The person in charge of the the Supreme People’s Court Compensation Commission Office answered a reporter’s question on the judicial interpretation of the limitation of judicial compensation requests.

　　Cctv newsAccording to the Supreme People’s Court’s WeChat WeChat official account news, the Supreme People’s Court released a reporter’s question on the judicial interpretation of the limitation of judicial compensation requests by the head of the the Supreme People’s Court Compensation Commission Office.

1. Please tell us about the background of the formulation of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation of Requests in the Trial of Judicial Compensation Cases (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of Limitation of Requests)?

　　A: The State Compensation Law of 1994 stipulates the relative principle of the limitation system of claims. When the State Compensation Law was revised in 2010, due to the cancellation of the pre-procedure for the confirmation of state compensation, the starting standard of the limitation of claim was changed from "from the date when the authority act was legally recognized as illegal" to "from the date when the authority act was known or should have been known to infringe upon its personal rights and property rights", which increased the complexity of the limitation of claim calculation. In practice, there have long been different opinions on whether the limitation of claim is the limitation of action or the limitation of prosecution, whether the compensation committee of the people’s court can actively apply the limitation of claim, and the legal effect of the expiration of the limitation of claim. With the in-depth development of judicial compensation trial practice, a consensus has gradually been reached on the limitation of claim. It is generally believed that the limitation of claim belongs to the limitation of action rather than the period of prosecution in nature, and related issues such as the starting, suspension and invocation of the limitation of claim are determined on this principle, which has accumulated useful experience in practice. At the same time, the Civil Code of People’s Republic of China (PRC) and related judicial interpretations have greatly improved and refined the statute of limitations system, providing common rules and legislative experience for the statute of limitations system. In this context, in order to unify the understanding and application of the prescription of claims and fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of compensation claimants, the Supreme People’s Court formulated the Interpretation of Prescription of Claims.

　　Second, judicial interpretation is to determine the specific applicable rules of the law through value judgment and interest measurement. What principles were followed in the drafting of the Interpretation of Limitation of Requests?

　　A: The Request for Prescription Interpretation mainly follows the following principles: First, it adheres to the principle of constitutionality and legality. Resolutely implement the spirit of the Constitution and the law, strictly abide by the provisions of the State Compensation Law, and make an interpretation within the scope of the judicial interpretation given by the law. At the same time, fully solicit the opinions of relevant ministries and commissions, reach a general consensus, make it clear that the prescription of request belongs to the prescription of action in nature, and make relevant provisions based on this to ensure that the Interpretation of Prescription of Request conforms to the legislative purpose, principle and original intention. The second is to pay attention to strengthening the right relief. The limitation system of claims is to amend the rights of compensation claimants in order to maintain the stability of legal order from the perspective of social public interests, and its legislative purpose is to urge compensation claimants to exercise their rights in time. Therefore, when the Interpretation of Limitation of Claims stipulates the starting date of limitation of claims in various situations, it fully considers whether there are factual and legal obstacles for the claimant, and puts the right relief in a prominent position to ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the claimant are effectively protected. The third is to proceed from reality. On the basis of in-depth investigation, Interpretation of Limitation of Claims adheres to the problem orientation, focuses on solving practical problems that are generally concerned in judicial practice, and regulates some key and difficult issues with certain universality and representativeness, such as the starting date of limitation of claims, the deduction rule of special period, and the legal effect of the expiration of limitation of claims in various judicial compensation cases, so as to enhance the timeliness, pertinence and practicability of interpretation.

　　Third, we have noticed that there are different understandings about the nature of the limitation of judicial compensation requests in practice. How is the Interpretation of the Limitation of Requests stipulated?

　　A: This problem is the core problem to be solved in the Interpretation of Limitation of Requests. Only by scientifically defining the limitation nature of judicial compensation requests can we make unified norms on the application of relevant laws. There are different opinions about whether the limitation of judicial compensation request is substantive limitation of action or procedural limitation of prosecution in nature. After in-depth investigation and extensive consultation with the Legal Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Justice, a consensus has been reached on this issue. It is generally believed that the limitation of judicial compensation claims is a limitation of action in nature, and the rights of compensation claimants are not protected by law after the expiration of the limitation period, but the rights of compensation claimants are not eliminated. Accordingly, the Interpretation of the Limitation of Claims stipulates that "after the limitation of claims expires, the organ liable for compensation agrees to compensate or make compensation, and then raises a defense on the grounds of the expiration of the limitation of claims or requests the claimant to return the compensation, the compensation committee of the people’s court will not support it." On this basis, in accordance with the principle of invoking the limitation of action, the Interpretation of the Limitation of Claims also clarifies that "the compensation committee of the people’s court shall not apply the limitation of claims on its own initiative when trying state compensation cases", which fully protects the legitimate rights and interests of compensation claimants.

