Xiamen hospital informed mingaoguan four typical cases of the government should also lose mon-utc行家

Xiamen hospital informed "mingaoguan" four typical cases of   also be losing money — government default channel — people.com.cn original title: Xiamen court bulletin "mingaoguan" four typical cases of breach of government will lose money losing administrative cases of cross regional jurisdiction reform anniversary, "mingaoguan" overcharged case in recent times, the executive lost 11.83% last year 9 month 21 day, part of Fujian Province began to implement cross administrative cases under the jurisdiction of the administrative region, "mingaoguan" cases where the defendant not by the court. What changes have taken place in the administrative litigation in Xiamen during the past year? Yesterday, the Xiamen intermediate people’s court official WeChat notified the relevant circumstances. According to reports, the inter regional jurisdiction of administrative cases, originally from the Xiamen intermediate people’s Court of first instance administrative cases accepted delivery is accepted by the Zhangzhou intermediate people’s Court of Zhangzhou; a case accepted by the court of Quanzhou; Quanzhou by the Xiamen intermediate people’s court accepted the case. This has brought about great changes to the trial work of the court. Over the past year, the amount of cases has increased sharply, and the filing difficulty has been basically solved. The Xiamen intermediate people’s court received administrative cases 188, an increase of 193%. While the inter regional jurisdiction of administrative cases, the people of the local court not the fair trial of administrative cases also gradually eliminate the doubts, to participate in the litigation resistance weakened, coordinate and resolve will increase. Over the past year, 255 cases have been dropped after coordination of administrative cases in the first instance of Xiamen courts. However, the court also found that the current administrative trial in Xiamen also faces some problems, such as abuse of litigious right and malicious litigation. In Xiamen Quanzhou area court hearing the case, V. land and housing levy and the levy demolition of compulsory measures in such cases accounted for by the number of cases of 40%, some cases have been Quanzhou court proceedings to resolve, and Xiamen to court, in order to obtain the demolition resettlement compensation and additional interest. "Mingaoguan" four typical cases of breach of government was sentenced to losing money the plaintiff Kang because of the demolition and the town government signed the land compensation and resettlement agreement, under the agreement, the town government shall deliver the relevant resettlement housing, within the agreed time limit overdue submitted, shall bear the liability for breach of contract to pay a fine. Due to other reasons, the town government failed to deliver the housing in accordance with the agreement. In this regard, Kang believes that the town government default, should be in accordance with the agreement of overdue fine clause to continue to pay the penalty until the others. Ultimately, the court finds that