>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Yang Yimin v. The People's Government of Chengdu (A case about other administrative disputes)
杨一民诉成都市政府其他行政纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Yang Yimin v. The People’s Government of Chengdu (A case about other administrative disputes)
(A case about other administrative disputes)
杨一民诉成都市政府其他行政纠纷案

Yang Yimin v. The People's Government of Chengdu
(A case about other administrative disputes)@#

[Judgment Abstract]@#
A response to aparty by an administrative authority rejecting its appeal relating to a letter-or-visit matter, belongs to a proceduralhandling by theauthority in respect of th eappeal against anadministrative action, but has no fresh legal impact upon the rights andobligations of the party, and is not the type of administrative action that issubject to administrative reconsideration under the Administrative Reconsideration Law. Where a party who isunsatisfied with the above mentionedresponserelating to theletter-or-visit matterby an administrative authority,applies for administrative reconsideration, but the administrativereconsideration authority decides to reject the application for administrativereconsideration, if the applicant is unsatisfied with the decision and files asuit with a people's court to revoke the said decision of rejection, thepeople's court shall not support the request. @#
BASIC FACTS@#

Plaintiff: Yang Yimin, male, 52, residing at Luojianian Street, Chengdu, Sichuan Province.@#
Defendant: The People's Government of Chengdu of Sichuan Province, residing at Renmin Xilu, Chengdu, Sichuan Province.@#
Legal representative: Ge Honglin, mayor of this city.@#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@#
For other administrative disputes with the defendant, the People's Government of Chengdu of Sichuan Province (“Chengdu Government”), the plaintiff, Yang Yimin filed a suit with the Intermediate People's Court of Chengdu, Sichuan Province.@#
The plaintiff, Yang Yimin, claimed that: he was an employee of the former No. 5 Secondary School of Chengdu (now, the Chengdu Liewu Secondary School), and since 1992, on the excuse that the plaintiff had been “removed from the payroll”, this school had refused to arrange work for and pay salaries to the plaintiff, forcibly taken back the dwelling assigned to the plaintiff, and not served the relevant documents on the plaintiff for a long time, which seriously violated the plaintiff's personal and property rights. In 2005, the plaintiff complained about it to the Bureau of Education of Chengdu. On May 20, 2005, the Bureau of Education of Chengdu, in the name of its General Office, made a complaint reply to the plaintiff, confirming that the former Educational Commission of Chengdu (predecessor to the Bureau of Education of Chengdu) made an Official Reply Regarding the Report on Removing School Employee Yang Yimin from the Payroll of the No. 5 Secondary School of Chengdu in 1992 and this Official Reply was consistent with the legal provisions. Disagreeing on this complaint reply, the plaintiff further complained about it to the Department of Education of Sichuan Province that ordered the Bureau of Education of Chengdu to conduct a review. On August 18, 2005, the Bureau of Education of Chengdu remade a complaint reply to the plaintiff with the same content as that of the previous one. Still disagreeing on this complaint reply, on September 9, 2005, the plaintiff lodged an application for administrative reconsideration with the defendant, Chengdu Government, requesting Chengdu Government to reconsider the matters involved in the complaint reply. After receiving the application for administrative reconsideration, Chengdu Government determined that the plaintiff's application failed to meet the conditions for acceptance for administrative reconsideration, and therefore, on September 13, 2005, made a decision on nonacceptance, No. 6 [2005] AR, Nonacceptance, Chengdu Gov. The plaintiff asserted that the complaint reply of the Bureau of Education of Chengdu to the plaintiff was a decision on complaint handling with a nature of administrative confirmation and administrative handling, had a material effect on the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, was not a sheer “explanation or statement”, so the application for administrative reconsideration legally filed by the plaintiff with Chengdu Government was totally in line with the provisions of Article 6(i)(k) of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China (“Administrative Reconsideration Law”) on the scope of acceptance of administrative reconsideration cases. Without correctly explaining the reasons and basis to the plaintiff, Chengdu Government made a decision on nonacceptance of a case where obviously the administrative reconsideration may be applied for, disregarding the remedial right vested in a citizen by the Constitution and depriving the plaintiff of an option of remedies available in law. This decision on nonacceptance was obviously contradictive with the provisions of relevant laws and administrative regulations, and was obviously wrong in the application of laws and administrative regulations. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the court to decide to revoke the decision on nonacceptance, No. 6 [2005] AR, Nonacceptance, Chengdu Gov, of Chengdu Government, according to law.@#
......

 

