adoption Law [收养法] (amended in 1998); 1995 Security Law [担保法]; 1999 Contracts Law [合同法]; 2007 Rights in Rem Law [物权法]; and 2009 Tort Liability Law [侵权责任法].
The Code is important for several reasons. First, to the general public, it affects their lives in the most direct and intimate manner. As evidence, the Code has received close to 900,000 public comments during the legislative process, a level of intense public engagement that is rarely seen. Second, the Code would be China’s first statute styled as a code, a symbol that China’s legal system has come a long way in the past several decades. Third, the Code would reduce the inconsistencies between the standalone civil statutes enacted over the years, and would also settle some of the novel legal issues that have since arisen. Finally, the Party can claim the Code as a political achievement: that thanks to its leadership, China’s social, economic, and legal institutions have become sufficiently sophisticated such that it is now feasible to enact a Civil Code that embodies uniquely Chinese values.
Except for a few changes in wording, the General Part is identical to the GPCL. This Part generally includes two types of provisions: ones that apply to the whole Code, and ones that are further fleshed out in the Separate Parts. For instance, there are provisions on the ages at which individuals have no, limited, or full capacity to engage in civil activities—say, making an online purchase or getting married. There are also provisions that, for example, simply list the types of “civil rights” [民事权利] available (not to be confused with political rights like the freedom of speech), which are then elaborated on later in Code. Among other topics, the General Part prescribes rules on the three types of civil entities (natural persons, legal persons, and unincorporated organizations), agency relationships, civil liabilities, and limitations periods.
COVID-19 Update: A new paragraph in article 34 requires local authorities to “arrange necessary measures for a ward’s temporary care” when his guardian is unable to perform her duties in an emergency (e.g., when she is under mandatory quarantine), leaving the ward unattended.
The Part on Rights in Rem is based on the current Property Law and Security Law. It addresses the rights over res [物] (or things), which the General Part defines as real property (or immovables) [不动产] and personal property (or movables) [动产] (art. 115). The Part on Rights in Rem is organized in five subparts. Subpart I lays down general rules of property law, including provisions on real property registration and the types or relief available when rights in rem are infringed upon.
Third, this Part includes a new, controversial provision that concerns renewal of the right to use land for residential construction—that is, the right to occupy the land underneath a private residence. Typically, the government grants residential land use rights for a maximum of seventy years. What happens when that period expires? The current Property Law provides simply that it would “automatically renew” (art. 149, para. 1). But the Part on Rights in Rem adds a new wrinkle by adding that “[t]he payment or reduction of renewal fees are to follow the provisions of statutes and administrative regulations,” suggesting that renewal of the land use rights is not “automatic”—free and unconditional—after all (art. 359, para. 1). This clause would by one estimate affect 700 to 800 million urban residents.
COVID-19 Update: The Code’s final version makes clear that “epidemic prevention and control” is a ground for emergency requisitions (art. 245). It also requires property-management service providers and homeowners to comply with the emergency measures lawfully ordered by the government (art. 285, para. 2; art. 286, para. 1).
Subpart III provides for two forms of quasi-contracts [准合同]: negotiorum gestio (or management of affairs) [无因管理] and unjust enrichment [不当得利]. A management of affairs occurs when one person (the manager), without any statutory or contractual obligation, manages another’s affairs to protect the latter’s interests (art. 979). The latter then has an obligation to reimburse the manager for her expenses, unless the manager’s action contradicts the owner’s true intention (id.). Unjust enrichment occurs when one person, without any legal basis, acquires unjust benefits at the expense of another, who then has a right to demand return of the benefits acquired by the former (art. 985).
There is one issue over which there is some disagreement: whether lending contracts should be distinguished between financial lending contracts and private lending contracts and to create separate rules for them. Some legislators thought that private lending has “brought many negative consequences to the financial and economic order as well as social life,” so that “targeted provisions” should be written. The Constitution and Law Committee was more cautious and suggested additional research, on the ground that private lending “implicates numerous issues such as China’s financial regulatory regime, social credit system, and economic policy.”
COVID-19 Update: The Code’s final version makes clear that the government can issue “purchase orders” [订货任务] or “mandatory assignments” [指令性计划] as necessary for epidemic prevention and control (art. 494).
This Part has generated many debates. The most fundamental challenge to it is that it should not exist at all. Opponents (primarily legal scholars) argue that this Part is an amalgamation of provisions that should have been included in other parts of the Code, in particular the Part on Tort Liability. This Part thus destroys the Code’s structural coherence. The legislature, on the other hand, and backed by another group of scholars, has taken the view that including a separate part on personality rights—civil entities’ “most fundamental and basic important rights”—is consistent with the Party’s relevant policies and serves to implement the constitutional protection for “personal dignity.”
