2020 年7月15日
站内搜索         
  • 当前位置:首页 > 海事审判白皮书
  • 海事审判白皮书

 

I.         Overview

 

(I)      Statistics on cases accepted and closed

 

In the year of 2017, compared with 2016, the Court accepted and closed more cases,and achieved a higher clearance ratewithfewercases pending at the end of the year. The number of cases closed had a greater increase in this year than that of cases accepted.Throughout the year of 2017, the Court in totalhandled 3651 cases, including 3086new casesaccepted (an increaseof 36.5%compared with 2261 cases in 2016) and 565 cases left over from previous years, and closed 3141 cases (an increase of 51% compared with 2080 cases in 2016), with 510casespending (a decrease of9.7%compared with565 casesin 2016). The clearance rate reached 86.03%, showing an increase of 7.39% compared with 78.64% in 2016.

 

1.      Contentious cases

 

In 2017, the Court accepted 2110new contentious cases,showing an increase of 742 casesor 54.2% compared with 1368 casesin the last year. Amongst these cases,there were 1353 admiralty and maritime cases, 13 maritime administrative cases, 2 payment-order cases, 44pre-litigation preservation cases, 649 claim registration cases, 4 casesconcerning application for establishment of liability limitation funds for maritime claims, 6 casesconcerningapplication for declaration of death, and 39 other cases. The value of the subject matters of these cases totaled RMB 2,291,068,400, showing a decrease ofRMB 2,241,347,500 compared withthe amount ofRMB 4,972,092,600 in 2016.

 

Throughout the year, the Court closed 2410 contentious cases,showingan increase of 747 cases or 53.6% compared with 1393 cases in the last year. Amongst these cases, there were 1389 admiralty and maritime cases, 10 maritime administrative cases, 2payment-order cases, 43pre-litigation preservationcases, 649 claim registrationcases, 2cases concerningapplication for establishment of liability limitation funds for maritime claims, 6 cases concerningapplication for declaration of death, and 39 other cases. The value of the subject matters of these cases totaled RMB 2,880,645,000,showing a decrease ofRMB 1,027,741,400from the amount ofRMB 1,852,903,600 in 2016. These cases were closed by various means, including 340 cases closed by judgment, 759 casessettled through mediation, 159cases voluntarily dismissed and 883 casesclosed by other means. The clearance rate of contentious cases was 94.07%, showing an increase of 4.66% compared with the rate of 89.41% in the last year.

 

2.      Enforcement cases

 

976 new enforcement cases were accepted in 2017, showingan increase of 83 casesor9.3%compared with 893 cases in the last year, while the total value of the subject matters of these caseshad a decrease of RMB 185,423,800to RMB 1,639,653,200fromthe amount of RMB 1,825,077,000 in the last year.

 

By the end of 2017, a total of 1001 enforcement cases were closed, showingan increase of 314 cases or 5.7% compared with 687 cases in the last year. The total value of the subject matters of enforcement in these cases totaled RMB 620,353,000, showingan increase of RMB 105,068,200 compared with RMB 515,284,800 in the last year. The clearance rate of enforcement cases reached 72.78%, showingan increase of 9.58%compared withthe rate of 63.2% in the last year.

 

3.      Pending cases

 

At the end of 2017, there were 510 cases pending before the Court, in which there were 135 contentious cases, a decrease of30 casescompared with 165 cases in the last year, and 375 enforcement cases, a decrease of 25 casescompared with 400 cases in the last year. In the pending contentious cases, there were 121 admiralty and maritime cases, 5 maritime administrative cases, 1 pre-litigation preservation case,2 claim registration cases, 2 cases concerningapplication for establishment of liability limitation funds for maritime claims, 2 casesconcerning application for declaration of death, and 2 other cases.

 

(II)   Statistics  on appeals

 

Throughout 2017, there were 129 cases appealed to higher courts (a decrease of60 cases compared with 189cases in the last year), including 30 casesconcerningjurisdiction dissension. In this year, 150 casestransferred from the Court were closed in the second instance (this number remained almost the same with that in the last yearwhich is 151), including 107cases closed with judgments maintained, 14with judgmentsamended,3 remanded for retrial (in the last year, the number of cases remanded for retrial and judgments amended was 14), 7 settled through mediation and 19 closed by voluntary dismissal.

