Determination of the civil rights and interests enjoyed by the buyer of immovable property that are sufficient to preclude enforcement
(Minutes of the 19th Judges' Conference of the First Circuit Court of the Supreme People's Court in 2017)
Date: December 26, 2017
【Moderator】Daniel Zhang
【Judges present】Daniel Zhang, Wang Yuying, Chen Hongyu, Xi Xiangyang, Zhang Yingxin, Qian Xiaohong
[Basic facts of the case]
In February 1996, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court ordered Company A to hand over a shopping mall of equal size on the west side of the first floor of its "garden" to Company B in accordance with the agreement. On May 18, 1999, Company B, Company C and Company A agreed that Company C would pay off its debts to Company B with a shop of 2,131 square meters, and transfer the shop to a branch of China Construction Bank Corporation (hereinafter referred to as a branch of CCB) at the request of Company B, and the real estate certificate would be directly issued to a branch of CCB. On June 9, 1999, a branch of CCB agreed that Company B should use its creditor's rights to settle its debt to a branch of CCB. On June 14, 1999, the court of first instance ruled that the 2,123-square-meter house in the name of Company C and Company A located in "a certain garden" belonged to Company B, and that the words "the real estate certificate shall be directly issued to a branch of CCB" were also handwritten and stamped with the seal of the law school. On 2 July 2002, the court of first instance sent a letter to the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou Municipality, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court), stating that the seizure of the real estate in the name of the company by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court had been confirmed to a branch of CCB due to the effective ruling made by the court of first instance. On February 15, 2007, the court of first instance sent a letter to the People's Court of Xiangzhou District, Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province, stating that Company B had obtained the ownership of the 2,123-square-meter house in the "A Garden" shopping mall as a result of the effective ruling made by the court of first instance.
On August 27, 2007, a branch of CCB, Company D and Company B agreed that a branch of CCB would register the assets to be transferred, including the west side of the shopping mall on the first floor of "A Garden", to Company D. On October 17, 2007, Mr. He and Mr. Li agreed with Company D that Company D would transfer the above-mentioned assets obtained from a branch of CCB to Mr. He and Mr. Li, and that the payment method would be RMB 500,000 to Company D on the date of signing the agreement, and the remaining RMB 1.4 million would be paid in accordance with the written notice issued by Company D. On the same day, Company D issued a receipt, stating that it had received RMB 1.9 million from He and Li for the transfer of creditor's rights for the purchase of the west side of the shopping mall on the first floor of "A Garden".
On July 28, 2008, Mr. Li died, and the heirs Li Jia, Li B, Mr. Zhang, and Mr. Li Bing applied to the Notary Office of Jinwan District, Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province to inherit Mr. Li's claim on the real estate located on the first floor of the shopping mall on the first floor of "A Garden".
On October 13, 2009, Mr. He, Mr. Li and Mr. Tan agreed that Mr. He and Mr. Li would transfer the west side of the shopping mall on the first floor of the "Garden" involved in the case to Mr. Tan. He and the other five confirmed that the signature of "Li" was signed by Li Ding, but Zhang did not recognize it, arguing that the contract for the transfer of creditor's rights was invalid.
On August 8, 2013, He and the other five requested Company D, a branch of the China Construction Bank, Zhuhai Company E, Company B, and Company C to assist in handling the registration procedures for the transfer of ownership of the house involved in the case, and therefore filed a lawsuit with the Jinwan District People's Court of Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Jinwan District Court), after which the Jinwan District Court rejected the lawsuit of He and the other five persons in accordance with law.
【Legal Issues】
In the case of continuous transactions of immovable property without going through the transfer registration formalities, if both the person subject to enforcement and its successor claim that they have acquired the ownership of the immovable property as a result of effective legal documents, and the ultimate party has paid the full price to its predecessor and is in actual possession of the immovable property, should the claim of the ultimate transaction party as an outsider to exclude enforcement be supported?
[Different points of view]
A said: The claim that an outsider excludes enforcement should not be supported.
