China News Service, August 6, According to the Supreme Procuratorate website, in the first half of this year, procuratorial organs across the country promoted the substantive resolution of 2,916 administrative disputes.
On August 6, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate issued "Procuratorate for the private sector"-a series of typical cases of administrative procuratorial work with the people (the first batch), in order to guide the national procuratorial organs to deepen the substantive resolution of administrative disputes as the lead , Normally resolve people's worries and solve problems.
The typical cases released this time include supervision cases regarding administrative compensation, such as Tang v. Food and Drug Administration of a certain city in Hebei Province, confirming the inspection and supervision of illegal seizures; there are supervision cases regarding government information disclosure, such as Ni v. Zhejiang Province Government Information Disclosure Inspection and Supervision Case by the Cultural Heritage Bureau; there are supervision cases in the field of work injury identification and compensation, such as Yang Xiaomou and other four persons suing a certain city Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Anhui Province for work injury identification inspection and supervision cases; there are supervision cases for protecting the private economy, such as A Shandong Machinery Co., Ltd. Environmental violation administrative non-litigation enforcement procuratorial supervision case, etc.
This batch of typical cases focuses on the issues that the masses are desperate for, insisting on the goal of closing the case and reconciliation, taking the resolution of administrative disputes as a necessary procedure for reviewing administrative litigation and supervision cases, and comprehensively applying supervision and correction, promoting peace with resistance, and interpreting the law. , Judicial assistance, etc., to promote the substantive resolution of administrative disputes.
Zhang Xiangjun, director of the Seventh Prosecutor’s Office of the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, stated that in the next step, procuratorial organs will continue to strengthen the regular notification and performance evaluation of administrative procuratorial work, and implement the “three investigations in one case” (that is, to check whether the court’s administrative effective judgment is accurate, trial and execution Whether the activities are legal; second, check whether the administrative actions of administrative agencies are legal; third, check whether there is a possibility of substantively resolving administrative disputes); strengthen supervision of cases, supervise the prevention and correction of first-class problems, and help modernize the national governance system and governance capabilities.
Strengthen the construction of standardization, accelerate the formulation and promulgation of guidelines for the substantive resolution of administrative disputes by procuratorial organs, and proactively integrate multiple prevention and resolution mechanisms for conflicts and disputes.
In the first half of this year, procuratorial organs across the country promoted the substantive resolution of administrative disputes in 2,916 cases, including 413 cases involving “six stability” and “six guarantees” in service guarantee; 31% of the cases were resolved by the leadership package, and 567 public hearings were organized; There were 58 cases of judicial assistance, and the amount of assistance was more than 720,000 yuan; 180 cases of administrative disputes over 10 years were resolved, 28 of which were administrative disputes over 20 years.
The specific cases are as follows:
Case of Tang v. Food and Drug Administration of a certain city in Hebei Province for confirmation of the procuratorial supervision of illegal seizures
【Basic case】
Tang and Yan have a mother-child relationship, and Yan is a sales clerk in a Beijing pharmaceutical company.
On August 19, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration of a certain city in Hebei Province (hereinafter referred to as the Food and Drug Administration) decided to investigate the case of Yan (deceased) suspected of dealing in drugs without a "Drug Distribution License" and decided to detain Medicines and related items held by Yan.
On December 16, 2014, the Food and Drug Administration of a certain city decided to withdraw the case of Yan Mou suspected of dealing in drugs without a "Drug Distribution License", but the drugs and related items involved have been detained.
On July 7, 2015, Tang brought a lawsuit to the court, requesting confirmation that a certain municipal Food and Drug Administration violated the administrative punishment procedure for his son Yan, revoking the seizure decision letter and returning the seized items.
The court of first instance confirmed that a certain city’s Food and Drug Administration continued to seize drugs and related articles as illegal since December 16, 2014, and ordered the drugs and related articles to be returned within 15 days from the effective date of the judgment.
The Food and Drug Administration of a certain city refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal.
The Intermediate People's Court of a certain city in Hebei Province considered that Tang's prosecution exceeded the legal period for prosecution, and ruled to revoke the first-instance judgment and dismissed Tang's prosecution.