 

II.      Main features

 

(I)      Number of new casesacceptedshowed a continuous increase, and wasexceededfor the first time by the number of cases closed.


 

Numbersof Cases Accepted and Closed in 2014-2017

 

Year

2017

2016

2015

2014

Cases accepted

3086

2261

2231

1176

Cases closed

3141

2080

2015

1135

 

 

In 2017, a total of 3086new cases were accepted by the Court, showing an increase of 825 cases or 36.5% compared with 2261 cases in the last year, and a total of 3141 cases were closed, showing an increase of 1061 cases or51%compared with 2080 cases in the last year. This reflects that the increase in the number of cases closed was much higher than that of the cases accepted. The number of cases closed exceeded that of cases accepted for the first time in these years. The number of cases pending decreased by 9.7% compared with that in the last year. The continuous backlogs of cases in recent years werereduced, and the stress of closing cases was somewhat relieved.

 

(II)   New contentious cases presented slight growth in number, but had significant change in case type.

 

Due to operational difficulties in shipping industry, disputes occurred frequently in this industry. Despite some fluctuations in recent years, contentious cases still account for a high proportion innew cases accepted. Thisgeneralsituation remained unchanged in 2017.


 

Year

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

New contentious cases accepted

829

838

1749

1368

2110

Contentious cases closed

830

826

1627

1393

2140

 

 

Notwithstanding the above,recovery of shipping industryin 2016 also brought some changes to number and type of cases. According to data published on the website of General Administration of Customs, China, total value of import and export commodities in China reached RMB 27,790 billion, which showed a year-on-year growth of 14.2% and reversed the downward trend in the previous two years. With the revival and development of foreign trade market, operating environment of shipping industry was asloimproved. The Baltic Dry Index (BDI) kept uprising in 2017 and exceeded1500 at the peak. Corresponding to this market situation, a latent decrease was seen in the number of contentious admiralty cases. Though the number of contentious cases accepted by the Court in 2017 was 2110, whichincreased by 54.2% compared with the last year, it was predominantly attributable to two large series of cases (comprising 798 cases) and a great number of claim registration cases. As the below tables shows, if these two factors are ruled out, the number of new contentious cases accepted in 2017 was on a descent, and inter alia, the traditional admiralty and maritime casespresented especially significant decrease in number.

 

Top 15 Causes of Action of Civil Cases in 2017

No.

Cause of Action

Number of Cases

1

Application for registration of maritime claims and compensation

649

2

Dispute over confirmation of maritime claims

349

3

Dispute over seaman service contract

279

4

Dispute over liability for damage caused to aquacultureat sea or at waters leading to the sea

213

5

Dispute over contract of carriage of goods by sea or by waters leading to the sea

58

6

Dispute over liability for personal injury at sea or at waters leading to the sea

56

7

Dispute over contract of ship mortgage

54

8

Dispute over contract of freight forwarding by sea or by waters leading to the sea

42

9

Application for pre-litigation preservation of property

40

10

Dispute overshipping loan contract

31

11

Dispute over contract of supply of ship stores and spares

28

12

Dispute over contract of sale and purchase of ship

23

13

Dispute over voyage charter party

21

14

Dispute over insurance contract arising at sea or at waters leading to the sea

18

15

Admiralty and maritime dispute

17

 

Top 15 Causes of Action of Civil Cases in 2016

No.

Cause of Action

Number of Cases

1

Dispute over seaman service contract

542

2

Application for registration of maritime claims and compensation

108

3

Dispute over contract of carriage of goods by sea or by waters leading to the sea

92

4

Dispute over liability for personal injury at sea or at waters leading to the sea

54

5

Dispute over contract of supply of ship stores and spares

52

6

Dispute over contract of ship mortgage

40

7

Dispute over confirmation of maritime claims

37

8

Dispute over contract of sale and purchase of ship

27

9

Dispute over contract of freight forwarding by sea or by waters leading to the sea

27

10

Dispute over ship repair contract

26

11

Application for pre-litigation preservation of property

25

12

Dispute over port operation

24

13

Application for arrest of ship

24

14

Dispute over insurance contract arising at sea or at waters leading to the sea

21

15

Dispute over liability for damage arising from ship collision

19

 


 

Comparison betweenNew Traditional and Non-Traditional

Contentious Admiralty and Maritime Cases

Accepted in the First Instance

Year

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Traditional admiralty and maritime cases

471

563

685

586

519

Cases concerning dispute over seaman service

239

131

805

542

279

*Traditional admiralty and maritime cases refer to contentious admiralty and maritime cases accepted in the first instance other than those concerning dispute over seaman service. Theabove number of traditional admiralty and maritime cases in 2017 has deducted the number of cases in two largeseries of cases.