The court of first instance's handwritten remark on the civil ruling that "the real estate certificate is directly issued to a branch of CCB" and stamped with the proofreading seal of the Intermediate People's Court of Zhuhai City, Guangdong Province, does not have the effect of changing the property right. The transactions of the shops involved in the case remained stable for several years from June 1999 until Company F applied for seizure. It can be seen that a branch of CCB was obviously at fault for several years after it acquired the shop involved in the case from Company B by way of repayment of debts in kind. When He and the other five persons transferred the shop involved in the case from Company D, they also failed to carefully examine whether Company D and its predecessor, a branch of the China Construction Bank, had obtained the ownership of the shop involved in the case, and then failed to promptly urge the former to assist in the transfer procedures, which was also at fault. Therefore, although the evidence in this case can prove that He and the other five persons, as the transferees, as a whole, had actually taken possession of and paid the price before the seizure of the shop involved in the case, since the multiple transferees, including He and the others, were at fault in the process of failing to go through the formalities for the transfer of property rights, they could not apply for the exclusion of Company F's compulsory enforcement in accordance with Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by the People's Courts.
B said: The claim that an outsider excludes enforcement should be supported.
The court of first instance ruled that the handwritten remark "the real estate certificate is directly issued to a branch of CCB" can have the effect of changing the property right. He and the other five persons have been in possession of the shop involved in the case since 2007, and the law should protect their possession. Therefore, the grounds for the retrial application of He X and the other five are sustained, and the judgment should be changed at trial. From the perspective of fault determination, in the context of continuous transfer of property rights, the standard for determining the fault of the right holder should be lowered. From the perspective of the principle of commercial adjudication to maintain the established order, if Company F obtained the creditor's rights in 2009 and He and the other five persons continued to occupy the shop involved in the case since 2007, it would obviously be detrimental to maintaining the established order if the creditor's rights enjoyed by Company F were given priority over the rights acquired by He and the other five persons only because of the fault of He and the other five persons for failing to go through the transfer procedures.
[Judges' Conference Opinions] Cai Yi said
【Interpretation of Opinions】
1. Overview
Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "In the course of enforcement, if a person not involved in the case raises a written objection to the subject matter of enforcement, the people's court shall examine it within 15 days from the date of receipt of the written objection, and if the reasons are sustained, rule to suspend the enforcement of the subject matter; Where persons not involved in the case or parties are dissatisfied with the ruling and feel that the original judgment or ruling was in error, it shall be handled in accordance with the trial supervision procedures; "The written objection of an outsider to the subject matter of enforcement as provided for in this article, also known as an outsider's objection to enforcement, refers to the claim of rights by a person other than the parties to the case against the subject matter of compulsory enforcement by the people's court during the course of enforcement. The objection raised by an outsider to the subject matter of enforcement often involves a dispute over substantive rights and obligations, so it needs to be handled through litigation procedures, that is, a lawsuit against enforcement by an outsider. The purpose of an enforcement objection lawsuit by an outsider is to determine whether the outsider enjoys civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude enforcement of the subject matter of enforcement, so the constitutive elements for the establishment of an outsider's claim are: 1. the outsider has civil rights and interests in the subject matter of enforcement, and 2. the civil rights and interests are sufficient to preclude enforcement.
Enforcement procedure is an area where the interests of all parties gather, and the interests of different subjects are opposed to each other, and the balance of interests is actually the basic principle that must be implemented in handling enforcement objection cases. The balance of interests between not only the applicant for enforcement and the person subject to enforcement, but also between the person not involved in the case and the applicant for enforcement, and between the outsider and the transferee, should also be considered. In judicial practice, the possession of immovable property and the ownership of immovable property may belong to several persons, and in the case of immovable property sales, the buyer has paid the price, and although the seller has transferred possession of the immovable property, it is not uncommon for the seller to go through the formalities of alteration registration. To complicate matters further, if the buyer and the former seller have established a sales relationship, and then sell the immovable property to the secondary buyer, and the secondary buyer then sells it to the secondary buyer, each buyer has paid the price to the former buyer, and the possession of the immovable property has been transferred accordingly, but the status of ownership registration remains unchanged. In the case of such a continuous transaction of immovable property, if the immovable property is seized, it is doubtful how to achieve a balance between the interests of the ultimate buyer as an outsider and the person subject to enforcement, and whether the outsider enjoys civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude enforcement.
