|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supreme People's Court Issues 9 Model Cases Involving Examination of Regulatory Documents Incidental to Administrative Litigation | | 最高人民法院发布9起行政诉讼附带审查规范性文件典型案例 |
| (October 30, 2018) | | （2018年10月30日） |
| | |
| Contents | | 行政诉讼附带审查规范性文件典型案例目录 |
| | |
| I. Xu Yunying v. Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County in Shandong Province (denial of reimbursement of medical expenses) | | 一、徐云英诉山东省五莲县社会医疗保险事业处不予报销医疗费用案 |
| II. Fang Cainv v. Chun'an County Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province (administrative punishment for public security administration) | | 二、方才女诉浙江省淳安县公安局治安管理行政处罚一案 |
| III. Yuan Xibei v. People's Government of Yudu County, Jiangxi Province (administrative collection of prices) | | 三、袁西北诉江西省于都县人民政府物价行政征收一案 |
| IV. Goodwell China Marketing Service Co., Ltd. v. Food and Drug Administration of Fengtai District, Beijing Municipality (administrative punishment) | | 四、大昌三昶（上海）商贸有限公司诉北京市丰台区食品药品监督管理局行政处罚案 |
| V. Zheng Xiaoqin v. People's Government of Wenling City, Zhejiang Province (land administrative approval) | | 五、郑晓琴诉浙江省温岭市人民政府土地行政批准案 |
| VI. Shanghai Suhua Property Management Co., Ltd. v. Shanghai Municipal Housing and Urban-Rural Development Administrative Commission (administrative license of property service qualification) | | 六、上海苏华物业管理有限公司诉上海市住房和城乡建设管理委员会物业服务资质行政许可案 |
| VII. Sun Guihua v. former Environmental Protection Department of Zhejiang Province (administrative license relating to environmental protection) | | 七、孙桂花诉原浙江省环境保护厅环保行政许可案 |
| VIII. Chengdu Gold Medal Angel Medical Technology Co., Ltd. v. Science and Technology Bureau of Chengdu City, Sichuan Province (administrative license of a grant for a science and technology project) | | 八、成都金牌天使医疗科技有限责任公司诉四川省成都市科学技术局科技项目资助行政许可案 |
| IX. Mao Aimei and Zhu Hongxing v. People's Government of Hecun Township, Jiangshan City, Zhejiang Province (administrative compulsion and administrative compensation) | | 九、毛爱梅、祝洪兴诉浙江省江山市贺村镇人民政府行政强制及行政赔偿案 |
| I. Xu Yunying v. Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County in Shandong Province (denial of reimbursement of medical expenses) | | 一、徐云英诉山东省五莲县社会医疗保险事业处不予报销医疗费用案 |
| 1. Basic facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| Xu Yunying's husband, Liu Huanxi, suffered from advanced lung cancer complicating with brain metastasis. He was admitted to the Zibo Wanjie Cancer Hospital on April 8, 2014 and June 3, 2014 respectively. He died on July 8, 2014 despite medical efforts. His treatment at the Zibo Wanjie Cancer Hospital gave rise to medical expenses of CNY105,014.48. On July 21, 2014, Xu Yunying applied to the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County for reimbursement of medical expenses under the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme (“RCMS”). On January 12, 2015, the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County made the Written Reply of the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County to the Application by Applicant Xu Yunying for RCMS Reimbursements (hereinafter referred to as the “Written Reply”), of the opinion that, according to the provisions of paragraph 2, Article 5 of the Implementation Measures for Administration of New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme in Wulian County in 2014 (No. 2 [2014], Health) (hereinafter referred to as the “Implementation Measures”) issued by the Health Bureau of Wulian County and the Finance Bureau of Wulian County, the medical institution which Liu Huanxi sought medical care was not founded by the government, denying reimbursement. Xu Yunying applied to the People's Government of Wulian County for administrative reconsideration, in the belief that the policy by which the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County denied reimbursement did not conform to the spirit of corresponding municipal and provincial policies and infringed on her lawful rights and interests. The People's Government of Wulian County was of the opinion that the Written Reply from