Application for administrative retrial 1 retrial applicant (plaintiff of first instance and appellee of second instance)
Entrusted agent:
Respondent for retrial (defendant of first instance and appellant of second instance)
Legal representative:
Respondent for retrial (third party of first instance, appellant of second instance)
Yang _ _, the retrial applicant, refused to accept the administrative ruling of Bengbu Intermediate People's Court (20 12) No.0004 1 made by Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee on the retrial of the respondent's house. According to Articles 62 and 63 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.
Request for retrial:
1. The administrative ruling No.0004 1 of Bengbu Intermediate People's Court (20 12) was revoked according to law.
2. The Property Ownership Certificate issued by Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee on 2011117 was revoked according to law.
3. Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee was sentenced to bear the litigation costs of first instance, second instance and retrial.
Facts and reasons:
Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee awarded it to Wang, the retrial respondent, atNo. Yanshan Road 109 1 Unit 3, Bengbu City on June 201. Property ownership certificate number 353637? The title certificate registered the legal property belonging to the retrial applicant Yang _ _ in the name of a third person, which seriously violated the legal property rights and interests of the retrial applicant. Therefore, the administrative lawsuit went to the people's court to demand the cancellation of the wrong administrative registration according to law, and the bengshan district People's Court [(20 12) BenshanxingchuziNo.] made an administrative judgment. 000 18] supported the retrial applicant's claim. The retrial respondents, Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee and Wang _ _ _ _, refused to accept the administrative judgment and brought a lawsuit to Bengbu Intermediate People's Court. The administrative ruling of Bengbu Intermediate People's Court [(20 12) Bengxingzhongzi No.0041] rejected the claim of retrial applicant Yang _ _ and revoked the bengshan district People's Court (20 12) Bengshanchuzi No.00655 on the grounds that the disputes caused by the houses allocated within the unit did not fall within the scope of the people's court.
(1) The original ruling was wrong in applying the law.
The application of laws and regulations in the original ruling is indeed wrong enough to affect the fairness of the judgment. Bengbu Intermediate People's Court (20 12) rejected the prosecution in its administrative ruling No.0004 1, on the grounds that it was based on Article 3 of the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Accepting Real Estate Cases (Fa Fa [1992] No.38). Real estate disputes caused by internal building and housing distribution, such as occupying houses and vacating houses? .
First of all, the dispute in this case is not stated in the administrative ruling? Disputes arising from housing distribution within the unit? , but whether the administrative registration behavior of issuing real estate licenses is legal and reasonable. The specific object of the lawsuit is whether the specific administrative action taken by the Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee against Wang is _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 20 165438+ In the first instance of this case, the retrial applicant, as the plaintiff, also filed a lawsuit, demanding the cancellation of the real estate title certificate of Bengbu Zi No.353637 issued by the Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee. The bengshan district People's Court of the first instance made a legal judgment, and the Bengbu Intermediate People's Court of the second instance took the judicial interpretation out of context, depriving Yang, the retrial applicant, of his legal right of appeal. Failure to make proof is purely a dispute over the allocation of housing within the unit, which belongs to the scope of application of item 3 of this interpretation. Secondly, the application of the third item has its preconditions: Anyone who does not meet the relevant prosecution conditions of the Civil Procedure Law and the Administrative Procedure Law, in this case, the Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau made a specific administrative act to issue the real estate license to Wang _ _, which had a substantial impact on the property interests of the retrial applicant Yang _ _, and he certainly had the right to ask the state judicial organs to make a ruling. Furthermore, according to Article 2 of the Notice of the Supreme People's Court on Accepting Real Estate Cases (Fa Fa Fa [1992] No.38), citizens, legal persons and other organizations are not satisfied with the decision of the people's government or its competent department on land ownership or use right, or with the real estate problems of the people's government or its competent department? , bring an administrative lawsuit to the people's court according to law? . In this case, the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee, as the competent government department, issued the title certificate to Wang _ _, and according to this judicial interpretation, it should also enjoy the corresponding right of appeal, but not all of them were rejected. Finally, following the order of legal effect and the rule that the new law is superior to the old law, the legal effect of the Administrative Procedure Law, the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Fa Shi [2000] No.8) and the Supreme People's Court's Opinions on Protecting the Litigation Rights of Administrative Litigants according to Law (Fa Fa Fa [2009] No.54) is higher than that.
To sum up, the litigation dispute in this case is not a superficial dispute over housing distribution, housing expansion or construction, but an administrative registration error dispute made by Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee for issuing real estate licenses. In the first instance, the retrial applicant filed a lawsuit against the legality and rationality of this administrative registration act in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Law and the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (Fa Shi [2000] No.8).
(2) The specific administrative act of issuing the title certificate lacks legitimacy and rationality.
