Supreme People’s Court Regulations concerning Some Questions of Applicable Law in Handing Civil Dispute Cases involving the Use of Information Networks to Harm Personal Rights and Interests

Posted on Updated on

In order to correctly hear civil dispute cases involving the use of information networks to harm personal rights and interests, on the basis of the provisions of the “General Principles of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China”, the “Tort Liability Law of the People’s Republic of China”, the “National People’s Congress Standing Committee Decision concerning Strengthening Online Information Protection”, the “Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China”, and by integration with judicial practice, these Regulations are formulated.

Article 1: Civil dispute cases involving the use of information networks to harm personal rights and interests as mentioned in these Regulations, refers to dispute cases triggered by harm to another persons’ right to a name, right to reputation, portrait right, right to privacy and other such personal rights and interests through the use of information networks.

Article 2: The People’s Court of the location of the infringing act or of the domicile of the defendant has jurisdiction over litigation raised over the use of information networks to harm personal rights and interests.

The location of the infringing act includes the location of the computer or other terminal equipment through which the infringing act is committed, the location where the result of the infringement takes place and the domicile of the person whose rights were infringed.

Article 3: Where plaintiffs sue network users or network service providers on the basis of the provisions of Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law, People’s Courts should accept these cases.

Where plaintiffs only sue network users, and a network user requests to add the network service provider suspected of infringement as a joint defendant or a third person, the People’s Court shall allow this.

Where plaintiffs only sue network service providers, and a network service provider requests that an identifiable network user is added as a joint defendant or a third person, the People’s Court shall allow this.

Article 4: Where plaintiffs sue network service providers, and a network service provider defends itself on the grounds that the information suspected to be infringing was published by the network user, the People’s Court may, on the basis of a request by the plaintiff and the concrete circumstances of the case, order network service providers to provide the People’s Court with the name, contact method, network address and other such information by which the network user suspected of infringement can be determined.

Where network service providers refuse to provide this without proper cause, the People’s Court may, on the basis of the provisions of Article 114 of the Civil Procedure Law, take punitive measures against the network service provider.

Where the plaintiff requests that a network user is added as defendant on the basis of the information provided by the network service provider, the People’s Court shall allow this.

Article 5: On the basis of the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law, where the person suffering infringement sends notice to the network service provider in written form or using a method published by the network service provider, containing the following content, the People’s Court shall find [the notice] valid:

(1) the name and contact method of the notifier;

(2) the network address where it is demanded that necessary measures are taken, or corresponding information can sufficiently accurately be determined as infringing.

(3) the reason the notifier demands deletion of corresponding information.

Where notices sent by persons suffering infringement do not meet the above criteria, and the network service provider holds they are exempt from responsibility, the People’s Court shall support this.

Article 6: When the People’s Court applies the provisions of Paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law, to determine whether deletion, blocking, severance of links and other such necessary measures adopted by network service providers are timely or not, it shall judge the matter comprehensively on the basis of factors such as the nature of the network service, the form of valid notification and its degree of accuracy, the type and extent of the infringement of rights and interests through online information, etc.

Article 7: Where a network user whose published information was subject to measures such as deletion, blocking, severance of links, etc., holds that the network service provider bears liability for violation of contract or tort liability, and the network service provider refutes this on the grounds of received notification, the People’s Court shall support this.

Where network users who are subject to measures such as deletion, blocking, severance of links, etc., request the network service provider to provide the content of the notification, the People’s Court shall support this.

Article 8: Where a notifier’s notice leads to a network service provider mistakenly adopting measures such as deletion, blocking, severance of links, etc., and network users demand that the notifying person bears tort liability, the People’s Court shall support this.

Where the network user subject to mistaken measures demands that the network service provider adopts corresponding restorative measures, the People’s Court shall support this, except where restoration is not possible because of technological limitations.

Article 9: Where a People’s Court determines, on the basis of Paragraph 3 of Article 36 of the Tort Liability Law, whether a network service provider “knew”, it shall comprehensively consider the following factors:

(1) whether or not network service providers, through manual or automatic means, recommended, ranked, selected, edited, arranged, revised or in other ways processed the infringing online information;

(2) the ability to manage information that network service providers should have, as well as the nature and method of the provided service, and the extent of the probability that it might cause infringement;

(3) the category of personal rights and interests infringed by the online information concerned, as well as the degree of clarity;

(4) the extent of the social influence of the online information concerned, or its browsing rates for a determined period;

(5) the technological possibility for network service providers to adopt measures to prevent infringement, and whether corresponding reasonable measures have been adopted;

(6) whether or not network service providers have adopted corresponding reasonable measures against the same network users’ repeated act of infringement or the same infringing information;

(7) other factors related to the specific case.