Tang was dissatisfied and applied to the Hebei Higher People's Court for a retrial.
The Higher People's Court of Hebei Province ordered the Intermediate People's Court of a certain city to retrial, and the court retrial ruled to maintain the administrative ruling of the second instance.
Tang refused to accept the retrial ruling and applied to the People's Procuratorate of a certain city in Hebei Province for supervision.
【Supervision by procuratorial organs】
The People's Procuratorate of a certain city in Hebei Province accepted it according to law, and after review, it was found that the application of the law in the retrial administrative ruling of the case was wrong, and the People's Procuratorate of Hebei Province filed a protest.
The People’s Procuratorate of Hebei Province found after review that the Intermediate People’s Court of a certain city only calculated the litigation period of the parties based on the date of inscription and service of the seizure decision, and found that the administrative litigation initiated by Tang has exceeded the statutory litigation period, which is an error in the application of the law; After a certain city’s Food and Drug Administration dismissed the case of Yan’s suspected of operating drugs without a "Drug Business License", continuing to detain the drugs and related articles involved in the case was a procedural violation. Tang’s lawsuit against the illegal administrative act complied with the law, and the court determined It is inappropriate for Tang to file an administrative lawsuit exceeding the statutory time limit for lawsuit.
On April 12, 2021, the People's Procuratorate of Hebei Province filed a protest to the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province.
The seized goods in this case were medicines. Even if the court changed the judgment and returned the medicines, the medicines had expired and could not resolve the applicant's substantive claims for administrative compensation. Therefore, the procuratorial organs continued to promote the substantive resolution of administrative disputes during the review period.
The three-level people’s procuratorates of Hebei Province, a city and a county-level city handle cases in an integrated manner, and the provincial people’s procuratorate strengthens guidance. The case handlers of the people’s procuratorates at the city and county levels organize multiple case analysis and discussion on the basis of investigation and verification to fully grasp the administrative case. The background and causes of the formation of disputes, to find a breakthrough in the substantive resolution of administrative disputes.
After learning that a certain city's Food and Drug Administration had merged into the Market Supervision Administration due to institutional reforms, the case-handling personnel went to the Market Supervision Administration to listen to the opinions of the person in charge of the bureau and understand the ideological concerns and practical difficulties faced by the administrative agency.
Considering that Tang is 89 years old, he is a veteran party member who joined the party in the 1950s. In order to relieve his negative emotions, the investigators have gone to Tang's house many times to talk about the case instead of standing in Tang's home. From a certain point of view, I invited the staff of Tang's residence office and the Bureau of Letters and Calls to find a solution to the case.
After months of unremitting efforts, the conflicts between the two parties were finally eliminated, and the parties to face-to-face communication were facilitated. The contradictions and differences were gradually eliminated, and the compensation plan was basically agreed.
On May 27, 2021, the third-level procuratorate of Hebei Province organized a public hearing on the resolution of administrative disputes. Under the witness of the people’s supervisors, lawyers, offices and staff of the Bureau of Letters and Calls, both parties signed a settlement agreement. The seizure of drugs and related items commissioned an evaluation of the price and compensation standard, and paid Tang 600,000 yuan.
Tang withdrew the supervision application to the procuratorial organ on the spot.
The People's Procuratorate of Hebei Province withdrew the protest according to law and terminated the review.
【Typical Significance】
The People’s Procuratorate closely integrated the ongoing party history study and education and the political and legal team education and rectification, and actively carried out the "Prosecutors do practical things for the private" practice activities, and worked hard to solve the people's worries, worries, and worries; the third-level procuratorates fully Give full play to the advantages of integrated case handling to form a joint force for resolving administrative disputes; case handling personnel dare to take responsibility, accurately supervise, successfully resolve disputes, realize the settlement of the case and the political harmony, the organic unity of the "three effects", and effectively promote social harmony and stability.
Ni XX v. Zhejiang Provincial Administration of Cultural Heritage
【Basic case】
In July 2017, Ni's village determined a farm house renovation plan, and he was resettled to a plot near the village's middle school.