杨一民诉成都市政府其他行政纠纷案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
行政机关驳回当事人申诉的信访答复,属于行政机关针对当事人不服行政行为的申诉作出的重复处理行为,并未对当事人的权利义务产生新的法律效果,不是行政复议法所规定的可以申请行政复议的行政行为。当事人不服行政机关作出的上述信访答复,申请行政复议,接受申请的行政复议机关作出不予受理决定,当事人不服该决定,诉请人民法院判决撤销该不予受理决定的,人民法院不予支持。@#
@#
原告:杨一民,男,52岁,住四川省成都市罗家碾街。@#
被告:四川省成都市人民政府,住所地:四川省成都市人民西路。@#
法定代表人:葛红林,该市市长。@#
@#
原告杨一民因与被告四川省成都市人民政府(以下简称成都市政府)发生其他行政纠纷,向四川省成都市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告杨一民诉称:原告系原成都市第五中学(现为成都列五中学)职工,该校以 1992年就已对原告作“除名处理”为由,拒绝给原告安排工作、发放工资,还强行收缴原告住房,但长期不向原告送达相关处理文书,其行为严重侵犯原告的人身权、财产权。为此,原告于2005年向成都市教育局申诉。成都市教育局于2005年5月20日以其办公室的名义向原告作出信访回复,称原成都市教育委员会(即成都市教育局的前身)已于1992年作出《对成都市第五中学<关于对我校职工杨一民作除名处理的报告>的批复》,并认为该批复符合法律规定。原告不服,向四川省教育厅申诉,四川省教育厅责令成都市教育局复查。成都市教育局又于2005年8月18日再次给予原告信访答复,答复内容与前次信访回复一致。原告仍不服该信访答复,于2005年 9月9日向被告成都市政府提出行政复议申请,请求成都市政府就该信访答复所涉及的事项作出行政复议。成都市政府收到复议申请后,认为原告的复议申请不符合行政复议的受理条件,于2005年9月13日作出成府复不字(2005)第6号不予受理决定。原告认为,成都市教育局对原告作出的信访答复是具有行政确认和行政处理性质的申诉处理决定,对原告的人身权、财产权有严重影响,而不是一种单纯的“解释、说明”,故原告依法向成都市政府提起的行政复议申请,完全符合《中华人民共和国行政复议法》(以下简称行政复议法)第六条第(九)、(十一)项关于行政复议受案范围的规定。成都市政府在没有向原告正确说明理由和依据的情况下,对这种明显属于依法可申请行政复议的案件作出不予受理决定,忽视了宪法赋予公民的救济权,剥夺了可供原告选择的法定救济机会。该不予受理决定与有关法律、法规的规定明显不符,适用法律、法规明显错误。故请求法院判决撤销成都市政府作出的成府复不字 (2005)第6号不予受理决定。@#
被告成都市政府辩称:根据行政复议法的相关规定,行政复议是一项旨在对具体行政行为进行监督的制度。由于原告杨一民申请行政复议针对的事项是成都市教育局作出的信访答复,该信访答复不是成都市教育局作出的具体行政行为,因此杨一民的申请依法不属于行政复议的受理范围。请求法院依法驳回杨一民的诉讼请求,维持成都市政府对杨一民的行政复议申请作出的不予受理决定。@#
被告成都市政府在法定举证期限内向法院提交了作出被诉不予受理决定的相关证据材料和法律依据:@#
1.原告杨一民提出的行政复议申请书,用以证明杨一民于2005年9月9日向成都市政府申请行政复议针对的事项是成都市教育局办公室于2005年8月18日就杨一民的申诉作出的信访答复;@#
2.成都市教育局于2005年5月20日对杨一民作出的信访回复、四川省教育厅于2005年6月28日给杨一民的复函、杨一民于2005年6月30日向成都市教育局提交的《请求市教育局重新正确对本人申诉进行处理的几点意见》以及成都市教育局办公室于2005年8月18日对杨一民作出的信访答复,用以证明杨一民的复议申请不符合行政复议法规定的受理行政复议的条件;@#
3.成都市政府于2005年9月9日作出的成府复不字(2005)第6号不予受理决定书及送达回证,用以证明成都市政府作出的不予受理决定程序合法,并已于2005年9月13日送达杨一民;@#
4.国务院《信访条例》第三十四条、第三十五条的规定,用以证明杨一民对信访答复不服,不能申请行政复议,其提出的行政复议申请依法不属于行政复议的范围;@#
5.行政复议法一条、第六条、第十一条和第十七条的规定,用以证明成都市教育局针对杨一民的申诉作出的信访答复不属于行政复议法所规定的可以申请行政复议的具体行政行为,成都市政府作出的不予受理决定书认定事实清楚,适用法律正确。@#
成都市中级人民法院依职权调取了以下证据:@#
1.于1992年10月3日向原成都市教育委员会报送的《关于对我校职工杨一民作除名处理的报告》,该报告的内容为:原成都市第五中学根据川人发(1984)4号文规定,决定将原告杨一民作除名处理;@#
2.原成都市教育委员会于1992年12月23日作出的成教发人(1992)78号《对成都市第五中学<关于对我校职工杨一民作除名处理的报告>的批复》,该批复同意将杨一民作除名处理。@#
成都市中级人民法院一审查明:@#
1992年,原成都市第五中学(现成都列五中学)向原成都市教育委员会(现为成都市教育局)报送了《关于对我校职工杨一民作除名处理的报告》,原成都市教育委员会于1992年12月23日作出成教发人 (1992)78号批复,同意将原告杨一民作除名处理。2005年,杨一民因上述纠纷到成都市教育局进行信访申诉,该局于2005年 5月20日以其办公室的名义向杨一民作出信访回复,认为原成都市教育委员会于 1992年作出的《对成都市第五中学<关于对我校职工杨一民作除名处理的报告>的批复》是符合法律规定的。收到该信访回复后,杨一民向四川省教育厅上访,四川省教育厅责成成都市教育局重新答复杨一民。成都市教育局于2005年8月18日再次给予杨一民信访答复,其内容与前次信访回复一致。2005年9月9日,杨一民就成都市教育局于2005年8月18日作出的信访答复向被告成都市政府提出行政复议申请,成都市政府于2005年9月9日作出成府复不字(2005)第6号不予受理决定,并已送达杨一民。@#
......


Dear visitor, as a premium member of this database, you will get complete access to all content.Please go premium and get more.

1. To become a premium member, please call 400-810-8266 Ext. 171.

2. Binding to the account with access to this database.

3. Apply for a trial account.

4. To get instant access to a document, you can Pay Amount 【¥800.00】 for your single purchase.
 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法宝英文库会员专区。
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;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570713
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:info@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  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 as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese