I.  Overview

（I）Basic statistics

1、Statistics on cases accepted and concluded

Throughout the year of 2020, the Court in total handled 2967 cases including 2693 cases newly accepted and 274 cases left over from previous years. 2728 cases were concluded in the year, making the clearance rate reach 91.94%. Compared with the statistics of 2019 on a year-on-year basis, the numbers of newly-accepted cases and concluded cases both decreased, respectively by 6.6% and 4.5%, while the clearance rate showed an increase by 0.69%.

In 2020, the Court in total handled 2045 contentious cases, 1865 of which were newly accepted (consisting of 1581 first-instance admiralty and maritime cases, 213 admiralty and maritime cases of special procedure, and 71 maritime administrative cases). Amongst others, the subject matters of the newly-accepted first-instance admiralty and maritime cases valued in aggregate at about RMB 2,220,860,200. On the other hand, the Court concluded 1883 contentious cases in the year (consisting of 1632 first-instance admiralty and maritime cases, 178 admiralty and maritime cases of special procedure, and 73 maritime administrative cases), amongst which 296 cases were concluded by judgment, 1130 settled through mediation, 182 withdrawn and 275 concluded by other means (including non-contentious means and otherwise), making the clearance rate of contentious cases reach 92.08%.

In the year, the Court in total handled 922 enforcement cases, 828 of which were newly accepted (including 8 administrative enforcement cases), and involved a total value of about RMB 1,268,041,900. The year also saw the Court conclude 845 enforcement cases (including 16 administrative enforcement cases), with effective enforcement value totaling about RMB 1,352,445,000. The clearance rate of enforcement cases reached 91.65%.

In the year, the Court in total arrested 16 vessels and auctioned or sold 14 vessels. 11 vessels were successfully auctioned or sold, with the hammer prices totaling up to RMB 27,118,500.

2、Quality and efficiency of trials

（1）The rate of judgments announced in court was 7.81%, 6.99% higher than that of 2019.

（2）The rate of clearance within statutory period for trial of contentious cases reached 100%.

（3）The rate of clearance within statutory period of cases where property is available for enforcement was 98.42%.

（4）The rates of mediation and withdrawal were 60.51% and 9.18% respectively.

（5）The rate of satisfaction with first-instance judgments was 92.95%, showing a slight increase compared with 2019.

（6）152 cases of appeal against judgments issued by the Court were concluded in the second instance where 16 judgments were amended, and 3 cases were remanded for retrial. The rate of amendment of first-instance judgments and remand for retrial was 6.47%, showing a slight increase compared with 2019.

 

3、Other statistics

（1）2125 judgments were published online. Upon inquiry in the system, there was no effective judgment that shall have been published online but had not been so published.

（2）620 hearings were live broadcasted, attracting 18397 views, and 101 hearings were convened online due to the COVID-19 epidemic. The rate of live broadcast of hearings was 44%.

（3）The disclosure rate of judicial process information reached 100%, with the effective disclosure rate of such information being 99.46%.

（4）By the end of 2020, the rate of electronic filing reached 99.14%.

（Ⅱ）Highlights

1. The Court carried out all-round online trial activities to effectively deal with the impact brought by the COVID-19 epidemic, and properly tried and enforced cases involving COVID-19. A case of disputes arising from accidental leakage from a foreign vessel of propylene as raw material for epidemic prevention products was resolved by the Court within 24 hours as of its occurrence, and was listed as one of the Model Cases Reflecting Judicial Support of Fujian Courts for Enterprises’ Resumption of Work and Production during the epidemic prevention and control period.

2. The Court strengthened the trial of disputes related to shipping finance, and successfully concluded the case of Xiamen Shipbuilding Industry Co., Ltd. applying for realization of real rights for maritime security which involved the largest value of subject matter (RMB 140 million) in similar cases in China. The judicial proposal about regulating the management of marine insurance industry issued by the Court to the China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission and the Insurance Association of China was positively accepted, and was recognized as one of the Excellent Judicial Proposals of Fujian Courts in 2020.

