Mingaoguan WINS: claims for 5,000 acres of land changed hands in Yunnan private enterprise _ 3.8 billion | mingaoguan news
Original title: Yunnan Corporation sued the Government claims 3.8 billion through "mingaoguan" case reveals what
On May 1, 2015, China launched the new administrative procedure law, the law on the administrative power of the Government at all levels was a "spell", administrative agencies shall not in the right "capricious". Now, a new implementation of the administrative procedural law of a year's time, "mingaoguan" the increasing number of cases, cases of administrative organ losing more and more. Yunnan after six years of "mingaoguan" cases, following the introduction of new administrative litigation law, finally ushered in the final. Meanwhile, accompanied by decisions issued, local governments are also facing 3.85 billion yuan claimed in a lawsuit, what's going on?
5000 acres of land use permits inexplicable by the District Government to "undo"
On May 26, 2016, an estimated investment of 2 billion yuan of tourism projects in Lijiang, Yunnan has completed a signing ceremony in the air, Mu Hui, Chairman of fidelity leasing company, Yunnan is the main investor of the project. Such a big investment in the coming years will inevitably have to deal with government departments at all levels, and Mu Hui in recent years has been in the lawsuit of the District Government and Kunming Chenggong, the relationship between local governments and has been at the "lawsuit", how can Mu Hui also decided to invest in new projects? This is inextricably linked to a paper judgment court earlier this year.
Fuda company legal access to 5000 acres of land
Now 60 years old, Mu Hui in Yunnan fidelity leasing company was established in 1994, mainly to invest in equipment leasing and financing. In 2004, fidelity business partner silver steel rolling factory default of fuda company 12.5 million Yuan could not return as scheduled, they voluntarily placed all of its 18,000 square meters of plants and 5000 acres of barren hills and land, equivalent compensation to fidelity, issued by the Kunming intermediate people's court civil mediation, and that has the force of law.
In 2008, the Kunming City Government agreed that fidelity based on 5000 acres of land in its own name on, and the Kunming economic and technological development zone Administrative Committee and a Hong Kong company signed an investment agreement, the three parties agree on 5000 acres of mountain land in the fidelity to work together to develop "Kunming international community" project. Mu Hui said they had prepared eight years after this "Kunming international community" projects, total investment of nearly 15 billion yuan.
Land unknown are listed for trading land-use permits were "removed"
However, on November 9, 2009, in the course of this project, Mu Hui accidental discoveries, Kunming City Bureau of land and resources has issued an announcement on the list, prepare pieces of land in the Chenggong is publicly traded, and these trade blocks in their company name on 5000 acres of barren hill within the land. Mu Hui immediately reflected to the land and resources Bureau of Kunming, through communication, a month later, Kunming City Bureau of land and resources issued a bulletin was halted a few listed. However, Mu Hui's heart is not down for a month, and an even more unexpected things happened to him. On December 31, 2009, Kunming Chenggong County people's Government announced in the newspapers, fidelity has 5000 acres of land use permits revoked. Land use permits revoked, corresponds to the mean land assets not also mean that fidelity has invested 12.5 million boondoggle.
In accordance with the relevant provisions of the administrative licensing law, will the executive authorities to review the administrative Licensing application and found that administrative licensing items directly related to the vital interests of others, it shall inform the interested party, interested persons have the right to make statements and to defend themselves. Mu Hui said before the revocation decision is published in the newspaper, fidelity and silver steel rolling factory have not received any notice from the Government.
After six years of difficult "mingaoguan" road
Fidelity District Government Office spent three years prosecuting Chenggong
On this legal basis, in January 2010, the fidelity to the Kunming intermediate people's Court in administrative proceedings, prosecution of Kunming Chenggong district people's Government, administrative law, seek the revocation of withdrawal permit decisions. However, Yunnan province Kunming City Intermediate Court and the High Court have ruled that prosecution is not admissible. Fuda company complained to the Supreme People's Court, in December 2011, the Supreme People's Court held that ruled in violation of laws and regulations, directives, Yunnan Provincial higher people's Court for retrial of this case. In December 2012, the Yunnan Provincial higher people's Court ruled that the case accepted by the Kunming intermediate people's court filing.