the town government did not belong to the breach of contract in accordance with the administrative agreement delivery of housing, without justifiable reasons, so the decision ordered the town government in accordance with the agreement to pay overdue fines. Judges comments: as the case of administrative agreement formally incorporated into the administrative litigation category, an increasing number of administrative proceedings for compensation and resettlement agreement breach filed. The administrative organs as the administrative agreement, with a dominant position is relatively strong, the responsibility consciousness is relatively weak, the lack of adequate for the consequences of default expectations, failed to timely take measures, the impact on the credibility of the administrative organs, which should be paid attention to. The government road closures, merchant court plaintiff 21 Department of Quanzhou City area road operating hardware business, the prosecution asserted that the defendant Shishi people’s Government in order to make the road) 厦中院通报“民告官”四大典型案例 政府违约也要败诉赔钱–福建频道–人民网 原标题:厦中院通报“民告官”四大典型案例 政府违约也要败诉赔钱   行政案件跨区域管辖改革一周年,“民告官”案件多收近两倍,行政机关败诉率11.83%   去年9月21日,福建省部分行政案件开始实行跨行政区域管辖,“民告官”案件不再由被告所在地法院审理。改革这一年来,厦门行政诉讼审理发生啥变化?昨日,厦门中院官方微信通报了相关情况。   据介绍,行政案件跨区域管辖后,原本由厦门中院受理的一审行政案件交由漳州中院受理;漳州案件交由泉州中院受理;泉州案件则由厦门中院受理。这给法院审判工作带来很大的改变,一年来,案件量激增,“立案难”基本解决。厦门中院新收行政案件188件,比增193%。   而行政案件跨区域管辖后,人民群众对当地法院不能公正审理行政案件的疑虑也逐步消除,参加诉讼的抵抗情绪有所减弱,协调化解的意愿增强。这一年来,厦门地区法院一审行政案件经协调后撤诉的多达255件。   不过,法院也发现,当前厦门行政审判还面临一些问题,如滥用诉权和恶意诉讼现象抬头。在厦门中院审理的泉州地区案件中,诉土地和房屋征收及征拆强制措施类案件约占受案数40%,部分案件已经过泉州法院诉讼解决,又到厦门中院起诉,以期获得额外的拆迁安置补偿等利益。   “民告官”四大典型案例   政府违约被判败诉赔钱   原告康某因其房屋被拆迁而与某镇政府签订征地拆迁补偿安置协议,根据该协议约定,该镇政府应当在约定期限内交付相关安置房,逾期交房,须承担支付罚金的违约责任。由于其他原因,镇政府未能按照协议约定期限交付安置房。   对此,康某认为,镇政府违约,应按照协议当中的逾期交房罚金条款继续支付罚金直至交房为止。   最终,法院判决认定,镇政府无正当理由未按照行政协议约定交付安置房,属于违约,故判决责令镇政府按照协议约定继续支付逾期交房罚金。   法官点评:随着行政协议案件正式纳入行政诉讼范畴,针对征地补偿安置协议等违约行为提起的行政诉讼越来越多。行政机关作为行政协议的一方,具备相对强势的主导地位,缔约责任意识相对薄弱,对于违约后果缺乏足够预期,未能及时采取应对措施,对行政机关的公信力造成影响,应予以重视。   政府封路,商户告上法庭   原告21人系泉州市灵秀路上经营五金的商户,起诉主张被告石狮市人民政府为了让该路段上从事五金行业的商户迁入新建的五金城内,以道路改造为由,对灵秀路实施围挡封闭施工的行为违法。   这一案件,经过法院组织协调,最终原告主动撤诉。   法官点评:案件开庭后,法官多次组织各方协调,最终被告石狮市人民政府明确表示“不再实施灵秀路改造工程项目”,解除对灵秀路的围挡。   因此,21名原告不仅撤回本案对石狮市人民政府的起诉,同时撤回了该案引发的另外两案(诉发改委和经建局修路决定)的起诉。本案通过行政协调方式有效化解行政争议,真正实现案结人和事了。   进口货品被禁,企业告海关   厦门海关在对申报进口货物进行查验时发现,一家进出口公司以一般贸易方式向厦门海关申报进口品名为“玻璃粉碎料”的货品,实际为“废碎玻璃”,属于国家禁止进口的“固体废物”,有厦门和深圳两地检验检疫局的检验报告予以认定,遂向该进出口公司作出《责令退运决定书》和《行政处罚决定书》。   随后,该进出口公司不服、提起行政诉讼,请求撤销行政处罚决定。   这起行政诉讼,经过两级法院审理,最终,法院判决认为,行政处罚决定并无不当,驳回该进出口公司的诉讼请求。   法官点评:根据《中华人民共和国固体废物污染环境防治法》规定,产品的生产者、销售者、进口者、使用者对其产生的固体废物依法承担污染防治责任。本案中,原告进出口公司作为涉案货物的进口商,其申报进口的货物经对“固体废物”属性有检验职责的检验检疫技术中心认定为“废碎玻璃”,属于国家禁止进口的“固体废物”,厦门海关依职权作出的行政处罚决定并无不当。   非法占地被拆,状告执法局   周某没有合法用地手续,却私自将2000多平方米的土地进行地面水泥硬化作为驾驶训练场。集美区执法局将地面水泥硬化认定为违法建筑物或构筑物,予以强制拆除。   不过,周某认为执法局在未作出行政处罚决定的情况下,对驾驶训练场予以拆除的行为违法,因此告上法庭。   经审理,法院判决认定,集美区执法局对周某违法行为的定性错误,据此实施的强制拆除行为违法。   法官点评:无合法用地手续情况下进行的地面水泥硬化,系非法占用土地的行为,不宜认定为违法建设。   因为,违法建设通常建设有建筑物或构筑物。对违法建设的制裁和处罚措施系责令拆除和罚款。而无合法用地手续情况下进行的地面水泥硬化,既无建筑物,亦无构筑物,且简单地拆除硬化的地面,并不能从根本上遏制违法行为。根据《中华人民共和国土地管理法》第七十六条的规定,非法占用土地的,由县级以上人民政府土地行政主管部门责令退还非法占用的土地。   因此,对原告的非法占地行为,应责令退还非法占用的土地。这样才能从根本上解决非法占地的问题。(海峡导报 记者 陈捷) (责编:陈楚楚、吴舟)相关的主题文章: