|
|
|
No. 7 of Ten Cases concerning Administrative Nonfeasance Published by the Supreme People's Court: Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. v. Urban Management and Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of Chengguan District of Lanzhou City (a case concerning administrative nonfeasance)
|
|
最高人民法院关于行政不作为十大案例之七：兰州宏光驾驶员培训服务有限公司诉兰州市城关区城市管理行政执法局行政不作为案
|
|
【法宝引证码】
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| No. 7 of Ten Cases concerning Administrative Nonfeasance Published by the Supreme People's Court: Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. v. Urban Management and Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of Chengguan District of Lanzhou City (a case concerning administrative nonfeasance) | | 最高人民法院关于行政不作为十大案例之七：兰州宏光驾驶员培训服务有限公司诉兰州市城关区城市管理行政执法局行政不作为案 |
| | |
| (1) Basic Facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Hongguang Company”) made a tip-off to multiple authorities, including the sub-district community where it was located and the Urban Management and Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of the District”) on the grounds that Gansu Yonglong Stationary Commodities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yonglong Company”) conducted illegal construction, which affected the normal use of its practice yard; however, the aforesaid authorities did not handle the matter as tipped off by Hongguang Company. In October 2012, Hongguang Company made a tip-off on the illegal construction of Yonglong Company to the Complaints Office of the Municipal Party Committee of Lanzhou City, which then transferred the tip-off materials to the Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of Lanzhou City. Afterwards, the Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of Lanzhou City transferred such tip-off materials to the Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of the District; however, until Hongguang Company instituted an action, the Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of the District still failed to make any reply to the tip-off of Hongguang Company. Therefore, Hongguang Company filed an administrative lawsuit in a court against the Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of the District and requested the court to order that defendant should perform its statutory duties. | | 兰州宏光驾驶员培训服务有限公司（以下简称宏光公司）以甘肃永隆文化用品有限公司（以下简称永隆公司）进行违法建设，对其练车场的正常使用造成影响为由，向其所在街道社区和甘肃省兰州市城关区城市管理行政执法局（以下简称区行政执法局）等多个机关进行举报。但以上机关对其所反映事项均无任何处理。2012年10月，宏光公司将永隆公司违法建设的问题举报至兰州市委信访办，兰州市委信访办将举报材料转至兰州市行政执法局，后兰州市行政执法局又将举报材料转至区行政执法局，但直至宏光公司起诉时止，区行政执法局仍未对该公司的举报作出任何答复，故宏光公司以区行政执法局为被告，向法院提起行政诉讼，要求判令被告履行法定职责。 |
| (2) Judgment | | （二）裁判结果 |
| In the trial by the People's Court of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, defendant, Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of the District realized that there may be risks of losing the lawsuit for its failure to perform duties. Therefore, defendant and plaintiff, Hongguang Company, reached consensus upon coordination and defendant agreed to accept the matter tipped off by plaintiff and conduct investigation within the scope of its functions and powers, namely, defendant has performed corresponding statutory duties upon plaintiff's application. Therefore, on June 7, 2013, plaintiff submitted a written application for withdrawal of the lawsuit to the court of first instance. In accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Withdrawal of Administrative Lawsuits, and item (10), paragraph 1 of Article 63 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, the court ruled to permit the plaintiff's withdrawal of the lawsuit. | | 兰州市城关区人民法院在本案一审过程中，被告区行政执法局意识到其不履行职责可能存在败诉风险，遂与原告宏光公司经协调达成一致意见，同意受理原告的举报事项并在其职权范围内进行调查，即依照原告的申请，履行了相应的法定职责。故原告于2013年6月7日向一审法院提交了书面撤诉申请。法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十一条、《最高人民法院关于行政诉讼撤诉若干问题的规定》第五条、《最高人民法院关于执行〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》第六十三条第一款第（十）项之规定，裁定准许原告撤回起诉。 |
| ．．．．．． | | ．．．．．． |
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com
| |
您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们 的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 。如有问题请来电咨询；
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content
found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright
owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.
Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations
of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language
versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly
or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.
We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve
the quality of our materials.
|
|
| |
|
|