On December 31, 2009 Mu Hui see withdrawal permit notice by December 2011 Supreme Court orders retrial of the case, by December 2012, the Kunming intermediate people's court filing accepting, lawsuit hasn't started yet, in case took three years of time. Experts say this reflects the difficult problem of administrative litigation case in the past.
"Mingaoguan" against the difficult two years several trials are
In fact, except in administrative litigation "filed", there are "hearing" and "difficult to enforce" problem. In order to increase the master of winning, Fidelity's lawyers also argued to the level at which the courts for prosecution. "We accuse Chenggong District Government, Chenggong District Court can accept it? Even if accepted, he sentenced Chenggong District Government losing it? No way, not this may. "Fidelity's Attorney Hao Wei said.
Hao Wei fear is not without reason, experts said, for a long time, judicial setting and setting the height overlapping administrative divisions, are highly dependent on local courts and procuratorates their personal belongings, which makes the litigation of cases and handling jamming a vulnerable, affect a fair trial, which is a major cause of administrative litigation.
From 2012 before filing to May 2015 a new implementation of the administrative procedural law, in two years time, the administrative procedure several times after two court proceedings, is based on Fidelity's company ended up losing all the time.
After the implementation of the new administrative procedure law further appeal ushered in the "withdrawal syndrome illegal" judgment claimed 3.85 billion yuan
On May 18, 2015, the 18th day in the new implementation of the administrative procedural law, Mu Hui once again appeal to the High Court in Yunnan province. On January 19, 2016, the Yunnan Supreme Court for the final judgement in cases, revocation of judgment given before the intermediate people's Court of Kunming city, confirm the Chenggong area card government withdrawal of illegal administrative behavior.
After three years of record, a three-year trial, the administrative litigation case has finally come to an end, but then withdrew the effect of issuing is already irreparable. It turns out that that withdrawal syndrome shortly after the decision was released in that year, the 5000 acres of mountain land is up for auction in batches, today is already built-up. When Chenggong area caused by the Government's withdrawal of issuing your losses, fidelity puts up to 3.85 billion worth of claims, in the face of such a large claim, how a court will ultimately decide remains uncertain.
Super price "mingaoguan" case witnessed China's judicial reform
The case lasted six years witnessed the important process of judicial reform in China.
First, with regard to this case met in "file" problem, now I'm filing a registration system to crack. On May 1 last year, China began to implement a case registration system, according to the filing system requirements, in line with the prosecution, prosecution and the application of the legal provisions, all received a complaint on the spot registration; materials do not conform to the form, interpretation, one-time shall inform the parties in written form should be filled materials and deadlines; 7 days is unable to determine, should be filed.
Secondly, on the issue of independence and impartiality of the judiciary to exercise judicial power, has now started the "trial judge, the judge is responsible for" reforms. In November 2013, 18 considered and passed by the third plenary session of the CPC Central Committee on several major issues of deepening reform decision, which clearly put forward, reform the judicial system, promote the province following a District Court, public prosecutor's Office property management, property of the local courts, the Prosecutor's Office will no longer rely on local. Entered in 2015, case registration system, administrative court, cadres of intervention in cases of judicial accountability mechanisms have been implemented, for the independence and impartiality of the judiciary exercised jurisdiction to provide system security.
Third, contribute directly to this case final judgment issued, is the new administrative procedure law, implemented on May 1 last year. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the new code of administrative procedure law the trial court to remand the case following the judgment, the parties filed an appeal, the Court of second instance shall not remand once again. Meanwhile, new administrative procedure law also provides that when the Court of appeal cases, need to change the original judgment, judgment of the administrative act should also be sued, which also contributed to the Yunnan Provincial higher people's Court of the Chenggong area in 2009, the Government removed whether issuing final rulings of the administrative offence to give a clear.
Experts say that because there is no law of the administrative litigation case caused by administrative, against not only the interests of the parties, and to some extent also undermined the Government's authority. Precisely because of the great harm of administrative violations, in judicial system reform in China in recent years, whether it's the popularity of case registration system, or a new implementation of the administrative procedural law, legal channels is forcing administrative organs at various levels to establish the rule of law thinking, exercises its powers according to law. With the deepening of reforms, changing not just the whole social environment, Mu Hui also such cases see hope for the future.
