>>>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
 
Peng Xuechun v. Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce (Case of Dispute over Nonperformance of Legal Duties)
彭学纯诉上海市工商局不履行法定职责纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Peng Xuechun v. Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce (Case of Dispute over Nonperformance of Legal Duties)
(Case of Dispute over Nonperformance of Legal Duties)
彭学纯诉上海市工商局不履行法定职责纠纷案

Peng Xuechun v. Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce

 

彭学纯诉上海市工商局不履行法定职责纠纷案@#

(Case of Dispute over Nonperformance of Legal Duties)@# @#
BASIC FACTS@# 原告:彭学纯,男,56岁,住上海市沪太路。@#
Plaintiff: Peng Xuechun, Male, 56 years of age, address: Hutai Road of Shanghai Municipality.@# 被告:上海市工商行政管理局。住所地:上海市肇嘉浜路。@#
Defendant: Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce. Address: Zhaojiabang Road of Shanghai Municipality.@# 法定代表人:张文蔚,该局局长。@#
Legal Representative: Zhang Wenwei, Director of the Administration.@# @#
PROCEDURAL POSTURE@# 原告彭学纯2000年12月1日向被告上海市工商行政管理局(以下简称工商局)投诉,要求其履行法定职责,对上海有线电视台戏剧频道播放违法医疗广告,误导其妻子就医时死亡一案进行查处。工商局口头作出有关节目不属于广告,不予立案后,彭学纯向上海市徐汇区人民法院提起行政诉讼。@#
The plaintiff Peng Xuechun (hereinafter referred to as Peng) made a complaint to the defendant Shanghai Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Administration for Industry and Commerce) on December 1, 2000, requesting it to fulfill its legal obligations, and make investigation and punishment on the case of illegal medical treatment advertisement broadcast by the Opera Channel of Shanghai Cable TV Station, which resulted in the death of his wife due to the medical treatment. After the Administration for Industry and Commerce made the decision orally that the relevant program was not an advertisement, and therefore his claim shall not be put on files, Peng then filed an administrative litigation with Xu Hui District People's Court of Shanghai Municipality.@# 原告诉称:2002年8月16日晚,我妻子看了上海有线电视台戏剧频道播放的介绍411医院的电视医疗广告后,于8月21日住进了该医院进行治疗,29天后竟然无故死亡。被告在接到投诉后,没有对该违法医疗广告进行立案查处,属于不履行法定职责。要求被告履行法定职责,查处上海有线电视台播出的违法医疗广告。@#
...... 原告提供的主要证据和依据有:@#
 1.2000年8月16日上海有线电视台戏剧频道播出的节目光盘一张,以证明该节目实际上为医疗广告。@#
 2.411医院医疗机构执业许可证复印件,以证明该医院被批准的诊疗科目中无骨科一项。@#
 3.有关“12家医疗机构受罚”报道复印件,内容有上海市工商行政管理局广告管理处处长介绍医疗类违法违规广告的情况,以证明查处非法医疗广告属于工商局的职责范围。@#
 4.2001年4月27日《购物导报》和2001年4月20日《市民周刊》刊登的411医院的广告复印件。@#
 5.上海市卫生局、上海市工商行政管理局《关于加强医疗广告管理的通知》复印件,以证明被告应适用该通知对各类违法医疗广告予以查处。@#
 被告辩称:原告反映的电视节目是一个专题报道,主要内容介绍了包括411医院院长章某在内的五位上海市新长征突击手的事迹。节目虽然有关于骨病治疗的内容,但认定为广告依据不足,故我局已口头答复原告不对该节目立案查处。现原告要求被告履行法定职责与事实不符,请求驳回原告的诉讼请求。@#
 法庭在审理期间播放了经录制的上海市有线电视台播出的有关411医院的节目。在质证中,被告对证据3、5没有异议;但认为根据证据1的内容,认定其属于广告依据不足;证据2是卫生局的职权范围;证据4的内容原告曾经反映过,工商局对411医院的违法广告也曾处理过。@#
 上海市徐汇区人民法院经审理查明:@#
 2000年8月16日晚8点,上海有线电视台戏剧频道《闪亮时分》栏目播放了专题节目《共和国之歌——献给人民功臣》,该节目内容主要是介绍上海411医院院长章某等五位上海市新长征突击手的事迹。原告彭学纯于2000年12月向被告工商局投诉称,因为看了该节目,他妻子于2000年8月21日住进了411医院进行治疗,29天后死亡。彭学纯认为该节目系违法医疗广告,故要求工商局进行查处。对此,工商局口头答复该节目不属于广告,不同意立案查处。故彭学纯起诉要求工商局履行法定职责,查处电视台播出该医院违法广告的行为。@#
 本案的争议焦点为:应该如何认定医疗广告以及上海有线电视台播出的有关411医院的节目是否应认定为医疗广告。@#
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
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;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
【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