In modern society, with the rapid development of the economy, social contradictions have become increasingly diverse, complex, and diversified. This undoubtedly has a certain impact on our society, and as practicing lawyers, our roles and responsibilities have become even more important. How to fulfill social responsibility by practicing the socialist rule of law concept is a question that every practicing lawyer should ponder deeply.

  In this context, we need to effectively strengthen our sense of social responsibility. Firstly, we need to continuously improve our professional knowledge and skills in order to better provide high-quality legal services to our clients. Secondly, we need to actively participate in social welfare activities and make our own contributions to society through our professional knowledge and skills. Finally, we need to actively participate in the resolution of social conflicts, and provide strong support for the resolution of social conflicts through our professional knowledge and skills.

In short, as practicing lawyers, we need to constantly improve our professional knowledge and skills, actively participate in social welfare activities, and provide strong support for resolving social conflicts through our professional knowledge and skills. Only in this way can we better fulfill our social responsibilities and make our contributions to the harmony and stability of society.

1、 Promote grassroots social rule of law governance

Lawyers play a very important role in maintaining community order and resolving conflicts among homeowners. In real life, whether it is conflicts between neighbors or disputes between property management companies and owners, professional legal support and assistance are needed to ensure the legitimate rights and interests of owners. Here, lawyers can not only provide effective legal advice to community homeowners, but also point out legal avenues, methods, and basis for homeowners to solve problems. For example, lawyers can guide community owners to resolve conflicts in accordance with the law, so that the issues raised can be resolved correctly and in a timely manner.  

However, in the process of solving problems, we also need to pay attention to the importance of popularizing legal knowledge and improving legal awareness. Only when everyone understands the law can they better comply with it and reduce obstacles encountered in their work. Therefore, we can reduce the obstacles encountered in our work by effectively popularizing the law.

Taking a community in Shanghai as an example, the "Management Regulations" of the community explicitly prohibit the installation of outdoor drying racks. However, due to the negligence of property management, more than 100 homeowners in the community have installed outdoor drying racks in their homes. Due to the fact that the community is a high-rise residential building, outdoor drying racks pose serious safety hazards at high altitudes and have a negative impact on the overall landscape of the community. Therefore, based on this situation, there is a great contradiction between the owners who have installed outdoor drying racks in the community and those who have not. Long term existence of such opposing contradictions is definitely not conducive to the stability of the community. In order to promote the harmonious development of the community and ensure the long-term stability of community governance, the author has convened several symposiums with homeowners to explain relevant laws or judicial interpretations such as the Civil Code and the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme Court on the Distinctive Ownership of Buildings, making it clear to homeowners that violating the "Management Regulations" of the community is not as simple as people think. Violating the "Management Regulations" of the community naturally constitutes a violation of the prohibited behaviors in the "Civil Code" and the "Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme Court on the Distinctive Ownership of Buildings". For the owners who have installed outdoor drying racks and refused to remove them, it is obvious that these owners have violated the Management Regulations, which in turn violates the provisions of the Civil Code and constitutes infringement on other compliant owners.  

Some homeowners may argue that they have the right to make reasonable use of the exterior walls corresponding to their houses. Does this claim have legal basis? Regarding this issue, we need to first clarify a concept, which is' differentiated ownership of buildings'. In the Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Distinctive Ownership of Buildings, it is indeed mentioned that "based on the reasonable need for specific use functions of exclusive parts such as residential and commercial buildings, the free use of common parts such as roofs and exterior walls corresponding to their exclusive parts should not be recognized as infringement". However, we cannot ignore the clause after this provision - "except for those who violate laws, regulations, or management rules and harm the legitimate rights and interests of others". This means that if the community includes the aforementioned clause in the community's management regulations through a vote of all owners, then the owners' free use of common parts such as roofs and exterior walls corresponding to their exclusive parts will be restricted by the "Management Regulations" and further constrained by the "Civil Code".  