Article 10: When people’s courts determine fault in reprinting online information by network users or network service providers, as well as its degree, they shall comprehensively consider the following factors:

(1) the duty of care borne by the reprinting subject that is corresponding to its nature and scope of influence;

(2) the extent to which it is clear that the reprinted information infringes another person’s personal rights;

(3) whether or not the reprinted information is substantially altered, whether or not titles of articles are added or revised, the probability that it leads to grave inconformity with content or might mislead audiences.

Article 11: Where network users or network service providers adopt libellous and slanderous methods, and harm the public’s trust in commercial subjects, lowering the social valuation of their products or services, and the commercial subject demands that the network user or network service provider bears tort liability, the People’s Court shall support this according to the law.

Article 12: Where network users of network service providers use the network to publicize genetic information, medical history materials, health inspection materials, criminal records, household addresses, private activities and other personal information or personal privacy of natural persons, resulting in harm to the other person, and the person suffering infringement demands they bear tort liability, the People’s Court shall support this. Except under the following circumstances:

(1) the natural person has agreed in writing and publication takes place within the scope of the agreements;

(2) in order to spur the social public interest, and it is within the scope of necessity;

(3) by schools, scientific institutions, etc., for the purposes of scientific research for the public interest, or for statistical purposes, with the written agreement of the natural person, and the method of publication does not allow the identification of a specific natural person;

(4) where natural persons themselves publish this information online or other personal information that is already lawfully published;

(5) personal information that is obtained through lawful channels;

(6) except where laws or administrative regulations provide otherwise.

Where network users or network service providers publicize personal information as provided in Items 4 and 5 of the previous Paragraph in a manner that violates the social public interest or social morality, or the publication of the information concerned harms major interests of rights holders that merit protection, and the rights holder requests that network users or network service providers bear tort liability, the People’s Court shall support his.

Where State organs publish personal information in the exercise of their duties, the provisions of this Article do not apply.

Article 13: Where network users or network service providers, publish information from sources such as documentation created by State organs according to their duties and openly carried out official acts, etc., which infringes another person’s personal rights, one of the following circumstances is present, and the person suffering infringement requests that the infringer bears tort liability, the People’s Court shall support this:

(1) information published by network users or network service providers does not conform to the information source described above:

(2) where network users or network service providers cause misunderstanding by adding humiliating content, libellous information, improper titles or through modifying information, adjusting its structure, changing its order, and other such methods;

(3) where the above-mentioned information sources have been publicly corrected, but the network user refuses to correct it, or the network service provider does not correct it;

(4) where the above-mentioned information sources have been publicly corrected, and network users or network service providers continue to publish the pre-correction information.

Article 14: People’s Courts shall find invalid agreements between persons suffering infringement and network users or network service providers who committed infringement, in which one sides pays remuneration, and the other side provides deletion, blocking, severance of links and other such services.

Where specific online information is distorted, deleted or blocked without authorization, or other persons are prevented from obtaining online information through the method of severing links, and the network user or network service provider publishing the information concerned request that the infringer bears tort liability, the People’s Courts shall support this. Where entrustment by others is accepted to carry out the acts concerned, the entrusting person and the entrusted person bear joint liability.

Article 15: Where another person is employed, organized, instigated to or assisted with the publication or reprinting of online information that infringes another person’s personal rights and interests, and the person suffering infringement requests that the actors bear joint liability, the People’s Courts shall support this.

Article 16: Where People’s Courts find that the infringer bears a duty to make a formal apology, remove the influence, restore the reputation or other forms of responsibility, this shall correspond to the concrete method and the scope of the resulting influence of the infringement. Where the infringer refuses to carry this out, the People’s Courts may adopt reasonable methods including publishing an online declaration or publishing the judgement documents to enforce the matter, the expenses resulting therefrom are borne by the infringer.

Article 17: Where network users or network service providers infringe another person’s personal rights and interests, resulting in asset losses or grave spiritual harm, and the person suffering infringement requests that they bear liability for compensation on the basis of Articles 20 and 22 of the Tort Liability Law, the People’s Courts shall support this.

Article 18: Reasonable expenses incurred by the person suffering infringement to terminate the act of infringement may be considered as asset losses as provided in Article 20 of the Tort Liability Law. Reasonable expenses include reasonable expenses that the person suffering the infringement, or an entrusted agent incurs in investigating the infringing act and gathering evidence. The People’s Courts may, on the basis of the requests of the parties concerned and the concrete circumstances of the case, include lawyer’s fees that conform to provisions of relevant State departments in their scope of calculating compensation.

Where it is not possible to determine the asset loss the person suffering infringement suffered because of harm to personal rights, or the profit the infringer obtained from this, People’s Courts may determine the amount of compensation, on the basis of the concrete circumstances of the case, to the extent of 500.000 Yuan or less.

Compensatory amounts for spiritual harm are to be determined according to the provision of Article 10 of the “Supreme People’s Courts Interpretation concerning Some Questions on Determining Liability for Compensating Spiritual Harm in Civil Infringements”.

