Recently, when handling a series of administrative cases, the Intermediate People's Court of Xiangyang City, Hubei Province, actively organized the plaintiff and the defendant to carry out pre-trial consultations, prompted the parties to reach a consensus, and successfully resolved 17 administrative disputes involving the owner of the house, an agricultural bank, an industrial and commercial bank and the Municipal Real Estate Bureau.
In recent years, the two-level courts of Xiangyang City, Hubei Province (hereinafter referred to as the "Xiangyang Court") have closely followed the theme of "fairness and efficiency", given full play to the role of administrative adjudication functions, solidly promoted the substantive resolution of administrative disputes, safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts in accordance with the law, supervised and supported administrative organs to administer in accordance with the law, and effectively integrated the work of the courts into social governance, providing a strong judicial guarantee for the safe, stable and high-quality development of Xiangyang. Since 2022, the Xiangyang Court has substantively resolved a total of 519 administrative disputes, effectively responding to the people's growing new expectations and needs for justice.
Administrative disputes are "resolved" before the trial
In 2009, plaintiff Li Mouqin and 17 other owners purchased a one-room house in an office building, and some of the owners applied for house ownership certificates, but none of them applied for land use right certificates. In May 2010, part of the land use rights of the office building project were confirmed by the effective judgment of the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court to be enjoyed by a third party, He Mouyun. In 2012, the third party, He Mouyun, provided mortgage guarantee for loans from others to a branch of the Agricultural Bank of China and a branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China with the land use right of the office building under his name, and the real estate registration department handled the registration of the mortgage. Plaintiff Li Mouqin and 17 other homeowners believed that the land plot to which the house belonged was included in the land use right of the two mortgages, resulting in their inability to apply for the real estate ownership certificate, so they filed an administrative lawsuit with the court of first instance, requesting that the mortgage registration made by the Municipal Real Estate Bureau be revoked.
After the trial, the court of first instance ruled to revoke the registration of the mortgage of land use rights within the scope occupied by the plaintiff Li Mouqin and 17 other households in the mortgage registration of land use rights made by the real estate registration department. The Municipal Real Estate Registration Bureau and a branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China were dissatisfied with the first-instance judgment and appealed to the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court.
The Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court held that the facts of the series of cases were clear and that the first-instance judgment was based on law. However, due to the large number of people involved in this series of cases, the contradictions such as the needs of the owners, the protection of bank mortgages, and the standardization of administrative acts are intertwined, and once they are not handled properly, it is very easy to cause the risk of petitioning.
After the presiding judge gave a detailed explanation of the law to the parties, the administrative organ took the initiative to submit an application for settlement. In line with the concept of active justice, the undertaking judge proposed a preliminary plan for out-of-court settlement: the bank issued a certificate of agreement to cancel the mortgage registration of the corresponding land use right, the real estate registration bureau released the mortgage registration and handled the real estate property certificate for the owner, 17 owners applied to withdraw the first-instance lawsuit, a branch of ICBC and the real estate registration bureau withdrew the second-instance appeal, and the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court made a ruling to approve the withdrawal of the lawsuit and appeal. This scheme can not only meet the needs of the owner, but also eliminate the risk of losing the lawsuit by the administrative organ, and at the same time have a positive effect on the mortgagee to realize the mortgage right in the future, achieving a win-win situation.
In July 2023, the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court issued a ruling allowing the withdrawal of the lawsuit and appeal. In view of the prevalence of the situation in this case, the Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court suggested that the real estate registration department and the bank should refer to the case to solve the problems of other owners. In this regard, the real estate registration department and the bank have responded positively.
"Speaking out in court" improves the quality and efficiency of resolution
Today's trial is a vivid lesson in popularizing the law. Liu Hui, director of the Gucheng County Market Supervision and Administration Bureau, said at the end of a trial that the legal awareness of the administrative counterpart is constantly improving, which requires the administrative law enforcement agencies to exercise administrative power to make administrative acts, must be legal and reasonable, and the procedures are proper.
Recently, the Gucheng County People's Court publicly tried the case of a building materials company v. the County Market Supervision and Administration Bureau for administrative punishment, and Liu Hui appeared in court as the person in charge of the administrative organ. During the trial, the parties presented, cross-examined and debated evidence on the determination of the facts, the application of law, and the appropriateness of the punishment of the sued administrative act. Liu Hui participated in the whole trial, answered the appeal of a building materials company in court, and explained in detail the basis of the administrative punishment.
In 2022, in order to implement the "sue the official" and "appear in court", the Xiangyang court will establish a court appearance and response account, and before the 10th of each month, each court will provide the list to the local judicial bureau in the form of an official letter, and then the judicial bureau will notify it. This has effectively increased the rate at which the responsible persons of administrative organs appear in court to respond to lawsuits, and has effectively promoted the substantive resolution of administrative disputes.
In addition, when hearing administrative cases involving the reform of "delegating power, delegating power, delegating power,
In the first half of 2023, the Xiangyang Court heard 402 administrative litigation cases, and the responsible persons of administrative organs appeared in court to respond to 363 cases, with a court response rate of 903%。
Be cautious of using compulsory measures to protect the development of enterprises
For a long time, the Xiangyang court has accurately grasped the diverse judicial needs of the masses, given full play to the leading role of administrative trials, strictly implemented the business environment assessment system for the impact of the sued administrative acts, and protected the legitimate rights and interests of all parties in accordance with the law.
Recently, a gas filling company in Xiangyang and a food company in Xiangyang sent letters of thanks to the People's Court of Xiangyang High-tech Industrial Development Zone. It turned out that in May 2022, a certain gas filling *** and a certain food *** were given administrative fines and confiscation of illegal gains by the Xiangyang Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau for illegal acts in production and business activities. Neither of the latter two companies fulfilled their obligations on time, and the administrative authorities applied to the High-tech Court for compulsory enforcement, and required the two companies to pay the additional fines imposed on them for late performance.
In order to avoid the credibility crisis of the enterprise due to the case entering the enforcement procedure, the high-tech court immediately activated the economic impact assessment mechanism of the enterprise after accepting the non-litigation enforcement application. After questioning the person in charge of the enterprise, the judge who undertook the case learned that the enterprise had difficulties in production and operation due to the new crown epidemic, so it did not fulfill the fine in time. However, both companies have shown that they will overcome difficulties and perform in accordance with the law.
Therefore, the undertaking judge communicated with the Market Supervision Bureau in a timely manner and organized face-to-face negotiations between the two parties. Subsequently, the Market Supervision Bureau again granted a grace period for the enterprise to perform on its own. Soon, both enterprises fulfilled their obligations under the administrative penalty decision within the grace period. The court rejected the administrative organ's application for compulsory enforcement in accordance with the law. Administrative disputes were substantively resolved.
It is reported that the Xiangyang court fully implements the economic impact assessment system when hearing administrative cases involving enterprises. After assessment, for administrative cases that have a general or significant impact on the enterprise, the presiding judge will report to the leadership of the court in charge for review, and notify the administrative organ of the assessment, so as to minimize the impact of trial activities on the production and operation activities of the enterprise.
In addition, the Xiangyang People's Court has always insisted on conscientiously implementing the measures for the evaluation of the business environment of administrative trial services. Since 2022, the Xiangyang court has carried out a total of 63 administrative trials and other activities, carried out 467 case assessments of the impact of the sued administrative acts on the business environment, and guided the responsible persons of administrative organs in 322 administrative cases involving enterprises to appear in court to respond to the lawsuit.
*: Xiangyang Intermediate Court.
Editor: Zhang Sijie.
Review: Deng Zhaoling.