439 total views, 3 views today
【Issuing Body】Supreme People's Court 【Issuance Number】Legal Interpretation (2016) No. 15 【Date of Issue】2016-07-11 【Effective Date】2016-07-13 【Expiration Date】 【Document Type】Judicial Interpretation 【Document Source】Supreme People's Court
Announcement of the Supreme People's Court
The "Supreme People's Court Response to Procedural Questions Related to Personal Safety Protection Order Cases" was passed by the 1686th meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court on June 6, 2016, and is hereby promulgated, to take effect on July 13, 2016.
Supreme People's Court
July 11, 2016
To the High People's Court of Beijing:
Your court's "Request for Guidance on Procedural Questions Related to Personal Safety Protection Order Cases" (Beijing High Court (2016) No.45) has been received. Upon research, the following reply is made:
First, is the issue of whether litigation fees are collected in personal safety protection order cases. We agree with the direction of your courts' opinion, namely that fees are not collected for applications to people's courts for personal safety protection orders.
Second, is the issue of whether a guarantee is required in applications for personal safety protection orders. We agree with the direction of your courts' opinion, namely that, in accordance with the "Anti-Domestic Violence Law of the People's Republic of China" where personal safety protection orders are requested from the people's courts, the applicant does not need to provide a guarantee.
Third, are issues such as the procedures to be applied in personal safety protection order cases. The Domestic Violence Law does not make any direct provisions for what kind of procedures are to be applied in personal safety protection order cases. People's courts may hear them under special procedures mutatis mutandis. In a case of a family dispute where parties apply to a people's court for a personal safety protection order, the trial organization hearing that case is to make a ruling on whether to issue a personal safety protection order; if the applicant for a personal safety protection order is not currently involved in a family case proceeding in the people's court receiving the application, it is heard by a single judge. As to whether the opinions of the person subject to the application need to be heard in issuing a personal safety protection order, this is to be decided by the judges taking on the case and based on the specific circumstances of the case.
Fourth is the issue of reconsideration. For applications for reconsideration submitted by the subject of an application for a personal safety protection order or by an applicant for a personal safety protection order whose application was rejected, the original trial organization may conduct a reconsideration; where the people's court finds it necessary, a separate trial organization may also be designated to conduct a reconsideration.
This is our Reply.