Article 19: After these Regulations take effect, these Regulations will apply in first and second instance cases that are currently being adjudicated in People’s Courts.

These Regulations do not apply to cases that have been terminated before these Regulations took effect, where a concerned party requests a re-trial or a re-trial is decided through the judicial monitoring procedure after these Regulations take effect.

《最高人民法院关于审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》

为正确审理利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件,根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于加强网络信息保护的决定》《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》等法律的规定,结合审判实践,制定本规定。

第一条 本规定所称的利用信息网络侵害人身权益民事纠纷案件,是指利用信息网络侵害他人姓名权、名称权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权、隐私权等人身权益引起的纠纷案件。

第二条 利用信息网络侵害人身权益提起的诉讼,由侵权行为地或者被告住所地人民法院管辖。

侵权行为实施地包括实施被诉侵权行为的计算机等终端设备所在地,侵权结果发生地包括被侵权人住所地。

第三条 原告依据侵权责任法第三十六条第二款、第三款的规定起诉网络用户或者网络服务提供者的,人民法院应予受理。

原告仅起诉网络用户,网络用户请求追加涉嫌侵权的网络服务提供者为共同被告或者第三人的,人民法院应予准许。

原告仅起诉网络服务提供者,网络服务提供者请求追加可以确定的网络用户为共同被告或者第三人的,人民法院应予准许。

第四条 原告起诉网络服务提供者,网络服务提供者以涉嫌侵权的信息系网络用户发布为由抗辩的,人民法院可以根据原告的请求及案件的具体情况,责令网络服务提供者向人民法院提供能够确定涉嫌侵权的网络用户的姓名(名称)、联系方式、网络地址等信息。

网络服务提供者无正当理由拒不提供的,人民法院可以依据民事诉讼法第一百一十四条的规定对网络服务提供者采取处罚等措施。

原告根据网络服务提供者提供的信息请求追加网络用户为被告的,人民法院应予准许。

第五条 依据侵权责任法第三十六条第二款的规定,被侵权人以书面形式或者网络服务提供者公示的方式向网络服务提供者发出的通知,包含下列内容的,人民法院应当认定有效:

(一)通知人的姓名(名称)和联系方式;

(二)要求采取必要措施的网络地址或者足以准确定位侵权内容的相关信息;

(三)通知人要求删除相关信息的理由。

被侵权人发送的通知未满足上述条件,网络服务提供者主张免除责任的,人民法院应予支持。

第六条 人民法院适用侵权责任法第三十六条第二款的规定,认定网络服务提供者采取的删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施是否及时,应当根据网络服务的性质、有效通知的形式和准确程度,网络信息侵害权益的类型和程度等因素综合判断。

第七条 其发布的信息被采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施的网络用户,主张网络服务提供者承担违约责任或者侵权责任,网络服务提供者以收到通知为由抗辩的,人民法院应予支持。

被采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施的网络用户,请求网络服务提供者提供通知内容的,人民法院应予支持。

第八条 因通知人的通知导致网络服务提供者错误采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等措施,被采取措施的网络用户请求通知人承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。

被错误采取措施的网络用户请求网络服务提供者采取相应恢复措施的,人民法院应予支持,但受技术条件限制无法恢复的除外。

第九条 人民法院依据侵权责任法第三十六条第三款认定网络服务提供者是否“知道”,应当综合考虑下列因素:

(一)网络服务提供者是否以人工或者自动方式对侵权网络信息以推荐、排名、选择、编辑、整理、修改等方式作出处理;

(二)网络服务提供者应当具备的管理信息的能力,以及所提供服务的性质、方式及其引发侵权的可能性大小;

(三)该网络信息侵害人身权益的类型及明显程度;

(四)该网络信息的社会影响程度或者一定时间内的浏览量;

(五)网络服务提供者采取预防侵权措施的技术可能性及其是否采取了相应的合理措施;

(六)网络服务提供者是否针对同一网络用户的重复侵权行为或者同一侵权信息采取了相应的合理措施;

(七)与本案相关的其他因素。

第十条 人民法院认定网络用户或者网络服务提供者转载网络信息行为的过错及其程度,应当综合以下因素:

(一)转载主体所承担的与其性质、影响范围相适应的注意义务;

(二)所转载信息侵害他人人身权益的明显程度;

(三)对所转载信息是否作出实质性修改,是否添加或者修改文章标题,导致其与内容严重不符以及误导公众的可能性。

第十一条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者采取诽谤、诋毁等手段,损害公众对经营主体的信赖,降低其产品或者服务的社会评价,经营主体请求网络用户或者网络服务提供者承担侵权责任的,人民法院应依法予以支持。

