Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)aaapublished in(发表于) 2013/12/16 0:43:48 Shanghai private museum bulldozing case trial ended
Oriental NET Cheng Qi December 13 report: Museum demolish late today, namely, the plaintiff Liu Guangjia, Zhu Rongzhou administrative enforcement and cause the defendant, Minhang district, Shanghai people's Government with Executive compensation case in Shanghai changning district people's Court end a three-day public hearing, and sentence date.
After three days of hearings, the Tribunal undertook a review of requests for 20 lawsuits plaintiffs, including 2 against the acts of forced evictions, 18 for executive compensation.
During the trial, the defendant to the Court on the legality of administrative acts of forced evictions provide applications for demolition permits, relocation decisions, record of adjudication hearing mediation, administrative, notarial evidence such as video of the award. Plaintiff on cross-examination, notary after editing for to challenge the authenticity of the video, and civil dialogue in the video that there accused staff and armed police "looting" their "Museum" and the accused was a "Museum" relocation is exceeding the scope of implementation.
Accused on this reply: forced relocation scene pulled has cordon, and has notary, and assessment, staff presence, outside has onlookers masses, notary video in the of dialogue actual for law enforcement personnel for guarantee items full save and related money property security junction save of talk, notary video also confirmed related personnel left relocation scene Shi are is not carrying items; video in the wearing camouflage of personnel can than on recognition out not armed police; demolition award applications, and award trial mediation transcripts, evidence are indicates that in demolition consultations and demolition award process in the, " Museum "how demolition compensation problem is demolition both of main controversy, housing demolition award book in the including has on" Museum "within no card housing, and venues, and wall, of compensation content; award main text in the" moved away from site "that pan Jia 34th,, and plaintiffs so-called of Shanghai min Highway 1448th," Museum "both is same courtyard, and two a House, plaintiffs themselves also in trial in the said above address share two a numbers, so" Museum "also is forced relocation range.
In addition, the plaintiff on its claim of 18 requests for compensation to civil court, such as video and photo, also said most of the items are unable to provide direct evidence that the lost items were difficult to assess, because the defendant caused the plaintiff's burden of proof cannot, should be borne by the defendant the burden of proof. Defendant considered as required by law, on his claim shall bear the burden of proof for the plaintiff, defendant, there are no violations, advocates of shifting of the burden of proof for the plaintiff reasons without legal basis.
On the plaintiff's calculation of the amount of compensation, the plaintiffs said their claims, such as stones, jade class due to the loss or damage, resulting in fact unable to assess, refer to auctioneers online auctions of similar items determined. For bonsai, mahogany furniture, and other items of compensation payments, in accordance with the market rate. "Museum" the amount of compensation, the plaintiffs including a land use fee structures and the relocation of reset, as calculated in accordance with the market price would exceed its claimed 78 million yuan in compensation. Accused on plaintiffs advocated of compensation amount and calculation method are no recognized, while even plaintiffs advocated of property loss true, due to accused in forced relocation in the not exists violations, also non-above items of custody main, on custody process in the occurred of property loss plaintiffs should to custody units advocated compensation or compensation; on the, plaintiffs to online announced of auction amount as its advocated odd stone class, and jade class of compensation pursuant to, obviously lack facts based, on its advocated bonsai, and mahogany furniture and "Museum" of compensation amount, With the respondent organization before resorting to forced relocations relocation to delegate than valuation firm to assess apparent exaggeration.
During the course of this afternoon's hearing, the defendant applied for safes in the Nineth claims the plaintiff be open to the Court, the plaintiffs agreed. Permitted by a court, and the safe opened by a designated officer of the accused, box nothing, original, accused parties have no objection. Plaintiffs explicitly at Court, had lost goods (involving plaintiffs ' action for fifth and eighth to 13th request), 1 Yuan sought compensation from the defendant, and the loss in writing to apologize.
After the end of the Tribunal's findings of fact, originally a second consecutive round of fierce debate, defendant, in the legality of the acts of forced demolitions, on-site notary rigour of the authenticity of the video, the notarial work, the number of plaintiff's original property and loss responsibility there is a large object. Plaintiff also made it clear that, on the part on executive compensation does not accept mediation.
(Original title: "Museum" to demolish three-day trial ended the day sentence)
东方网程琦12月13日报道：今日晚间博物馆强拆案，即原告刘光嘉、朱荣周诉被告上海市闵行区人民政府行政强制执行及附带行政赔偿一案，在上海市长宁区人民法院结束长达三天的公开庭审，并将择日进行宣判。
经过三天的庭审，法庭对原告提出的20项诉讼请求进行了审查，其中2项针对行政强制搬迁行为、18项有关行政赔偿。
庭审期间，被告对行政强制搬迁行为的合法性向法庭提供了拆迁许可证、拆迁裁决申请书、裁决审理调解笔录、行政裁决书、公证视频等证据。原告经质证，以公证视频经过剪辑为由对真实性提出异议，并根据公证视频中的对话认为被告工作人员和武警存在“哄抢”其“博物馆”物品的行为，而且被告对“博物馆”的搬迁属超范围执行。
被告对此答辩：强制搬迁现场拉有警戒线，且有公证、评估等工作人员在场，外面有围观群众，公证视频中的对话实际为执法人员为保证物品完整保存和相关钱物安全交接保存的谈话，公证视频还证实相关人员离开搬迁现场时均未携带物品；视频中穿迷彩服的人员可比对识别出不是武警；拆迁裁决申请书、裁决审理调解笔录等证据均表明在拆迁协商以及拆迁裁决过程中，“博物馆”如何拆迁补偿问题是拆迁双方的主要争议，房屋拆迁裁决书中包括了对“博物馆”内无证房屋、场地、围墙等的补偿内容；裁决主文中“搬离原址”即潘家34号，与原告所谓的沪闵公路1448号“博物馆”两者是同一院落、两个门牌，原告自己也在庭审中表示上述地址合用两个门牌号，故“博物馆”亦属强制搬迁范围。
此外，原告对其主张的18项赔偿请求向法庭出示了公证视频及有关照片等，同时表示多数物品无法提供直接证据证明，灭失的物品也难以估价，由于被告原因导致原告举证不能，应当由被告承担举证责任。被告认为按照法律规定，原告对其赔偿请求应当承担举证责任，被告不存在违法行为，原告主张举证责任倒置的理由没有法律依据。
关于原告赔偿金额的计算，原告表示其主张的奇石类、玉石类等因灭失或毁损，导致事实上无法评估，故参照拍卖行在网上公布同类物品的拍卖金额确定的。对盆景、红木家具等物品的赔偿金额，系按照市场金额计算。对“博物馆”的赔偿金额，原告认为包括了土地使用费与构筑物的搬迁重置费，如按照市场价计算将超过其主张7800万元的赔偿金额。被告对原告主张的赔偿金额与计算方法均不予认可，一方面即便原告主张的物损属实，因被告在强制搬迁中不存在违法行为，亦非上述物品的保管主体，对保管过程中发生的物损原告应向保管单位主张赔偿或补偿；另一方面，原告以网上公布的拍卖金额作为其主张奇石类、玉石类的赔偿依据，明显缺乏事实基础，对其主张盆景、红木家具与“博物馆”的赔偿金额，与被告组织实施强制搬迁前拆迁人委托估价公司评估结果相比明显存在夸大。
在今天下午的庭审过程中，被告申请对原告第九项诉讼请求中的保险箱当庭予以打开，原告表示同意。经法庭准许，该保险箱由被告指定人员打开，箱内无物，原、被告双方对此没有异议。原告当庭明确，对于已经灭失物品(涉及原告第五项、第八项至第十三项诉讼请求)，要求被告赔偿人民币1元，并对灭失的物品作出书面道歉。
法庭事实调查结束后，原、被告进行了连续二回合的激烈辩论，在强制拆迁行为的合法性、现场公证视频的真实性、公证工作的严谨性、原告原有财物的数量和灭失责任等方面还有较大异议。原告还明确表示，对行政赔偿部分不接受调解。
(原标题：“博物馆”强拆案三天庭审结束 将择日宣判)
赞