3. The Court took the lead in adjudicating on influential cases of new type, including a case of dispute over legal nature of the right to use coastline, and a case of dispute over administrative confirmation of liability conclusion for a marine traffic accident, set industrial operation rules and regulated normal maritime order. The administrative judgment of the Court on a case of dispute over maritime administrative penalty for illegal use of sea area promoted the unification in Fujian Province of the maritime administration punishment standards for illegal use of sea areas.

4. The Court further strengthened the judicial protection of marine ecology. In line with the new procedural rules of civil public interest litigations related to marine environment, the court for the first time established a collegiate bench composing of seven members including four people’s jurors and concluded a public interest litigation initiated by a Chinese maritime administrative authority against a foreign shipowner in respect of damages to marine natural resources and ecological environment arising from a ship-induced oil pollution incident.

5. The Court intensified the supervision over and support for foreign-related arbitration, and published the Guidelines for Trial of Cases Involving Judicial Review of Arbitration. The Court issued its first ruling that acknowledged the effectiveness of an arbitral award issued by the Singapore International Arbitration Center.

6. The Court completed the construction of a series of projects under the “Construction of Smart Court”, such as automated litigation service terminal, intelligent litigation guiding system, judicial information system, and comprehensive service platform. A contentious and non-contentious solutions connection center was set up and a “Framework Agreement on Multi-party Collaboration Mechanism” was signed with seven sea-related administrative authorities, to liaise with various industrial and social organizations and effectively promote dispute resolutions. The construction of a one-stop diversified dispute resolution and litigation service platform achieved remarkable progress.

7. The Court summarized the trial work in the last 30 years in relation to Taiwan-related maritime cases, and released the first white paper on Taiwan-related maritime trials in China.

8. Two cases handled by the Court were listed in the Model Maritime Trial Cases of Chinese Courts and the Model Cases of Protection of Rights and Interests of Crew Members in China, and 6 were listed in the corresponding Model Cases of Fujian Courts of the year.

9. The Court successfully hosted the 28th National Maritime Trial Seminar.

II.  Main features of cases

（I）Workload of trial of contentious cases increased

In the year of 2020, 1865 new contentious cases were accepted by the Court and 1883 contentious cases were concluded, showing year-on-year decreases by 22.74% and 18.91% respectively. Such decreases were mainly attributable to the significant decrease of cases of registration of maritime claims in the category of admiralty and maritime cases of special procedures. First-instance admiralty and maritime cases and maritime administrative cases both increased in the year of 2020, compared with 2019. Therefore, the workload of trial of contentious cases was in fact heavier than last year.

Comparison of Contentious Cases Accepted and Concluded

from 2017 to 2020

 

Distribution Chart of Causes of Action of Admiralty and Maritime Cases Newly-Accepted in 2020

 

（Ⅱ）The acceptance and conclusion of first-instance admiralty and maritime cases were influenced by the COVID-19 epidemic

In the year of 2020, 1581 first-instance admiralty and maritime cases were newly accepted by the Court, and 1632 were concluded, showing year-on-year increases by 24.4% and 36.2% respectively, and relevant indicators were good. 934 cases involving foreign affairs and 62 cases involving Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan affairs were newly accepted, both remaining at a high level in number. Cases involving high value continued to be concentrated in marine engineering, with the total value of the subject matters of relevant cases reaching approximately RMB 700 million. The general trial situation was basically the same with last year, but dynamically, during the period from January to June of 2020, although cases were accepted and tried online via network platform and the maximum monthly percentage of online trials, hearings and pre-trial meetings reached 77%, only 359 new cases were accepted and only 291 cases were concluded, accounting for less than 1/4 of those in the whole year. If all the cases newly accepted in the year are classified into contractual and tort disputes, as far as contractual disputes are concerned, except for cases of dispute over seaman service contract that increased sharply due to the financial crisis of a ship company, a general decrease can be seen in the cases of contractual disputes, while most types of cases of tort disputes increased, particularly the number of cases of dispute over compensation for ship-induced oil pollution damage increasing by over 300. Obviously, the COVID-19 epidemic had impact on the acceptance and conclusion of cases.