1. The specific administrative act of issuing real estate license has had a significant and substantial impact on the property rights of retrial applicant Yang _ _, and the legal department that lost its property was decentralized.
This property is the staff dormitory allocated to the retrial applicant by Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory. I have lived in 1988 for more than 20 years and have been occupied, used and dominated by it for a long time. According to Article 245 of the Property Law, this kind of possession itself is a legitimate interest protected by law. 1998, the transfer formalities of the property have been completed between the retrial applicant and Bengbu casting and forging factory, and the unit where the retrial applicant works has also recognized the legal property rights of the property. After the bankruptcy of Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory, the original property right registration of its rear office can also prove that the retrial applicant has had legal property rights for more than 20 years, and the household registration book and ID card also indicate that it is its legal residence. 2011117 Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee registered the property in the name of Wang _ _, and issued the property ownership certificate. The administrative registration behavior of issuing real estate license has had a substantial impact on Yang's property right, and his property right has been lost based on this administrative registration behavior. Legally, Wang Youquan disposed of the property. As an administrative counterpart whose interests are damaged, the retrial applicant certainly has the right to request the judicial organ to make a ruling on the legality and rationality of his administrative registration, and the flawed administrative registration should be revoked.
2. The Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee has major flaws in the specific administrative act against Wang.
The Record of Ordinary Procedure of Civil Cases (Minyi Court of bengshan district People's Court), which proves that Wang _ _ has admitted that he tampered with the original registration of the disputed property No.2011. Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee thinks (Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee? Administrative appeal? ) When making a specific administrative act of issuing property ownership certificate to Wang _ _, sell it to Wang _ _ and sue the house? Bengbu industrial and commercial system restructuring enterprise rear office. Don't you get it? Bengbu industrial and commercial state-owned assets management reform office. Authorization of real estate disposal, and according to the relevant documents of Bengbu municipal government, the latter enjoys the right of disposal. Wang _ _ also admitted that March 2, 20 12? Bengbu industrial and commercial state-owned assets management reform office. Party A authorizes the Logistics Department to handle the property right formalities. However, the real estate license issued by Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee on 2011117 held by Wang _ _ was not authorized by the owner of the property. The seller has no right to dispose of it, and the Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee still issued the certificate, which is a major flaw in this specific administrative act. Ex post facto authorization can not make up for the defects of specific administrative acts, and ex post facto evidence can not be used as evidence to prove the legitimacy of specific administrative acts at that time. According to Article 54 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the House Ownership Certificate issued to Wang _ _ shall be revoked.
(3) The administrative ruling of the original trial essentially deprived the retrial applicant of the right of appeal.
Yang _ _, the retrial applicant, was originally a worker in Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory, and entered the factory on 1980. 1988, the unit allocated the house located in Yanshan Road, Bengbu City/Building Kloc-0/09 1 to Yang _ _, and allocated it to Yang in 1-3. For 25 years, the retrial applicant has been living in the house, and has been paying the rent and utilities, and the identity information of the retrial applicant Yang _ _ such as ID card and household registration book also takes the house as the residence. In 2003, Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory went bankrupt and cancelled. In the original property registration materials handed over by Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory to Houban, the retrial applicant Yang _ _ is still the owner of the property (in July of 2012, Yang _ _ inquired in Houban, and Houban produced the original registration materials and stamped them). The original Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory is the unit responsible for administrative management and property management. However, on July 5, 20 1 1, the property registration information of the logistics office of Bengbu casting and forging factory was changed from Yang _ _, the retrial applicant, to Wang _ _ (the above facts are evidenced by the transcript of civil trial and the confession of Wang _ _), who is the buyer of the logistics office of Bengbu casting and forging factory and Bengbu city. After that, the house was sold to Wang _ _ by the rear office of Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory and the rear office of Bengbu Industrial and Commercial System Restructuring Enterprise. 2011117 Bengbu housing and urban-rural development Committee awarded the property to Wang _ _? Property ownership certificate number 353637? The real estate license was registered in the name of a third person, which seriously violated the legitimate property rights and interests of retrial applicant Yang.
On March 7th, 20 12, Wang _ _ sued Yang _ _, the retrial applicant, to the People's Court of bengshan district City, Bengbu City, demanding to vacate the house. Bengshan district people's court made (20 12) the first word of bengshan people. 00 134 dismissed Wang's claim for vacating the house.