Responsible editor: Wang Hao
Article keywords:Mingaoguan
I want feedback
Save a Web page
CCTV
民告官胜诉：五千亩土地已经易手 云南民企索赔38亿|民告官_新闻资讯
原标题：云南民企状告政府索赔38亿 天价“民告官”案背后揭示了什么
2015年5月1日，中国新《行政诉讼法》开始实施，这部法律给各级政府的行政用权戴上了“紧箍咒”，使得行政机关在用权上不得“任性”。现在，新《行政诉讼法》实施了一年多的时间，“民告官”的诉讼案例越来越多，行政机关败诉的案例也越来越多。云南一起历时六年的“民告官”案件，在新《行政诉讼法》出台后，终于迎来了终审判决。同时，伴随着判决的出台，当地区政府也面临着38.5亿元索赔的官司，这是怎么回事呢？
5000亩土地的使用证莫名被区政府“撤销”
2016年5月26日，一项预计投资20亿元的空中旅游项目在云南丽江完成了签字仪式，云南富达租赁有限公司的董事长穆辉是这个项目的主要投资人。如此大手笔的投入，未来几年免不了要与各级政府部门打交道，而穆辉这几年一直在和昆明市呈贡区政府打官司，和地方政府的关系一直处在“打官司”的地步，穆辉还怎么能够下决心来投资新项目呢？这与今年年初法院的一纸判决密不可分。
富达公司合法获得5000亩土地
今年60岁的穆辉在1994年成立了云南富达租赁有限公司，主要以设备租赁的方式进行投资和融资。2004年，富达公司的生意伙伴银乐轧钢厂因欠了富达公司1250万元无法如期归还，故而自愿将其所有的一万八千平方米厂房和5000亩荒山土地作价抵偿给富达公司，昆明市中级人民法院为此出具了民事调解书，并确认具有法律效力。
2008年，经昆明市政府同意，富达公司以自己名下的这5000亩土地为基础，与昆明市经济技术开发区管委会和香港的一家公司签署了一份投资协议，三方商定在富达公司的5000亩荒山土地上共同合作开发“昆明国际社区”项目。穆辉说，他们原准备八年投资完这个“昆明国际社区”项目，投资总金额将近150亿人民币。
土地莫名被挂牌交易 土地使用证遭“撤销”
然而，2009年11月9日，就在这个项目推进的过程中，穆辉意外的发现，昆明市国土资源局发布了一个挂牌交易公告，准备将呈贡区的几块土地上市交易，而这几个交易的地块竟然就在他们公司名下的那5000亩荒山土地范围内。穆辉立即向昆明国土资源局反映情况，经过沟通，一个月后，昆明市国土资源局发布公告，中止了这几块地的挂牌交易。但是，穆辉的心还没放下来一个月，一个更令他意想不到的事发生了。2009年12月31日，昆明市呈贡县人民政府在报纸上发布公告，将富达公司拥有的这5000亩土地的使用证撤销了。土地使用证撤销，意味着对应的土地资产就不在了，也意味着富达公司已经投资进去的1250万元都打了水漂。
按照《行政许可法》的相关规定，行政机关对行政许可申请进行审查时，发现行政许可事项直接关系他人重大利益的，应当告知该利害关系人，利害关系人有权进行陈述和申辩。穆辉说，在报纸刊登撤销决定之前，富达公司和银乐轧钢厂都没有接到来自政府部门的任何通知。
历时六年的艰难“民告官”之路
富达公司起诉呈贡区政府 立案花了三年时间
根据这个法律依据，2010年1月，富达公司向昆明市中级人民法院提起行政诉讼，起诉昆明市呈贡区人民政府行政违法，要求撤销撤证决定。然而，昆明市中院和云南省高院相继做出裁定，对于起诉不予受理。富达公司向最高人民法院提出申诉，2011年12月，最高人民法院认为原裁定违反法律、法规规定，指令云南省高级人民法院再审这起案件。2012年12月，云南省高级人民法院作出裁定，这起案件由昆明市中级人民法院立案受理。