In January 2018, the site was surveyed by the Zhejiang Institute of Archaeology. It belongs to the site of a certain ancient city. It has important historical value and needs to be developed and protected in time. Therefore, the construction of Ni's resettlement house cannot be carried out and needs to be resettled separately.
Ni XX then applied to the Zhejiang Provincial Bureau of Cultural Relics for government information disclosure, requesting disclosure of the basis for the exploration of cultural relics and the confirmation of cultural relics on the plot involved in the case.
Because of doubts about the content of the public information, Ni filed a lawsuit with the people's court, but the court ruled to reject the lawsuit because the time limit for the lawsuit was exceeded.
Later the application for retrial was also rejected.
In November 2020, Ni applied to the People's Procuratorate of the former Xiacheng District of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province (now the People's Procuratorate of Gongshu District) for supervision.
【Supervision by procuratorial organs】
The original Xiacheng District People’s Procuratorate found after review that it was not inappropriate for the court to dismiss the prosecution on the grounds of exceeding the time limit for prosecution, and the procuratorate should not support Ni's application for supervision.
However, after investigation and verification, it was learned that Ni's resettlement housing has not been implemented for a long time, and the legal rights of resettlement and construction have not been protected. A family of four lives in a crowded and dilapidated old house. The administrative dispute in this case has not been substantially resolved. The development and protection of a certain ancient city site on the plot involved has also been blocked.
In order to better promote the resolution of administrative disputes in this case, help applicants implement the resettlement and construction procedures as soon as possible, and promote the development and protection of a certain ancient city site, the former Xiacheng District People’s Procuratorate established the chief prosecutor as the lead prosecutor’s case handling team and rushed to the local area for investigation and verification. Check the situation of a certain old city site on the spot, learn about the specific situation from the applicant, local village officials, and staff of relevant functional departments, and find out that the applicant’s substantive demand is to realize the “implementation of resettlement and construction of houses as soon as possible” and “require the government to treat certain old city sites” The archaeological work makes a statement and promises that it will not be used for commercial development".
On March 30, 2021, the former People’s Procuratorate of Xiacheng District held a public hearing, inviting deputies to the National People’s Congress, CPPCC members, cultural relics experts, law professors, and grass-roots representatives to serve as hearing members to discuss whether Ni’s original resettlement housing plot is indeed the cause Hearings were held on three key issues: whether the site of a certain old city site needs to be relocated for archaeological needs, whether the site will be used for other purposes besides cultural relic protection, and whether the construction of Ni's current resettlement house can be guaranteed.
At the hearing, the cultural relics department explained the historical value, development situation and follow-up planning of a certain ancient city site. The relevant administrative agency proposed a resettlement and construction plan, and promised to go through relevant procedures in time for it to settle and build a house as soon as possible.
Ni Moumou accepted and was willing to stop the appeal and sign the letter of commitment on the spot.
【Typical Significance】
The People’s Procuratorate handles administrative litigation supervision cases in which the People’s Court ruled to dismiss the prosecution. It cannot simply decide to close the case by not supporting the application for supervision. It should proceed from the substantive demands of the parties to resolve administrative disputes. In the supervision and handling of the case, it should do a good job for the people and do good deeds. .
When a public hearing is held, the procuratorial organ selects hearing officers based on the specific circumstances of the case, carries out multi-dimensional interpretations and popularization of the law, consolidates joint efforts to resolve disputes, and facilitates the settlement of the case.
Four persons including Yang Xiaomou sued a certain city Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Anhui Province for the procuratorial supervision of work-related injuries
【Basic case】
Yang is the deputy principal of a school.
On November 25, 2016, Yang accidentally fell down while riding a battery car on the way to work due to a slippery road behind snow, causing multiple injuries to the head and hands, and died after the rescue failed.
On December 23, a school applied to the Municipal Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security for a work-related injury determination for Yang according to law.
On February 8, 2017, the local police station issued a certificate stating that due to the destruction of the scene, a school was unable to provide relevant information to entrust the traffic police department to analyze the causes of non-road traffic accidents.
On December 26, the Municipal Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security issued the "Decision Not to Recognize Work Injury".
