On January 2, the Supreme People's Court's Opinion on the Further Strengthening of the Concept of the Implementation of Good Will and Civility (hereinafter referred to as the Opinion) was issued. The Opinion states that persons who decide to take disciplinary measures may be granted a grace period of one to three months for inclusion in the list of breach of trust and measures to limit consumption \"strictly according to law and prudently apply \". If a full-time student becomes an executor due to a dispute over \"campus loan \", he or she may not be included in the list of breach of trust or consumption restriction measures.
It is of concern that the Opinion calls for an accurate understanding of the restrictions on the children of the person subjected to execution to attend high-paying schools. Restrictions on the attendance of children of persons subject to execution in high-paying schools refer to those whose children are restricted from attending schools that exceed the normal rate of fees, although they are private schools, which are also outside the limits if their fees do not exceed the normal standard.
《 The Opinion states that the People's Court shall, when adopting such measures, strictly examine them according to law, and shall not affect the right of the children of the person subjected to execution to receive education normally. If a people's court decides to restrict the children of the person subjected to execution from attending a high-paying school after examination according to law, it shall do a good job of communicating with the children and schools of the person subjected to execution so as not to adversely affect the children of the person subjected to execution as far as possible.
A person who is restricted in consumption is in urgent need of going to other places because of serious illness of himself or his near relatives, funeral of his near relatives, and emergency situations such as performing or cooperating with his official duties, taking part in foreign affairs activities or important examinations.
In accordance with the Opinion, the information on breach of trust or restriction of consumption shall not be published for the time being within the grace period of one to three months; if the time limit expires, the person subjected to execution has not fulfilled his obligations as defined in the legal instrument in force, the information shall be published and corresponding disciplinary measures shall be taken.
What about the one- to three-month grace period? He Dongning, deputy director of the Supreme Law Executive Board, explained that according to the \"Opinion \", not all cases could be granted a grace period, and the local courts should determine according to the specific circumstances of the case, combined with the will of the person subjected to execution and the degree of breach of faith, which is equivalent to giving the person subjected to execution an opportunity to reform, deter and urge the person subjected to take the initiative.
He said that the purpose and consideration of the grace period was to allow the person subjected to an automatic performance of the obligation within the grace period, and that if the obligation was actively fulfilled during the grace period, no credit discipline and consumption restrictions would be imposed on the person subject to execution.
It said that the inclusion of discredit list and consumption restrictions on the two measures played an important role in the fight against \"rogue \". He said at the same time that the implementation of the two systems is not long, some working mechanisms are increasingly perfect, especially in the refinement, precision management there are some shortcomings, need to be further standardized.
《 The Opinion also provides for several types of measures to relieve or temporarily relieve consumption of restrictions. For example, if the company's legal representative or principal person-in-charge does need to be changed after the company's consumption is restricted, if the original legal representative or principal person-in-charge applies for lifting the consumption restriction measures imposed on the company itself, the people's court shall, upon examination, consider that the legal representative or principal person-in-charge does not belong to the company's actual controller or the person directly responsible for affecting the performance of the debt, that is to say, there is no malicious change or evasion of execution, and should be permitted.
He explained that \"should be permitted\" to lift the restrictions on consumption is conditional, first, must be applied for by the person subject to the restrictions on consumption; second, to provide valid evidence; third, to have a written commitment. The people's court shall severely punish the act of providing false evidence or violating the promise of consumption, and shall not allow the person subjected to execution to apply again.