成全在线观看免费完整的,成全影视大全免费追剧大全,成全视频高清免费播放电视剧好剧,成全在线观看免费完整,成全在线观看高清全集,成全动漫视频在线观看完整版动画

There are presently no applicable treaties between the People's Republic of China (the "PRC") and Singapore, which provide for the mutual recognition and enforcement of each country's court judgments in the courts of the other state. Hence currently, only final monetary judgments of the courts of the PRC ("PRC court judgments") can be recognised and enforced in Singapore. Further, that process requires the commencement of a new suit in the Singapore courts.

目前，中國和新加坡之間沒有相互承認和執行兩國法院判決的相關條約。因此，目前只有中國法院的終局性金錢給付類判決(“中國法院判決”)才能在新加坡得到承認和執行。此外，這一程序要求在新加坡法院開始一個新訴訟。

Generally, a judgment of a foreign court  may only be recognised and enforced under the domestic laws of the enforcing state, unless that enforcing state is bound by enforcement obligations under a treaty (bilateral or multilateral). Presently, such treaties are given force of law in Singapore through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap. 264, 1985 Rev Ed) ("RECJA"), Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap. 265, 2001 Rev Ed) ("REFJA"), Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act (Cap. 169, 1985 Rev Ed) ("MOREA") and the Choice of Court Agreements Act (Cap. 39A, 2017 Rev Ed) ("CCAA").

一般而言，外國法院的判決只能根據執行國的國內法得到承認和執行，除非該執行國受條約(雙邊或多邊)規定的執行義務的約束。目前，此類條約通過《英聯邦判決互惠執行法案》(新加坡輔助性立法第264章，1985年修訂版)（RECJA）、《外國判決互惠執行法案》 (第265章，2001年修訂版) (REFJA)、《贍養令(相互執行)法案》(第169章，1985年修訂版) ( MOREA)和《選擇法院協議法案》 (第39A章，2017年修訂版)( CCAA) 在新加坡具有法律效力。

RECJA applies to the judgments of the "superior" courts of 10 Commonwealth nations, being United Kingdom, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Windward Islands, Pakistan, Brunei Darussalam, Papua New Guinea, India (except Jammu and Kashmir) and Australia. In turn, REFJA applies solely to the judgments of the "superior" courts of Hong Kong SAR. The CCAA gives effect to the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the "Hague Convention") —its ratifying states are the EU, Singapore, Mexico and Montenegro.

RECJA適用于10個英聯邦國家的“上級”法院的判決，它們是英國、新西蘭、斯里蘭卡、馬來西亞、向風群島、巴基斯坦、文萊達魯薩蘭國、巴布亞新幾內亞、印度(查謨和克什米爾除外)和澳大利亞。而REFJA僅適用于香港特別行政區“上級”法院的判決。CCAA為2005年6月30日《關于法院選擇協議的海牙公約》(“《海牙公約》”)在新加坡的適用賦予效力，其批準國是歐盟、新加坡、墨西哥和黑山。

Absent an applicable treaty, a foreign final money judgment which is sought to be enforced in Singapore would have to be done by way of common law through the commencement of a fresh suit in the Singapore courts. Under common law, where a foreign court of competent jurisdiction has determined that a certain sum is due from one person to another, a legal obligation arises on the debtor to pay that sum. The creditor may bring a claim to enforce that obligation as a debt. This legal obligation to pay the debt is however separate from the underlying cause of action.

如果沒有適用的條約，尋求在新加坡執行外國終局性金錢給付類判決必須通過普通法在新加坡法院提起新的訴訟。根據普通法，如果有管轄權的外國法院認定一人欠另一人某一數額的金錢，債務人就有法律義務支付該數額。債權人可以將該義務當做債以提出強制執行的請求。然而，償還債務的法律義務與訴因是分開的。

In contrast, where a foreign judgment is sought to be enforced in Singapore under RECJA and REFJA, recognition and enforcement is substantially easier — the registration process is primarily a formalistic one. The default practice is to permit registration of foreign judgments unless certain formal features are missing. The onus is then on the judgment debtor to seek to set aside the registered judgment.

相比之下，在新加坡尋求根據RECJA和REFJA執行外國判決時，承認和執行要容易得多——登記過程主要是形式性的。默認做法是允許登記外國判決，除非缺少某些形式特征。一旦登記，則撤銷已登記判決的負擔在債務人。

Under REFJA and RECJA, registration of a foreign judgment shall be refused if it is not final and conclusive on the merits of the case as well as for a fixed or ascertainable sum of money. Other grounds for the refusal of registration and/or to set aside a registered judgment include:

根據REFJA和RECJA，針對案件實體問題，如果外國判決是非終局的，或相關金額非固定或可確定的，則應拒絕登記。拒絕登記和/或撤銷已登記判決的其他理由包括:

·where the court giving judgment lacked jurisdiction over the judgment debtor

作出判決的法院對判決下的債務人缺乏管轄權

·the judgment debtor did not have proper notice of the proceedings under which the foreign judgment was pronounced

判決下的債務人未在外國判決宣告的程序中獲得適當通知

·the foreign judgment being contrary to the public policy of Singapore;

外國判決違反新加坡的公共政策；

·direct or indirect enforcement of foreign penal, revenue or public laws

直接或間接執行外國刑法、稅收法或公法

In contrast to the CCAA/Hague Convention, one of the key limitations of REFJA and RECJA is that there are currently only 11 contracting states whose judgments of their superior courts may be recognised and enforced pursuant to Singapore’s treaty obligations. Further, under REFJA and RECJA, only monetary judgments may be recognised and enforced. In other words, interlocutory and/or non-money judgments cannot be registered under RECJA or REFJA presently.

與CCAA及《海牙公約》不同的是，REFJA和RECJA的主要局限之一是，目前只有11個締約國的上級法院的判決可以根據新加坡的條約義務得到承認和執行。此外，根據REFJA和RECJA，只能承認和執行金錢類判決。換句話說，中間判決和/或非金錢判決目前不能根據RECJA或REFJA進行登記。

The PRC is a signatory to the Hague Convention but has not ratified it. Further, there are currently no bilateral treaties between the PRC and Singapore for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of court judgments from each country.

中國是《海牙公約》的簽署國，但尚未批準該公約。此外，中國和新加坡之間目前沒有雙邊條約相互承認和執行兩國的法院判決。

Nonetheless, there is a Memorandum of Guidance between the Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China and the Supreme Court of Singapore on Recognition and Enforcement of Money Judgments in Commercial Cases signed 31 August 2018 (the "Enforcement Memorandum"). The Enforcement Memorandum sets out the basis on which a PRC court judgment may be recognised and enforced in Singapore i.e. under common law.

盡管如此，中國最高人民法院和新加坡最高法院于2018年8月31日簽署了一份關于承認和執行商業案件中金錢判決的指導備忘錄(《中華人民共和國最高人民法院和新加坡共和國最高法院關于承認與執行商事案件金錢判決的指導備忘錄》，“《執行備忘錄》”)?！秷绦袀渫洝芬幎酥袊ㄔ号袥Q可在新加坡得到承認和執行的依據，即普通法。

The Enforcement Memorandum sets out that the PRC court judgment to be enforced in Singapore must be final and conclusive as determined in accordance with Chinese law. In this respect, the Singapore courts may request the claimant seeking enforcement to obtain certification from the relevant PRC court that the judgment is final and conclusive. The Singapore courts may also seek assistance from the PRC Supreme People's Court to obtain such certification — the certification shall be regarded as conclusive evidence on the finality and conclusiveness of the judgment.

《執行備忘錄》規定，根據中國法律，在新加坡執行的中國法院判決必是終局且確定性的。在這方面，新加坡法院可要求申請執行的原告從相關中國法院獲得該判決是最終和確定性的證明。新加坡法院也可尋求中國最高人民法院的協助以獲得此類證明——該證明應被視為該判決是終局且確定的決定性證據。

The Singapore courts will also not enforce judgments of the PRC courts that would amount to the direct or indirect enforcement of any foreign penal, revenue or public law.

如果相關判決直接或間接涉及何外國刑法、稅收或公法，新加坡法院也不會執行該類中國法院判決。

The PRC courts must also have had jurisdiction to determine the subject matter of the dispute. The Singapore courts will generally consider that the PRC courts had jurisdiction over the judgment debtor where the debtor:

中國法院也必須擁有確定爭議標的管轄權。如果債務人滿足下述條件的，新加坡法院一般會認為中國法院對判決下的債務人擁有管轄權，

·was, at the time that the case was filed, present or resident in the jurisdiction of the court of the People's Republic of China; or

案件起訴時，該債務人出現或居住在中國法院管轄范圍內；或者

·was the claimant, or counterclaimant, in the proceedings; or

該債務人是訴訟中的原告或反訴人；或者

·submitted to the jurisdiction of the court of the People's Republic of China; or

該債務人服從中國法院管轄；或者

·agreed, before commencement, in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings, to submit to the jurisdiction of the PRC courts.

在程序開始前，該債務人同意就訴訟標的服從中國法院的管轄。

A claim on a PRC court judgment may be challenged in the Singapore courts on limited grounds only. The PRC court judgment cannot be challenged on the merits of the underlying case or on the grounds that there has been an error of fact or law. Instead, the available grounds for resisting recognition and enforcement include the following:

對中國法院判決的執行請求只能以有限的理由在新加坡法院受到質疑。中國法院的判決在新加坡不能以所涉案件的實體問題或存在事實或法律錯誤為由提出質疑。相反，拒絕承認和執行的理由包括:

·the judgment was obtained by fraud;

判決是通過欺詐獲得的；

·the judgment is contrary to Singapore public policy;

該判決違反新加坡公共政策；

·the proceedings were conducted in a manner which the court of Singapore regards as contrary to the principles of natural justice.

訴訟程序是以新加坡法院認為違反自然正義原則的方式進行的。

If the claim on the PRC court judgment is successful, the judgment creditor will then have the benefit of a Singapore court judgment and will be entitled to the enforcement mechanisms of a Singapore court judgment.

如果對中國法院判決的執行請求獲得支持，判決下的債權人將獲得一個新加坡法院判決，并有權獲得等同于執行新加坡法院判決的執行機制。

Even prior to the signing of the Enforcement Memorandum, there has been at least one reported Singapore court decision in which a PRC court judgment was enforced through the Singapore common law process. In Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd v Aksa Far East Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 545, the Singapore High Court enforced a judgment made by the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court. The basis on which the Singapore High Court recognised the Suzhou Intermediate People's Court's judgment is as set out in the Enforcement Memorandum i.e. the common law rule that a foreign judgment would be recognised if (a) it was the final and conclusive judgment of a court which, (b) according to the private international law of Singapore, had jurisdiction to grant that judgment, and (c) there was no defence to the judgment's recognition.

即使在簽署《執行備忘錄》之前，至少有一個新加坡法院公告判例，該案中中國法院的判決是通過新加坡普通法程序執行的。在Giant Light Metal Technology (Kunshan) Co Ltd 訴Aksa Far East Pte Ltd一案（新加坡法律報告2014年第2卷第545頁）中，新加坡高等法院執行了蘇州市中級人民法院的判決。新加坡高等法院承認蘇州中級人民法院判決的依據正如《執行備忘錄》所載，即普通法規則——如果(a)外國判決是法院的最終和確定性判決，(b)根據新加坡國際私法，法院有權作出該判決，以及(c)對該判決的承認沒有抗辯，則外國判決將得到承認。

Singapore’s Ministry of Law has recently proposed amendments to REFJA, to be effected through the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Bill (the "Amendment Bill").

新加坡司法部最近提議修訂REFJA，將通過《外國判決互惠執行(修正)法案》(《修正法案》)生效。

The Amendment Bill seeks to consolidate both RECJA and REFJA under one statute i.e. REFJA — RECJA will be repealed.

《修正法案》旨在將RECJA和REFJA合并為一部法規，即REFJA，而RECJA將被替代。

The Amendment Bill would expand the definition of judgment and would permit the Singapore courts to reciprocally register and enforce a wider range of foreign judgments, including: non-money judgments, interlocutory judgments, and judgments from foreign "inferior" courts.

《修正法案》將擴大判決的定義，并允許新加坡法院互惠登記和執行更廣泛的外國判決，包括:非金錢判決、中間判決和外國“下級”法院的判決。

The Amendment Bill would also impose limits on the Singapore courts' enforcement of a registered non-money judgment i.e. only if it is satisfied that such enforcement would be just and convenient. If not, it may grant the application what the court considers to be the monetary equivalent of the relief sought.

《修正法案》還將對新加坡法院執行已登記的非金錢判決施加限制，即只有在新加坡法院確信這種執行是公正和方便的情況下才會予以執行。若非如此，新加坡法院可以批準其認為與所尋求救濟相當的金錢性請求。

There would also be new grounds for the Singapore courts to refuse the registration of or to set aside the registration of a foreign judgment, as well as to limit enforcement of a registered judgment. These include:

新加坡法院還有新的理由拒絕登記或撤銷外國判決的登記，并限制已登記判決的執行。其中包括:

·where the foreign judgment has been discharged — the Singapore Ministry of Law here gives the example of a judgment discharged by virtue of bankruptcy;

外國判決已經被清償——新加坡司法部在這里列舉了一個通過破產而清償判決的例子；

·the registration of a foreign judgment may be set aside if the notice of registration had not been served on the judgment debtor, or if the notice of registration was defective (proposed section 5(c)). However, the foreign judgment can still be subsequently (re)registered once the defects have been cured (proposed section 5(1A));

如果登記通知沒有送達判決下的債務人，或者如果登記通知有缺陷，外國判決的登記可以被撤銷(擬議的第5(c)條)。然而，一旦缺陷得到補救，外國判決仍可隨后(重新)登記(擬議的第5節(1A))；

·there are additional grounds introduced on which a judgment debtor can rely on to demonstrate that it had not voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court and thereby resist registration or set aside the registration of that foreign judgment. The proposed amendments to REFJA would clarify that the following are not to be construed as cases where a defendant is deemed to have submitted to the foreign court's jurisdiction:

判決債務人還可以依據其他理由證明其沒有自愿服從外國法院的管轄，從而拒絕登記或撤銷該外國判決的登記。REFJA的擬議修正案將澄清以下情況不應被解釋為被告被視為已服從外國法院管轄:

o protecting, or obtaining the release of, property seized or threatened with seizure, in the proceedings;

在訴訟中試圖保護或申請解除法院保全被扣押或可能被扣押的財產；

o contesting the jurisdiction of that court; or

質疑該法院的管轄權；或者

o inviting the foreign court in its discretion not to exercise its jurisdiction in the proceedings.

提請外國法院酌情不在訴訟中行使管轄權。

It is expected that the Amendment Bill (in its present or further revised form) can be passed within 2019. Notably the Amendment Bill makes reference to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (Amendment) Act 2019.

預計《修訂法案》(以目前或進一步修訂的形式)將在2019年內獲得通過。值得注意的是，《修正法案》所援引的名稱是《2019年外國判決相互執行(修正)法》。