Ying Chenyan v. the Public Security Bureau of Lushi County
(Case on the Administrative Compensation for Nonfeasance upon 110 Case-reporting)@#
@#
BASIC FACTS@#
Plaintiff: Yin Chenyan, female, 24 years old, laid-off worker of Baifang Co., Ltd. of Lushi County, dwelling in Chenguan Town, Lushi County, Henan Province.@#
Defendant: the Public Security Bureau of Lushi County, domiciled in Xinjian Road, Lushi County, Henan Province.@#
Legal Representative: Liu Yongzhang, director of the Bureau.@#
When a theft occurred in the Salesroom of Arts and Crafts, Flowers and Fishing Gears (hereinafter referred to as the Salesroom) as run by Yin, the “110 Command Center” of the Public Security Bureau of Lushi County (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) failed to accept the case. Yin believed that it was the Bureau's breach of duty that led to her property losses and thus filed an administrative action with the People's Court of Lushi County, Henan Province.@#
The plaintiff alleged that: On the night of June 26, 2002, her Salesroom in Dongmen, Lushi county was stolen. The theft shocked the owner and travelers of the “Guest House of the Labor and Employment Training Center” (hereinafter referred to as the Guest House) on the opposite side of the road. They immediately reported the case to the “110 Command Center” of the Bureau, whereas the functionary on duty who received the report refused to handle it. About 20 minutes later or more, the thief loaded all the articles he had stolen onto a motorcycle and ran away. The stolen goods were evaluated as 24, 546. 5 yuan and the damaged goods were converted into 455 yuan, which came up to 25, 001. 5 yuan. The Bureau refused to dispatch its police force upon receiving the case report, which is an administrative nonfeasance in violation of their functions and duties. Afterwards, although Yin negotiated with the Bureau for several times and requested it to compensate for her losses, the Bureau, however, delayed the compensation. Therefore, Yin pleaded the court to order the defendant to compensate for all her losses according to the provisions of the State Compensation Law.@#
．．．．．．

尹琛琰诉卢氏县公安局110报警@#
不作为行政赔偿案@#
@#
原告：尹琛琰，女，24岁，卢氏县百纺公司下岗职工，住河南省卢氏县城关镇。@#
被告：卢氏县公安局，住所地：河南省卢氏县城新建路。@#
法定代表人：刘永章，该局局长。@#
原告尹琛琰开办的“工艺礼花渔具门市部”发生盗窃时，卢氏县公安局“110指挥中心”接到报警后没有受理，尹琛琰认为，卢氏县公安局的失职造成其财产损失，遂向河南省卢氏县人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称；2002年6月26日夜，我在卢氏县东门开办的“工艺礼花渔具门市部”被盗。小偷行窃时惊动了门市部对面“劳动就业培训中心招待所”的店主和旅客。他们即向卢氏县公安局“110指挥中心”报案，但接到报警的值班人员拒不处理。20多分钟后，小偷将所盗物品装上摩托车拉走。被盗货物价值24546．5元，被毁坏物品折价455元，共计25001．5元。被告卢氏县公安局接到报警后不出警，违反了职责，是行政不作为。事后，我虽多次交涉，要求被告赔偿损失，但其一直推拖不赔。请求法院根据国家赔偿法的规定，责令被告赔偿其全部损失。@#
原告尹琛琰提供的证据有：@#
1．申请材料一份，证明其起诉前曾要求卢氏县公安局予以赔偿，卢氏县公安局一直不予赔偿。@#
2．证人吴古栾、程新发、任春风书面证言及卢氏县公安局卢公字(2002)68号文件，证明卢氏县公安局接到报警后不出警行为的存在。@#
3．“工艺礼花渔具门市部”进货数、销货数、存货数、修复门等发票3张，证明自己的损失数额。@#
被告卢氏县公安局辩称：“110指挥中心”接到报案后未出警是事实，但对原告尹琛琰主张的损失数额有异议。请求法院划清其承担损失的责任。@#
卢氏县公安局未提供证据。@#
在法庭调查中，被告卢氏县公安局对原告尹琛琰提供的证据的质证意见为：对证据2无异议，承认接警不出警违法事实的存在；对证据1虽无异议，但认为这属于法律规定的赔偿范围，尹琛琰起诉不符合国家赔偿法规定的程序；对证据3证明的数额有异议，认为1辆摩托车无法装运这些东西。卢氏县人民法院认为，原告尹琛琰提供的3份证据符合法律的规定，和本案事实相关联，内容真实，可以作为本案的定案依据。@#
卢氏县人民法院经审理查明：@#
．．．．．．