18 judgments, decisions proposed to be developed into case law

The permission to apply precedents in judicial activities marks one of the critical milestones in judicial reform; ensuring the unified application of law in adjudication; ensuring that cases with similar legal details and events must be resolved in the same manner; simultaneously addressing gaps in legal provisions and creating stability and transparency in court rulings. The Supreme People’s Court has announced the release of the first 06 precedents officially for courts to study and apply in adjudication.

The workshop discussed issues related to the process of selecting, publishing, and applying precedents; solutions to improve the quality of court judgments and decisions; evaluations of the announced precedents; and provided feedback on judgments and decisions proposed to be developed into precedents.

18 judgments and decisions proposed to be developed into precedents

1. Supervisory and review decision No. 28/2011/DS-GDT dated August 18, 2011, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Dispute over house and land ownership rights”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   The court must annul the decision to apply provisional urgent measures that were applied during the case resolution process before issuing the decision to suspend the resolution of the civil case.

2. Supervisory and review decision No. 03/2014/DS-GDT dated January 09, 2014, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Dispute over contract for the transfer of house ownership rights and land use rights”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   - In cases where the house belongs to state ownership and is earmarked for sale to long-term tenants as per the law, if the long-term tenant signs a contract to transfer house ownership rights before obtaining the house ownership certificate, it is considered a conditional contract and not a violation of legal prohibitions.- If the contract stipulates payment in gold but one party pays in money without the other party's objection, it is considered equivalent to a gold payment agreement and not a contract violation.

3. Supervisory and review decision No. 12/2012/DS-GDT dated January 13, 2012, by the Civil Court of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Asset recovery”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   Determining cases of gifting land use rights and attached assets with conditions and the responsibility of the recipient (children, grandchildren) to provide housing, care, and support to the givers (grandparents, parents).

4. Supervisory and review decision No. 52/2014/GDT-DS dated November 21, 2014, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Inheritance dispute over assets”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   In cases where one parent died intestate and the surviving parent, from their lifetime until their death, agreed for their child to build a house on the land, didn’t reclaim the land use rights, and the child registered the land use rights, it shall be determined that the surviving parent gifted their portion of the property to that child.

5. Supervisory and review decision No. 126/2013/DS-GDT dated September 23, 2013, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case “Dispute over house ownership and use rights”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   In cases where a house sale contract is documented, signed by the seller, clearly stating that the seller has received full payment, and the buyer, though not signed, holds the contract and has managed and used the house stably for a long time without the seller disputing the house payment, the contract remains valid indicating the buyer's payment and agreement with the house sale contract.

6. Supervisory and review decision No. 143/2013/DS-GDT dated November 13, 2013, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Dispute over contract for gifting land use rights”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   The contract for gifting land use rights is invalid when the recipient does not meet the conditions for house ownership in Vietnam; the fault for the invalid contract belongs to both parties.

7. Supervisory and review decision No. 83/2013/DS-GDT dated July 08, 2013, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case “Inheritance dispute over assets”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   In inheritance dispute cases, if the estate manager has rented out the inherited house/land to enjoy benefits, there is no need to deduct management efforts, only consider and calculate any repairs, renovations, and constructions on the inherited estate (if any).

8. Supervisory and review decision No. 26/2013/DS-GDT dated April 22, 2013, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the civil case “Inheritance dispute over assets”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   In inheritance dispute cases, heirs who took care of, supported the deceased, and managed the estate must have their efforts in caregiving and managing the estate deducted before the remaining estate value is divided among the heirs.

9. Appellate criminal judgment No. 03/2014/HSPT1 dated June 12, 2014, by the Central Military Court regarding the case “Fraud to appropriate assets”.

   Summary of the precedent's content:

   If the accused commits fraudulent acts to appropriate money but returns it before the case is initiated, that amount cannot be counted towards determining criminal liability nor be considered a mitigating factor for voluntary compensation and remedying consequences under Point b, Clause 1, Article 46 of the Penal Code for amounts returned before the case initiation and not prosecuted.

10. Supervisory and review decision No. 23/2015/HS-GDT dated December 17, 2015, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Murder”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    If the accused, due to minor daily-life conflicts, despite the victim's apology and many people's interference, still resolutely commits acts leading to death, they must bear criminal responsibility for “Murder” with the aggravating circumstance of “Having a hooligan nature”.

11. Supervisory and review decision No. 06/2016/HS-GDT dated June 16, 2016, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People's Court regarding the criminal case against Trinh Van Thanh for “Violating land management and protection regulations”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    The petition for supervisory and review procedures for decisions on handling exhibits in effective judgments, if not detrimental to the convicted person and related parties, can be conducted at any time.

12. Supervisory and review decision No. 29/2010/HS-GDT dated November 01, 2010, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the criminal case against Le Thi Lan Anh for “Abusing trust to appropriate assets”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    In cases where labor contracts must be in writing according to the law but aren't established as such, and the employee causes damage during assigned tasks, the employer is liable for damages and can request the responsible employee to reimburse as per legal provisions.

13. Appellate criminal judgment No. 01/2015/HS-PT1 dated January 14, 2015, by the Central Military Court regarding the crime of “Snatching assets”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    If the accused uses motorbikes to snatch pedestrian assets in conditions without others on the road, without causing the victim to fall or be injured, posing minimal danger to others, only Clause 1, Article 136 of the Penal Code should be applied, not the “Dangerous tricks” clause in Point d, Clause 2, Article 136 of the Penal Code.

14. Supervisory and review decision No. 12/2013/KDTM-GDT dated May 16, 2013, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the commercial case “Dispute over credit contract”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    Determining interest rates for unpaid principal amounts that borrowers must pay from the day following the primary trial date.

15. Supervisory and review decision No. 02/2014/KDTM-GDT dated January 09, 2014, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Dispute over credit contract”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    A secured property mortgage contract compliant with the law is valid even if the secured transaction is not registered as required by law.

16. Supervisory and review decision No. 07/2013/KDTM-GDT dated March 15, 2013, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the commercial case “Dispute over goods sale contract”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    - In cases where the goods sale contract is breached by the seller not delivering or fully delivering the goods, the seller must refund the advance payment to the buyer and pay interest on the delayed payment at the average overdue debt interest rate of not less than three local Banks (namely Vietnam Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Foreign Trade of Vietnam, Vietnam Joint Stock Commercial Bank for Industry and Trade, etc.) at the time of payment (primary trial), unless otherwise agreed or legally specified.- In cases where the goods sale contract incurs penalties for violations or compensation for damages, the court must not calculate interest on these penalty and compensation amounts.

17. Supervisory and review decision No. 10/2016/KDTM-GDT dated May 20, 2016, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the case “Dispute over credit contract”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    A secured property mortgage contract regarding land use rights, which has been notarized, registered, and meets all contract validity conditions, remains valid even if the secured party mistakenly values the mortgaged property.

18. Supervisory and review decision No. 08/2014/HC-GDT dated August 19, 2014, by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court regarding the administrative case “Complaint against the compensation, support, and resettlement decision when the state recovers land”.

    Summary of the precedent's content:

    In cases where the decision approving the support and resettlement plan of the Provincial People's Committee refers to another document that directly impacts the plaintiff's rights and interests, this decision is subject to litigation in administrative cases.

More details can be found in Draft.

>> CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ARTICLE IN VIETNAMESE