2. Civil rights and interests enjoyed by buyers of immovable property
(1) The doctrine of no equity and the doctrine of ownership
The first opinion holds that, according to the theory of registration of changes in real rights, in principle, a third party cannot obtain ownership if the transfer registration formalities have not been completed, because from the perspective of ownership, the property still belongs to the person subject to enforcement, and the people's court can seize it. The second opinion holds that since the mainland does not yet have a complete registration system for property rights, the registration of the relevant departments is only a means of administrative management, so it is not appropriate to use it as a criterion for determining the transfer of ownership. Where a third party has already paid the full price and is in actual possession, even if the registration formalities have not yet been completed, it shall be deemed that they have acquired ownership of the property, and the people's court shall not seal it up. The third opinion is that the principle of fault should be introduced in light of the actual situation at the time, proceeding from the protection of the normal transaction order and the interests of bona fide third parties, and adhering to the principle of registration as the standard. If the third party has paid the full price and is in actual possession, although the transfer formalities have not been completed, but the third party is not at fault for this, if due to reasons of the registration department or other reasons beyond the control of the third party, it shall be deemed that it has obtained the ownership of the property, and a ruling shall be made to lift the seizure of the property, so as to fairly protect the lawful rights and interests of the third party.
(2) Commentary on views
The above views may have merit, but after the implementation of the Property Law, they are not proper. Paragraph 1 of Article 9 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that: "The creation, alteration, transfer and extinction of immovable property rights shall become effective upon registration in accordance with law; "If the buyer fails to register the change of ownership of the purchased immovable property, even if it pays the price and obtains possession, it cannot produce the legal effect of the change of ownership. The second opinion does not take registration as the criterion for determining the transfer of ownership, while the third opinion takes registration as the principle of the requirement for change of property right and no fault as the exception of the requirement for change of real right, which is contrary to the doctrine of registration requirements stipulated in the Property Law, so it is difficult to agree. However, although the buyer has not obtained the ownership of the immovable property, but has either fulfilled the obligation to treat and pay, or has made a certain degree of publicity such as possession, and is not at fault for failing to register the transfer of ownership, if the people's court affirms that the ownership of the immovable property belongs to the person subject to enforcement, it will not properly protect the rights and interests of the buyer and be unfair, so the first opinion is also difficult to convince.
(3) The right of expectation of property rights
In the author's opinion, the civil rights and interests enjoyed by the buyer at this time are the right of expectation in rem. The term expectancy right was coined by a German scholar to refer to a temporary state of right in which part of the necessary conditions for the acquisition of a right has been realized, but not all of them have been realized. In the negative sense, the process of acquiring the right has not been completed, and the right has not yet occurred, while in the positive sense, the acquisition of the right has not been completed, but it has entered the process of completion, and the parties have already looked forward to it. In the field of property law, the expectancy right can also be referred to as the expectancy right in rem, and its main circumstances in German law are as follows: (1) the position of the buyer in the retention of title, (2) the position of the acquirer of the real right in the land after a binding agreement on the property right has been made and the application for registration is filed by the acquirer before it is entered into the land register, and (3) the position of the mortgagee before the establishment of the secured claim.
The legal systems of mainland China are different from those of Germany, and scholars do not agree with each other as a result. Some scholars believe that the expectancy rights mainly include: (1) rights created by legal acts with cessation conditions and initial periods, (2) future claims arising from existing claims, and (3) inheritance rights before the commencement of succession. (3) Some scholars argue that the right of expectation should include: (1) civil rights with conditions or time limits, (2) claims whose performance period has not yet expired, (3) the legal status of the assignee when the change in the property right with the registration requirements has not yet been registered, and (4) the legal status of the possessor before the expiration of the statute of limitations. Some scholars also recognize that the legal status of a legal act with a suspension condition, the legal status of the possessor before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the legal status of the person who found the lost property, and the status of the successor constitute the right of expectation.