（III）Types of maritime administrative cases expanded

In 2020, the Court accepted in total 71 maritime administrative cases, including 52 contentious administrative cases and 19 non-contentious administrative review cases, showing a year-on-year increase of 24.6%. The scope of administrative authorities involved in such cases was further expanded to include bureaus of natural resources, bureaus of ecological resources and other administrative authorities, in addition to ocean and fishery bureaus, maritime safety administrations and port authorities. The types of administrative actions against which the cases were initiated were further diversified. Previously, from 2016 to 2019, the actions were basically confiscation of ships having no name or number, no ship certificates and no port of registry, punishment for illegal occupation of sea areas, recovery of fuel subsidies, administrative compulsory removal and other administrative actions, quite a part of which were closely relevant to the focused or special law enforcement activities carried out by sea-related administrative authorities in the corresponding periods. In 2020, such relevancy was faded, and the administrative actions against which the cases were initiated became more diverse and basically included administrative punishments, administrative confirmations, administrative payments, administrative approvals, administrative agreements and other major administrative actions, which increased the difficulty in trying administrative cases, but it is positive that sea-related administrative authorities paid more attention to performing their administrative duties in accordance with law. In 2020, hearings were convened for 43 administrative cases, and in 37 of them, the head of the administrative authority concerned attended the hearing to make defense, accounting for 86.05%.

（IV）Cases of judicial confirmation increased significantly

In 2020, the Court accepted in total 57 cases of application for confirmation of effectiveness of people’s mediation agreement, showing a remarkable increase compared with 20 cases in 2019. The increase was attributable to several reasons: (1) the legal awareness of litigants was improved, and they resorted to judicial confirmation to have judicial enforceability conferred to the agreements reached by the basic-level people’s mediation commissions and have the rights and obligations of the parties thereto fixed; (2) litigants chose to accept mediation in consideration of litigation costs, and meanwhile applied for issuance of judicial instruments from the Court to satisfy the requirements of insurance indemnification or other procedures for legal documents; (3) the Court intensified the building of connection between contentious and non-contentious solutions, and achieved great progress in improving the diversified dispute resolution mechanism. From the source of case, most of the mediation agreements were reached under the host of the people’s mediation organizations for fishery disputes that had close connection with the Court in central fishing ports of China. The contentious and non-contentious solutions connection center of the Court has continuously dispatched judges to give legal guidance and powerful support for the mediation work. In the future, the Court will continue to advance the construction of the one-stop diversified dispute resolution platform and intensify our connection with various mediation institutions, to better satisfy the people’s demand and make more disputes resolved from the root.

III.     Special issues in the 2020 trials and recommendations

（I）Improvement of terms of marine engineering contracts

Recent years saw a continuous increase in the number of contentious cases of dispute over marine engineering. Compared with cases concerning onshore engineering, for the particularity of the marine environment, the cases of disputes over marine engineering involve more complicated legal relationships, higher claim amount and more legal provisions, and require higher technical threshold and longer trial period. The 2020 trials revealed prominent legal issues related to relevant contracts, including but not limited to: determination of the nature of a charter party (including time charter on voyage basis) entered into to perform marine engineering and the governing law thereof; disputes over performance of contract arising from the agreed waiver of some unpractical terms in a standard contract; disputes arising from absence of contractual provisions on special operation (for example, in a contract for transportation of the steel pipe pile of offshore wind power equipment, there was no provision regarding the special and strict requirements on the loading and unloading operations thereof); and disputes arising from construction of unclear terms or broad conditions related to engineering measurement and payment. Adhering to principle of freedom of contract, in every case, the Court carefully analyzed the background and purpose of the transaction, reviewed the correspondences between the parties, took into consideration the practices of commercial transactions, and legally made determination on the ownership of interests. Given the above, any party engaged in the marine engineering industry is recommended to: (1) further make more specific the terms with respect to the rights and obligations of the parties and improve the wordings of the standard contract to be used, with a focus on the characteristics of the marine engineering and common disputes in connection therewith; (2) in case of any special operation, add special provisions when entering into the contract to avoid over-reliance on the standard contract; (3) enhance management on the performance of contract. Where any contractual term is altered or any new contractual arrangement is reached, any provision expressing the true intention should be clarified and fixed in a proper manner, to further standardize the business management and stabilize the commercial expectations of both parties.