Yang's parents Yang Mobin, Zhao Mozhen, his wife Han and his son Yang Xiaomo (hereinafter referred to as Yang Xiaomo and other four people) refused to accept and filed an administrative lawsuit.
On October 23, 2018, the court of first instance made an administrative judgment that the Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau accepted a school’s application for the determination of Yang’s work injury. It only made a decision not to grant work injury determination on the grounds that it did not submit a traffic accident determination certificate, lacking facts, According to the legal basis, the ruling revoked the administrative act that did not recognize the work injury decision.
The Municipal Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security refused to accept the judgment of the first instance and filed an appeal. The Municipal Intermediate People's Court ruled that the case should be sent back for a retrial.
The retrial judgment of a district people’s court held that Article 1 of the Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases of Industrial Injury Insurance stipulated that the People’s Court tried to determine whether an administrative case of industrial injury was determined in the process of determining whether there is any (6) In the case of “main responsibility of the person” and other circumstances, it shall be based on legal documents such as the accident liability confirmation issued by the competent authority, the concluding opinions, and the effective judgment of the people’s court.
The traffic police department did not determine the responsibility for the accident, and the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau believed that Yang’s injury should not be considered a work injury and it was not inappropriate.
Yang Xiaomou and other four people refused to accept the appeal, and their application for retrial was rejected.
In January 2021, Yang Xiaomou and other four people applied to the People's Procuratorate of Fuyang City, Anhui Province for supervision.
【Supervision by procuratorial organs】
The Fuyang City People’s Procuratorate found that, based on the existing evidence, the Municipal Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security did not improperly determine Yang’s decision to not recognize a work-related injury.
At the same time, it was learned through interviews that Yang Xiaomou and other four people insisted on litigation for many years and spent a lot of money. Yang Xiaomou was Yang's only son. He was injured in the waist due to training during the military service. As the backbone of the family's economy, his sudden death put his family in trouble.
In view of this, the procuratorial organs carried out the following tasks in a targeted manner before making a decision not to support the application for supervision: First, to explain the law in person many times, patiently answer the applicant’s doubts and incomprehensions about the law, and explain to him the work-related injury identification. The statutory conditions allow it to rationally treat the decisions made by the Municipal Bureau of Human Resources and Social Security; the second is to organize public hearings to provide applicants with a platform to fully express their opinions, and at the same time invite and listen to the opinions of the people’s supervisors on the case, so that the applicants are Really feel the openness and transparency of the procuratorial organs and the fairness and justice of the law; the third is to actively coordinate judicial assistance, granting applicants 80,000 yuan in assistance, so that the parties can feel the warmth and care of justice.
In April 2021, the procuratorial organ made a decision not to support the application for supervision. Yang Xiaomou and other four people expressed their acceptance and signed a letter of commitment to dismiss the litigation, and the five-year administrative dispute was substantively resolved.
【Typical Significance】
For administrative litigation supervision cases that do not support the applicant's application for supervision, the procuratorial organ should make good use of interpretations, increase the understanding and recognition of the parties, open their minds, and promote the resolution of disputes; make good use of public hearings to make the applicants "worry trouble" "To make it clear, the hearing officer is asked to clarify the truth, and the prosecutor will clarify the law thoroughly, so that the parties can feel fairness and justice in a visible way, and resolve the parties' knots.
The procuratorial organs should fully consider the special circumstances of the parties concerned, put themselves into consideration the actual difficulties of the parties concerned, and use judicial assistance to let the parties feel the temperature of justice.
Environmental violation administrative non-litigation enforcement procuratorial supervision case of a Shandong Machinery Co., Ltd.
【Basic case】
On April 12, 2019, the Laixi City Ecological Environment Bureau of Shandong Province found that the environmental protection facilities required for the production and processing of livestock equipment of a Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the mechanical company) had not been accepted, and the construction project was put into production, which violated the relevant regulations. Regulation.
On May 15, 2019, the Eco-Environmental Bureau delivered the "Advance Notice of Administrative Penalty (Hearing)" to the company, and imposed a fine of RMB 200,000 on the same day. If the fine is not paid within the time limit, the penalty will be 3% of the fine per day. The administrative penalty decision of the sub-section, and served to the company.