Although there are different opinions among scholars, practical opinions have recognized and protected the expectancy right of immovable property rights. It is generally believed that the expectancy right of the transferee of immovable property can be regarded as the expectancy right of the buyer's right and the expectancy right of advance registration. As far as the buyer's right of expectation is concerned, according to the Reply of the Supreme People's Court on the Priority Right to Compensation of Construction Project Prices, although the buyer has not obtained the ownership of the commercial house, but pays all or most of the money for the purchase of the commercial house, he has the right to resist the contractor's priority right to compensation. Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by the People's Courts also stipulates that: "If the person subject to enforcement sells all the property that needs to be registered for transfer to a third party (i.e., the buyer, author's note), and the third party has paid the full price and is in actual possession, but has not gone through the formalities for registration of the transfer, the people's court shall not seal, seize or freeze it if the third party is not at fault." Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts also stipulates: " In the course of the enforcement of monetary claims, if the buyer raises an objection to the immovable property registered in the name of the person subject to enforcement, the people's court shall support it if the following circumstances are met and its rights can be excluded from enforcement: (1) a legal and valid written sales contract has been signed before the people's court seals it up, (2) the buyer has lawfully taken possession of the immovable property before the people's court seals it up, (3) the buyer has paid the full price, or has paid part of the price in accordance with the contract and delivered the remaining price for enforcement in accordance with the requirements of the people's court; (4) the buyer has not completed the transfer registration for reasons not attributable to the buyer。 Article 20 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that: "When a party signs an agreement on the sale and purchase of a house or other immovable property right, in order to ensure the realization of the real right in the future, it may apply to the registration authority for advance notice registration in accordance with the agreement." If, after the advance notice is registered, the immovable property is disposed of without the consent of the right holder of the advance notice registration, the real right shall not take effect. After the advance notice is registered, if the creditor's rights are extinguished or the application for registration is not made within three months from the date on which the immovable property can be registered, the advance notice registration shall become invalid. Although the provisions of the above-mentioned laws and judicial interpretations do not specify the right of expectation of real rights, the acquisition of such a position superior to the rights of others is conditional on the transferee of immovable property either having fulfilled the obligation to treat and pay, or has been publicized to a certain extent, and the transferee is therefore in a state of imminent acquisition of ownership of immovable property, so the intention of recognizing and protecting the right of expectation of real rights can be clearly revealed.
3. The constitutive elements of the right of expectation of the person who purchases immovable property
In judicial practice, the lawsuit raised by the buyer of immovable property against the enforcement objection by an outsider is mostly handled in accordance with Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Seizure and Freezing of Assets in Civil Enforcement by the People's Courts and Article 28 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Handling of Enforcement Objections and Reconsideration Cases by the People's Courts. Accordingly, the constituent elements of the expectation right of the buyer of immovable property include: (1) the buyer and the person subject to enforcement have signed a legally valid written transfer contract, (2) the buyer is in lawful possession of the immovable property, (3) the buyer has paid the full price, or has paid part of the price in accordance with the contract and delivered the remaining price for enforcement in accordance with the requirements of the people's court, and (4) the buyer has not completed the transfer registration for reasons not attributable to the buyer.
(1) The buyer and the person subject to enforcement have signed a legally valid written transfer contract before the sealing
Although Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Seizure and Freezing of Assets in Civil Enforcement by the People's Courts does not specify that a legally valid written transfer contract must be signed, the phrase "sold to a third party" already implies that there must be a debt relationship between the person subject to enforcement and the buyer based on the contract. The underlying legal relationship on which the right of expectation in rem is based must be legal and valid. Although the law of the Republic of China recognizes acts in rem, it does not recognize the independence of acts in rem, and the change of property rights is necessary for the dual important elements of "agreement on creditor's rights + registration", so the premise for the legal change of property rights is that the creditor's right contract with the content of the change in property rights is established and valid. Although the expectation right of the buyer's right is not a real right in the nature of the right, because it is approaching the real right, the premise and basis of its protection is also that it will transition into a real right in the future, so the claim as the reason for it must be legal and valid. The reason for the requirement that a written sales contract must be signed before the seizure is based on Article 41 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Administration of Urban Real Estate, which stipulates that "a written transfer contract shall be signed for the transfer of real estate, and the contract shall specify the method of obtaining the land use right", and at the same time, it also provides evidence for the enforcement agency to identify the real buyer.
