Blue Point. After the first and second instance of the court, the court ruled that Lu Caizhao, an aquaculture farmer in Dianbai District, Maoming City, Guangdong Province, sued Dianbai District, Maoming City**, and did not issue subsidies and incentives, which damaged Lu Caizhao's legitimate rights and interests, and should perform administrative compensation duties in a timely manner in accordance with the law, and required Dianbai District** of Maoming City to make administrative acts against Lu Caizhao again. But five months after the verdict came into effect, Lo has still not received the subsidy. According to upstream news reports, the reply given by the relevant personnel was, "The verdict is still being studied and a report is being made to the district", can this be a legitimate reason?Will the legal verdict end up in vain?
Judging from the information disclosed in upstream news reports, Dianbai District, Maoming City, Guangdong Province, was sued by local aquaculture farmers as a defendant, and there is a reason for the incident.
As the plaintiff, Lu Caizhao failed to get the subsidy and incentive money in a timely manner according to the policy, according to the "Reply to the Application for Performing Statutory Duties" issued by Dianbai District**, Maoming City, because "there are layers of subcontracting in aquaculture, resulting in disputes between the lessor and the lessee over the distribution of compensation, and after mediation by the town (street)**, the village (neighborhood) committee and the rectification working group, there are still a few leasing parties who have failed to reach an agreement, resulting in the payment not being released".
Judging from relevant reports, the aquaculture subcontracting situation mentioned in Dianbai District, Maoming City. According to the trial of the Maonan District Court, Lu Caizhao signed the "Cooperation Agreement" with Deng twice, stipulating that Deng would transfer the two tidal flats "Changhai Dam" and "Yangjiang Dam" in Chencun Street contracted by Deng to Lu Caizhao for production and operation, with a period starting from 2018 and 2020 respectively. and Lu Caizhao also signed the "Letter of Transfer" with Huang, stipulating that Huang would transfer the shrimp dam rented by Yang to Lu Caizhao for operation and use, and the period would be from January 1, 2021, and all rights and obligations would be owned by Lu Caizhao. That is to say, after the above-mentioned agreement was signed, Lu Caizhao carried out aquaculture in the above-mentioned three sea tidal flats with a total area of more than 1,000 acres, and the facts existed.
Why is it that such a clear fact can lead to a dispute between the lessor and the lessee over the compensation payment, which in turn leads to the failure of the subsidy to be paid on time?
Judging from the relevant reports, it originated from "when the subsidy object and the specific amount of the subsidy were not determined in Dianbai District, Maoming City, Lu Caizhao and other farmers were asked to resolve the dispute over the distribution share of the subsidy". According to the court's judgment, it was this reply to the "Reply to the Application for Performing Statutory Duties" issued by Dianbai District** that "led the parties to a state of deadlock in a cyclical cycle".
The court found that in the "Reply to the Application for Performing Statutory Duties" issued by Dianbai District, the reply of "requesting Lu Caizhao and other farmers to resolve the dispute over the distribution share of subsidies" was "not conducive to protecting the interests of farmers who actively cooperate with ** to promote aquaculture remediation, and is contrary to the provisions of the "Subsidy and Incentive Program for Aquaculture Remediation in Dianbai District". and accordingly "revoked the "Reply to the Application for Performing Statutory Duties", and the power restriction Bai District** made a new administrative act on Lu Caizhao's application within the statutory time limit".
At the same time, the reply to the disputed lessor, Deng, proposed that the compensation for the "Changhai Dam" and "Yangjiang Dam" involved in the case was essentially infrastructure compensation, and the plaintiff Lu Caizhao did not have the qualifications of the plaintiff in this case. In other words, the so-called situation of "requiring Lu Caizhao and other farmers to resolve disputes over the distribution share of subsidies" has been excluded by law.
According to the report, the second instance upheld the original judgment of the court of first instance, and required that "the Dianbai District should ascertain the facts, in accordance with the relevant regulations, with reference to the general practice of the same type of farmers in the jurisdiction, and in accordance with the principle of equal treatment, to issue subsidies and incentives to retired households that meet the regulations."
But why, five months after the second-instance judgment came into effect, Lu Caizhao still did not receive the corresponding payment in accordance with the law?
The upstream news disclosed that "the Agriculture and Rural Bureau of Dianbai District replied to Lu Caizhao that after the second-instance verdict, the bureau repeatedly urged Chencun Street to submit relevant data and procedures, and only according to these data can funds be made", and "the relevant staff of Chencun Street in Dianbai District said that the verdict has been studied", and still said to **: "We have no right to decide who and how much this subsidy is given, and we have no right to decide who and how much this subsidy will be given. ”
The law has made it clear and clear, why can't the grassroots units still solve the problem in the first place on the grounds that "we have no right to decide who and how much this subsidy will be given?"In this way, the judgments of the courts of first and second instance will not be made in vain, right?