第十二条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者利用网络公开自然人基因信息、病历资料、健康检查资料、犯罪记录、家庭住址、私人活动等个人隐私和其他个人信息,造成他人损害,被侵权人请求其承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。但下列情形除外:

(一)经自然人书面同意且在约定范围内公开;

(二)为促进社会公共利益且在必要范围内;

(三)学校、科研机构等基于公共利益为学术研究或者统计的目的,经自然人书面同意,且公开的方式不足以识别特定自然人;

(四)自然人自行在网络上公开的信息或者其他已合法公开的个人信息;

(五)以合法渠道获取的个人信息;

(六)法律或者行政法规另有规定。

网络用户或者网络服务提供者以违反社会公共利益、社会公德的方式公开前款第四项、第五项规定的个人信息,或者公开该信息侵害权利人值得保护的重大利益,权利人请求网络用户或者网络服务提供者承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。

国家机关行使职权公开个人信息的,不适用本条规定。

第十三条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者,根据国家机关依职权制作的文书和公开实施的职权行为等信息来源所发布的信息,有下列情形之一,侵害他人人身权益,被侵权人请求侵权人承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持:

(一)网络用户或者网络服务提供者发布的信息与前述信息来源内容不符;

(二)网络用户或者网络服务提供者以添加侮辱性内容、诽谤性信息、不当标题或者通过增删信息、调整结构、改变顺序等方式致人误解;

(三)前述信息来源已被公开更正,但网络用户拒绝更正或者网络服务提供者不予更正;

(四)前述信息来源已被公开更正,网络用户或者网络服务提供者仍然发布更正之前的信息。

第十四条 被侵权人与构成侵权的网络用户或者网络服务提供者达成一方支付报酬,另一方提供删除、屏蔽、断开链接等服务的协议,人民法院应认定为无效。

擅自篡改、删除、屏蔽特定网络信息或者以断开链接的方式阻止他人获取网络信息,发布该信息的网络用户或者网络服务提供者请求侵权人承担侵权责任的,人民法院应予支持。 接受他人委托实施该行为的,委托人与受托人承担连带责任。

第十五条 雇佣、组织、教唆或者帮助他人发布、转发网络信息侵害他人人身权益,被侵权人请求行为人承担连带责任的,人民法院应予支持。

第十六条 人民法院判决侵权人承担赔礼道歉、消除影响或者恢复名誉等责任形式的,应当与侵权的具体方式和所造成的影响范围相当。 侵权人拒不履行的,人民法院可以采取在网络上发布公告或者公布裁判文书等合理的方式执行,由此产生的费用由侵权人承担。

第十七条 网络用户或者网络服务提供者侵害他人人身权益,造成财产损失或者严重精神损害,被侵权人依据侵权责任法第二十条和第二十二条的规定请求其承担赔偿责任的,人民法院应予支持。

第十八条 被侵权人为制止侵权行为所支付的合理开支,可以认定为侵权责任法第二十条规定的财产损失。 合理开支包括被侵权人或者委托代理人对侵权行为进行调查、取证的合理费用。 人民法院根据当事人的请求和具体案情,可以将符合国家有关部门规定的律师费用计算在赔偿范围内。

被侵权人因人身权益受侵害造成的财产损失或者侵权人因此获得的利益无法确定的,人民法院可以根据具体案情在50万元以下的范围内确定赔偿数额。

精神损害的赔偿数额,依据《最高人民法院关于确定民事侵权精神损害赔偿责任若干问题的解释》第十条的规定予以确定。

第十九条 本规定施行后人民法院正在审理的一审、二审案件适用本规定。

本规定施行前已经终审,本规定施行后当事人申请再审或者按照审判监督程序决定再审的案件,不适用本规定。

6 thoughts on “Supreme People’s Court Regulations concerning Some Questions of Applicable Law in Handing Civil Dispute Cases involving the Use of Information Networks to Harm Personal Rights and Interests

    […] the 9th, the Supreme People’s Court published the “Supreme People’s Court Regulations concerning Some Questions of Applicable Law in Handing Civil Di…“, these Regulations will take effect on 10 […]

    China Copyright and Media said:
    October 11, 2014 at 12:35 am

    […] the Supreme People’s Court issued a document with the – predictably convoluted – title “Supreme People’s Court Regulations concerning Some Questions of Applicable Law in Handing Civil Di…”. This document provides instructions to People’s Courts on certain aspect of dealing with […]

    […] his China Copyright and Media blog, Rogier Creemers has translated the court ruling in full, and in a separate post analyzed the decision, explaining that while this does increase central […]

    […] A completed alternate translation of this document is also available at  China Copyright and Media Law […]

    […] An alternate translation of this document is available at  China Copyright and Media Law […]

    […] platforms have been strongly incentivised to collect real-name information, for instance through a Supreme People’s Court document that imposed liability on companies that do not submit such information in cases of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s