Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)delvpublished in(发表于) 2014/1/10 8:22:29 Guangdong proposed provisions shall not limit complainant liberty
The letters and calls of Guangdong Province Ordinance (draft) second trial, stated: the petition activities carried out according to law shall be protected by law
Yangcheng evening news reporter Huang Lina reported: the letters and calls of Guangdong Province, has been the concerns of the Community Regulation (draft) 12 9th Guangdong Province considered for the second session of the Standing Committee of the sixth meeting. With the "trial" version than the "ne bis in idem" revised version of the draft, more attention to letters and calls of the smooth, articulate: disguised restriction may not limit or complainant of personal liberty.
Revisions to absorb "fengqiao experience"
II trial of draft modified version in introduced Qian, province Standing Committee related sector went to Beijing to national Standing Committee Law Working Committee and national petition Council sought views, and to State legal office written sought views; went to Zhejiang, and Liaoning, province visits, learning has fengqiao experience, and Shenyang experience; in province within more to research, heard grass-roots staff and province, and city NPC representative and petition masses of views, and in Guangdong NPC online to social public sought views.
This one, with reason, mediation as the primary means to resolve the contradiction at the grass-roots "fengqiao experience" has very clearly reflected in the revised version of the draft.
Petition is different from the law of "rigidity", both at the working methods could be different. In the revised version of the draft complaint reporting requirements and to articulate national authorities should adhere to the mass line, open channels of complaint letters and visits, to listen to people's views, suggestions and requests, depending on the circumstances, reasoning, consultation, dialogue and coordinating the submission of complaint to mediation, hearing, timely, in-place to solve the problem.
Revised version of the draft provides that national authorities should establish and improve the contradiction and dispute investigation and mediation early warning mechanism, the implementation of grid management mode, and in a timely manner in accordance with law, resolve contradictions and disputes. National institutions should integrate resources, such as people's mediation, administrative mediation, promote the development of professional, industry-specific mediate tissue, improve the villagers ' committees and neighbourhood mediation, grassroots enterprise or institution conciliation mediation, through persuasion, grooming and other methods to resolve the issue through negotiations by the parties.
No interceptors from your system
Leapfrog appeals, repeating the visits, revised version of the draft expressly state agencies will not be accepted, but at the same time clear, petition petition activities carried out in accordance with the law, no organization or individual shall interfere or obstruct, disguised restriction may not limit or complainant of personal liberty, or retaliate against complainant. Denied acts such as interceptors from your system.
Further strengthen the "litigation visit separation"
Clear v visits to separation, is a "trial" version one of the bright spots, in the revised version of the draft, which has been further strengthened. Revised version of the draft "litigation visit separation, classification, treatment" as a separate principle provisions; clearly, right to petition to the State party requesting the relief shall be subject to lawsuits, arbitrations, administrative reconsiderations and other legal procedures to the relevant authorities, and give a clearer process guidelines –
Civil disputes, consultations not of, can to Arbitration Committee applications arbitration or to Court brought civil; on administrative acts refuses to of, can to administrative reconsideration organ applications administrative reconsideration or to Court brought administrative litigation; land, and woodland, and forest ownership and right disputes of, can to related municipal people's Government drew attention to the processing, on processing decided refuses to of, can to administrative reconsideration organ applications administrative reconsideration or to Court brought administrative litigation.
Petition party on Court has occurred legal effectiveness of civil judgment, and ruled, and mediation book refuses to of, can to court applications retrial; Court dismissed retrial applications, and late is not on retrial applications made ruled or retrial judgment, and ruled has obviously errors of, also can to people's Procuratorate applications prosecutorial recommends or protested; on has occurred legal effectiveness of administrative or sentences, and ruled, and decided refuses to of, can to court or people's Procuratorate made complaints.
(Original title: the explicit freedom of the person shall not limit complainant denied interceptors)
《广东省信访条例(草案)》二审，明确提出：依法进行的信访活动受法律保护
羊城晚报讯 记者黄丽娜报道：备受社会各界关注的《广东省信访条例(草案)》在9日召开的广东省十二届人大常委会第六次会议上进行第二次审议。与“一审”稿相比，“二审”的草案修改稿，更加重视信访渠道的畅通，明确提出：不得限制或者变相限制信访人人身自由。
修改稿吸收“枫桥经验”
二审的草案修改稿在出台前，省人大常委会相关部门赴北京向全国人大常委会法工委和国家信访局征求意见，并向国务院法制办书面征求意见；赴浙江、辽宁等省考察，学习了枫桥经验、沈阳经验；在省内多地调研，听取基层工作人员以及省、市人大代表和信访群众的意见，并在广东人大网上向社会公众征求意见。
这其中，以说理、调解为主要手段把矛盾化解在基层的“枫桥经验”，在草案修改稿中有非常明显的体现。
信访不同于法律的“刚性”，在工作方法上二者应有不同。草案修改稿在信访工作要求中，明确提出：国家机关应当坚持群众路线，畅通信访渠道，倾听人民群众的意见、建议和要求，根据具体情况采用对话、说理、协商、调解、听证和协调等方式办理信访事项，及时、就地解决问题。
草案修改稿规定，国家机关应当建立和完善矛盾纠纷排查调处和预警机制，推行网格化管理模式，依法、及时、就地解决矛盾与纠纷。国家机关应当整合人民调解、行政调解等资源，促进专业性、行业性调解组织发展，完善村民委员会和居民委员会调解、企业事业单位调解等基层调解渠道，通过说服、疏导等方法促使当事人协商解决问题。
从制度上否定截访等行为
对于越级上访、重复走访的，草案修改稿明确了国家机关将不予受理，但也同时明确，信访人依法进行的信访活动受法律保护，任何组织和个人不得干预和阻挠，不得限制或者变相限制信访人人身自由，不得打击报复信访人。从制度上否定了截访等行为。
进一步强化“诉访分离”
明确诉访分离，是“一审”稿的亮点之一，在草案修改稿中，这一点得到了进一步的强化。草案修改稿将“诉访分离、分类处理”单独作为一项原则进行规定；同时明确，信访当事人向国家机关请求权利救济的，应当依照诉讼、仲裁、行政复议等法定程序向有关机关提出，并给出了较明确的流程指引——
民事纠纷，协商不成的，可向仲裁委员会申请仲裁或者向人民法院提起民事诉讼；对行政行为不服的，可向行政复议机关申请行政复议或者向人民法院提起行政诉讼；土地、林地、林木所有权和使用权纠纷的，可向相关人民政府提请处理，对处理决定不服的，可向行政复议机关申请行政复议或者向人民法院提起行政诉讼。
信访当事人对人民法院已经发生法律效力的民事判决、裁定、调解书不服的，可向人民法院申请再审；人民法院驳回再审申请、逾期未对再审申请作出裁定或者再审判决、裁定有明显错误的，还可向人民检察院申请检察建议或者抗诉；对已经发生法律效力的行政或者刑事判决、裁定、决定不服的，可向人民法院或者人民检察院提出申诉。
(原标题：广东明确不得限制信访人人身自由 否定截访行为)
赞