 

 

In terms of causes of action, number of cases that had high proportions in the past appeared to have decreased. This decrease was especially notable in the number ofcases concerningdisputes over seaman service contract, contract of supply of ship stores and spares, andcontract of carriage of goods by sea. Instead, some other cases (such as those concerningregistration of claims, confirmation of claims, and dispute over liability for damage to aquaculture) showed rapid increases in number.

 

1.      Significantdecrease in number of cases concerning dispute over seaman service contract

 

Corresponding to the upturn of the industry, the number of cases concerning dispute over seaman service contract sharplydecreased. In 2017, only 279 cases accepted by the Court were relating to the seaman service contract, accounting for 13.2% of all new cases accepted. This is a far cry from the 39.6% in the last year. Most of these cases were caused by overdue payment of salaries, concerning people’s livelihood and involving a large number ofpeople. There were also cases of collective claims by all seamen onboard a vessel or even all seamen in a company that had extensive influence in the society. The Court had input more judicial resources and taken more efforts to mediate settlement in these cases. Withthe operations of shipping companies turning better, the number of casessuccessfully settled through mediationconstantly increased. In the 290 cases closed in 2017 concerning seaman service contract, 72cases were closed by judgment, 141 cases settled through mediation, 62cases voluntarily dismissed, 10 cases treated ashaving been voluntarily dismissed, and 5cases closed by other means. The rate of mediation and voluntary dismissal reached 70%, much higher than the rate of 40.4% in the last year.

 

2.      Continuous decrease in number of cases concerning dispute over carriage of goods by sea, and increase in number of cases concerning dispute over contract of freight forwarding by sea

 

Cases of dispute over carriage of goods by sea and cases of dispute concerning contract of freight forwarding by sea are always two most commonly seen types of cases accepted by a maritime court. In 2014, these two types of cases, in a total of 191 cases,were the most and the third-most cases accepted by the Court respectively. 2015 saw a decrease in number of these two types of cases and 2016 a more significant decrease. In 2017, number of cases concerning dispute over carriageof goods by sea continued to decrease to 58, while number of cases concerning dispute over contract of freight forwarding by seaincreased to 42 from the number of27 in 2016.

 

3.      Sharp increase in number of claim registration cases and claim confirmation cases

 

In 2017, number of these cases appeared to have a sharp increase to 998 from 105 in 2015 and 145 in 2016. In these cases, some were serial cases (in total 592 cases) concerningapplication for establishment of liability limitation fund for maritime claims arising from oil spills, and the remaining were mostly pertaining to judicial auction of ships. Since 2016, number of ships auctioned by the Court kept at a high level, specifically, 38 in 2016 and 29 in 2017.After ships were ordered to be auctioned, maritime claimants having interest inthe ships initiated actions to apply for registration and confirmation of their claims and compensationfrom the auction proceeds.

 

(III)          Both cases accepted and closed had increase in number, and thepressure for enforcement got slight relief

 

In 2017, 976 new enforcement cases were accepted and 1001enforcement cases were closed. This shows increases of 83 cases and 314 cases respectivelycompared with893 cases and 687 cases in the last year.With number of enforcement officers remaining unchanged, averagely over 280 cases were closed by one officer in the year, andat most 364 cases.Clearancerate of enforcement cases was 72.78% and actual enforcement rate was 83.56%, which showed certain increases compared with 63.2% and 71.19% in the last year. Both the enforcement efficiency and effect had great escalation. Asthe number of pending enforcement casesdecreased to 374 from 400 in the last year, and it is expectable that number of new enforcement cases accepted in 2018 will further decrease considering the significant decrease in number of contentious cases closed by judgment in 2017, pressure for enforcement will be somewhat relieved.

 

This significant improvement of enforcement efficiency and effect in 2017 could be credited with the following reasons, in addition to smooth close of serveralserial cases.

