Applicants who apply for disclosure of government information frequently exceed a reasonable range and need to pay
Abuse of application rights is expected to be curbed
● If the amount and frequency of the applicant's application for disclosure of government information clearly exceed the reasonable range, the administrative agency may charge information processing fees
● "Administrative Measures for Information Processing Fees for Government Information Disclosure" has made clear and systematic regulations on the information processing fee collection procedures, charging methods and related regulatory mechanisms, and organically connects with the government information disclosure application processing procedures to form a closed loop of work
● Government information is a public product, with scarce resources, and disorderly use will make it difficult for the government to afford it.
Appropriate fees are in line with the principle of who benefits and who bears the burden. It also helps avoid waste of administrative costs and curb abuse of the right to apply
□ Our reporter Wan Jing
On December 1, the General Office of the State Council officially issued the "Administrative Measures for the Processing Fees for Government Information Disclosure" (hereinafter referred to as the "Administrative Measures"), which clearly stated that in order to effectively regulate government information disclosure application behavior and guide applicants to reasonably exercise their rights, apply Applicants who disclose government information beyond a certain amount or frequency range are charged information processing fees.
The information processing fee can be calculated on a piece-by-piece basis or on a volume basis, and the charge amount is calculated in a progressive manner.
The "Management Measures" will be formally implemented from January 1 next year.
What is the background of the "Management Measures"?
What is the basic positioning of application information fees?
What significance does it have for my country's government information disclosure system?
Regarding these issues, a reporter from the Rule of Law Daily interviewed the relevant persons in charge of the Information Disclosure Office of the General Office of the State Council and well-known experts in the legal field.
Guide and standardize application behavior
Avoid abuse of rights
"The "Administrative Measures" is issued to standardize and guide the public to better exercise the statutory rights of government information disclosure, and to maintain the work order of administrative agencies. It only addresses individual extreme situations, and the normal applications of most applicants will not be affected." The relevant person in charge of the Open Office told reporters this way.
It is understood that the “Administrative Measures” issued by the Office of the State Council this time is not to establish new charging items to increase government revenue, but to establish a system of adjustment methods to effectively guide the Standardize government information disclosure application behaviors, satisfy reasonable and legal requirements to the greatest extent, and limit unreasonable and illegal requests.
Since the first government information disclosure regulations came into effect on May 1, 2008, my country's government information disclosure system has achieved world-renowned achievements.
Especially in recent years, the scope and depth of government agencies’ initiative to disclose information has continued to expand, and the effectiveness of government transparency has shown a leap forward, which not only promotes the overall improvement of government governance capabilities, but also better exercises the public’s right to know, participate, and express The power of supervision provides institutional guarantees and plays an irreplaceable role in the modernization of the national governance system and governance capabilities.
With the smooth implementation of the government information disclosure system, in practice, there have also been a small number of applicants who used government information disclosure applications as the grounds to achieve other personal purposes unrelated to information disclosure, which interfered with the normal work order of administrative agencies and judicial agencies. This kind of abuse of the right to apply for government information disclosure is inconsistent with the original intention of the government information disclosure system.
According to the information disclosed by the Information Disclosure Office, individual applicants filed hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of government information disclosure applications for website domain name management, house demolition, environmental protection, land acquisition, etc., which seriously affected administrative agencies. Normal working order.
Similarly, the abuse of the right to apply for government information disclosure has also attracted widespread attention and research in the legal field.
Researcher Zhou Hanhua, the deputy director of the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences who participated in the drafting of the first regulation on open government information, introduced that in practice, the abuse of the right to apply for open government information is manifested by a very small number of parties deliberately multiplying, multiplying, and multiplying. Sometimes dozens or even hundreds of people filed the same application against the same agency and filed separate suits in the court after receiving a reply. Some people also deliberately filed suits at different time periods.
Some applicants used the mentality of a few administrative agencies to be afraid of trouble, to be defendants, and to lose the lawsuit, deliberately applying for a large number of government information disclosures or requesting policy consultation to put pressure on the administrative agencies in order to obtain illegitimate benefits.