On may 30th, 20 12, yang _ _, the retrial applicant, filed an administrative lawsuit with the people's court of bengshan district, requesting the people's court to cancel the house ownership certificate of Wang _ _ issued by the Bengbu housing and urban-rural development Committee (BZZ No.353637). The bengshan district people's court found that there was no legal basis for the logistics department of Bengbu Casting and Forging Factory and the logistics department of Bengbu Industrial and Commercial System Restructuring Enterprise to sell the property, and it was the superior institutions of the two that could sell the property according to the relevant government documents of Bengbu City? Bengbu industrial and commercial state-owned assets management reform office. . Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee has insufficient evidence of the specific administrative act of handling the transfer formalities for Wang _ _ and issuing the real estate license when the transferor has no right to dispose of the property. On August 23rd, the Bengbu Municipal People's Court decided to cancel the Wang _ _ _ _ real estate license issued by Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee, that is, the real estate license No.353637.
After all the retrial respondents refused to accept the administrative judgment and appealed, Bengbu Intermediate People's Court made the administrative ruling No.0004 10/(20 12, 10) in October 2065, ruling that bengshan district People's Court of Bengbu City, Anhui Province (20 12 However, the Civil Division of Bengbu District People's Court has found out that although the administrative registration of Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee is flawed, the Bengbu District People's Court has made a ruling on the legality of the specific administrative act and whether the evidence it is based on is sufficient. However, Bengbu Intermediate People's Court (20 12) No.00041made everything back to the original point. The worrying consequences of this final ruling include: the judicial organs have no right to examine and decide the legality and rationality of the administrative registration behavior of the Bengbu Housing and Urban-Rural Development Committee in this case, and the property interests of the administrative counterpart cannot get judicial relief. Wang _ _ holds the real estate license, but the house is actually occupied by Yang _ _, and the unit has gone bankrupt and liquidated. The real estate disputes between them cannot be properly handled through judicial channels, and legal rights and factual rights will be separated forever. Administrative ruling No.0004 1 of Bengbu Intermediate People's Court (20 12) essentially deprived the retrial applicant of the right of appeal.
To sum up, the people's court is requested to retry, and the administrative ruling No.0004 1 of Bengbu Intermediate People's Court (20 12) is revoked according to facts and laws, so as to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the retrial applicants.
I am here to convey
Higher People's Court of Anhui Province
Applicant for retrial: _ _ _ _
Date of application: 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Application 2 for administrative retrial: retrial applicant: plaintiff in the original trial, appellant: 1, Zhang Kaisheng; Male, born on June 6, 65438+65438, 63 years old, Han nationality, lives at No.72, South District of Yangshan Village, Tang Di Street, Yuyao City, Zhejiang Province.
2. Wan Diaoya, female, Han nationality, 194 1 born on February 28th, 2008, is a farmer, born in Zhang Kai, and lives together. Postal code: _ _ _ _ _ _. Telephone _ _ _ _ _
Respondent for retrial: Yuyao Land and Resources Bureau, defendant and appellee in the original trial, legal representative: Wu Xiaoming, director. Address: No.69 Dahuangqiao Road, Yuyao.
The retrial applicant applies for retrial because he refuses to accept the administrative ruling (2007)No. 135.
The cause of action was Zhang's second dispute over land for building and land grant, which triggered the murder case.
Reasons for applying for retrial: the retrial application of the retrial applicant meets: 1, Article 11 (5) of the Administrative Procedure Law, the applicant applies to the administrative organ to perform the statutory duties of protecting personal rights and property rights, and the respondent fails to perform the scope of accepting cases according to law; 2. Paragraph 1 of Article 179 of the Civil Procedure Law (1) has new evidence enough to overturn the determination in the first and second instance administrative rulings, and (6) the applicable law does have wrong retrial conditions.
Retrial request: 1, and the administrative rulings (2007) Yu Chu Hang Zi No.22 and (2007) Yong Xing Zhong Zi No.0/35 are revoked according to law. Instruct the court of first instance to continue hearing the case.
2. Revoke the illegal identification of Zhang's second building and illegal land grant in the defense, and order the retrial respondent to make a specific administrative act again within a certain period of time.
Facts and reasons: Zhang, the retrial applicant, as one of the reasons why his relatives were beaten to death, refused to accept the administrative ruling (2007)No. 1 135 made by Ningbo Intermediate People's Court on September 0, 2007, and put forward the facts, reasons and reasons for applying for retrial.
First, the ruling of the second instance found that the facts were wrong, the main evidence was insufficient, and new evidence was enough to overturn the original judgment.
According to the administrative ruling of the second instance, the answer to Zhang's second house land issue was made after investigation and verification on the basis of many letters and visits. Rather than a decision on the appellant's rights and obligations. As for the appellee's failure to deal with the complaint after accepting it, it does not belong to the scope of this case, and the appellant's claim does not belong to the scope of administrative litigation. The original trial ruled that the prosecution was rejected. No problem.