On the same day, the machinery company applied for an extension of three months to pay the fine, and the Municipal Ecological Environment Bureau agreed to postpone the payment.
After the expiration of the time limit, the machinery company still failed to implement the penalty decision.
On November 27 of the same year, the Municipal Bureau of Ecology and Environment issued an "Advance Notice for Administrative Enforcement" to the company, requesting to perform the obligation to pay a fine of RMB 200,000 and an additional fine of RMB 200,000, which the machinery company failed to fulfill.
On February 12, 2020, the Municipal Ecological Environment Bureau applied to the city’s people’s court for compulsory execution.
The Municipal People's Court issued an administrative ruling on February 19 to approve the enforcement and took measures to restrict consumption of the enterprise.
In September 2020, the Machinery Company filed an application for supervision with the Laixi City People’s Procuratorate in Shandong Province on the grounds that the administrative penalty decision was illegal and the court's execution of the ruling was wrong.
【Supervision by procuratorial organs】
The People’s Procuratorate of Laixi City, Shandong Province investigated and verified the focus of controversial issues such as the administrative penalty decision, the legality of the administrative ruling, and the factual and legal basis for additional fines. Understand the basic situation of the case; visited the machinery company, inspected the production workshop on the spot, consulted the company's order contract, environmental protection facility acceptance certificate and other work materials, and understood the company's rectification of illegal situations and production and operation status; organized both parties, people's supervisors, and implementation The public hearings attended by judges further clarified the focus of controversy, solicited opinions widely, and worked hard to reach consensus.
After investigation and verification and public hearings, the procuratorial agency believed that the administrative agency failed to fully protect the parties’ hearing rights and other rights in the process of making administrative punishment decisions, and there were certain procedural flaws.
However, because the machinery company did not file an administrative reconsideration or administrative lawsuit, the administrative penalty decision has become legally effective.
On the basis of supervising and standardizing administrative penalties, comprehensively considering that the machinery company has effectively rectified the illegal situation and passed the inspection, and the operating difficulties affected by the epidemic, etc., according to the service guarantee "six stability", "six guarantees" and the policy requirements of the private economy , Such enterprises should be protected.
To this end, the Laixi City People’s Procuratorate issued procuratorial recommendations to the Municipal Ecological Environment Bureau in accordance with the law, suggesting that procedural issues in the process of administrative law enforcement should be further standardized to fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties; at the same time, according to the Administrative Coercive Law, "If the parties take remedial measures, Additional fines or late fees can be reduced or exempted” and “administrative agencies may reach an enforcement agreement with the parties without prejudice to the public interest and the legitimate rights and interests of others”. It is recommended that the additional fines imposed on the company be reduced or exempted in accordance with the law.
The Municipal Ecological Environment Bureau adopted the procuratorial recommendations and reached an implementation settlement agreement with the machinery company. The machinery company paid a fine of 200,000 yuan in the administrative penalty decision. The Municipal Ecological Environment Bureau exempted the company from imposing an additional fine of 200,000 yuan and withdrew it to the court at the same time In order to enforce the application, the court lifted the consumption restriction order against the company.
At present, the machinery company has entered a rapid development track, building more than 3,100 square meters of new workshops, adding 10 new jobs, newly signed contracts increased by 50% year-on-year, and paid more than 3 million yuan in national taxes.
Since the beginning of this year, the Laixi City People's Procuratorate has handled this case as a practical model, and conducted case-by-case review of other enterprise-related cases in accordance with the principle of "one case, one policy".
At present, the relevant administrative law enforcement agencies have reached an implementation settlement agreement with two companies to minimize the burden on the company, which has been well received by the company.
【Typical Significance】
The People’s Procuratorate should firmly establish a people-centered concept, give full play to the role of administrative non-litigation enforcement supervision functions, and adopt diversified resolution methods to facilitate the substantive resolution of administrative disputes, and accurately help maximize the effect of serving private enterprises. Actively implement the goal of letting enterprises "survive", "retain" and "operate well", through solid case-handling results, handling cases around the masses with heart and soul, and continuously enhancing the sense of acquisition of private enterprises, and striving to make procuratorial work for the people Do good things and do good things.