China News Service, March 21. According to the Supreme People's Court's WeChat public account, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases" and reference cases on the 21st.
The reference case is as follows:
References
content
1. Ma Moumou v. a district people's government for administrative compensation
2. Yang Moumou v. a district people's government for administrative compensation
3. Li Moumou v. a county people's government and the county forestry bureau for forestry administrative compensation
4. Fan Moumou sued a district people's government for forced demolition of houses and administrative compensation
5. Yi Moumou sued a district people's government for administrative compensation for forced demolition of houses
6. Li Moumou v. a district people's government for administrative compensation
7. Wei Moumou v. a district people's government administrative compensation case
8. Du Moumou v. a county people's government administrative compensation case
9. Zhou Moumou v. Administrative Committee of an Economic and Technological Development Zone for Administrative Compensation for Demolition and Relocation
1
Ma Moumou v. A District People's Government Administrative Compensation Case
——The decision not to pay compensation falls within the scope of administrative compensation lawsuits in accordance with the law.
(1) Basic case
Ma Moumou believed that the people's government of a certain district and relevant departments imposed restrictions on personal freedom and caused damage to him, and submitted an application for administrative compensation to the people's government of a certain district.
The people's government of a certain district issued a notice, informing Ma Moumou that the materials provided by him could not prove that the people's government of the district had illegal acts that restricted his personal freedom, so the people's government of the district was not an organ with administrative compensation obligations.
Ma Moumou refused to accept the lawsuit and filed a lawsuit in a city intermediate people's court, requesting to confirm that the people's government of a certain district did not make a compensation decision within the statutory time, and it was illegal, and compensated for the loss of more than 180,000 yuan.
(2) Judgment result
The court of first instance ruled to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the claim for compensation without being confirmed to be illegal does not meet the statutory conditions for prosecution, and the court of second instance ruled to uphold on the grounds that the decision not to make a compensation decision was a procedural act and had no actual impact on Ma Moumou’s rights and obligations. First-instance ruling.
Ma Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that Ma asked a district people's government to deal with the compensation issue first, and the district people's government made a decision not to pay compensation.
According to the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 14 of the newly revised State Compensation Law, if the compensation claimant is not satisfied with the notice of the decision not to pay compensation, it may file a lawsuit in the people's court.
After the people's court accepts the case, it should hear the administrative compensation dispute between the people's government of a certain district and Ma in accordance with the law.
2
Yang Moumou v. A District People's Government Administrative Compensation Case
——If the parties file a lawsuit against the administrative compulsory confirmation of illegality and administrative compensation at the same time, even if the people's court files separate cases, they still file an administrative compensation lawsuit together, and there is no need to wait for the confirmation of the illegality to take effect before claiming compensation separately.
(1) Basic case
Yang Moumou also filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of a certain city for the case of administrative coercion and administrative compensation by the people's government of a certain district.
For the administrative compulsory case, the court made a first-instance administrative judgment confirming that the people's government of a certain district violated the law on the forced demolition of Yang Moumou's house, and the second-instance court upheld the first-instance judgment on the same grounds.
(2) Judgment result
For administrative compensation cases, the court of first instance ruled to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the fact of illegal infringement and the subject of compensation liability had not been confirmed by the effective judgment of the people's court during the first instance, in order to avoid the idling of judicial procedures.
The court of second instance held that although the facts of illegal infringement during the second instance and the subject of compensation liability had been confirmed by the effective judgment of the people's court, Yang could still maintain his legal rights and interests by applying for administrative compensation to the people's government of a certain district or filing a separate administrative compensation lawsuit. Uphold the first-instance ruling.
Yang Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that, in order to substantially resolve administrative disputes, according to the relevant provisions of the State Compensation Law, if an applicant for administrative compensation also requests administrative compensation when filing an administrative lawsuit, the people's court shall, when confirming that the administrative act is illegal, sue the administrative compensation in accordance with the law. A substantive judgment will be made together with the compensation request.
The court of first and second instance in this case ruled to reject Yang Moumou's lawsuit against the people's government of a certain district for administrative compensation, which is a disguised deprivation of the parties' legal right to file an administrative compensation lawsuit together.
