In the judgment of the People's Court of Binh Dinh Province on June 29, the Court based its decision on Precedent 08/2016/AL to reject a request from the Prosecutor.
Article table of contents
As many people are aware, the Supreme People's Court has issued 10 case precedents along with numerous documents guiding the application of case precedents (such as: Resolution 03/2015/NQ-HDTP, Official Dispatch 146/TANDTC-PC, etc.). These case precedents contribute to resolving cases uniformly in similar instances. The Provincial People's Court of Binh Dinh has also utilized Case Precedent 08/2016/AL as a basis to reject the opinion of the Representative of the Procuracy in Judgment No. 49/2017/DS-PT dated June 29, 2017, regarding the “Dispute over property loan contract”. To be specific:
In Judgment 49/2017/DS-PT, the Procurator made the following recommendation: “...also recommended partially accepting the appeal of Mrs. V amending the preliminary judgment about the obligation of delayed enforcement to bear interest according to the basic interest rate stipulated by the State Bank.”
(Details of Judgment 49/2017/DS-PT can be viewed HERE)
However, the aforementioned opinion of the Representative of the Procuracy was not accepted by the People's Court of Binh Dinh Province on the grounds that it did not comply with the guidance of Case Precedent 08/2016/AL: “[4] The Procurator participating in the trial proposed to partially accept the appeal of Mrs. V amending the preliminary judgment about the obligation of delayed enforcement to bear interest according to the basic interest rate stipulated by the State Bank is not in accordance with the guidance of Case Precedent 08/2016/AL of the Judicial Council of the Supreme People's Court through on August 17, 2016, and published under Decision No. 698/QD-CA dated October 17, 2016, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court, hence not accepted.”
The application of this Case Precedent by the People's Court of Binh Dinh Province is similar to the guiding spirit of the Supreme People's Court in Official Dispatch 146/TANDTC-PC issued on July 11, 2017, on citing and applying case precedents in trials:
“In cases where a case precedent is applied, the number of the case precedent, the number of the court judgment, the decision containing the case precedent, the similar nature and details of the case outlined in the case precedent and the case being resolved, as well as the legal issue in the case precedent (the summary content of the case precedent) must be cited and analyzed in the “Court's opinions” section; depending on the specific circumstances, the core elements of the case precedent may be quoted verbatim to clarify the Court’s viewpoint in handling similar cases.”
Based on that Case Precedent, the Court used its content in the Decision section of the Judgment: “4. Regarding the enforcement rights and obligations:
4.1. As of the day following the preliminary trial date, Mrs. V and her husband must continue to bear overdue interest on the unsettled principal debt, at the interest rate agreed upon in the contract until this principal debt is fully paid. In the case of a bank loan contract, the interest rate that the borrower must continue to pay to the lending bank as decided by the Court will also be adjusted in accordance with the adjustments of the lending bank.”
Judgment 49/2017/DS-PT dated June 29, 2017, of the People's Court of Binh Dinh Province is also the first judgment published on the electronic information portal announcing court judgements and decisions using case precedents. It is hoped that, in the near future, more case precedents will be applied by the courts in adjudications.