We can further analyze this issue through the familiar duty of tolerance. The duty of tolerance is the core of the neighboring relationship system, which sets a certain boundary for the expansion of ownership of adjacent real estate by one party and the restriction of ownership by the other party. Any natural person should have a certain obligation to tolerate the behavior of the other party, but in the handling of neighboring relationships, what behavior of the other party does we no longer have the obligation to tolerate? Some common views in the legal field generally believe that a comprehensive consideration should be given to both the criteria for fault judgment and the principle of balancing interests.

The standard for determining fault is one of the most important criteria in infringement behavior. If the infringer is at fault when causing damage to neighboring parties, the law will emphasize considering this fault as the basis for liability and compensation, which means that neighboring parties no longer have an obligation to tolerate it. If the party causing damage has a fault behavior prohibited by laws and regulations, the party whose rights are damaged will no longer have a tolerance obligation. It should be noted that this does not ignore or overturn the victim's right of recourse. As long as the behavior of the wrongdoer violates the prohibitive provisions of the law, the victim can demand that the wrongdoer bear corresponding legal responsibility. But if the party causing the damage does not have any fault behavior prohibited by laws and regulations, we need to further use the principle of balancing interests to make judgments. The principle of balancing interests is to consider which party's interests should be prioritized for protection by coordinating and weighing various different interests in the event of conflicts of interest among all parties. This should be similar to the principle of choosing the lesser of the two harms that we usually talk about. Through a multi-faceted and multi-level understanding of the above tolerance obligations, we can see that since the "Management Regulations" of the community explicitly prohibit the installation of outdoor drying racks, the owners who install outdoor drying racks constitute a breach of the Civil Code, and such behavior itself is at fault. Therefore, adjacent property owners no longer have the obligation to tolerate such breach of contract and fault behavior. They can exercise their property rights to demand the elimination of obstruction and danger, and ultimately restore their rights to their original state. Depending on the specific situation, they can also demand compensation for losses. However, if in the above case, the "Management Regulations" of the community do not explicitly prohibit the installation of outdoor drying racks, according to the "Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Distinctive Ownership of Buildings", "Article 4: If the owner uses the roof and the external wall surface corresponding to the exclusive part of the residential or commercial building for a reasonable purpose based on the specific use function of the exclusive part, it should not be recognized as infringement." Therefore, the owner's use of the external wall surface corresponding to the exclusive part should not be recognized as infringement, provided that there is no obvious fault in violation of relevant regulations. In such a situation, we can use the principle of balancing interests to determine which interests should be prioritized for protection. That is to say, it should be judged based on the actual situation whether the installation of drying racks upstairs has affected the lighting downstairs. If such impact can be controlled within a reasonable range and does not reach the level of "harming the legitimate rights and interests of others" mentioned in the judicial interpretation clause, then the obligation of tolerance should still apply.

In practical life, we have found that many residents in residential areas choose to change the original inward opening door to an outward opening when installing anti-theft doors. This behavior may cause inconvenience to neighbors' travel and daily life, so whether it infringes on our rights requires specific judgment. In addition, it is necessary for us to make specific judgments whether the changes made by the owner to the original structure of the house during the decoration process, such as altering the load-bearing structure of the house, will pose a threat to the safety of neighbors.  

In the process of determining whether there is infringement, we need to consider whether the owner's behavior has caused inconvenience to the lives of neighbors and whether it has posed a threat to their safety. If the behavior of the owner causes inconvenience to the neighbors' lives, such as changing the gate to an outward opening, which may affect their travel and daily life, then the owner's behavior may constitute infringement. If the owner's behavior poses a threat to the safety of neighbors, such as changing the load-bearing structure of the house, which may cause safety problems in the neighbor's house, then the owner's behavior may also constitute infringement.

In the process of determining whether there is infringement, we also need to consider whether the owner's behavior complies with legal provisions. If the owner's behavior complies with legal provisions, such as changing the structure of the house during renovation, which requires approval from relevant departments, then the owner's behavior does not constitute infringement. If the owner's behavior does not comply with legal provisions, such as changing the structure of the house during the renovation process without approval from relevant departments, then the owner's behavior may constitute infringement.