(2) The buyer is in lawful possession of the immovable property before it is sealed
First of all, the reason why the buyer's expectation right should be protected is that the buyer has fulfilled certain obligations to obtain the real right and has publicized it in a certain way, although this publicity method is weaker than the statutory registration and publicity method. Second, the act of possession of the immovable property must have taken place before the seizure. If it is in possession after the seizure, it is within the scope of the effect of the seizure and may not be used against the creditor. At the same time, the requirement that the immovable property has been taken possession before the seizure is also to reduce the possibility of malicious collusion between the person subject to enforcement and a third party. The understanding of "possession" is involved here. Possession should be understood as the management and disposition of immovable property. Taking a house as an example, it is generally believed that obtaining the keys to the house and going through the check-in procedures for the property should be regarded as having de facto management and control over the house. However, there are no special requirements as far as the nature of the immovable property is concerned. In other words, if the immovable property is a house, whether it is a commercial building or a residential building, it should be protected as a whole.
(3) The buyer has paid the full price, or has paid part of the price in accordance with the contract and delivers the remaining price for enforcement in accordance with the requirements of the people's court
In terms of the delivery of the price, unlike Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Seizure and Freezing of Property in Civil Enforcement by the People's Court, which requires the full payment of the price, the buyer pays part of the price as agreed and delivers the remaining price for execution within the time limit specified by the people's court, it is also included in the scope of protection. From a practical point of view, a considerable number of real estate sales contracts involve huge amounts of money, and the parties often agree to pay in installments, and although the outsider only pays part of the money, it is paid in accordance with the schedule agreed in the contract. It should be noted that the above-mentioned judicial interpretation stipulates that the payment of the buyer's remaining price shall be made in accordance with the time required by the people's court, rather than the time limit agreed in the contract, because the property to be enforced is not static before it is seized, but has been in the process of social transaction circulation, and may continue to bear the substantive rights of the third party. Such a provision reflects that the enforcement power, as a public power, appropriately intervenes in the civil rights between the person subject to enforcement and the third party, and balances the interests between the person subject to enforcement and the third party.
(4) The buyer fails to register the transfer of ownership for reasons not attributable to the buyer
Article 17 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Sealing, Seizure and Freezing of Assets in Civil Enforcement by the People's Courts reads "the third party is not at fault for this". The term fault is mostly used in the field of tort liability law and refers to the psychological state of the actor, which is divided into intentional and negligent. From a practical point of view, the reasons that can be attributed to the buyer can be divided into three levels: first, ignoring the obstacles to the rights of others. For example, if there is a mortgage registration of another person on the immovable property, and the buyer fails to exercise reasonable care, the registration cannot be done because of the existence of a mortgage by another person. The second is the neglect of policy restrictions. For example, knowing that a certain place is restricting the purchase of a house, but still buying a house even though it does not meet the conditions, resulting in the inability to complete the transfer procedures. The third is the passive non-exercise of the right to register. For example, if some parties to a transaction deliberately fail to register for the purpose of tax evasion, etc., they should not be protected by this principle. In addition, in practice, there are continuous transactions of immovable property, and the standard for determining fault (mainly negligence) should be lowered. The blame for negligence, whether it is "due to the fact that it should have been able to pay attention but did not pay attention" or "neglected to pay attention to the necessary care in the transaction", is to the extent that the actor was able to foresee the adverse consequences of his conduct and did not avoid it. The necessary care referred to here is an objective or typological standard of fault, which should be determined according to the type of transaction. In a continuous transaction of immovable property, the possession of the immovable property has been transferred multiple times, and the registration status may not change accordingly, but the buyer can only claim the claim against its predecessor, and if the former party neglects to claim the registration of the change of ownership from its own predecessor, it would be harsh to require the buyer to file a subrogation lawsuit to exercise the right to request registration of the real right and complete the mission of the change of the real right through the court's enforcement. For ordinary civil subjects, they cannot all be regarded as legal experts, and in this case, the buyer cannot be deemed to be at fault. Moreover, litigation and enforcement itself also have a certain time requirement, which cannot meet the requirements for the protection of the buyer's right of expectation.
