>>>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
 
Zhonghai Yayuan Property Management Committee v. the House Management Bureau of Haidian District (Case of Dispute over Non-performance of Statutory Functions)
中海雅园管委会诉海淀区房管局不履行法定职责案
【法宝引证码】

Zhonghai Yayuan Property Management Committee v. the House Management Bureau of Haidian District (Case of Dispute over Non-performance of Statutory Functions)
(Case of Dispute over Non-performance of Statutory Functions)
中海雅园管委会诉海淀区房管局不履行法定职责案

Zhonghai Yayuan Property Management Committee v. the House Management Bureau of Haidian District(Case of Dispute over Non-performance of Statutory Functions)@#

Judgment Abstract:@#
Where an administrative authority fails for long time to respondin writing to a counterparty of a specific administrative act who demanded performanceof its duties according to laws and regulations, and fails to exercise itsfunctions in providing guidance and supervision according to relevantprovisions, the authority's conducts violated laws and regulations. @#

BASIC FACTS
Plaintiff: Zhonghai Yayuan Property Management Committee, situated at Beiwa Xili, Haidian District, Beijing Municipality.@#
Principal: Hu Mizhen, the director of this Committee.@#
Defendant: Haidian Administration of State Land, Resources and Housing of Beijing Municipality.@#
Legal Representative: Zhang Qiang, the director of this Administration.@#
Zhonghai Yayuan Property Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Property Committee) filed an administrative lawsuit with the Haidian People's Court of Beijing Municipality on September 8, 2003 for the dispute over non-performance of statutory archival filing function against the Haidian Administration of State Land, Resources and Housing of Beijing Municipality (hereinafter referred to as the Haidian House Administration).@#
The Property Committee complained that: the Property Committee was established according to law on June 15, 2001. In February 2002, the Property Committee concluded a property management contract with Beijing Jinluoma Property Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Jinluoma) by way of open tendering. However, the Haidian House Administration did not file this on the archives, which caused the bid-wining company to file a lawsuit against the Property Committee. The tenure of the Property Committee expired on June 15, 2002. Before that, the Property Committee carried out a re-election, and applied to the Haidian House Administration for archival filing on June 14, 2002 by a registered letter. Upon receipt of the application, the Haidian House Administration called the Property Committee and notified it to report its work but failed to inform it of the non-performance of archival filing within 15 days in writing. According to the relevant provisions, the formalities for archival filing of the Property Committee were lawful and valid, its status was also lawful and valid, and it always responded to and filed lawsuits by a lawful status. Until August 14, 2003, the Property Committee knew from the testimony of the Haidian House Administration that the latter did not put the former on the archives. The Property Committee held that the Haidian House Administration's act had damaged its lawful rights and interests and should be corrected. Please affirm that the Haidian House Administration's failure to perform the archival filing function was illegal.@#
......

 

中海雅园管委会诉海淀区房管局不履行法定职责案@#
【裁判摘要】@#
行政机关对具体行政行为相对人要求其依法履行职责的申请,长时间不予书面答复,亦未按规定履行指导、监督的职责,其行为构成违法。@#
原告:中海雅园物业管理委员会。住所地:北京市海淀区北洼西里。@#
负责人:胡密珍,该委员会主任。@#
被告:北京市海淀区国土资源和房屋管理局。@#
法定代表人:张强,该局局长。@#
原告中海雅园物业管理委员会(以下简称中海雅园管委会)认为被告北京市海淀区国土资源和房屋管理局(以下简称海淀区房管局)不履行备案法定职责的行为违法,于2003年9月8日向北京市海淀区人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
原告诉称:2001年6月15日,原告依法成立。2002年2月,原告通过公开招标,与北京金罗马物业管理有限公司(以下简称金罗马公司)订立了物业管理合同,被告对此却不予备案,致使中标公司将原告告上法庭。2002年6月15日,原告任期届满。此前,原告依照法定程序进行了改选,并于2002年6月14日以挂号信的方式,向被告申请备案。被告收到申请后,曾电话通知原告汇报工作,但并未在15日内以书面形式告知原告不予备案。根据有关规定,原告的备案手续合法有效,原告的身份也合法有效,一直以合法身份在民事诉讼中应诉和起诉。直到2003年8月14日,原告才从被告的证词中得知被告没有对原告备案。原告认为,被告的行为损害了原告的合法权益,应当纠正,请求确认被告不履行备案职责的行为违法。@#
原告提交的证据有:@#
1.备案材料邮寄存根和投递签收清单,用以证明中海雅园管委会改选后即向海淀区房管局申请备案。@#
2.法院调查笔录,用以证明海淀区房管局工作人员在接受法院调查时,明确表示中海雅园管委会未备案。@#
3.法院交换证据笔录,用以证明海淀区房管局对中海雅园管委会与金罗马公司订立的物业管理合同未予备案,一直违法行政。@#
被告辩称:本案的原告不适格。物业管理委员会不是能够独立承担法律责任的组织,不具有诉讼行为能力,不具有原告主体资格。我局对中海雅园管委会与金罗马公司订立的物业管理合同不予备案是合法的行政行为,对中海雅园管委会换届选举不予备案也是合法的。中海雅园管委会在改选过程中,未召开业主大会,以挂号信的方式申请备案且未提交应当提交的备案申请书、管委会章程、管委会委员名单及基本情况、产权人大会或产权人代表大会决议等材料,均不符合《关于物业管理委员会委员补选、改选、换届选举及变更事项的通知》的规定,而且我局也收到了中海雅园小区业主关于管委会不为业主办实事、以公告方式进行管委会换届选举侵害广大业主权益的举报。所以,我局认为中海雅园管委会提交的改选备案申请不符合备案条件,我局工作人员已明确告知中海雅园管委会对其申请不予备案。总之,中海雅园管委会的改选不符合备案条件,我局不予备案行为合法,请求驳回中海雅园管委会的诉讼请求。@#
被告提交的证据有:@#
1.中海雅园500名业主签名的举报信,用以证明业主举报中海雅园管委会改选程序不合法。@#
2.中海雅园管委会寄给被告的挂号信,用以证明中海雅园管委会曾以挂号信的方式申请备案。@#
3.海淀区房管局委托代理人的陈述。主要内容是:我局经办人员接到中海雅园管委会寄来的挂号信后,打电话通知中海雅园管委会人员到本局谈话,在谈话中明确告知其提交的备案材料不齐备、不符合备案条件,不予备案。该陈述用以证明已将不备案的情况及原因明确通知中海雅园管委会。@#
在庭审质证中,原告中海雅园管委会对被告海淀区房管局的证据2无异议,但对证据1、证据3有异议,认为证据1的举报情况不属实,如管委会存在举报的问题,海淀区房管局为何不责令管委会改正?认为海淀区房管局委托代理人的当庭陈述不属实,当时经办人员的表示是:管委会的改选较规范,美中不足的是提交的管委会章程只是修改的部分章节,没有提交章程全文;经办人员还鼓励管委会克服困难,为业主服务,并没有告知对管委会不予备案。海淀区房管局对中海雅园管委会提交的证据1无异议;认为证据2没有调查人的签名,不规范;认为证据3与本案无关。@#
被告海淀区房管局提交的行政规范依据有:@#
1.《关于开展居住小区物业管理委员会试点工作的通知》(北京市房屋土地管理局京房地物字[1997]第485号)。@#
......


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 【¥500.00】 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