（II）Improvement of legal response to marine incidents

With the development of marine economy, the number of vessels increases, the scale of vessel expands, and the sea traffic density becomes higher. As a result, more and more large-scale marine incidents have occurred, and they usually have many victims and high amount of loss. In the year of 2020, the number of cases of disputes arising from the same maritime tortious incident as accepted by the Court remained at a high level. Seen from the trials of this type of cases, following problems are mainly found in the court proceedings: (1) due to defects in the administrative actions of relevant governmental departments or competent administrative authorities to handle relevant incidents, the validity or effectiveness of such actions was questioned in the claim for damages in court; (2) due to failure in taking into account the need of collecting evidence in the response to relevant incidents and lack of understanding of relevant laws and regulations, the evidence submitted to support the damages was weak or unnecessary litigation costs were incurred and improper evidence was produced due to e.g., the payment of high appraisal fee for evaluating any loss falling outside the scope of compensation; (3) circumstances that various parties concerned in the claim for damages arising from the same incident raise opposite contentions on substantive issues and procedural issues are increasing in recent years. Such problems may impair the fair and efficient resolution of disputes arising from marine incidents. To improve the quality and efficiency of trials, the Court will, among others, legally enhance case management, intensify efforts in statutory interpretation and issue of litigation guidelines, promote procedural negotiations between parties concerned, take full advantage of relevant systems such as consolidation of actions and representative action, and improve selection of typical cases to make model judgments. Meanwhile, the Court suggests that competent sea-related authorities and relevant local authorities and industry associations regulating a fishing area or marine aquaculture zone increase the awareness of “getting prepared”, comply with the requirements under the rule of law in a coordinated manner in the response to marine incidents, further improve the plans of emergency response to marine incidents, and avoid or reduce omissions in the sense of law in handling marine incidents.

（III）Standardization of maritime administrative law enforcement

Seen from the Court's trials of contentious maritime administrative cases in Fujian Province in the year of 2020, special attention should be paid to the different administrative law enforcement standards, including different standards adopted by administrative authorities under the same system in different administrative zones, different standards adopted by different sea-related administrative authorities in respect of the same type of subject matters of law enforcement in the case of overlapping law enforcement, and law enforcement of some sea-related administrative authorities incompliant with effective administrative judgments issued by the courts. For example, according to law, the administrative punishment right as to illegal encirclement or filling up of sea areas may be exercised by various authorities including bureaus of natural resources and coast guards, and different administrative authorities had different understandings and applied different punishment standards when they imposed penalty for an act of illegal encirclement or filling up of sea areas in accordance with the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Sea Areas. In the trial of relevant cases, by strengthening supervision on the exercise of administrative powers and rendering down judgments to decide on the application of relevant laws, the Court promoted the standardization of sea-related administrative law enforcement for similar cases under the guidance of judicial decisions, and ensured the unification and correct implementation of laws and regulations. In the future, the Court will continue to strictly adhere to Equal Justice, and enhance positive interaction with sea-related administrative law enforcement. Meanwhile, the Court suggests that each competent sea-related administrative authority internally, and different sea-related administrative authorities mutually, enhance coordination, research, discussion and exchange on relevant work to solve problems in law enforcement, and put forward their comments and suggestions to the legislature and relevant superior authorities in due time where it is necessary to modify any law or regulation or supplement or improve any system. All sides should work together to promote the standardization of law enforcement.

IV. Conclusions

In the year of 2020, by legally performing its trial duties, strictly adhering to Equal Justice, and focusing on optimizing services for the people, Xiamen Maritime Court has achieved new progress in various aspects of its work. 2021 is the first year to implement the 14th Five-Year Plan and embark on a new journey to build China into a modern socialist country in all respects. The Court will continue to adhere to the work theme of Fulfilling Justice for the People and Equal Justice, and exert efforts to improve judicial quality and efficiency, advance the modernization of the judicial system and judicial capacity and promote innovation and development of work, to make a positive contribution to ensuring high-quality development of marine economy, providing assistance for the promotion of the rule of law for oceans, and enhancing the international influence of China's maritime justice.