Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)qqpublished in(发表于) 2014/6/22 9:40:53 Guangzhou road do lie to move cases upheld the decision was subject to administrative interference
Zhu Zhai in 2010 during court proceedings were removed
Beijing Road, Guangzhou City, No. 318, located in prime locations. Over whether or not the site is State Enterprise "demolition of fraud" lawsuit, becoming the focus of media attention at the very beginning, it has been more than 4 years. Old Arcade with Lingnan features are now down to almost nothing, only the blue wall of mud. Compared with the prosperous commercial pedestrian street, this small piece of land is too low.
Owner says, 2005 relocation was told for road expansion, see posters after 5 years only to find that is a for-profit shopping mall will be built. In court after the twists: first winner and second instance against the plaintiff, after the High Court orders a retrial. Earlier, local media had reported that the case for Canton first State fraud units identified by the court case.
Yesterday, at 9 o'clock in the morning, at the intermediate people's Court of Guangzhou City, the fifth court, retrial verdict: to maintain second-instance verdict. But in this round of litigation, the instructions the leadership surfaced before a second ruling, raised public awareness of the various associative interference in the judiciary. Yesterday, after the verdict, the Guangzhou intermediate people's Court information office staff is not aware of the specific situation, the day did not answer questions about these "instructions" a series of questions.
Owners dissatisfied with "deception to move"
Guangzhou Beijing Road No. 318, original Chinese-made, two-story portico, an area of more than 110 square meters, artificial Zhu Kelun sibling trio of property rights. Road, snatching the gold in Beijing, local media reported, in 2011, the first floor commercial land prices had reached near 300,000 to 500,000 yuan per square meter.
It is reported that in 2005, Zhu's brother and sister were told, for road-widening housing relocation. They and the Guangzhou road extension project Office (hereinafter referred to as road) entered into a compensation agreement, compensation of more than 3,000 yuan per square meter residential commercial compensation of more than 40,000 yuan per square meter.
In March 2010, in April, Guangzhou City rehabilitation co two advertisements in the media, in connection with the plot to "Beijing road rehabilitation Mall under the name" open for leasing.
Ads were feeling cheated by Zhu's brother and sister, and thought the other was not to expand roads, benefit but to build shopping malls, on May 21 to run road, yuexiu district and rehabilitation company sues to court.
Related meeting materials, rehabilitation company was founded in August 2003, the wholly State-owned company, responsible for Guangzhou Zhongshan Road, road reconstruction of old city reconstruction work. The same year, was assigned to municipal Road office complex built to implement the demolition work, that resettlement work is by road as the main body, in the name of rehabilitation of public facilities for the project nature of demolition. Road ban which was not until 1977, is mainly responsible for the land acquisition and relocation of Guangzhou urban construction projects. Beijing Youth daily reporter learned that road Office and rebuilding the company belongs to the Guangzhou Municipal urban and rural construction Commission, by 2011, the rehabilitation company into Guangzhou urban construction investment group (hereinafter referred to as city investment group) affiliates.
After Court, commissioned Gan Zhihui Zhu's brother and sister play a joint representative. One episode was, Kennedy found that, during the proceedings, signing of the agreement on hold for 5 years old House, is being dismantled, removed only the Foundation. Local media reported, due to the strong staff without legal formalities, was stopped by police.
On July 27 of that year, the judgment of first instance considered, rehabilitation companies to conceal the fact that construction of shopping malls, run by the road to come forward on behalf of road-widening, Zhu signed agreements in cases against his true wishes, constitute fraud. Road ban after the March 28, 2005, compensation agreement with Zhu's brothers and sisters have been no demolition of houses, and after Zhu's brother and sister sued, for not turning purposes, hurried to the demolition of houses, more evidence that their acts of bad faith.
Court judgements set aside compensation and resettlement agreement requiring rehabilitation companies and road matters that should be recorded in accordance with the real estate certificate of restitution (rehabilitation of demolition of houses), and the title deed back to Zhu's brothers and sisters.
At that time, media reports said, the case for Guangzhou first demolition of State-owned enterprises, sector fraud case.
Bis in idem judgment of Zhu Jia loses
After the verdict, Guangzhou City Road expansion and rehabilitation company appeals. June 1, 2011 in the second instance, the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court to "build shopping malls is also building public facilities" for the judgment of Zhu Jia lost the case.
On May 16, 2012, Zhu filed an appeal to the High Court. Guangdong provincial higher people's Court ruled on December 12, 2012, the second ruling is improper, the instructions in the retrial.
On May 16, 2013, the Guangzhou intermediate people's Court public hearing, and on April 10, 2014, on May 15 and out of court.
Yesterday, the intermediate people's Court announced the verdict. In its judgement, the Court held that due to the people's Court for retrial on the parties review program is a form of review, no entity brought before the dispute. Retrial of contention in this case is: City Road Office, whether rehabilitation company that fraudulent means, Zhu Kelun, signed an agreement with person against his true intentions, whether the agreement should be abolished.
