论文部分内容阅读
司法实践中对《海运条例》及其实施细则的性质认识不统一,直接导致了在审理无船承运人或货运代理人违反该条例所应承担的责任认定上出现较大的差异,尤其在货运代理人是否应承担承运人的赔偿责任上出现了截然相反的判决。本文在研习相关案例的基础上进行比较分析,有效结合交通部在2007年6月14日通知所产生的积极影响,提出应当重视司法审判对市场规范的杠杆作用,即通过加强对无船承运业务相关主体的责任认定来进一步规范无船承运市场。通过无船承运人最新案例的分析,探究“刺破公司面纱”原则在司法审判中的可适用性,并提出具有可操作性的适用条件。
Judicial practice of the “maritime regulations” and the implementation of the rules of the nature of non-uniform, a direct result of non-trial NVOCCs or freight forwarders breach of the Ordinance should assume greater responsibility for the differences, especially in the freight There is a diametrically opposite judgment on whether the agent should assume the carrier’s liability. Based on the study of the relevant cases, this article makes a comparative analysis and effectively combines the positive impact of the notice issued by the Ministry of Communications on June 14, 2007 and puts forward that it should attach importance to the leverage of judicial trial on the market norms, that is, The responsibility of the relevant parties identified to further regulate the non-vessel carrier market. Based on the latest NVOCC case studies, this paper explores the applicability of the principle of “piercing the company veil” in judicial trials and puts forward the applicable conditions for its operation.