How to inquire about restricted exit?

application of exit restriction measures article 23 of the law of the people's Republic of China on the entry and exit of foreigners and article 8 of the law of the people's Republic of China on the entry and exit of foreigners stipulate that the people's court may decide on exit restriction measures for foreigners and China citizens who have unresolved civil and commercial cases in the mainland. The Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of National Security "Several Provisions on Restricting Foreigners and China Citizens from Leaving the Country according to Law" and the Supreme People's Court's "Answers on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Economic Disputes Involving Hong Kong and Macao" have stipulated the application of exit restriction measures. China's civil procedure law has not made specific provisions on exit restriction measures, and there are different understandings in practice whether it is property preservation or compulsory measures that hinder civil litigation. The author thinks that the exit restriction measures belong to the nature of behavior preservation, that is, the false punishment system in the civil law system, which is called prohibition in the common law system, and its purpose is to ensure the smooth execution of the judgment. Foreign legislation does not make special provisions on exit restriction measures, but it is stipulated in its civil procedure law as a prohibition system. The famous Mareva injunction in Britain is a distinctive pre-litigation preservation measure in the British judicial system. Its connotation is that the court, on the basis of the plaintiff's application, issues an injunction to prohibit the defendant from moving or handling funds/property until an effective judgment is made. The civil procedure in the United States has temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions. They are all applicable to the litigation stage before the judgment results are produced, and the purpose is to prevent the applicant from suffering irreparable losses. Chapter III of Part XV of France's new Code of Civil Procedure stipulates the system of false execution. Articles 514 and 515 of this law stipulate: an emergency trial ruling, a ruling stipulating false execution measures for ongoing litigation, a ruling ordering the adoption of preservation measures, and a ruling that the pre-trial preparation judge gives the creditor an advance payment. As long as the judge thinks that false execution is necessary and it is consistent with the nature of the case, if it is not prohibited by law, an order may be made at the request of the parties or ex officio. The German Civil Procedure Law stipulates the system of false seizure and false punishment in Chapter V of Part VIII, and stipulates its execution procedures, among which the false punishment system is similar to the prohibition system. If the status quo changes, the rights of the parties can not be realized, or it is difficult to realize, it is allowed to impose false punishment on the disputed subject matter. False punishment may be delivered to the custodian for safekeeping, or the other party may be ordered to do certain acts or prohibited from doing certain acts, in particular, it is prohibited to assign, burden or mortgage land, registered ships or ships under construction. In China's civil procedure law, there are only provisions on property preservation and pre-execution system, and the injunction system in the course of litigation can be found in separate laws and judicial interpretations, such as Article 23 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Entry and Exit of Foreigners and Article 8 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on Exit and Entry of China, and Chapter 4 of the Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates the maritime injunction system. The Supreme People's Court's Provisions on the Application of Law to Stop Infringement of Patent Right before Litigation and Interpretation on the Application of Law to Stop Infringement of the Exclusive Right to Use a Registered Trademark and Preserve Evidence before Litigation stipulate interim measures before litigation. The legislative purpose of injunction system is to effectively stop the occurrence of infringement. Therefore, the applicable conditions of the prohibition system in various countries' legislation are both positive and cautious. Once the ban is issued, the respondent's illegal production and business operations must stop. The court's actions to stop the infringement and maintain the status quo will soon achieve the established purpose, but if the wrong injunction is issued, the damage caused to the respondent will be irreparable, so the issuance of the injunction is conditional. According to the practice of Anglo-American legal system, the following criteria must be considered for prohibition: (1) Is there a serious dispute? Although the oath provided by the applicant is one-sided, the applicant's chances of losing the case should not be considered, but only the applicant's chances of winning the case should be considered. (2) Whether the damages are sufficient relief. Unless the money payment is still not enough for relief, and the infringement must be stopped to maintain the status quo, otherwise, it is not appropriate to issue an interim injunction. (3) Balance the fair interests of both parties. When deciding whether to adopt interlocutory injunction, the judge must always fully consider the damage it will bring to the defendant. The principle of measurement is that the application of temporary injunction will bring less disadvantage to the defendant than the non-application of intermediate injunction to the plaintiff. (4) Special factors. Based on the interests of the state and society, judges will also issue interlocutory injunctions, such as the protection of intellectual property rights in the TRIPS Agreement, which all reflect the legislative balance between private rights protection and social welfare. As a system in China's foreign-related civil and commercial litigation, the application of exit restriction is similar to that of foreign prohibition system, and it has been stipulated in some countries and regions with common law system and civil law system as an equally important preservation system. The injunction system in China's civil procedure has not been stipulated in the civil procedure law as an equally important preservation system as the property preservation system, but scattered in specific substantive law, special procedural law and individual judicial interpretations, such as the Law on the Entry and Exit of Chinese People and Foreigners, the Law on the Entry and Exit of Chinese People and Chinese People, Several Provisions on Restricting Foreigners and China Citizens from Leaving the Country according to Law, and the Supreme People's Court's Several Opinions on the Trial of Economic Disputes Involving Hong Kong and Macao. However, the above provisions are only in principle, and how to apply them, especially their applicable conditions, is still lacking in operability. The author believes that the application of exit restriction measures should meet the following conditions: (1) the applicant of exit restriction measures has the possibility of winning the case; (2) The respondent of exit restriction measures has no other property available for execution in mainland China. Generally speaking, if the foreign-invested enterprises established in China are insolvent, they should not take restrictive measures, but deal with them in accordance with the company law of China and the relevant laws and regulations of foreign-invested enterprises; (3) The application of exit restriction measures must be in an urgent situation. If this measure is not taken, the case may not be tried if the person or his legal representative or business supervisor leaves the country; (4) The application of exit restriction measures should be based on the application of the parties concerned, and a full and effective guarantee should be provided. This measure should be based on the application of the parties because of its nature of behavior preservation. The way to restrict exit measures is stipulated in Several Provisions on Restricting Foreigners and China Citizens from Leaving the Country according to Law, but the decision is taken by the people's court ex officio, and the measures to restrict exit belong to the category of prohibition and should be ruled. Measures to restrict exit shall be submitted to the people's court with jurisdiction, and the preservation fee shall be paid. The exit restriction measures involve the personal rights of the parties concerned, which will be potentially unfavorable or even unfavorable to the respondent compared with property preservation. Therefore, in view of the wrong measures, the respondent should have corresponding remedies. Articles 92 and 96 of China's Civil Procedure Law stipulate that the people's court may order the applicant to provide a guarantee by taking property preservation measures; If the applicant fails to provide guarantee, the application shall be rejected. If the application is wrong, the applicant shall compensate the respondent for the losses suffered by the property preservation. The author believes that the issuance of exit restriction measures should be stricter than property preservation. Generally speaking, the people's court's intervention without authority must be based on the applicant's application, and the applicant must provide a guarantee. The amount of guarantee shall be limited to the loss or damage that the respondent may suffer. The people's court shall make a ruling to restrict the exit of the country and put it into practice. The people's court shall examine the applicant's application. If it meets the requirements after examination, the people's court shall make a written ruling ordering the respondent not to leave the country, and detain his identity card or passport, indicating the reasons for not leaving the country. If the license of the person who is restricted from leaving the country cannot be seized, and it is necessary to prevent him from leaving the country at the frontier inspection station, he should fill out the Notice of Persons Stopped at the Port with a civil ruling in accordance with the provisions of Several Provisions on Restricting Foreigners and China Citizens from Leaving the Country according to Law, and deliver it to the public security and frontier defense organs for control. The effectiveness of the ruling on exit restriction shall generally be maintained until the legal document of final appeal takes effect.