 

1.      Improved informatization of enforcement proceedings. This promotedsignificant reformation of three work mechanisms in enforcement proceedings. Firstly, by use ofChina national “head office to head office” inquiry and control system, Fujian provincial “point to point”inquiry and control system and Xiamen’s local inquiry and control system, the Court managed to “capture” all major properties of enforcementrespondents . A major reformwas brought to the workmechanism for “person identification and property inquiry”. Secondly, the Court worked hard to promote online judicial auction,substantially reforming auction mechanism. In 2017, the Court carried out 70 auctions on Taobao site, including 43 times for auction and sale of 29 ships in which 22 were successfully sold off, with total proceeds being RMB 326 million. Rate of online auction of ships reached 100%. Last, the Court began usingkeypoint flow management system in enforcement proceedings, and  usinginformatization platform, allowing parties’ access to the information of keypoint flow of enforcement proceedings. The enforcement management and supervision mechanism was reformed significantly.

 

2.      Improved management of proceeds and propertyof enforcement. The Court began to employ “one account for one case”system, to keep records of, disclose and accept supervision duringthe entire course of collection and payoutof  enforcement proceeds.

 

3.      Stricterimplementation of measures to terminate current enforcement proceedings. The Court made a ledger of all cases whose current enforcement proceedings were terminated.Based on the ledger, officers investigated case by case the property possession situation of all persons subject to enforcement, including their realties, automobiles, bank accounts and BIC files, under supervision of director of  enforcement division. The property investigation results were reported in a monthly manner, and once any property available for enforcement was found, the enforcement would be resumed without delay. In 2017, there were 107 enforcement cases were closed by termination of current enforcement proceedings, showing the rate of termination of current enforcement proceedings decreased to 8.18%.

 

4.      Enhanced communication and coordination. In complicated cases, the Court enhanced communication and coordinationamongand interpretation of law and reasoning to parties concerned, interested parties, entities providing assistance, and authorities in charge of relevant industries, to improve their understanding as to the enforcement work and their support and credit to the justice, resolve disputes effectively and facilitate discharge of debts.

 

(IV)          The total valueof subject matters of new contentious casesaccepted showed notable decrease, and great decrease was witnessed in the number of cases closed by judgment

 

Year

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Total valueof subject matters of new contentious cases accepted

(RMB)

1,596,581,900

2,382,129,500

3,431,402,900

4,972,092,600

2,291,068,400

 

 

Though more new contentious cases were accepted in 2017, cases involving high amount accounted for a fewer proportion. Therefore, compared with 2016, the total valueof subject matters of the cases accepted in 2017 had a decrease of over 50%, and returned to thenormal level of previous years. Throughout the year of 2017, 340 contentious cases were closed by judgment, showing a relatively great decrease of 38.6% from the 554 cases in 2016. Although the total number of judgments decreased, the profession degree and complexity of the issues in dispute increased.

 

(V)   Casesinvolving foreign, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan elements had a massive increase in number

 

In 2017, there were 42 cases left over from previous years involving foreign,Hong Kong, Macau orTaiwan elements and 586 new cases accepted (including 7 Taiwan-related cases, 30 Hong Kong-related cases, and 549 foreign-related cases). By the end of 2017, 594 cases involving such elements have beenclosed, and 34 cases remained pending before the Court, showing a clearance rate of 94.59%. Compared with the last year when 143 new cases involving such elements were accepted, 443 more new cases were accepted in 2017, and it wasbe attributable to two large series of foreign-related cases(including 503 cases). If these serial cases were not taken into consideration, number of cases involving such elements would become 83, showing a decrease from that in the last yearinstead.

 

III.   Quality and efficiency of trials

 

In 2017, facing substantial increase of caseload and workload, the Court intensified overall work arrangement, properly allocated judicial resources and optimized work methodsto accomplish tasks well. Except clearancerate of cases left over from previous years and rate of compliance in enforcement proceedings, the Court met theother six managementindicators set byFujian Higher People’s Court, which showed aprogress compared with those in the last year. As to the trialmanagementindicator additionally set for the clearanceof long pending cases, the Court also had good performance.

 

1.      Satisfied requirement onthe clearance rate of caseswithin statutory (normal) time limits for trial

 

In2017, the Court constantly enhanced the power of hastening the trial of cases and strictly controlled approval of applications for change of trial time limits. The clearance rate ofcasewithin statutory time limit for trial reached 99.28%, satisfying the requirement of the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province and exceeding the rate of 97.96% in the last year. Throughout the year, there were 6 cases not closed within statutory trial time limits, but they were closed within the extended time limits. More attention must be paid to this regard to improve management of cases in the future.