From compensation agreement, and placed agreement of contract subject, and contract signed process and contract signed of content, aspects, Zhu Kelun, people not full proof proved complex built company, and City Road spread Office exists deliberately cheat real situation, fraud behavior, should finds agreement reflected has related party of real meaning, legitimate effective, Zhu Kelun, people should bear signed agreement of behavior produced of legal consequences. Therefore, the second ruling was correct, review support.
Referred to Guangzhou intermediate people's Court, told the parties to mediation, but Zhu Kelun and others adhere to restore the House to its original state, road rehabilitation company, City Office said there is no in-situ reconstruction of facts, mediation failed.
Decision was subject to administrative interference
For the final results, Mr Gump element of interference in the judiciary. October 13, 2010, Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court began a second trial. But before and during the trial, the Court received many letters. Gump unwittingly gets these letters.
As the agent of the owner of the case of TAM lawyer recalls that in May 2013, the retrial before the trial, he went to the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court photocopying file material. It was 10 o'clock in the morning, due to other arrangements, leaving copy for just ten minutes. Court Clerk handed him two files, the lawyer TAM nor did direct copying, done with straight away.
Since then, Mr Kennedy, who accidentally discovered that copying of material filled with suspected internal court documents, including several government departments "document" and the city investment company communications. "The estimate clerk was wrong. ”
North Green newspaper reporter learned that, at the last trial in a closed-door, Tan discovered by lawyers had filed "leadership of instructions", but the hospital failed to provide explanations. In this regard, the staff of the information Office of the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate People's Court said yesterday, it is not clear this matter, also need to understand the situation.
Mr Gan photocopy material displayed, on September 29, 2010, Legislative Affairs Office of the people's Government of Guangzhou Municipality wrote to the Guangzhou intermediate people's Court. In an objective and fair trial of the Beijing road rehabilitation project compensation litigation communications, road widening and Guangzhou City, Guangzhou City, the Group requested that the Office coordinate the resolution of matters in second instance ". Legal Affairs Office of an opinion on the case, said: the factual findings of the Court of first instance and judgment is open to question.
In rule Office wrote to Hou a week, October 8, Guangzhou urban and rural construction Committee again wrote to Guangzhou in the homes, on Beijing Road No. 318, housing recovery undisturbed of judgment said "extremely confused", said "has for dimension stability, and city based facilities investment construction, aspects of assessment", and "due to the project of importance and irreversible sex, and demolition work has basic completed", please Court law, and sound processing above demolition disputes.
When October 28, case II trial first public court Hou, city voted group and to Guangzhou in the homes issued on urban old city transformation project "public facilities complex building" related situation of report, which clearly column Ming if Zhu Jia won may led to three a consequences: a is may caused other has signed of households follow, led to project cost number times increased; II is Zhongshan three road, and four road complex built project are take Beijing Road demolition mode for, may led to other more items complex built engineering of legitimacy based full no Three may lead to loss of Government credibility and image.
This year on November 19, the city investment group, reporting to when he was a Vice Mayor of Guangzhou Municipality, about three or four Zhongshan Road urban reform "Beijing road rehabilitation market" project report on relocation case, said the verdict could have an impact on State-owned assets and urban construction projects. If rebuilding the company's appeal is not upheld, "or caused many unstable factors", implored the Vice Mayor of coordinated attention and support from the municipal units.
The same day, the Vice-Mayor of the instructions says "agree with the views of the city, if not handled properly, will cause turning massive retrospective, this project involves not only (many lawyers concerned with this issue), it is recommended by the Communist Party-led research". Subsequently, the instructions on the Guangzhou Communist Party leadership in the report and related materials, go to the "Municipal Court". There is evidence, the report issued by man Zhen Guang, Shi rencheng, Chairman of investment group. Reports contact for the group top management Zhong Weiming.
Yesterday, the North Green newspaper reporter called Zhong Weiming, asked whether the report was true. Zhong Weiming did not directly respond, but said it had not in the rehabilitation company, suggested that reporters sent a letter to the rehabilitation company. Earlier, he told the magazine in an interview, confirmed that report written for himself.
Single copy and copy material "lead letters and supervising the register" appears, followed by the Guangzhou Municipal Committee of political and Legislative Affairs Committee overseeing the lawsuits.
On June 1, 2011, the Guangzhou intermediate people's Court to withdraw the judgment of first instance, rejected Zhu Kelun, who appeal for rescission of the above agreements, to restore the House to its original state. Zhu Shi in the second instance by the brother and sister won turn a game around. Within the court system who did not want to be named source, General and sub files are volume, volume is a publicly accessible, Vice volume only for internal, such as leadership instruction also placed within the volume. This person personally, from the legal point of view, or meddle in this case led to the instruction contrary to the rule of law, suspected of affecting judicial independence exists, "but sometimes complex social contradictions, how to properly resolve needed instructions".
Yesterday, Mr Kennedy admitted that it was hard for him to believe that justice is not subject to administrative intervention and continued to consider the complaint.
Text/reporter Sun Jing
(Original title: Canton Road Office "cheating move" a retrial upheld)
赞