top of page
Image by Gilley Aguilar

论我国就业救助合同的效力

Image by Venti Views

OVERVIEW

法院:中华人民共和国最高人民法院

决定日期: 2016 年 7 月 7 日

当事人:南海救灾局(上诉人)诉Achilleas C. Grosso Investment Corporation(被上诉人)

相关法规: 《中华人民共和国民法典》、《中华人民共和国海商法典》

引用: (2016)最高人民法院民事再审第61号

法律问题

雇佣救助合同的概念及其法律后果。

事实

      The "Gabriel", owned by Achilleas C. Grosso Investment Corporation(hereinafter referred to as Achilleas), is a Greek tanker carrying 54.580 tons of Cabinda crude oil. On August 12, 2011, around 05:00, it ran aground near the northern waterway of the Qiongzhou Strait, placing the ship and its cargo in danger and posing a severe threat to maritime environmental safety. Achilleas authorized Andros (Hong Kong) Limited's Shanghai representative office(hereinafter referred to as the Shanghai office) to engage the South China Sea Rescue Bureau to salvage the "Gabriel" after the incident occurred.  Then Achilleas requested the South China Sea Rescue Bureau to send two tugs to participate in salvage. At 20:40 on August 12, the Shanghai office submitted a letter of authorization via email to the South China Sea Rescue Bureau, entrusting them to dispatch "South China Sea Rescue 116" and "South China Sea Rescue 101" to assist the "Gabriel" in refloating.  Achilleas agreed to pay a rate of 3,2 yuan per horsepower-hour for the South China Sea Rescue Bureau regardless of the success of the operation. They also agreed that "South China Sea Rescue 116" and "South China Sea Rescue 101" would only implement towing operations and they are not liable for any other damage or loss to the vessel during the rescuing of the "Gabriel". Concurrently, to prevent further marine pollution, the Zhanjiang Maritime Safety Administration of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as Zhanjiang MSA) decided to implement compulsory lightering measures for the "Gabriel". In the end, "South China Sea Rescue 116" did not engage in towing operations for the "Gabriel", and "South China Sea Rescue 101" was recalled by the South China Sea Rescue Bureau before reaching the incident place, without conducting any towing or other operations. Later, "South China Sea Rescue 201" was dispatched for the rescue. On August 18, the "Gabriel" successfully refloated during high tide and subsequently arrived safely at its destination, Qinzhou Port in Guangxi.

      The South China Sea Rescue Bureau alleged that after the "Gabriel" ran aground in the Qiongzhou Strait, they were engaged by Achilleas to provide rescue, transportation, and escort services, but the Achilleas had not paid for salvage services. They requested the court to order the Achilleas and  Shanghai office to jointly pay rescue fees amounting to 7.240.998,24 yuan and interests.

On March 28, 2014, the Guangzhou Maritime Court issued a civil judgment named (2012) Guanghai Fa Chuzi No. 898. The Achilleas should pay the South China Sea Rescue Bureau rescue remuneration of 6.592.913,58 yuan and interests;

      The Achilleas then appealed. On June 16, 2015, the Higher People's Court of Guangdong Province issued a civil judgment named (2014) Yue Gao Fa Min Si Zhong No. 117,which revoked the judgment of the Guangzhou Maritime Court (2012) Guanghai Fa Chuzi No. 898. and ruled that Achilleas C. Grosso Investment Corporation should pay the South China Sea Rescue Bureau rescue remuneration of 2.561.346,93 yuan and interests. Dissatisfied with the second-instance judgment, the South China Sea Rescue Bureau applied for a retrial.

发现

最高人民法院认为,基于本案查明的事实,阿基里斯公司与南海救助局通过谈判明确约定无论打捞结果如何,阿基里斯公司都要支付报酬。 此外,南海救助局对于“加布里埃尔”轮打捞过程中船舶的任何损坏或损失均不承担赔偿责任,因此,涉案打捞合同不属于《中华人民共和国海商法》规定的“无救助无报酬”打捞合同,而是雇佣打捞行为。

关于雇佣打捞的报酬条件和标准, 《救助公约》《中华人民共和国海商法》均未作出具体规定。二审法院适用《中华人民共和国海商法》180[1]对雇佣打捞中双方约定的固定费率进行调整,错误。本案当事人的权利义务,依照《中华人民共和国合同法》 [2]的有关规定确定。合同有效,南海救助局有权依据其与阿基里斯轮签订的合同要求阿基里斯轮全额支付约定的报酬。

综上,应按照双方约定的合同支付报酬,维持一审判决

[1]第一百八十条 为鼓励打捞作业,确定奖励金额应当综合考虑下列因素等:

[2]由于本案审理时《中华人民共和国民法典》尚未制定,因此《中华人民共和国合同法》有效。

评论

根据《1989年国际海难救助公约》 [1]对“海难救助”的定义,通过综合分析公约和《中华人民共和国海商法》的规定,可以确定海难救助的构成要件有四个:第一,救助物件必须处于危险之中,且危险是现实危险;第二,救助物件必须为法律所承认;第三,救助人必须出于自愿;第四,救助行为必须具有正当性。 成功《中华人民共和国民法典》《中华人民共和国海商法》均未规定救助报酬的计算方式。救助人和被救助人可以签订合同确定报酬。因此,在雇佣救助合同中为遇险船舶提供服务时,报酬应按照合同约定而不是按照获救价值计算

[1]参见第1条(a)“救助作业”是指为救助在可航水域或者其他水域处于危险中的船舶或其他财产而采取的任何行为或活动。”

免责声明: 本文中的信息和评论不构成对任何人就任何特定事项的法律建议。如果您想复制其中的任何信息或评论,请联系我们。

  • alt.text.label.LinkedIn

©2024 Stichting China Europe Commercial Collaboration Association。网站所有权归中欧商事和合作协会基金会。

bottom of page