the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County conformed to the provisions, and made the Administrative Reconsideration Decision (No. 1 [2015], Administrative Reconsideration, Lian) on April 13, 2015, in favor of the Written Reply issued by the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County. Xu Yunying filed suit, requesting that the people's court revoke the Written Reply made by the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County and examine the legality of the regulatory document relied on by the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County. | | 徐云英的丈夫刘焕喜患肺癌晚期并发脑转移，先后于2014年4月8日、2014年6月3日两次入住淄博万杰肿瘤医院治疗，2014年7月8日医治无效去世。在淄博万杰肿瘤医院住院治疗期间，产生医疗费用105014.48元。2014年7月21日，徐云英申请五莲县社会医疗保险事业处给予办理新农合医疗费用报销。五莲县社会医疗保险事业处于2015年1月12日作出《五莲县社会医疗保险事业处关于对申请人徐云英合作医疗报销申请的书面答复》（以下简称《书面答复》），依据五莲县卫生局、五莲县财政局莲卫字〔2014〕2号《2014年五莲县新型农村合作医疗管理工作实施办法》（以下简称《实施办法》）第五条第二款的规定，认为刘焕喜就诊的医疗机构不属于政府举办的医疗机构，决定不予报销。徐云英认为五莲县社会医疗保险事业处不予报销所依据的政策规定不符合省、市相应政策规定的精神，侵犯其合法权益，为此向五莲县人民政府提出行政复议申请。五莲县人民政府认为五莲县社会医疗保险事业处的《书面答复》符合规定，于2015年4月13日作出莲政复决字〔2015〕1号行政复议决定维持五莲县社会医疗保险事业处作出的《书面答复》。徐云英起诉请求人民法院撤销五莲县社会医疗保险事业处作出的《书面答复》，同时，对五莲县社会医疗保险事业处所依据规范性文件的合法性进行审查。 |
| 2. Adjudication | | （二）裁判结果 |
| The Intermediate People's Court of Rizhao City, Shandong Province held that paragraph 2, Article 5 of the Implementation Measures provided: “When a participating rural resident seeks medical care out of the city, he or she shall do so at a public medical institution founded by the government” and that because the provision restricted the right of a person subject to an administrative action, did not conform to the relevant provisions of superior regulatory documents, and could not serve as a basis for determining the legality of an administrative action, the Written Reply should be revoked. With respect to whether Xu Yunying's medical expenses should be reimbursed through the RCMS according to the provisions of the superior regulatory documents, the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County shall conduct a reexamination and making a decision. Accordingly, the court of second instance set aside the first-instance judgment rendered by the People's Court of Wulian County, Shandong Province, revoked the Written Reply made by the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County, and ordered the Social Medical Insurance Business Office of Wulian County to, within 60 days from the effective date of the judgment, reexamine and handle the application from Xu Yunying. | | 山东省日照市中级人民法院二审认为，案涉《实施办法》第五条第二款规定“参合农民到市外就医，必须到政府举办的公立医疗机构”，该款规定对行政相对人的权利作出了限缩性规定，不符合上位法规范性文件的相关规定，不能作为认定行政行为合法的依据，《书面答复》应予撤销。对于徐云英的新型农村合作医疗费用依据上位规范性文件的规定应否报销，需由五莲县社会医疗保险事业处重新审查并作出处理。据此，二审法院撤销山东省五莲县人民法院一审判决；撤销五莲县社会医疗保险事业处作出的《书面答复》；并责令五莲县社会医疗保险事业处于判决生效之日起60日内对徐云英的申请重新审查并作出处理。 |
| 3. Significance | | （三）典型意义 |
| Article 53 of the Administrative Procedure Law as amended contains an added provision for incidental examination of regulatory documents. A regulatory document shall be developed based on superior laws, and any provision in conflict with a superior law is illegal and cannot serve as a basis for determining the legality of administrative actions. The case-related superior bases include the provision of Article 12 of the Shandong Provincial Interim Administrative Provisions for Designated Medical Institutions for New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme: “The expenses that a participating farmer paid for medical care at a medical institution not designated for the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme in the administrative region of Shandong Province shall not be reimbursed out of the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme Fund” and the Implementation Opinions on Consolidating and Developing New Rural Cooperative Medical System as issued by the Health Department, Civil Affairs Department, Finance Department, and Agriculture Department of Shandong Province provided that: "The mutual recognition system for designated medical institutions for the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme in the province shall be improved so that a designated medical institution at or above Grade III for the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme, which is determined and filed with the provincial health administrative department by the health administrative department at or above the municipal level shall be recognized across the province; and a region under coordination shall, based on the destination in which participating farmers seek medical care, mutually recognize Grades I and II designated medical institutions for the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme by executing an agreement, so as to enjoy disbursement rates as prescribed by the destination in respect of the designated medical institutions at the same grade for the New Rural Cooperative Medical Scheme.” The provision of paragraph 2, Article 5 of the Implementation Measures that "when a participating rural resident seeks medical care out of the city, he or she shall do so at a public medical institution founded by the government” restricted the rights of persons subject to administrative actions to elect medical care, did not conform to the relevant provisions of superior bases, and could not serve as a basis for determining the legality of the case-related administrative action. | | 修改后的行政诉讼法第五十三条增加了对规范性文件进行附带审查的条款。规范性文件的制定应以上位法为依据，与上位法相冲突的条款不具有合法性，不能作为认定行政行为合法的依据。本案涉及到的上位依据包括：《山东省新型农村合作医疗定点医疗机构暂行管理规定》第十二条规定：“参合农民在山东省行政区域内非新农合定点医疗机构就医的费用不得纳入新农合基金补偿。”山东省卫生厅、民政厅、财政厅、农业厅《关于巩固和发展新型农村合作医疗制度的实施意见》规定：“完善省内新农合定点医疗机构互认制度，凡经市级以上卫生行政部门确定并报省卫生行政部门备案的三级以上新农合定点医疗机构，在全省范围内互认；统筹地区根据参合农民就医流向，通过签订协议互认一、二级新农合定点医疗机构，享受当地规定的同级别新农合定点医疗机构补偿比例。”《实施办法》第五条第二款关于“参合农民到市外就医，必须到政府举办的公立医疗机构”的规定，限缩了行政相对人选择就医的权利，不符合上位依据的相关规定，不能作为认定涉案行政行为合法的依据。 |
| II. Fang Cainv v. Chun'an County Public Security Bureau of Zhejiang Province (administrative punishment for public security administration) | | 二、方才女诉浙江省淳安县公安局治安管理行政处罚一案 |
| 1. Basic facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| In January 2015, the Urban Police Station of the Public Security Bureau of Chun'an County, Zhejiang Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Urban Police Station”) and the Public Security and Fire Brigade of Chun'an County (hereinafter referred to as the “Chun'an Fire Brigade”) conducted several fire inspections on the rental buildings located at 11 Lane 53, Longmen Road, Qiandaohu Township, Chun'an County, managed by Fang Cainv. On February 11, that same year, the Urban Police Station and the Chun'an Fire Brigade conducted another fire inspection on the rental buildings of Fang Cainv. On February 13, that same year, the Urban Police Station issued a notice of correction with the specified period to Fang Cainv, ordering Fang Cainv to correct fire safety violations. That same day, the Chun'an Fire Brigade also issued a notice of correction with the specified period to Fang Cainv, determining fire safety violations basically identical to those determined by the Public Security Bureau of Chun'an County and ordering Fang Cainv to take corrective action before March 11, 2015. On March 13, the officers with the Urban Police Station and the Chun'an Fire Brigade reviewed the case-related rental buildings and discovered that Fang Cainv failed to correct violations such as “lack of an evacuation staircase on the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh floors and failure to prepare fire escape masks, alarm whistle, flashlights, and fire escape ropes.” On March 16, that same year, the Urban Police Station decided to file a case for investigation. The next day, the officer with the Urban Police Station informed Fang Cainv of the facts, cause and basis of the punishment. That same day, the Public Security Bureau of Chun'an County made the Administrative Punishment Decision (No. 1-0001 [2015], Decision, Administrative Punishment, Public Security, Chun'an) (hereinafter referred to as the “Punishment Decision involved in the litigation”), determining that the conduct of Fang Cainv constituted a violation that the breach of rules of safety exposed the