　　4. The prescription system of claim is directly related to whether the claim of the claimant for compensation is protected by law. How does the Interpretation of Prescription of Claim embody the people-centered principle and ensure that the legitimate rights and interests of the claimant for compensation are effectively protected?

　　A: The Interpretation of Limitation of Claims insists on taking the people as the center, paying full attention to the relatively weak position of the claimant in state compensation cases, and fully considering whether there are factual and legal obstacles for the claimant to exercise his rights when setting the starting date of limitation of claims in various situations, so as to avoid premature calculation of limitation of claims and undue restrictions on the legitimate rights and interests of the claimant. First of all, considering the connection between the state compensation procedure and the litigation procedure and the execution procedure, it is clear that the limitation of claims is calculated from the date when the relevant litigation procedure or execution procedure ends, so as to protect the right of compensation claimants to seek relief through relevant litigation or execution procedures in advance. Secondly, when determining the starting date of the limitation of claims, the Interpretation of the Limitation of Claims stipulates that it shall be calculated from the date when the claimant receives the legal documents ending the criminal, civil and administrative proceedings or execution procedures, rather than the date when the judicial organ makes the relevant legal documents. This provision is conducive to guiding the judicial organs to serve legal documents in strict accordance with the law and effectively protecting the claimant’s right to know. Thirdly, regarding the case-handling organ’s failure to make a legal document to terminate the investigation of criminal responsibility, criminal procedure or execution procedure according to law, although the limitation period has not started, the compensation claimant can apply for compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in Handling Criminal Compensation Cases, and the people’s court shall accept it according to law, fully protecting the compensation claimant’s right to claim. Finally,Since the State Compensation Law does not stipulate the interruption system of the limitation of claims, after consulting the Legal Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC), according to the provisions of the State Compensation Law that "the period of personal freedom restriction such as detention is not counted", the Interpretation of the Limitation of Claims specifically stipulates the special period deduction rule of the limitation of claims, making it clear that the period during which the claimant claims rights or seeks relief through other legal procedures is not counted in the limitation of claims, which is consistent with the nature of the state compensation as the last relief procedure and ensures that the legitimate rights and interests of the claimant are effectively protected.

　　Five, the limitation of claims system is also related to the rights and obligations of the organ liable for compensation. How is it stipulated in the Interpretation of Limitation of Claims?

　　Answer: On the basis of clarifying that the limitation of claim is the limitation of action in nature, the Interpretation of Limitation of Claim stipulates that the organ liable for compensation has the right of defense against the limitation of claim, that is, "when the limitation of claim expires, the organ liable for compensation may raise a defense against compensation". However, if the organ liable for compensation agrees to pay compensation or has paid compensation after the expiration of the limitation period, and then raises a defense or requests the claimant to return the compensation on the grounds of the expiration of the limitation period, the compensation Committee of the people’s court will not support it. This is consistent with the principle of limitation of action and the basic requirements of the principle of good faith. Regarding the time for the organ liable for compensation to file a defense, the Interpretation of the Limitation of Claims stipulates that "it shall be filed before the compensation committee of the people’s court makes a national compensation decision". If the organ liable for compensation fails to file a defense according to this provision and complains on the grounds that the limitation of claims expires, the compensation committee of the people’s court will not support it. In addition, when the organ liable for compensation is a public security organ, a procuratorial organ or a judicial administrative organ, the organ liable for compensation is the main body exercising the right of defense of limitation of claim. If the organ liable for compensation agrees to pay compensation in the self-compensation procedure, and the limitation period for the reconsideration organ to make a request expires, it cannot be regarded as an effective defense, and the compensation committee of the people’s court will not support it. Such a provision is a prudent provision that fully considers the rights, obligations, litigation capacity and other factors of all parties, and is conducive to guiding the judicial organs to perform their duties according to law, enforce the law in good faith, and conduct civilized justice.