Some applicants intend to solve the problem, because of the long history, the statutory time limit has expired, and they cannot enter the reconsideration and litigation procedures, so they filed government information disclosure applications, hoping to enter the reconsideration and litigation procedures.
Some applicants have obtained the government information they applied for through litigation or other channels, but still filed public applications and initiated litigation procedures.
Implement uniform charging standards
Improve the system of open government affairs
The revised Government Information Disclosure Regulations officially implemented on May 15, 2019 stipulate that administrative agencies provide government information upon application without charging fees.
However, if the amount and frequency of the applicant's application for disclosure of government information clearly exceed the reasonable range, the administrative agency may charge an information processing fee.
The specific measures for the collection of information processing fees by administrative agencies shall be formulated by the competent pricing department of the State Council in conjunction with the financial department of the State Council and the national government information disclosure department.
"The newly revised regulations are based on China’s actual conditions, draws on relevant international experience, and establishes the collection of information processing fees as a necessary adjustment method on the basis of the relevant charging provisions of the original regulations. Therefore, the formulation of the "Administrative Measures" is to improve the supporting government information regulations. Necessary measures for the system.” The relevant person in charge said.
It is understood that during the drafting and formulation of the "Administrative Measures", relevant parties have carefully analyzed and summarized the current situation and problems of the disclosure of government information in our country according to applications, especially the phenomenon of applicants abusing the right to apply, and appropriately learned from the experience and practices of relevant foreign countries. Combined with the level of China's economic and social development, a comprehensive summary of the implementation of government information charging regulations formulated by the Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of Finance in 2008 was made to determine the basic positioning of the "Administrative Measures" and the basic standards of information processing fees.
In the meantime, the Supreme Law, the Ministry of Justice, the Chinese Law Society and other units were invited to fully demonstrate and solicit opinions from 93 units including various local departments and relevant central ministries and commissions.
According to the "Administrative Measures", information processing fees can be calculated on a piece-by-piece basis or on a volume basis, and the charge amount is calculated in a progressive manner.
The administrative agency may choose to apply one of these criteria to each application based on actual conditions, but shall not double-calculate according to both criteria at the same time.
The following charging standards shall be implemented on a piece-by-piece basis: if the same applicant accumulates less than 10 applications (including 10) in a natural month, no charge; the same applicant accumulates 11-30 applications (including 30) in a natural month 100 yuan/piece for the part of the same applicant; for the part of 31 or more applications for the same applicant in a natural month, 10 pieces are used as a grade, and the fee will be increased by 100 yuan/piece for each additional grade.
The following charging standards shall be implemented according to the quantity: no charge for less than 30 pages (including 30 pages); 10 yuan per page for parts of 31-100 pages (including 100 pages); parts of 101-200 pages (including 200 pages) 20 yuan per page; 40 yuan per page for the part above 201 pages.
According to reports, previously, the charging standards varied in various regions and the charging methods were not very operable. Some administrative agencies were inaccurate in the determination of "the number and frequency of government information applications exceeded a reasonable range", which was not conducive to protecting the legitimate rights and interests of applicants. It is also easy to cause unnecessary administrative disputes.
The "Administrative Measures" uniformly stipulate the charging standards, which can standardize and guide applicants, and can also regulate and restrict administrative agencies.
Pay corresponding fees on time
Late application is deemed to have been abandoned
The "Administrative Measures" have made clear and systematic regulations on the collection procedures, charging methods, and related regulatory mechanisms of information processing fees, and they are organically connected with the government information disclosure application processing procedures to form a closed loop of work.
For example, Article 6 of the "Administrative Measures" stipulates that if an administrative agency decides to charge information processing fees in accordance with the law, it shall issue a fee notice to the applicant according to the information obtained by the applicant within the processing time limit of the government information disclosure application, stating the basis, Standard, amount, payment method, etc.