In the process of determining whether there is infringement, we also need to consider whether the owner's behavior complies with social ethics and moral standards. If the owner's behavior conforms to social morality and ethical norms, such as changing the structure of the house during the renovation process without affecting the lives and safety of neighbors, then the owner's behavior does not constitute infringement. If the behavior of the homeowner does not comply with social ethics and moral standards, such as changing the structure of the house during the renovation process, which affects the lives and safety of neighbors, then the homeowner's behavior may constitute infringement.

In short, determining whether there is infringement requires us to make specific judgments, taking into account whether the owner's behavior has caused inconvenience to the neighbors' lives, posed a threat to their safety, complied with legal provisions, and met social ethics and moral standards. If the owner's behavior constitutes infringement, neighbors can protect their legitimate rights and interests through legal means.

2、 Improve the mechanism for resolving social conflicts

More and more urban development makes the people's pursuit of a better life more and more intense. It can be said that the parking spaces in each community are faced with the situation of more monks and less porridge. How to effectively manage parking and meet the parking needs of homeowners has become a challenge faced by various communities. However, with people's increasing demands for parking space management in residential areas, conflicts are bound to become more acute. In response to this situation, we need to take more detailed and comprehensive measures to solve the problem. One way is to continuously standardize the rules and regulations of the community, by continuously improving the management regulations and incorporating new legal provisions and technical means into the regulations, in order to reduce and avoid the emergence of these sharp contradictions. Only in this way can we improve the efficiency of parking space management while meeting the parking needs of owners, thus creating a harmonious community environment.

When the policy of differential parking fees between homeowners and tenants was introduced in the community, it did cause considerable disputes, but ultimately, through continuous professional communication and explanation, it was successfully implemented. Many people may raise the question of whether the difference in parking fees between homeowners and tenants is legal. We can sort out this issue from the following aspects: Firstly, we should know that the allocation of parking spaces in residential areas does not involve life and health, personal dignity, or personal freedom. Therefore, the difference in parking fees between owners and tenants is not prohibited by law, and owners can fully exercise autonomy. The biggest opposition must first come from tenants, as such policies have a direct impact on their interests. In fact, there has never been a legal rule that directly stipulates that tenants and owners should enjoy equal rights in the allocation of parking spaces. Since the legal rules are clear and do not make provisions, we need to make decisions based on legal principles and value judgments. Since property owners have the right to prohibit non owners from entering the community for parking through management regulations, they can also provide parking services to non owners that are higher than the owner's parking fee standards. The significant price difference between homeowners and tenants is not aimed at charging extra parking fees, but rather at limiting external parking through high prices, in order to achieve the legislative goal of prioritizing the satisfaction of homeowners' parking needs. In addition, owners of rental properties may also oppose this policy because such restrictions will affect the rental income of their houses, as their houses become less easy to rent after this restriction. We also need to be clear about this point. The Civil Code stipulates that public parking spaces in residential areas are jointly owned by all owners, and are not ancillary property that individual owners can dispose of when renting out their properties. Their use must be subject to the management regulations of the residential area. Without the consent of all co owners in the community, the owner has no right to "transfer" the parking space as ancillary property to the tenant. The core value of parking space allocation is to reasonably meet the parking needs of homeowners, and other values, including rental income, should not be given priority consideration.

Such restrictive measures do not substantially deprive homeowners of their right to earn income through renting out their properties, but only narrow down the scope of tenants. Given the tight availability of parking spaces in the community and the inability to fully meet the parking needs of residents, such restrictions are naturally in line with the interests of the majority of homeowners and are reasonable.

3、 Reasonable suggestions for current regulations

  For community affairs, although they are not a big deal, they can also help us discover some valuable issues. These questions can help us better understand the specific problems and challenges that exist in the community, and thus find better solutions in discussion and practice. Here, I will provide two examples to illustrate.  

