Reject application due to choosing the wrong object and asking to sue in Vietnam

Specifically, the Judgment 11/2019/DS-ST dated September 30, 2019 on the request to cancel the authorization contract has the following content:

“On September 17, 2011 at Notary H's Office, notary Q made an authorization contract No. 3050/2011/HDUQ between Mr. T and Ms. C authorizing Ms. X to act on his behalf, she performs tasks such as: Receiving and managing the original land use right certificate number: B8…., issued by the People's Committee of Thanh Tri district, Hanoi city; look after, manage and use the above-said land area; to the competent state agency to carry out procedures for renewal of the land use right certificate for the land area specified in the certificate.

On May 5, 2015, the People's Committee of District T, Hanoi City issued Decision No. 2198/QD-UBND on the revocation of the Land Use Right Certificate No.B8.... Reason for revocation: Implementation of Notice No. 235/TB-UBND dated April 15, 2015 of T People's Committee on the results of settlement of citizens' petitions.

After the land use right certificate was revoked, the family of Mr. T and Mrs. C repeatedly informed Ms. X about the termination of the authorization contract, but Ms. X did not reply to the above request.

After that, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against notary H's office for a request to declare the cancellation of the authorization contract because the authorized object no longer exists and the authorizing party unilaterally terminates the performance of the authorization contract due to no need for authorization”

The People's Court of Hoang Mai District, Hanoi City made the following opinion: "There is no authorization relationship between the Plaintiff and the notary H's office, but only the relationship between the party requesting the notary service and the notary"". For the above reason, the People's Court of Hoang Mai District rejected the plaintiff's petition against the notary office H.

According to the principle of applying the law at the time of establishing the transaction or contract, at the time of entering into the authorization contract, the Law on Notarization 2006 is in effect, so the provisions of this law will be applied for settlement.

The Law on Notary 2006 of Vietnam stipulates:

Article 44. Notarizing amendments and additions to or cancellation of a contract or transaction

"1. Any amendment or addition to or cancellation of a contract or transaction which has been notarized shall only be permitted to be made with the written consent or undertaking of all parties involved in such contract or transaction, which consent or undertaking must also be notarized.

...

3. Procedures for notarizing amendments or additions to or cancellation of a contract or transaction shall be implemented in accordance with the provisions in Chapter IV of this Law."

From the provisions of the law above and through analyzing the content of the case, we can see that the plaintiff has made two big mistakes when making a petition, which is to misidentify the object to be sued and the wrong claim to be sued.

- First, in terms of determining the object to initiate a lawsuit, in this authorization relationship, the plaintiff and Ms. X (the authorized person) are the subjects participating in the authorization transaction, and both parties have the following rights and interests legally binding obligations, while notary office H only plays the role of an organization performing contract notarization services without directly participating in authorized relationships and transactions, so the plaintiff's lawsuit request to cancel the contract for notary office H is unreasonable because the parties are not bound on rights and obligations arising from the authorization contract.

- Second, the plaintiff makes a "wrong" claim against the object that he or she sues. Looking back at the problem here, in the above case, if the plaintiff really wants to sue notary H's office, the plaintiff's petition must be "a request to declare the document invalid" instead of a request to cancel the authorization contract, so the disputed relationship here is determined to be the right object, the right request to initiate a lawsuit.

Therefore, the request "cancellation of the authorization contract because the authorized object is no longer available" is not consistent with the provisions of law, because according to Article 44 of the Law on Notarization 2006, the cancellation of the notarization contract must comply with the following procedures. notarization procedure. So in case, the plaintiff wants to sue Ms. X in another case for the above reason, it is very likely that the plaintiff will still be rejected by the court.

Through the above judgment, we can see that it is not easy to sue the right person, right person, or right object because mistakes and small errors in the lawsuit claim can also cause the entire petition to be rejected because the lawsuit claim is not consistent with the transaction or relationship between the disputing parties.

Please Login to be able to download