 

2.      Satisfied requirement onthe rate ofamendment of judgmentand remand for retrial of first instance cases

 

In 2017, the rate of amendment of judgmentand remand for retrial of first instance caseshandled bythe Court was 3.97%, meeting the requirement set by theHigher People’s Court of Fujian Province. As 2017 drew to a close, the Court saw 12 cases ofwhich judgments were amended in the second instance, which was the same with 2016. Nevertheless, as the Court closed 302 firstinstance cases by judgment in 2017, a decrease in number of 251 compared with 553 in the last year, the rate of amendment of judgment and remand for retrial of first instance casesin 2017 was lower than the rate of 2.35% in the last year.

 

In the cases ofwhich judgments were amended in 2017, two thirds were thoseappealed and transferred to the higher court in 2016. In 2017, there were 129 cases of the Court appealed and transferred to the higher court, including 30 cases concerning dissension on jurisdiction, and only 99 cases appealed against thejudgments, showing a great decrease compared withthe number of last year. Therefore, it is expected the number of cases whose judgments areamended and remanded for retrial will further decrease in 2018.

 

3.      Satisfied requirement onthe rate of acceptance of effective judgments and rate of communication in enforcement cases

 

In 2017, the rate of acceptance of effective judgments rendered by the Courtreached100%, and the rate of communication in enforcement cases also reached100%. In 2017, no effective judgment issued by the Courtwas retried by the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province. The enforcement proceedings were in general compliance with legal provisions in terms of time limit and manner of close, and channels of communications inenforcement proceedings were maintained unblocked.

 

4.      Satisfiedthe requirement on the workload for monthly pending cases

 

At the end of December 2017, it was calculated out 1.2 months would be taken to close the pending cases on the basis of the average monthly number of cases closed in the previous 12 months, which satisfied the requirement set bythe Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province. This requirement was met for the first time after failure for consecutive three years. It should be mainly credited with the more reasonable calculation standards after adjustment according to the changes in the number of cases accepted in these years.

 

5.      Achieved much higher rate of mediation and voluntary dismissal

 

In 2017, by full use of diversified dispute resolution mechanism, the Court took more efforts to facilitate dispute resolution by mediation, and achieveddistinguished good results. Particularly, the above-mentionedtwo large series of cases (including over 500 cases) were finally resolved by and between the parties under mediation. In respect of contentious cases, the rate of mediation and voluntary dismissal reached 68.74% in 2017, showing a substantial increase compared withthe rate of 41.92% in the last year, and satisfyingthe requirement of the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province.

 

6.      Failed to reach requirement on the clearance rate of cases left over from previous years, but accomplished the missionto clear long pending cases

 

At the beginning of 2017, there were 164 cases left over from previous years, of which, by the end of the year, 137 cases has been closed and 27 cases remained unclosed. The clearance rate of cases left over from previous yearswas83.54%, showing a decrease of 2.78% compared with the rate of 86.32% in 2016, but still failed to meet relevantrequirement. In the 27 cases remaining unclosed (including 8 cases involving foreign, Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan elements), there were12 cases ordered to be suspended, and the remaining’s proceedings were delayed mainly due to objective reasons such as appraisal, announcement and court service, notwithstanding that some appraisals indeed took two much time and case investigation progressed tardily.

 

In 2017, as required by the Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province, the Courtdid the best toexpedite disposal oflong pending cases and accomplished the mission. By present, there are only 4 cases pending for 2~3 years remaining unclosed, and no cases pending for over 3 years.

 

7.      Achieved higher rate of actual enforcement

 

In 2017, the rate of actual enforcement reached 83.56% and satisfied the general requirement set bythe Higher People’s Court of Fujian Province. In 2017,auctions of ships were speeded up,the rate of successful auction was increased, and a high proportion of crew salary-related serial cases were closed upon enforcement by means of auction of ships. Therefore, this rate kept rising from2016 (see the table below), and it is expected to keep at a high level in 2018 considering the minor rally of ocean freight rate and the smooth conduct of ship auctions.

 

Year

2015

2016

2017

Rate of actual enforcement

47.21%

71.19%

83.56%

 

 

8.      Improvedthe indexes of average trial time and average enforcement time

 

The indexes of average trial time and average enforcement time are two indexes used to assess a court’s work efficiency—the higher the indexes are, the shorter the time to dispose a case is. In 2017, the index of average trial time of the Court was 0.81 and the index of average enforcement time was 0.49, showing a minor growth from the indexes 0.78 and 0.4 in the last year, and reflecting that the Court had improvedwork efficiency in trials and enforcements.