Chapter II governs the rights to life, body, and health. The right to life [生命权] protects the “security and dignity” of individuals’ lives (art. 1002); the right to body [身体权] protects individuals’ “physical and psychological integrity” and their “freedom of action” (art. 1003); and the right to health [健康权] protects individuals’ “physical and psychological health” (art. 1004). In particular, this Chapter outlaws the trade in human cells, tissues, organs, or remains (art. 1007); requires the test subjects’ informed consent before clinical trials can begin (art. 1008); and imposes civil liability on illegally confining others and illegally searching others’ bodies (art. 1011). It also creates a cause of action for sexual harassment, and requires employers (including government agencies, businesses, and schools) to adopt measures to prevent, accept complaints of, and investigate workplace harassment (art. 1010). The Code’s final version clarifies that written texts or images alone, in addition to spoken words or conduct, may also amount to sexual harassment (id.).
Chapter III governs the rights of name and title. The right of name [姓名权] protects natural persons’ right to “decide on, use, change, or authorize others to use” their names, if consistent with “public order and good morals” [公序良俗] (art. 1012). The right of title [名称权] is the analogous right of legal persons and unincorporated organizations vis-à-vis their titles (art. 1013). This Chapter requires children to have their mother’s or father’s family name, but in limited circumstances allows the use of another person’s family name, for instance, that of an elder direct blood relative (art. 1015, para. 1). Ethnic minorities may follow their ethnic traditions and customs (art. 1015, para. 2). This Chapter also grants aliases (including pennames and abbreviations) the same level of protection as it does names and titles, if they have sufficient “social name recognition so that use by others can cause public confusion” (art. 1017).
Under a previous draft, after a couple divorces, the parent with custody of their minor child may change the child’s family name to his or her own, unless the other parent has legitimate reason to object (Aug. 2018 Draft art. 795). This provision was later deleted, however, because many were of the view that issues concerning the change of a minor child’s family name are “relatively complex” and that this provision could not resolve all such issues in practice. But this provision did not return in the end, despite many public comments focusing on this question.
Chapter V covers the rights of reputation and honor. A civil entity’s “reputation” refers to “social assessment of [its] character, prestige, talent, credit, and so forth” (art. 1024, para. 2). The right of reputation [名誉权] protects its holder from insult, defamation, or other forms of infringement (art. 1024). Two articles in this Chapter—on the relationship between news reporting and “public opinion oversight” [舆论监督] on the one hand, and the right of reputation on the other—have been heavily criticized. Generally, news reporting and public opinion oversight (which is essentially individuals’ collective action of expressing their opinions on current affairs) are shielded from suits for infringement of right of reputation, when done “in the public interest” (art. 1025). But journalists or members of the public will be liable when:
they fail to meet the “obligation to reasonably verify” [合理核实义务] “grossly untruthful” [严重失实] information provided by others; or
In determining whether a journalist or a member of the public has met her obligation to perform reasonable verifications, this Chapter requires courts to consider six factors, including the credibility of the source of the second-hand information, whether the defendant has conducted the necessary investigation into information “that may clearly lead to controversy,” and the defendant’s capacity to conduct verifications and the costs of verification (art. 1026). The Code’s final version removes a provision that inversed the burden of proof. Thus, a plaintiff must now prove that the defendant (e.g., a journalist) breached her obligation, whereas under that prior provision, the defendant would have to prove she has met the obligation. Finally, a civil entity’s right of honor [荣誉权] protects it against the illegal removal of its honorary titles and from the denigration or disparagement of its honor (art. 1031).
Chapter VI, the final chapter of this Part, governs the right to privacy [隐私权] and the protection of personal information. “Privacy” means an individual’s “peace of private life” [私人生活安宁] as well as her private space, private activities, and private information that she does not want others to know (art. 1032, para. 2). “Prying, harassment, leaking, disclosure” and other means that intrude on others’ privacy are prohibited (art. 1032, para. 1). In particular, this Chapter outlaws, absent contrary legal provisions or the rightsholders’ consent, harassing their peace of life with spam calls, texts, emails, and flyers; entering, filming, or peeping into their private spaces; filming, peeping into, eavesdropping on, or disclosing their private activities; filming or peeping at their private body parts; and collecting or handling their private information (art. 1033).