3
Li Moumou v. County People's Government and County Forestry Bureau for Forestry Administrative Compensation Case
——If the administrative act by the administrative organ is illegal due to the provision of false materials by a third party, causing damage to citizens, legal persons or other organizations, the people's court shall determine the administrative organ to bear the responsibility based on the role of the illegal administrative act in the occurrence and result of the damage. Corresponding administrative compensation liability.
(1) Basic case
After Li Moumou and Yuan Mou got married, they signed the "Land Contract Contract" with the villagers Gan Mou and others and went through notarization.
After that, Li Moumou and Yuan Mou agreed to divorce, and the 82 acres of cedar trees belonged to Li Moumou.
On June 23, 2010, Yuan sold 82 acres of cedar trees to Fan and Huang.
On July 12, 2010, Fan submitted a felling application in the name of another person, and a county forestry bureau issued No. 81 "Forest Logging Permit" to Fan.
On November 22, 2011, Li Moumou submitted the "Application for Confirmation of Illegal Compensation by the State" to the people's government of a county on the grounds that the administrative act of issuing the forest felling license was illegal, requesting to revoke the No. 81 "Forest felling license", and The forestry bureau of a county is required to compensate a total of 1.2 million yuan for losses.
The people's government of a county made a reconsideration decision: 1. Revocation of No. 81 "Forest Logging Permit".
2. Without the authorization of Li Moumou and others, Fan carried out logging privately, which is a personal act and does not belong to the scope of state compensation.
Li Moumou sued the court, requesting that the county forestry bureau be ordered to compensate him for economic losses of 1.2 million yuan; the county people's government and the county forestry bureau should be jointly and severally liable for compensation.
(2) Judgment result
The courts of first and second instance held that the forestry bureau of a certain county fulfilled its necessary review obligations, and the administrative action was not inappropriate.
Although the logging permit was later revoked by the people's government of a county, the reason for the revocation was that Fan filed an application under the name of the right holder, rather than an illegal review by a county forestry bureau.
Therefore, the judgment dismissed Li Moumou's claim.
Li Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that the forestry bureau of a county failed to perform its duty of prudence and reasonable review in accordance with legal procedures when issuing the forest logging license involved in the lawsuit, and the issuance of the license was illegal.
The illegal issuance of certificates by a county forestry bureau and Fan's providing false materials to apply for a forest felling license and the civil tort of privately felling trees jointly caused Li's property loss. Those who play a role in the results shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation.
4
Fan Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Forced Demolition of Houses and Administrative Compensation Case
- For illegal expropriation of land and houses, the administrative compensation awarded to the expropriated person by the people's court shall not be less than the resettlement compensation rights and interests that the expropriated person should obtain according to law.
(1) Basic case
In January 2011, the people's government of a certain district, without reaching an agreement on compensation and resettlement with Fan, and without the approval of the people's government that had acquired the land, made a resettlement compensation ruling, put Fan's property on the collective land within the expropriation scope. When the house is demolished, the people's court makes an effective judgment confirming that the demolition is illegal.
Fan Moumou filed a lawsuit in this case to claim compensation according to law.
(2) Judgment result
The court of first or second instance ruled that the people's government of a certain district should compensate the people's government at the market assessed price when the compensation was decided.
The people's government of a certain district refused to accept it and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that if the administrative organ illegally and forcibly demolished the house, the amount of administrative compensation received by the expropriated party should not be lower than the market price of the expropriated house at the time of compensation.
Otherwise, it is not only unfair but also suspected of condoning the law of the administrative organs.
Therefore, in the case of illegal and compulsory demolition of houses, the people's court shall make administrative compensation to the expropriated person at the market assessment price when the compensation is determined, which is in line with the legislative purpose of compensation for house expropriation.
5
Yi Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation for Demolition of Houses
- In the compensation for property damage, if the market price of the property at the time of the damage is insufficient to make up for the loss of the victim, other reasonable methods may be used to calculate it.
(1) Basic case
Without reaching a resettlement compensation agreement with Yi or making a corresponding compensation decision, Yi's house was forcibly demolished by a district people's government.