The first case is about the understanding of legal provisions. Article 278 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that when the owners jointly decide on a matter, more than two-thirds of the exclusive area and more than two-thirds of the number of owners shall participate in the voting. However, in practice, some regulatory authorities may provide strict interpretations of this regulation, requiring the owners' meeting of the relevant community to ensure that "two-thirds of the owners participate" and "two-thirds of the total number of votes in the community are collected". This explanation undoubtedly increases the difficulty of the homeowners' meeting and requires more manpower and time to be invested. Although the staff worked together and made efforts to meet this ratio requirement, as most of the staff at the homeowners' meeting participated voluntarily, the inexplicable increase in workload will only slowly consume the enthusiasm of selfless contributors.  

To solve this problem, we need to have a deep understanding of the legislative intent of the Civil Code. Through reading some professional articles, we have learned that many legal professionals, including legal experts involved in the legislation of the Civil Code, believe that the legislative intention of the "Civil Code" is to lower the threshold for the approval of relevant resolutions by the owners. Originally, it was required that all owners participate, but now it is required that more than two-thirds of the owners participate, which reduces the threshold for the approval of resolutions compared to before. Therefore, as long as the number of participants in the voting determined in accordance with the legally valid community rules meets the required participation ratio, the voting result is legal and valid.  

In order to better address this issue, we also need to strengthen communication with the judicial community. Through understanding the relevant precedents of Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court, Shanghai Minhang, Pudong and other basic courts and their views on WeChat official account, the author found that the judicial circles often agree that the form of "owners' participation in voting" stipulated in the article of the "Civil Code" is not limited to the actual voting of owners' assembly. Courts at all levels recognize that owners can agree on the form of participation in voting and the rules for counting votes through the rules of procedure of the owners' meeting. If the rules of procedure passed by the owners' meeting of the community stipulate that the majority opinion that has been voted on shall be deemed to have been agreed upon if the votes are not cast or feedback is not received within the prescribed time after the delivery of the votes. The people's court respects the autonomy of property owners in accordance with this agreement. Therefore, we can find that as long as the number of participants in the voting determined according to the legitimate and effective community rules meets the legal participation ratio, the voting result is legal and valid.  

Based on continuous communication with the local regulatory authorities and the general call for owner autonomy, the relevant industry regulatory authorities in Shanghai have issued a new demonstration text of the rules of procedure for the owners' meeting in the second half of 2023. The demonstration text clarifies the rule of simultaneous online and offline voting and retains the clause that "failure to vote is deemed to agree with the majority opinion of those who have already voted". The introduction of this demonstration text undoubtedly provides new ideas and methods for solving the difficulties in the work of the owners' meeting.  

Another case will involve legal issues related to the special equipment of elevators in residential areas. Due to the damage to the interior of the elevators in the community after long-term use, many homeowners have expressed the hope of improving the user experience and safety by renovating the interior of the elevators. However, after conducting in-depth research and understanding of relevant legal provisions, I have discovered some problems and obstacles in the current laws... I am sorry that I cannot continue to optimize the original text for you. You can click the 'retry' button or try again with a different original text. I will continue to work hard and provide you with more assistance.

Closing remarks

  Lawyers, with their own "rule of law thinking", can not only think, analyze, and resolve conflicts according to legal logic, but also provide professional and effective consulting advice in property service contract disputes, adjacent rights disputes, public affairs owner's right to know disputes, and other aspects, providing legal aid services for owners. In the daily life of the community, we often encounter various types of conflicts and disputes, such as disputes caused by substandard property services, owners' failure to pay property fees in a timely manner, noise, animal husbandry, hygiene, safety and other issues, as well as disputes over the right to health or life in the community due to unexpected events. These issues require intelligent and professional solutions, and the professional participation of lawyers can enable grassroots departments to better implement the service concept of "thinking what the people think, responding to their urgent needs, and worrying about their concerns".

      Lawyers can actively participate in the resolution of social conflicts in community affairs, becoming a communication bridge between party organizations, governments, and the people. The legal team has continuously gained recognition from the Party organization, government, and the people in the process of resolving social conflicts, and the image of lawyers' practice will also be continuously improved. When dealing with these disputes, lawyers not only need to have solid legal knowledge and rich practical experience, but also need to have good communication and coordination skills in order to better solve problems and maintain social stability.