The remainder of this Chapter deals with the protection of “personal information,” defined as any information, whether recorded electronically or in some other fashion, that can identify specific individuals either by itself or when combined with other information (art. 1034). Specifically, such information includes individuals’ names, birthdates, ID numbers, biometric data, addresses, phone number, email addresses, health information, and information on their whereabouts (id.). There are then additional provisions on the principles and conditions of handling personal information (art. 1035); individuals’ rights vis-à-vis their personal information (art. 1036); the obligations of those that handle personal information (art. 1038); and circumstances that exempt civil liability for collecting or handling personal information (art. 1037). These provisions will likely be superseded by a planned Personal Information Protection Law [个人信息保护法], which is scheduled to be submitted to the NPCSC this year.
Third, this Part includes a new provision on community debt—debt that may be incurred by only one spouse, but for which both spouses are liable. That provision itself has not proven particularly controversial (so far). It provides that community debt includes debt that both spouses sign off on or one spouse ratifies after the fact, as well as debt incurred by one spouse during the marriage to meet the needs of the family’s everyday life (art. 1064, para. 1). Community debt does not include the debt incurred by one spouse that exceeds those needs, unless the creditor can prove that the debt benefits both spouses or that both have agreed to it (id. para. 2). This provision originates from a 2018 Supreme People’s Court interpretation on community debt, which has superseded a prior interpretation on the same issue. Under that prior interpretation, debt incurred by one spouse alone is presumed community debt, unless the other spouse can prove that the creditor and the first spouse had a contrary understanding. Under this old rule, many divorcees have been ordered to pay the (usually massive) debt their ex-spouses had incurred during the marriage without their knowledge.
Some legislators and scholars have expressed concern over a provision allowing only a small group of people to become heirs when a person dies intestate. That group includes only the person’s spouse, children, parents, siblings, and grandparents (art. 1127). Any part of an estate that is not inherited will belong to the state (art. 1160), however. To avoid this result and to better protect private property, some have argued, more individuals, such as great-grandchildren, should be eligible to become heirs. Their views did not make it into the Code’s final version, however.
First, Chapter I codifies two new doctrines: the “assumption of risk” doctrine and “self-help” doctrine. Under the former, one who voluntarily participates in recreational or sports activities with certain risks will be deemed to have assumed such risks, and thus cannot hold other participants liable for any injury, unless the latter acted with intention or gross negligence (art. 1176). Under the self-help doctrine, the victim of an alleged tort (e.g., a restaurant owner) may, if necessary for protecting her lawful rights, seize the property of the tortfeasor (e.g., a diner refusing to pay) or take similar actions, when the situation is urgent, protection by authorities is not available, and the victim would suffer irreparable harm if she refrains from acting (art. 1177).
Second, Chapter II supplements the “safe harbor” provisions for ISPs. Under current law, a rightsholder may notify an ISP of allegedly tortious conduct by one of the latter’s users. If the ISP fails to take prompt remedial actions (say, taking down allegedly infringing contents), it would be held jointly and severally liable for any additional injury to the rightsholder. While keeping these provisions in place, Chapter II also allows the ISP to forward the notice of infringement to the user, who can then send a counter-notice to the rightsholder via the ISP, denying any infringement (arts. 1195–96). If the rightsholder does not take further legal action after receiving the counter-notice, the ISP must cease any remedial action taken, but will be shielded from liability (art. 1196, para. 2). To deter abuse of this notice-takedown process, a new provision also holds rightsholders liable for tortious notices (art. 1195, para. 3).
The most controversial provision in this Part concerns the liability for injury caused by objects falling out of buildings. Under current law, when an object is thrown from or falls out of a building and causes injury, but the tortfeasor is hard to locate, all residents in the building who could have done so (presumably everyone living above the ground floor) will be held liable, unless they can prove that they are not, in fact, the tortfeasor. Although this provision offers the victims of falling objects (who often suffer serious injuries and even death) a path to relief, the residents complain that this rule is not fair to them. This Part has thus made the following changes. First, it makes clear that the “tortfeasor pays” is the rule (art. 1254, para. 1). Second, after such an accident occurs, the police and other government agencies must promptly investigate and locate the person responsible (id. para. 3). Only when such an investigation fails to identify the tortfeasor may residents in the building be required to pay (id. para. 1). Lastly, the building’s manager now has a duty to take the necessary safety measures to prevent such accidents from happening, and will be held liable if it breaches that duty (id. para. 2).
Posted on May 21, 2020 July 12, 2020 by Changhao WeiPosted in Legislation Summary, Session WatchTagged 2020 NPC session, civil code compilation. 5 Comments