<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="1" > Author: Chu Mingfeng Liu Lei Liu Xiaoyong</h1>
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="25" > referee overview:</h1>
Where the person subject to enforcement or the person in charge of the person subject to enforcement is taken to restrict high consumption or is included in the blacklist of untrustworthy persons as a result of the enforcement case, and the relevant personnel are dissatisfied with this and raise objections, the enforcement enforcement department shall be responsible, and adopt a decision method to issue a disposition opinion, rather than filing a separate enforcement objection case for review, which is a procedural error.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="26" > Case Summary:</h1>
1. Due to the effective judgment of the construction contract dispute case, Zhongda Company Shanghai Tenth Branch was the executor, and at the same time, the person in charge of the branch, Shen Zhonglian, was subject to consumption restrictions.
2. Shen Zhonglian objected to the restriction on consumption and requested that the measures be lifted.
3. The court of first instance finds that the objection is not established and rules to dismiss the objection. Shen Zhonglian continued to raise reconsideration.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="27" > the focus of controversy:</h1>
Does the court of first instance rule that the rejection of the objection comply with the procedural requirements?
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="28" > court held:</h1>
This court holds that where a party or interested party applies for correction of a consumption restriction measure, the enforcement court shall, in accordance with article 18 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Further Strengthening the Concept of Good Faith and Civilized Enforcement in Enforcement Procedures, and Article 12 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Publishing Information on the List of Judgment Defaulters, have the enforcement department review their application, and the first-instance court's review of a separate enforcement objection case is a procedural error, and this court corrects it in accordance with law.
Case Index:
(2021) Lu 04 Zhifu No. 8
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="29" > relevant laws:</h1>
Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Publishing Information on the List of Judgment Defaulters
Article 12: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations apply for corrections to those entered into the list of judgment defaulters, the enforcement court shall review it within 15 days of receiving the written application for correction, and where the reasons are established, they shall make corrections within three working days; where the reasons are not established, decide to reject them. Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations are dissatisfied with a decision to reject it, they may apply for a reconsideration to the people's court at the level above within 10 days of the written decision being served. The people's court at the level above shall make a decision within 15 days of receiving the application for reconsideration.
During the period of reconsideration, the implementation of the original decision shall not be stopped.
Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Further Strengthening the Concept of Good Faith and Civilized Enforcement in Enforcement Procedures
18. Clear channels for punitive measures and relief. Where natural persons, legal persons, or other organizations apply for corrections for inclusion in the untrustworthy list, the people's courts shall promptly review and make a disposition decision in accordance with the procedures and time limits provided for in article 12 of the provisions on the list of the untrustworthy. Where consumption restriction measures are employed to apply for correction, it is to be handled with reference to article 12 of the Provisions on the List of untrustworthiness.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="30" > practice analysis:</h1>
Where the person subject to enforcement or the person in charge of the person subject to enforcement is taken to restrict high consumption or is included in the blacklist of untrustworthy persons as a result of the enforcement case, and the relevant personnel raise objections to this, the enforcement enforcement department shall be responsible, and a decision shall be employed to issue a disposition opinion. In practice, most courts do not know much about this provision, and the trial of a separate enforcement objection case and the use of a ruling to make a judgment are procedural errors and should be noted.