The applicant shall pay the fee within 20 working days from the day after receiving the notification of the fee. If the fee is not paid within the time limit, the application shall be deemed to have been abandoned, and the administrative agency will no longer process the application for government information disclosure.
Regarding the charging method, the "Administrative Measures" stipulates that the information processing fees collected by administrative agencies are administrative fees, which shall be included in the general public budget management in accordance with the government's non-tax revenue and the centralized treasury collection management regulations, and shall be paid in full and in time to the same level of the treasury.
The specific collection method shall be implemented in accordance with the relevant regulations of the financial department of the government at the same level.
"At present, most places can realize online payment and offline bank branch payment, and the operability of charging methods has been greatly enhanced." The relevant person in charge introduced.
In addition, if the applicant disagrees with the decision to collect information processing fees, he cannot apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit on the decision alone. After the expiration of the payment period, the administrative agency can no longer process its government information disclosure application. According to Article 51 of the Regulations on Disclosure of Government Information, complaints or reports to the next higher administrative agency or the competent department of government information disclosure, or application for administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation according to law.
Where laws and administrative regulations provide otherwise, those provisions shall prevail.
During the interview, Professor Wang Jingbo, member of the Standing Committee of the Party Committee and Vice President of the University of International Business and Economics, analyzed and pointed out that government information is a public product with scarce resources, and disorderly use will make the government's finances unaffordable.
Considering the issue of the cost and necessity of disclosure, not all information requires the government to actively disclose it.
If some information is disclosed based on the application, there will be costs and charges for disclosing the information based on the application.
Therefore, it is an international practice to openly implement a fee system upon application.
Lu Yanbin, a researcher at the Institute of Law of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, believes that the government information disclosure regulations implemented in 2008 stipulated the content of information charges. However, due to the cumbersome procedures in the later period, in fact, there are very few examples of citizens applying for disclosure of fees, which has not been effective.
Appropriate fees conform to the principle of who benefits and who bears the burden. It also helps to avoid waste of administrative costs, because in practice, some applications do have the problem of excessive occupation of administrative resources.
Therefore, a moderate fee is beneficial to curb the abuse of the right to apply.
Make good use of policy guidance functions
Don't overcorrect
The "Administrative Measures" emphasized that it is necessary to restrict the abuse of the right to apply for government information disclosure, and is an adjustment method to improve the government information disclosure system.
So, how should the "Management Measures" take root?
To what extent can it play a role in solving the problems and phenomena of a few people abusing the right to apply?
In this regard, Lu Yanbin believes that in actual operations, special attention should be paid to prevent charges from improperly restricting reasonable application of government information. For parties with a large number of applications, they should also distinguish their application purposes, uses, and whether the information applied for is of public interest. Nature, or whether it promotes the public interest of society.
For example, some information disclosed upon application can actually be voluntarily disclosed after being reviewed. Then, for these applications, there should be no charge even if the amount is large.
Are there any special regulations for such issues?
At the same time, the charging procedures should not be too complicated. It is not possible to excessively extend the reply period of government information disclosure due to charges and payment, and even prevent individual agencies from evading the 20 working day reply period by charging fees.
Wang Jingbo believes that the "Management Measures" issued by the State Council is very positive and has a certain function of policy guidance. For those who use information disclosure applications as a means of profit in order to seek illegitimate interests, it can be regulated to a certain extent. effect.
However, the information charging system is not a panacea. To fundamentally solve the problem of abuse of the right to apply for government information disclosure, it must not be solved solely by charging.
Because the abuse of the right to apply for information disclosure involves many complex social issues and various conflicts and disputes, they are only manifested through government information disclosure.
"What needs to be emphasized is that the government information disclosure system must not be excessively consumed. It is necessary to return to the scientific and rational understanding of the system itself. The government information disclosure system must not be overloaded with its functions. It cannot fully undertake to resolve social contradictions, especially The functions of some social contradictions have been accumulated over a long period of time. The government information disclosure system itself is to satisfy the democratic political rights of citizens such as the right to know, participate, and supervise." Wang Jingbo said.