从2009年12月31日穆辉看到撤证公告，到2011年12月最高法指令案件再审，再到2012年12月，昆明市中级人民法院立案受理，官司还没开始打，为了立案就花了三年的时间。专家表示，这正反映了以往行政诉讼案件立案难的问题。
“民告官”难 两年多次审理均败诉
实际上，行政诉讼除了“立案难”，还存在“审理难”、“执行难”的问题。为了增加打赢官司的把握，富达公司的律师们还专门论证过要在哪一级法院进行起诉。“我们告呈贡区政府，呈贡区人民法院能受理吗？即便受理了，他能判呈贡区政府败诉吗？绝不可能，没有这种可能。”富达公司的代理律师郝巍说。
郝巍的担心并不是没有来由，专家表示，长期以来,我国司法设置和行政区划设置高度重合，法院、检察院人财物高度依赖地方，这使得案件的诉讼和审理容易受到地方干扰，影响案件公正审判，这也正是造成行政诉讼难的主要原因之一。
从2012年立案到2015年5月新《行政诉讼法》实施之前，两年多的时间里，这起行政诉讼历经两级法院的多次审理，始终都是以富达公司败诉而告终。
新《行政诉讼法》实施后再上诉 迎来“撤证违法”判决 索赔38.5亿元
2015年5月18日，也就是在新《行政诉讼法》实施的第18天，穆辉再一次向云南省高院提起上诉。2016年1月19日，云南高院对这起案件进行了终审判决，撤销昆明市中级人民法院之前作出的判决，确认呈贡区人民政府撤证的行政行为违法。
历经三年立案，三年审理，这起行政诉讼案终于告一段落，然而当年撤证行为所造成的影响却已经无法挽回。原来，就在当年那次撤证决定发布后不久，这5000亩荒山土地就被分批挂牌拍卖了，现如今早已是高楼林立。对于当年呈贡区政府的撤证行为给自己造成的损失，富达公司提出了高达38.5亿元的赔偿请求，面对如此高额的赔偿请求，法院最终将如何判决目前仍未确定。
天价“民告官”案件见证我国司法改革历程
历时六年的这起案件见证了我国司法改革的一些重要历程。
首先，关于这起案件遇到的“立案难”问题，如今已被立案登记制度破解。去年5月1日，我国开始实施立案登记制度，根据立案登记制要求，符合法律规定的起诉、自诉和申请，一律接收诉状，当场登记立案；材料不符合形式的，要及时释明，以书面形式一次性全面告知当事人应当补齐的材料和期限；7天内无法判定的，应当先行立案。
其次，关于司法机关独立公正行使司法权问题，现在已经开始了“让审判者裁判，由裁判者负责”的改革。2013年11月，十八届三中全会审议通过《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》,其中明确提出，改革司法管理体制，推动省以下地方法院、检察院人财物统一管理，地方法院、检察院的人财物将不再依赖地方。进入2015年，立案登记制、跨行政区划法院、党政领导干部干预司法案件追责机制相继实施，为司法机关独立公正行使司法权提供了制度保障。
第三，直接推动这起案件终审判决出台的，就是去年5月1日开始实施的新《行政诉讼法》。按照新《行政诉讼法》的相关规定，原审人民法院对发回重审的案件作出判决后，当事人提起上诉的，第二审人民法院不得再次发回重审。同时，新《行政诉讼法》还规定，法院在审理上诉案件时，需要改变原审判决的，应当同时对被诉行政行为作出判决，而这也推动了云南省高级人民法院对呈贡区政府2009年的撤证行为到底是不是行政违法作出一个明确的终审裁定。
专家表示，由于没有依法行政而引发的这起行政诉讼案件，侵害的往往不仅仅是当事人的利益，一定程度上也损害了政府部门的权威。正是由于行政违法行为的巨大危害性，近年来在我国的司法体制改革中，不管是立案登记制的普及，还是新《行政诉讼法》的实施，都是在用法律的途径倒逼行各级行政机关树立法治思维，依法行使职权。随着这些改革措施的不断深入，改变的不仅仅是整个社会的法治环境，也让穆辉这样的案件当事人看到了未来发展的希望。
责任编辑：王浩成
文章关键词： 民告官
我要反馈
保存网页
央视