4. Enforcement of rulings and changes in property rights
(1) Whether the enforcement ruling can produce the effect of a change in property rights
The theoretical and practical circles have different understandings of whether the enforcement of the ruling can lead to the legal effect of a change in the real right. One view is that an enforcement decision can have the effect of a change in property rights. The main reasons are as follows: First, Article 28 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that "if a real right is established, modified, transferred or extinguished due to the legal documents of the people's courts, arbitration commissions or the expropriation decisions of the people's governments, etc., it shall take effect when the legal documents or the expropriation decisions of the people's governments take effect." "The legal documents of the people's courts include enforcement rulings. Second, if the legal document of the people's court leads to a change in the real right, the legal document itself is an effective way to publicize the change in the real right, and it is no longer necessary to publicize it through the delivery of the real right or the registration of the real property. Third, the effect of changes in property rights when the enforcement ruling takes effect is conducive to the clarification of the property right relationship and the convenience of transactions. Another view is that the enforcement ruling cannot have the effect of a change in property rights for the following reasons: First, although Article 28 of the Property Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a legal document of a people's court causes a change in property rights, the effect of a change in property rights occurs when the legal document takes effect, not all legal documents of the people's court can produce such effect, and only when a judgment is formed can the effect of a change in property rights occur. Second, the content of the auction transaction ruling or the judgment on the payment of debts in kind is to confirm the validity of the auction contract or the establishment of the settlement of debts in kind, which is itself a legal document in the nature of payment rather than a judgment, so its content does not have the intention of causing a change in the real right, and the ruling naturally cannot produce the effect of publicizing the change in the real right. Thirdly, the rulings on auction transactions and judgments on the payment of goods as rulings in enforcement procedures are not rulings in litigation procedures, and should not have the force of res judicata in themselves, and their publicity effect is not as good as that of judgments, so after such rulings take effect, they should also go through the corresponding registration or delivery procedures, otherwise it is not appropriate to determine that the buyer of immovable property enjoys civil rights and interests sufficient to preclude enforcement.
(2) The provisions of the current judicial interpretations
The Supreme People's Court has always insisted that the enforcement of rulings can have the effect of changing property rights. Article 27 of the Circular of the Supreme People's Court, the Ministry of Land and Resources, and the Ministry of Construction on Several Issues Concerning the Regulation of Enforcement by the People's Courts and the Assistance of the Land Resources and Real Estate Management Departments in Enforcement stipulates that: "The legal effect shall take effect when the rulings on the transfer of land use rights and housing ownership made by the people's courts are delivered to the transferee of rights, and the people's court shall clearly inform the transferee of rights to apply to the land and resources and real estate management departments for registration of the change or transfer of land and housing ownership in a timely manner." When the land and resources and real estate management departments register ownership in accordance with effective legal documents, the land and housing rights of the parties shall be traced back to the time when the relevant legal documents take effect. Article 29 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Auction and Sale of Property in Civil Enforcement by the People's Courts also stipulates that: "After the auction of movable property is concluded or debts are settled, the ownership of the movable property shall be transferred to the buyer or successor from the time of delivery." After the auction of immovable property, registered specific movable property or other property rights is concluded or the debt is settled, the ownership of the immovable property or specific movable property or other property rights shall be transferred from the time when the auction transaction or the judgment on the redemption of debts is served on the buyer or successor. Accordingly, it can be concluded that in the enforcement procedure, if the court's ruling on the transfer of real property rights, auction transaction or debt redemption becomes effective, the effect of a change in real rights will occur.
(Drafters: Liu Shaoyang, Zhang Ancheng; Reviewer: Hu Xiabing)
转自 Supreme Court Guidance