The effective administrative judgment also confirmed that the forced demolition was illegal.
Yi Moumou applied to the people's government of a certain district for administrative compensation, but the people's government of a certain district did not make a compensation decision within the statutory period.
Yi Moumou then filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting that the people's government of a certain district be ordered to restore the original state, or to compensate the houses of the same location, area and purpose; the people's government of a certain district should be ordered to compensate the economic loss of movable property of more than 30,000 yuan.
(2) Judgment result
The court of first and second instance ruled that the people's government of a certain district should compensate the economic loss caused by the illegal demolition of Yi's house totaling more than 160,000 yuan, and at the same time dismissed Yi's claim for compensation for the loss of movable property.
Yi Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
The Supreme People's Court held that, as a special kind of property, the price of houses fluctuated greatly. In order to protect the rights and interests of the parties to the greatest extent, the time point for compensation for the loss of houses should be determined at the time point that can best make up for the losses of the parties.
In the case of rapid growth of housing prices, the party's losses cannot be compensated based on the occurrence of the illegal administrative act.
At this time, the court entrusted the assessment shall prevail, which is more in line with the principle of fair and reasonable compensation.
6
Li Moumou v. a district people's government administrative compensation case
- If property damage is caused to citizens, legal persons or other organizations and cannot be restored to its original state, the people's court shall order the organ liable for compensation to pay compensation and corresponding loss of interest.
(1) Basic case
On July 16, 2012, the staff of the construction headquarters established by the people's government of a certain district forcibly demolished the house of Li Moumou. On April 27, 2015, the court took effect and confirmed the procedures for the forced demolition of Li Moumou's house by the people's government of a certain district. illegal.
Li Moumou submitted the "Application for Administrative Compensation" to the people's government of a certain district, but the people's government of a certain district did not reply.
Li Moumou filed a lawsuit for administrative compensation in this case, requesting restitution.
In the retrial and review stage of this case, the people's government of a certain district issued an "Administrative Compensation Decision" for the house involved.
(2) Judgment result
The courts of first and second instance held that, according to the relevant provisions of the State Compensation Law, if the property that should be returned is lost, the corresponding compensation shall be paid.
The house involved in the case was demolished and lost, and there is no possibility of restoring it to its original state. After explaining, Li refused to change the claim of "requiring the demolished house to be restored to its original state", and accordingly the judgment rejected Li's claim.
Li Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that the house involved had been destroyed and lost due to forced demolition, and the land plot involved had been included in the scope of expropriation, and the house involved was not likely to be restored to its original state. Nothing wrong.
However, Li Moumou still enjoys the right to obtain compensation, and the court should make a corresponding compensation judgment by adjudicating compensation according to law.
7
Wei Moumou v. A District People's Government Administrative Compensation Case
——When hearing administrative compensation cases, the people's court may specify the methods, items, and standards for the administrative organs to make compensation. If the content of compensation is direct and definite, it should make a judgment with the content of compensation such as the amount of compensation.
(1) Basic case
The house on the collective land involved in the Wei Moumou case was located in the urban village reconstruction area of a certain district. Because the resettlement compensation agreement could not be reached, on May 25, 2010, the Wei Moumou house involved in the case was demolished. The effective judgment of the court confirmed that the people's government of a certain district forced Demolition is illegal.
In June 2015, Wei Moumou filed an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law, requesting that the people's government of a certain district be ordered to compensate for the losses.
(2) Judgment result
The court of first instance ruled that the people's government of a certain district should compensate Wei for the loss of his house and other losses.
The second-instance court ruled to revoke the first-instance administrative compensation judgment, and ordered the people's government of a certain district to fully compensate Wei within 90 days from the date when the judgment took effect.
Wei Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After trial, the Supreme People's Court held that, based on the final judicial principle, the people's court should accept the administrative compensation lawsuit according to the law and make a clear and specific compensation judgment, so as to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the compensation claimant and substantially resolve the administrative dispute. Judgment shall be made by the compensation obligated organ first, so that the compensation dispute returns to the administrative channel, which increases the litigation burden of the parties.
