Go homepage(回首页)
Upload pictures (上传图片)
Write articles (发文字帖)

The author:(作者)delv
published in(发表于) 2013/10/29 7:51:20
Zoomlion in the new express v is still in trial

Xinhuanet, Guangzhou, October 23 (reporter Mao Yizhu)-Guangzhou Tianhe district people's Court informed the 23rd foreign, plaintiffs in the hospital on August 6, 2013, August 7 to receive Chen Yongzhou, the new Express newspaper Ltd-Ko Fai and zoomlion company reputation tort dispute cases. After objection to jurisdiction raised by the defendant, request moving the case to the yuelu district people's Court in Hunan province, has been dismissed by the Court. At present, the case is still at the trial stage.

According to informed the Tianhe District Court, zoomlion, Chairman of the two plaintiffs to defendants Ko Fai Assistant in July 2013, several times in fact, certification of continuous release on plaintiff's personal attack on SINA weibo microblog, caused great harm to their physical, mental and social reputation, Tianhe district people's Court fame dispute proceedings.

Defendants Ko Fai, zoomlion Corporation submitted pleadings presented during the objection to jurisdiction. The two defendants said as honorary dispute in the present case, plaintiff Chen Yongzhou, domicile are outside the new newspaper in Guangdong Tianhe district, Ko Fai's habitual residence and zoomlion corporation domiciled in yuelu district, offices under the law can be regarded as infringement, non-road, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City. Therefore, yuelu district, Changsha city, Hunan province, requesting the case to be transferred to the people's Court for trial.

Each defendant asserts that: first, the principle of territoriality, Ko Fai's domicile, Tianhe district, Guangzhou, Tianhe District Court having jurisdiction. Second, in accordance with the principles of tort litigation jurisdiction, Guangzhou Tianhe district results for violations, to have jurisdiction in the case. Third, from the nature of the infringement by the defendant, any computer terminal or other electronic equipment terminal can be a result of violations took place, plaintiff domiciled in Tianhe district, governed by the district as a case not only in conformity with the law, is one of the easiest cases.

Tianhe District Court after trial says: infringement proceedings brought by, or domicile of the defendant in a people's Court according to law violations jurisdiction. Violations to include violations committed and infringement results. When the peoples Court accepts the case concerning the right of reputation, infringement of the domicile of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, results can be identified as the infringement took place. Civil domicile refers to citizens ' domicile. Legal person's domicile is the seat of the legal person's principal place of business or principal office.

In the present case, the plaintiff as infringement of citizens, their place of residence or domicile "yuancun erheng, Tianhe, Guangzhou" can be identified as the result of infringement occurred. The plaintiffs presented its new express business in Guangdong Province, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City, and the offices are located. Provide signed a labor contract with employees and published in some newspapers, the rental contract and the new express street view photos and other evidence to confirm that the address as No. 533 Tianhe Road, Guangzhou City. Therefore, Tianhe district, Guangzhou City for violations.

Tianhe District Court on October 22 Ko Fai shall be rejected in accordance with the defendant, zoomlion company limited in the case of disputed jurisdiction.

　　新华网广州10月23日电 (记者毛一竹)广州市天河区人民法院23日对外通报，该院分别于2013年8月6日、8月7日受理原告陈永洲、广东新快报社诉高辉及中联重科股份有限公司名誉侵权纠纷两案。后被告提出管辖权异议，请求将案件移送至湖南省长沙市岳麓区人民法院审理，现已被法院驳回。目前，案件仍在审理阶段。

　　据天河区法院通报，两原告以被告中联重科股份有限公司董事长助理高辉于2013年7月多次在其实名认证的新浪微博上连续发布对原告人身攻击内容的微博，对其身心及社会名誉造成极大伤害为由，向天河区人民法院提起名誉权纠纷诉讼。

　　被告高辉、中联重科股份有限公司在提交答辩状期间提出管辖权异议。两被告称：本案为名誉权纠纷，原告陈永洲、广东新快报社的住所地均不在天河区，高辉的经常居住地和中联重科股份有限公司的住所地在长沙市岳麓区，以上地点根据法律规定可认定为侵权行为地，均非广州市天河区。因此请求将本案移送至湖南省长沙市岳麓区人民法院审理。

　　两原告答辩称：一、根据属地管辖原则，高辉住所地为广州市天河区，天河区法院有管辖权。二、按照侵权行为诉讼管辖地原则，广州市天河区为侵权行为结果发生地，对本案有管辖权。三、从被告侵权行为的性质来看，任何计算机终端或其他电子设备终端均可成为侵权行为的结果发生地，原告的住所地在广州市天河区，由该区作为案件管辖地不仅符合法律规定，也最方便案件审理。

　　天河区法院经审理认为：因侵权行为提起的诉讼，依法由侵权行为地或者被告住所地人民法院管辖。侵权行为地包括侵权行为实施地和侵权结果发生地。人民法院受理名誉权案件时，受侵权的公民、法人和其他组织的住所地，可以认定为侵权结果发生地。公民的住所地是指公民的户籍所在地。法人的住所地是指法人的主要营业地或者主要办事机构所在地。

　　本案中，原告作为受侵权的公民，其住所地即户籍所在地“广州市天河区员村二横路”可认定为侵权结果发生地。原告广东新快报社提出其营业地和办事机构所在地是广州市天河区。其提供与员工签订的劳动合同及其出版的部分报纸、租赁合同以及新快报的街景照等证据以证实其地址为广州市天河路533号。因此，广州市天河区为侵权行为地。

　　天河区法院已于10月22日依法裁定驳回被告高辉、中联重科股份有限公司对本案管辖权提出的异议。

赞