China News Service, February 28 (Xinhua) He Yong, Director of the Administrative Law Enforcement Coordination and Supervision Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, said on the 28th that fine decisions must fully consider the personal feelings of the public, ensure that fine decisions comply with legal principles, and consider relevant reasons and rationales, and at the same time optimize fines. Determine the system for postponement and installment performance.
On February 28, the State Council Information Office held a regular briefing on State Council policies to introduce the "Guiding Opinions of the State Council on Further Regulating and Supervising the Setting and Implementation of Fines" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions").
At the meeting, a reporter asked that in recent years, some cases of administrative fines have attracted great attention from the public and also triggered controversy over inappropriate fines.
How does the "Opinions" regulate the setting and implementation of fines?
How to restrict inappropriate fines?
Hu Yong said that in terms of setting fines, the "Opinions" mainly put forward two requirements.
The first is to prevent excessive fines.
Fines are generally not set for those that can be managed through education and persuasion, ordering corrections, information disclosure, etc.
When fines cannot be effectively managed, more appropriate types of penalties must be determined in accordance with the law.
It is necessary to ensure that the fines set can effectively curb violations and encourage compliance with the law.
The second requirement is that fines should be set in a balanced manner.
In response to the problem of unbalanced penalty setting, it is stipulated that the same administrative regulations and rules setting fines for different illegal acts must be coordinated with each other, and different administrative regulations and rules setting fines for the same illegal act must be connected with each other.
In response to the problem that the gap between the multiples of some fines is too large, it is stipulated that the minimum amount of fines and the maximum amount should generally not exceed 10 times.
In response to problems such as the starting amounts of some fines being too high and difficult to enforce, the "Opinions" also emphasize that if a higher starting amount of fines is planned, the opinions of experts and scholars should be fully listened to, and similar illegal acts in different fields or the same field should be referred to. The amount of fines for different violations.
At the same time, in order to solve the problem of unifying standards between adjacent regions and avoiding excessive differences, the "Opinions" encourage cross-administrative regions to jointly formulate unified regulatory systems and standards and regulations in accordance with regulations, and collaboratively promote the relative unification of fine amounts, discretionary benchmarks, etc. .
Hu Yong said that in terms of the implementation of fines, the "Opinions" mainly put forward three requirements.
First, the imposition of fines must comply with the principle of commensurate punishment, which should be light and severe.
It is necessary to scientifically refine the relevant circumstances of lenience, reduction, no punishment, or no punishment according to the actual conditions of different regions and fields; for those that meet the relevant legal circumstances, the Administrative Penalty Law must be applied and dealt with accordingly.
We must intensify law enforcement in key areas such as production safety, life and health, and product quality. For serious violations, we must implement the requirement of "punishing individuals" in accordance with the law and resolutely safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises and the public.
Second, the decision to impose a fine must comply with legal principles, logic and reason.
The decision on fines must fully consider the personal feelings of the public, ensure that the decision on fines complies with legal principles, and consider relevant reasons and rationales. At the same time, the system for deferred and installment execution of fine decisions must be optimized.
Administrative agencies are encouraged to establish a normal communication mechanism with enterprises and the public, strengthen follow-up assistance and guidance, and explore the establishment of law enforcement models such as "prevention first, exemption from fines for minor offenses, severe penalties for serious violations, commensurate penalties for excessive penalties, and follow-up visits".
The third is to put forward new requirements for standardizing electronic technology monitoring equipment.
It is clearly proposed that by the end of December 2024, a comprehensive cleanup and standardization work will be carried out on law enforcement electronic technology monitoring equipment.
It is also clarified that before the end of each year, relevant departments of local people's governments at or above the county level and towns (subdistricts) must report to the people's government at the same level and the people's government at the higher level respectively the situation of new monitoring equipment.
In this regard, the judicial administrative department must strengthen law enforcement supervision.