In litigation practice, the selection and determination of the court of jurisdiction have a significant impact on the litigation costs, litigation efficiency, and even the judgment results of the parties involved. Both parties to the litigation often engage in intense games regarding the determination of the court of jurisdiction. When the plaintiff sues, they will weigh the pros and cons and choose the court that best suits their own interests, while the defendant often seeks to transfer the case to a court that is advantageous to them by applying for objection to jurisdiction. Therefore, it is particularly important to better understand and master the relevant provisions of the transfer jurisdiction system. According to the reasons for making a transfer jurisdiction ruling, transfer jurisdiction can be divided into transfer based on application and transfer based on authority. Transfer by application is more common, but transfer by authority is not common. We will now explore some issues related to the transfer of jurisdiction by authority.

1、 Remedies for dissenting from the court's decision to transfer jurisdiction ex officio - non appealable, but can apply to the court being transferred for objection to jurisdiction

Article 157 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that an appeal may be made against a ruling made by a people's court not to accept, a ruling that objects to jurisdiction, or a ruling rejecting a lawsuit. Article 127 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that after the people's court accepts a case, if the parties have objections to their jurisdiction, they shall raise them during the period of submitting their defense. The people's court shall review the objections raised by the parties. If the objection is established, a ruling shall be made to transfer the case to the people's court with jurisdiction; If the objection is not established, a ruling shall be made to reject it. If the court makes a ruling on the jurisdictional objection raised by the parties, whether the court determines that the objection is not established and rejected, or if the objection is established and the case is transferred to a court with jurisdiction, such ruling can be appealed.

If the parties have not filed an application for objection to jurisdiction, and the court voluntarily examines and finds that there is no jurisdiction, and makes a ruling to transfer the case to a court with jurisdiction ex officio, the parties may not appeal this ruling. Although the Civil Procedure Law and related legal provisions are not explicitly stipulated, the Supreme People's Court's response to Recommendation No. 5785 of the Second Session of the 13th National People's Congress clarifies this issue: the transfer of jurisdiction ruling made by the people's court on its own authority is not allowed to be appealed. Judicial practice cases can refer to (2023) Yu 16 Min Zhi Zhong 23 Civil Ruling, (2015) Zhe Zhi Zhong Zi 242 Civil Ruling, and (2019) Ji Min Zhi 74 Civil Ruling.

Some grassroots courts mistakenly granted the parties the right to appeal in the ruling when issuing the ruling on transferring jurisdiction ex officio. After the parties appeal to the higher court, the higher court shall make corrections. As determined by the court of Putian City, Fujian Province, "the original trial court granted both parties the right to appeal for the transfer of jurisdiction based on their authority, which lacked legal basis and was corrected in accordance with the law." For details, please refer to the civil ruling (2019) Min 03 Min Zai No. 58.

At the same time, the "Reply to Recommendation No. 5785 of the Second Session of the 13th National People's Congress" also clarifies the remedies for dissenting from the court's authority to transfer jurisdiction: "An objection to the jurisdiction of the transferred people's court can be raised." Judicial practice can refer to the (2021) Jingmin Jurisdiction No. 86 Civil Ruling.

Therefore, neither party has the right to appeal against the court's decision to transfer jurisdiction ex officio. If there is any objection to the decision, the court may apply for objection to the jurisdiction of the transferred court.

2、 The court does not handle objections to jurisdiction and transfers them to jurisdiction ex officio - it is a procedural violation

Taking cases from judicial practice as an example. In the Su 1003 Min Zai No. 5 case (2020), the People's Court of Hanjiang District, Yangzhou City held that "since the defendant Huang had already raised objections to jurisdiction in the original trial, the retrial should first make a ruling on the objection to jurisdiction raised by Huang. The original ruling did not address the objection to jurisdiction raised by Huang, and was directly transferred ex officio. The procedure was inappropriate and should be revoked

In the case No. 136 of Shaanxi 01 Minzhi (2019), The Intermediate People's Court of Xi'an City believes that: The plaintiff Haimen Company sued the defendant Zhongxin Company for a dispute over the transfer contract of creditor's rights. After the People's Court of Chang'an District, Xi'an City filed and accepted the case on July 18, 2018, the defendant Zhongxin Company raised a jurisdictional objection during the defense period. The People's Court of Chang'an District, Xi'an City should review whether the defendant's jurisdictional objection request is valid. The court decided to transfer the case to the People's Court of Yanta District, Xi'an City without handling the defendant's jurisdictional objection request The practice does not comply with legal provisions and should be corrected

From the above cases, it can be seen that in practice, some courts issue rulings directly to refuse to handle jurisdictional objections and rule to transfer cases to other courts ex officio, which is procedural and illegal.

3、 The time limit for the court to transfer jurisdiction ex officio - if the procedure is met, the transfer of jurisdiction ex officio can only be carried out after the defendant's defense has expired and before the first instance hearing

Article 35 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "If a party fails to respond to the defense after the expiration of the defense period, and the people's court discovers before the first instance hearing that the case does not fall under its jurisdiction, it shall make a ruling to transfer it to the people's court with jurisdiction." Under the current provisions of the Civil Procedure Law, even if the court in question does not have jurisdiction over the case, On the premise of not violating the level of jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction, if the defendant responds before the expiration of the defendant's defense period, the court has jurisdiction over the case - responding jurisdiction, and the case should not be transferred again. After the first instance case is heard, based on the principles of procedural stability and economy, the case should not be transferred to other courts for jurisdiction.

If the court transfers jurisdiction before the expiration of the defendant's defense period or after the first instance hearing, it is also considered a procedural violation and should be corrected. As stated by the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in its (2016) Su 01 Min Zhi Zhong 604 Civil Ruling, "In this case, the original trial court directly ruled to transfer jurisdiction without effectively serving a copy of the complaint and response materials to the defendant, which is a legal error and should be corrected

The aforementioned (2016) Su 01 Min Zhi Zhong 604 Civil Ruling was made by the Nanjing Intermediate People's Court in 2016, prior to the Supreme People's Court's response to Recommendation No. 5785 of the Second Session of the 13th National People's Congress. Therefore, the parties were able to appeal the jurisdiction transfer ruling in accordance with their authority. If a court fails to handle the objection to jurisdiction and transfers it to jurisdiction ex officio, or transfers it to jurisdiction before the defendant's defense period expires or even after the first instance hearing, although it is a procedural violation, the parties still do not have the right to appeal to the ruling and can only apply for objection to jurisdiction from the transferred court.

Recently, the author came into contact with a case involving a court transferring jurisdiction ex officio. Zhang, who is domiciled in Tianjin, filed a lawsuit against Pan, who is domiciled in Gongyi, and two companies registered in Yinchuan, Ningxia. The cause of the lawsuit is a contract dispute. After the Gongyi Court filed the case, the defendant Pan submitted a jurisdictional objection application to the Gongyi Court, requesting the court to transfer the case to Xingqing District, Yinchuan City for jurisdiction, citing his habitual residence in Yinchuan City. The Gongyi City Court issued a ruling to transfer the case to the People's Court of Helan County, Yinchuan City. In this case, it is a procedural violation for the Gongyi Court to transfer jurisdiction to the Helan County Court without handling the objection to jurisdiction raised by the defendant. However, the transfer jurisdiction ruling of the Gongyi Court cannot be appealed. The plaintiff Zhang can apply for objection to the jurisdiction of the transferred court to safeguard his legitimate rights and interests, and can refer to the handling method in the (2019) Shaanxi 01 Minzhi 136 case.