 

9.      Significant increase of rate of juror participation in first instance

 

In 2017, the Court closed 1035 first-instance cases under ordinary proceedings, in which 480 cases had juror participate, making the rate of juror participation increase by 22.46%to 46.38% from the rate of 23.92% in the last year. The participation of people’s juror helps promote judicial justice, improve credibility of justice and relieve judicial resource tensiondue to shortage of judges.

 

IV.   Other respects

 

1.      Live broadcasting of hearings

 

2017 witnessed the reformation of three courtrooms thatallowed live broadcasting of court hearings on Chinese court website (http://tingshen.court.gov.cn/live). In 2017, 70 hearings of the Court were live broadcasted, showing a notable increase in number from less than 10 hearings in the last year.

 

2.      Publication of judgments

 

In 2017, there were 2055 judgments of the Court published online. As shown in the system of online publication of judgments, by the end of 2017, no effective judgment so required has failed to be published online. The Court had good performance in this regard.

 

3.      Electronic documentation

 

By the end of 2017, 93.6% of the case files of the Courthave been prepared electronically. In order to increase the applicationof electronic documentation in trials, the next step is to enhance the synchronous preparation of electronic files, to ensure they are generated at the same time whena case is accepted.

 

4.      Archiving

 

In 2017, files of 3155 cases were archived. By the end of February 2018, there were 647 cases that had been closed for more than two months and should have had files archived. Especially for the enforcement cases and cases tried under special procedures, the archiving work was still onerous.

 

V.      Recommendations on future trials and enforcements

 

The most important function of a people’s court is to enforce the law and trial of cases. In order to accomplish tasks and satisfy requirements in future trials, it is advised that the adjudicatory function should be furtherenhanced and the quality and efficiency of trial should be improvedin the process of furtherreforming ofthe judicial system and strengthening of informatization, to such an extent that the increasing needs of justice in the society are satisfied better and people feel justice and fairness in every case.

 

(I)      Enhance professional researches and discussions. Take into consideration of diversity and complexity of legal relationships, focus on the key issues, hotissues and difficult issues in cases, deepen trial researches and studies, attach importance to study onprofessional issues, proceduralissues and issues related to application of substantive laws, fully exert the function of specialized meetings of judges to assemble wisdoms todiscuss difficult and complicated legal issues, especiallythose soliciting divergentjudge opinionsin similar cases, promote refined trial in every case, push forwardthe harmonizationof adjudication standards, and further upgrade adjudication quality.

 

(II)   Overcome difficulties and challenges in enforcement. Follow the work arrangement “to basically solve the difficulties in enforcement”, increase input of human, material and other judicial resources, and continue to focus on overcoming the difficulties and challenges. Firstly, perfect the establishment of an enforcement team, and optimize work mode, mechanism and system of enforcement. Secondly, speed up set-upofenforcement commandcenter, improveonline enforcement search and control system and transparent enforcement mechanism, fully exert the functions and effects of cooperative enforcement mechanism and joint punishment system for dishonesty, and further improve the enforcement results.

 

(III)          Intensify trial management. Firstly, enhance supervision over the key procedures in trials, help judges improve case management, and continue to hasten the clearanceof long pending cases. Secondly, do well in analysis, assessment and examination of the quality of trials, prepare ledgers to review and examine in due time judgments amended, cases remanded for retrial and cases treated with different trial standards, attach more importance to online, cross and appointed reviews and examinations, and improve the means and methods of review and examination. Thirdly, continue to attach attention to live broadcasting of hearings and online publication of judgments, and accomplishcomprehensive judicial publication. Further improve the standardization of trial work.

 

(IV)          Make the Court a “smart court”. Promote application of such intelligent assistant systems as audio identification system in court hearings, digital system of judicial committee, and search and analysis system of big data related to law, fulfill the requirement to implement electronic documentation that requireselectronic files to be generated at the same time whena case is accepted, take efforts to realize the goal of fully paperless trialonline, facilitate the overall combination of modern science and technologywith trial, enforcement and judicial administrativework, further improve the extent of informatization and provide moresupports and services for the trial and enforcement work.