venue to the risk of safety accident, deciding, according to the provisions of Article 39 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the “Public Security Administration Punishments Law”), to hold Fang Cainv in administrative detention for three days at the Chun'an County Detention Center. Fang Cainv, unsatisfied, filed a complaint with the court, requesting the revocation of the Punishment Decision involved in the litigation and the incidental examination of the legality of the regulatory documents on which the Punishment Decision involved in the litigation relied, to wit: the Zhejiang Province Fire Safety Requirements for Rental Residential Buildings (hereinafter referred to as the “Fire Safety Requirements”), the Official Reply on Resolving Certain Issues Concerning Fire Supervision and Law Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as the “Fire Issues Reply”) and the Opinions on the Application of Law in Certain Issues Concerning Fire Safety Rectification of Rental Residential Buildings (for Trial Implementation) (hereinafter referred to as the “Fire Safety Opinions”), which were applied in the administrative procedures. | | 2015年1月，浙江省淳安县公安局城区派出所（以下简称城区派出所）和淳安县公安消防大队（以下简称淳安消防大队）曾多次对方才女经营的坐落于淳安县千岛湖镇龙门路53弄11号出租房进行消防检查。同年2月11日，城区派出所和淳安消防大队再次对方才女的出租房进行消防检查。同年2月13日，城区派出所向方才女发出责令限期改正通知书，责令其改正消防安全违法行为。同日，淳安消防大队也向方才女发出责令限期改正通知书，其中认定的消防安全违法行为与淳安县公安局认定的基本相同，并责令方才女于2015年3月11日前改正。3月13日，城区派出所和淳安消防大队民警对涉案出租房进行复查，发现方才女对“四、五、六、七层缺少一部疏散楼梯，未按要求配置逃生用口罩、报警哨、手电筒、逃生绳等”违法行为未予改正。同年3月16日，城区派出所决定立案调查，次日，城区派出所民警向方才女告知拟处罚的事实、理由和依据。同日，淳安县公安局作出淳公行罚决字[2015]第1-0001号《行政处罚决定书》（以下简称被诉处罚决定），认定方才女的行为构成违反安全规定致使场所有发生安全事故危险的违法行为，根据《中华人民共和国治安管理处罚法》（以下简称《治安管理处罚法》）第三十九条的规定，对其决定行政拘留三日，并送淳安县拘留所执行。方才女不服诉至法院请求撤销被诉处罚决定，并对被诉处罚决定作出所依据的规范性文件，即行政程序中适用的《浙江省居住出租房屋消防安全要求》（以下简称《消防安全要求》）《关于解决消防监督执法工作若干问题的批复》（以下简称《消防执法问题批复》）和《关于居住出租房屋消防安全整治中若干问题的法律适用意见（试行）》（以下简称《消防安全法律适用意见》）合法性进行一并审查。 |
| 2. Reasons for Adjudication | | （二）裁判理由 |
| The People's Court of Chun'an County, Zhejiang Province held in the first instance trial that the rental buildings of Fang Cainv was determined to be acquired but was still used for rent in the acquisition process, and the rental buildings was not equipped with fire escape masks, alarm whistle, flashlights, fire escape ropes, and other fire-fighting facilities as required. The fact, that the conduct of Fang Cainv constituted a violation that the breach of rules of safety exposed the venue to the risk of safety accident, as determined by the Chun'an County Public Security Bureau according to the provisions of the Fire Safety Requirements, the Fire Issues Reply and the Fire Safety Opinions, was clear. The Fire Safety Requirements, the Fire Issues Reply and the Fire Safety Opinions were all legal regulatory documents, which the Public Security Bureau of Chun'an County should apply mutatis mutandis in the administrative procedures. Accordingly, the first instance judgment dismissed the claim of Fang Cainv. Fang Cainv was unsatisfied and appealed. The Intermediate People's Court of Hangzhou City held in the second instance trial that, according to the examination of the Fire Safety Requirements, the Fire Issues Reply and the Fire Safety Opinions, the Chun'an County Public Security Bureau's determination that any case-related rental residential building was "any other place for public activity" as specified in Article 39 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law was accurate determination of nature. The evidence provided by Fang Cainv and the transcripts of interviews both showed that Fang Cainv was responsible for the routine management of the case-related rental building, served as the manager of the building, and was responsible for the fire safety of the building according to the law. Fang Cainv's claim to request revocation of the Punishment Decision involved in the litigation was untenable and should be dismissed according to the law. Therefore, a second-instance judgment dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original judgment. | | 浙江省淳安县人民法院一审认为，方才女的出租房屋虽被确定为征迁范围，但其在征迁程序中仍用于出租，且出租房内未按要求配置逃生用口罩、报警哨、手电筒、逃生绳等消防设施。淳安县公安局根据《消防安全要求》《消防执法问题批复》和《消防安全法律适用意见》的规定，认定方才女的行为构成违反安全规定致使场所有发生安全事故危险的违法事实清楚。《消防安全要求》《消防执法问题批复》和《消防安全法律适用意见》均属于合法的规范性文件，淳安县公安局在行政程序中应参照适用。据此，一审判决驳回方才女的诉讼请求。方才女不服提出上诉。杭州市中级人民法院二审认为，根据对《消防安全要求》《消防执法问题批复》和《消防安全法律适用意见》的审查，淳安县公安局认定案涉居住出租房屋为《治安管理处罚法》第三十九条规定的“其他供社会公众活动的场所”，定性准确。方才女提供的证据以及询问笔录均显示其负责案涉出租房屋日常管理，系案涉出租房屋的经营管理人员，依法应对案涉出租经营的房屋消防安全承担责任。方才女要求撤销被诉处罚决定的诉讼请求不能成立，依法应予驳回。据此，二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。 |