In this case, the second-instance judgment revokes the first-instance administrative compensation judgment and ordered the people's government of a certain district to make full compensation for Wei Moumou according to law. There is no justifiable reason and it violates the final principle of justice, and the judgment method is obviously inappropriate.
8
Du Moumou v. County People's Government Administrative Compensation Case
- Where the plaintiff's losses have been adequately relieved through administrative compensation, the people's court shall make a judgment to reject its administrative compensation claim in accordance with the law.
(1) Basic case
At the beginning of 2014, in order to meet the needs of the construction of the expressway around the city, the requisition headquarters established by a county people's government and the expropriated person Du Moumou signed the "House Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement" and agreed on the payment time and Delivery time.
Subsequently, the requisition and relocation headquarters fulfilled the relevant obligations in accordance with the contract.
In October of the same year, the house involved in the case was demolished without going through the handover procedures.
The demolition act was litigated, and the court's effective judgment confirmed that the demolition act of a county people's government was illegal.
On November 7, 2016, Du Moumou applied to a county people's government for administrative compensation, but the county people's government did not reply within the statutory period.
Du Moumou filed a lawsuit for compensation in this case.
(2) Judgment result
The courts of first and second instance held that before the house was forcibly demolished, Du Moumou had obtained the relevant compensation and housing site resettlement compensation agreed in the "House Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement". After the house was demolished, Du Moumou received the compensation from the village committee. Compensation for discarded goods and relocation cost, so the judgment dismissed Du Moumou's claim.
Du Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After trial, the Supreme People's Court held that an administrative act that is confirmed to be illegal does not necessarily result in administrative compensation liability, but only when actual damage is caused.
The Requisition and Relocation Headquarters established by the people's government of a county and Du Moumou have signed the "House Expropriation, Compensation and Resettlement Agreement", which has been recognized as legal and effective by the court's effective judgment and has actually been implemented.
Therefore, although Du Moumou's house was illegally and forcibly demolished, he did not provide evidence in the lawsuit to prove that he had other damages, and his legal rights and interests were not actually damaged due to illegal administrative acts, and his claim for compensation lacked factual and legal basis. .
9
Zhou Moumou v. Administrative Committee of an Economic and Technological Development Zone for Administrative Compensation for Demolition and Relocation
——Rewards, subsidies, etc. that should be obtained according to the administrative compensation procedures and other actual losses to property are direct losses.
(1) Basic case
Zhou Moumou owns two houses on the collective land of a natural village, and the village began to implement the demolition and reconstruction of farm houses since 2010.
Due to the failure to reach a resettlement compensation agreement with Zhou Moumou, in March 2012, the demolition office organized personnel to forcibly demolish the building involved.
Zhou Moumou refused to accept the lawsuit and went to the court, requesting that the management committee of an economic and technological development zone be ordered to compensate more than 8 million yuan for his resettlement.
(2) Judgment result
The courts of first and second instance held that the house involved had been demolished and could no longer be reassessed, and both parties had no objection to the building area, attachments, etc. From the interests of Zhou Moumou, they could refer to relevant regulations and follow the rules of the demolished farm house. The compensation for the house involved was calculated based on the replacement price, and the management committee of an economic and technological development zone was ordered to compensate Zhou Moumou for more than 490,000 yuan, and other claims were dismissed.
Zhou Moumou refused to accept and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
The Supreme People's Court held that, in order to maximize the function and role of the State Compensation Law in safeguarding and relieving the legitimate rights and interests of the injured administrative counterpart, its understanding of the "direct loss" in Article 36 of the Law on the scope of compensation for loss, It not only includes the loss of vested property interests, but also includes the loss of property interests such as the rights and interests of compensation for demolition and resettlement of farm houses that are not vested but must be obtained.
In this case, without the intervention of an economic and technological development zone management committee's illegal forced demolition, Zhou XX could have obtained the corresponding compensation according to the law through the demolition and resettlement compensation procedures. Therefore, this part of the benefits is an inevitable benefit and should be included in the provisions of the State Compensation Law the range of "direct losses".