On the morning of 25 July 2016, we held a meeting to discuss our case hearing and enforcement practices and to analyze our achievements in the first half of the year. At the meeting, we analyzed existing problems and their causes, and came up with solutions.

Chen Ming, director of the Research Office (Administrative Examination & Approval Management Office) analyzed our hearing and enforcement achievements and existing problems in the first half of the year. His analyses were focused on our hearing and enforcement achievements, case handling efficiency and quality, as well as case handling effects. As shown by statistics, we had overall good achievements in our hearing and enforcement in the first half of the year, and our general case conclusion rate ranked from middle to top among courts at the basic level in the province. With an increase of 43.93% of entertained cases, our number of cases concluded increased by 156.32% and case conclusion rate rose by 33.24% owning to the efforts made by all our judges. Compared to the same period of last year, we had higher rates of mediation, withdrawal, settlement, and judgment in court, against a lower number and rate of appeals. There were significant improvements in the quality and efficiency of hearing.

Jian Wancheng, vice president, pointed out that the statistics showed a general progress in various indexes of the court. Compared to the same period of last year, there have been improvements to different in the number, quality and conclusion rate of cases, reflecting the preliminary results of judicial reform. However, the following problems remain: first, there is an imbalance in our achievements in hearing and enforcement works. For one thing, there is an imbalance between the number of cases entertained and that of cases concluded. Numbers of cases entertained by different courts vary by as much as 7 folds. This is attributable to economic growth and differences in population, but to a certain extent it is also related to the initiative or the lack of it of different authorities. It is important that all authorities carry through the spirit of the symposium on case entertainment attended by courts in coastal cities and counties in the province, and give further publicity to maritime jurisdiction. For another thing, there is an imbalance in the number of cases with judgment rendered in court. It has been proved that such practice will fully arouse the initiative of judges and promote the quality of trials. Rendering a judgment in court is advisory in cases with clear finding of facts and noncomplicated legal relations. In this regard, chiefs of various divisions should be exemplary. Secondly, not enough attention has been paid to filing and putting papers online. It has been an ongoing issue and little improvement has been made despite repeated promptings. The Research Office should make more efforts in the supervision and management of this practice and cause it to be carried through. Chief judges are in charge of filing and putting papers online. They should therefore follow it through with necessary attentiveness. Third, there is still room for improvement in the management of general affairs in relation to hearing. Chiefs in various divisions should keep improving the management of essential aspects and processes. The Research Office should make more scientific and reasonable indexes for management based on practices, and should fully improve the quality and efficiency of hearing with better management of relevant matters.