| 3. Significance | | （三）典型意义 |
| The issue in this case is whether the Fire Safety Requirements, the Fire Issues Reply and the Fire Safety Opinions, of which the party applied for incidental examination, expanded the meaning of “any other place for public activity” as specified in Article 39 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law. Article 39 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law applies to “the business manager of a hotel, restaurant, cinema, theater, entertainment place, playground, exhibition hall or any other place for public activity.” In this case, people's courts clarified the issue of application of law by examining the provisions of case-related regulatory documents, to wit: whether a rental residential building could be regarded as “any other place for public activity.” Since “any other place for public activity” is an uncertain legal concept, its content and scope are not fixed. In this case, the rental residential buildings containing a number of adjacent buildings and (units) rooms were physically intended to be rented to unspecified people that were highly mobile tenants, were qualitatively different from general residential buildings, which were only related to the private fields of citizens, and became places for public activity of a certain open nature similar to hotels. The managers of such places should assume more responsibility for fire safety management while profiting from rental. Hence, the provisions of the Fire Safety Requirements, the Fire Issues Reply and the Fire Safety Opinions do not contravene the provisions of Article 39 of the Public Security Administration Punishments Law. | | 本案争议的焦点在于，当事人申请附带审查的《消防安全要求》《消防执法问题批复》和《消防安全法律适用意见》是否对《治安管理处罚法》第三十九条规定的“其他供社会公众活动的场所”进行了扩大解释。《治安管理处罚法》第三十九条适用的对象是“旅馆、饭店、影剧院、娱乐场、运动场、展览馆或者其他供社会公众活动的场所的经营管理人员”。本案中，人民法院通过对案涉规范性文件条文的审查，明确了对居住的出租房屋能否视为“其他供社会公众活动的场所”这一法律适用问题。由于“其他供社会公众活动的场所”为不确定法律概念，其内容与范围并不固定。本案中，居住的出租房物理上将毗邻的多幢、多间（套）房屋集中用于向不特定多数人出租，并且承租人具有较高的流动性，已与一般的居住房屋只关涉公民私人领域有质的区别，已经构成了与旅馆类似的具有一定开放性的公共活动场所。对于此类场所的经营管理人员，在出租获利的同时理应承担更高的消防安全管理责任。因此，《消防安全要求》《消防执法问题批复》和《消防安全法律适用意见》所规定的内容并不与《治安管理处罚法》第三十九条之规定相抵触。 |
| III. Yuan Xibei v. People's Government of Yudu County, Jiangxi Province (administrative collection of prices) | | 三、袁西北诉江西省于都县人民政府物价行政征收一案 |
| 1. Basic facts | | （一）基本案情 |
| Yuan Xibei's residential building was in the area under the central urban area plan of Yudu County, Jiangxi Province. The People's Government of Yudu County, Jiangxi Province (hereinafter referred to as the “Yudu County Government”) authorized the Yudu County Water Supply Company to collect sewage treatment fee amounting to CNY1273.2 from Yuan Xibei according to the use of tap water at Yuan Xibei's household from February 1, 2010 to November 2015. Yuan Xibei filed a complaint with the court on the ground that the Yudu County Government's collection of the sewage treatment fee was illegal, requesting that the Yudu County Government refund all the sewage treatment fee that had been collected and that the legality of the Yudu County Implementation Plan for Collection of Urban Sewage Treatment Fees (hereinafter referred to as the “Implementation Plan”) be examined according to the law. | | 袁西北的住房属江西省于都县中心城区规划范围。江西省于都县人民政府（以下简称于都县政府）委托于都县自来水公司，根据袁西北户从2010年2月1日起至2015年11月的自来水使用情况，征收了袁西北户的污水处理费共计1273.2元。袁西北以于都县政府对其征收污水处理费违法为由，诉至法院，请求于都县政府全部退还已征收的污水处理费；依法对《于都县城市污水处理费征收工作实施方案》（以下简称《实施方案》）的合法性进行审查。 |
| 2. Adjudication | | （二）裁判结果 |
The Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province, as the court of second instance, held: Paragraphs 3 and 4, Article 44 of the Water Pollution Prevention and Control Law of the People's Republic of China provided that, “entities operating such facilities shall provide paid services of sewage treatment for entities discharging pollutants in accordance with the relevant state provisions, charge for sewage treatment and guarantee the normal operation of such facilities... The specific measures governing the charge for sewage treatment with urban sewage concentrated treatment facilities as well as the administration and use of such facilities shall be determined by the State Council.” Article 32 of the Regulation on Urban Drainage and Sewage Treatment as issued by the State Council provided, “Drainage entities and individuals shall pay the sewage treatment fee in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state.” Article 8 of the Measures for the Administration of the Collection and Use of Sewage Treatment Fees (hereinafter referred to as the “Administrative Measures”) as issued by the Ministry of Finance of the People's Republic of China and the National Development and Reform Commission of the People's Republic of China provided that, “An entity or individual that discharges sewage or wastewater through urban drainage and sewage treatment facilities shall pay sewage treatment fees.” The Notice on Unified Adjustment of Provincial Urban Sewage Treatment Fee Collection Standards (No. 135 [2010], Fee Collection, DRC, Jiangxi) as issued by the Development and Reform Commission of Jiangxi Province and the Official Reply on Confirming Collection Standards for Urban Sewage Treatment Fees of Yudu City (No. 15 [2010], Fees, Price Bureau, Ganzhou City) as issued by the Ganzhou City Price Bureau both specified the scope of collection: “all water using entities or individuals that discharge sewage up to standard to the urban sewage pipe network and centralized sewage treatment facilities within the urban centralized sewage treatment planning area.” However, the scope of collection of sewage treatment fees determined by the Implementation Plan was extended to “all enterprises, entities and individuals that use urban water supply within the planning area of the central urban area of Yudu County,” violated laws, regulations, rules and the regulatory documents of higher-level administrative agencies, and cannot be used as the legal basis for the Yudu County Government to collect sewage treatment fees from Yuan Xibei. In the case that Yuan Xibei had not discharged sewage into the urban sewage pipe network and centralized sewage treatment facilities, the sewage treatment fee which the Yudu County Government collected from Yuan Xibei had no factual or legal basis and should be returned. Therefore, a judgment was entered to revoke the conduct of the Yudu County Government to collect the sewage treatment fee from Yuan Xibei and order the Yudu County Government to return the CNY1273.2 sewage treatment fee to Yuan Xibei within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment. Later, the Higher People's Court of Jiangxi Province delivered judicial recommendations to the Yudu County Government, recommending it to amend the relevant provisions of the case-related regulatory document.
．．．．．． | | 江西省高级人民法院二审认为，《中华人民共和国水污染防治法》第四十四条第三款、第四款规定，城镇污水集中处理设施的运营单位按照国家规定向排污者提供污水处理的有偿服务，收取污水处理费用，保证污水集中处理设施的正常运行。城镇污水集中处理设施的污水处理收费、管理以及使用的具体办法，由国务院规定。国务院《城镇排水与污水处理条例》第三十二条规定，排水单位和个人应当按照国家有关规定缴纳污水处理费。中华人民共和国财政部、中华人民共和国国家发展和改革委员会《污水处理费征收使用管理办法》（以下简称《管理办法》）第八条规定，向城镇排水与污水处理设施排放污水、废水的单位和个人应当缴纳污水处理费。江西省发改委赣发改收费字[2010]135号《关于统一调整全省城市污水处理费征收标准的通知》及赣州市物价局赣市价费字[2010]15号《关于核定于都县城市污水处理费征收标准的批复》确定的征收范围均明确是“在城市污水集中处理规划区范围内向城市排污管网和污水集中处理设施排放达标污水的所有用水单位和个人”。但《实施方案》所确定的污水处理费征收范围却扩大至“于都县中心城区规划区范围内所有使用城市供水的企业、单位和个人”，违反法律法规规章及上级行政机关规范性文件规定，不能作为于都县政府征收袁西北污水处理费的合法性依据。在袁西北未向城市排污管网和污水集中处理设施排放污水的情况下，于都县政府向其征收污水处理费没有事实和法律依据，应予返还。故判决撤销于都县政府征收袁西北城市污水处理费的行为，责令于都县政府于判决生效之日起三十日内向袁西北返还1273.2元污水处理费。此后，江西省高级人民法院向于都县政府发送司法建议，建议其对涉案规范性文件的相关条款予以修改。
．．．．．． |
|
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 【￥1300.00】 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 as we dynamically expand content.
|
|
|
|
|
|