The applicant thinks: there are many letters and visits, and what are the opinions required? It's illegal occupation of land and illegal approval of murder. Where is the evidence and basis for the appellee's investigation and verification? Litigation is not a punishment of the right of claim stipulated in the Constitution and the right of claim stipulated in Articles 6 and 66 of the Land Administration Law. What is this? Is it called administration according to law that people who are shut down do not make specific suggestions on specific letters and visits? After applying for administrative reconsideration of a specific administrative act, can a lawsuit be brought according to the scope of accepting cases in Item (5) of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law, which is beyond the scope of accepting cases in this case, and the litigation request does not belong to the scope of accepting cases? This proved to be enough to overturn the original understanding.
Two, the second instance of the "administrative ruling" applicable law error.
In the trial of the second instance, the applicant refuted the ruling of the first instance that the litigation act in this case was not a specific administrative act. In the case that the appellant, the appellee and the administrative organ at the next higher level all consider it to be a specific administrative act, and the filing court also considers it to be a specific administrative act, this second-instance ruling can only be an act of deliberately reversing black and white. Proof: The facts identified in the original ruling are wrong.
In the trial of the second instance, the law applicable to the ruling of the first instance was considered to have four mistakes:
1. The respondent has the legal authority to investigate and handle matters controlled by the applicant. 2. The litigation behavior in this case is only a description, not an opinion of law enforcement supervision. 3. This case is not a lawsuit against the opinions of letters and visits, but a lawsuit against the reconsideration decision. This provision refers to inadmissibility. But the case was dismissed.
Moreover, it is wrong to apply the law of Zhang's illegal occupation of land. Will it be correct to apply the law to the forged approval afterwards? Moreover, if the retrial respondent fails to investigate and deal with it according to law and the applicable law is wrong, is it correct for the administrative reconsideration to maintain the applicable law? The ruling of the court of first instance dismissing the prosecution was wrong in applying the law. Will it be correct to apply the law to uphold the ruling of the second instance? What is this about, the jurisprudence of indulgence against the interests of entities?
Third, the original procedure of second instance was seriously illegal.
1. The court of second instance did not apply for a written decision or notice to waive or postpone the advance payment of the acceptance fee.
2. In the first and second trial, both applications for obtaining evidence and inspecting the site were put forward, but they were not answered.
3. During the trial, 8 cases were tried together. Serious infringement.
Fourth, the illegality of the specific administrative act.
1. The (new) evidence provided by the retrial applicant in the first instance proves that in this case, Zhang occupied 35%, moved 30%, occupied more than 30 square meters of land, and is still at the scene. Still not being investigated.
2. Retrial the defendant's illegal land grant in this case. Can you check it yourself? I can't. Should be reported for investigation, but so far it has not been reported to investigate and deal with such illegal land use and land grant according to law?
3. Conceal the contents of the retrial applicant's appeal, and prove that the content of the accused act is illegal and the procedure is illegal.
Over the years, the respondent must make joint compensation for the damage caused by the applicant's time, energy and property.
The above retrial request is hereby made. In order to uncover the cause of the masked gang fight: Zhang's illegal land use behavior on the second floor and the truth of the illegal land grant by the former Lishan Town People's Government. Fight murderers.
I am here to convey
the Supreme People's Court
Applicant:
Application for administrative retrial 3 retrial applicant Tu J (plaintiff of first instance, appellant of second instance) lives in Jingmen City, Hubei Province.
Respondent for retrial: People's Government of Duodao District, Jingmen City (defendant in the first instance, appellee in the second instance), address: No.99 Longjing Avenue, Duodao District, Jingmen City, postal code: 448 124.
Legal Representative Liu Qihua, position: District Chief.
The retrial applicant refuses to accept the Hubei Higher People's Court's failure to perform the statutory information disclosure obligation with the retrial respondent? (20 16) No.349? Administrative judgment (hereinafter referred to as? The original final judgment? ), filed a retrial application, request:
1, revoked? (20 16) No.349? Administrative judgment;
2. Instruct the Higher People's Court of Hubei Province to retry.
Reasons for applying for retrial
The basic reason is that the original judgment found the facts wrong.
The most essential litigation request put forward by the retrial applicant in the original trial is: requesting to confirm that the reply made by the retrial respondent about Tu J's application for information disclosure is illegal. In other words, the review of the legality of the reply is the key to this case.
The original final judgment found:? Tu J applied to Duodao District People's Government of Jingmen City on 20 14 15. In September 2008, Duodao District opened a legal education class in Fanqiao Reservoir, Tuanlin Town. What are the basis and employee responsibilities? The staff of Duodao District People's Government of Jingmen City gave an oral and written reply. Later, Tu J applied for information disclosure several times. On March 26th, 20 15, the people's government of Duodao District of Jingmen City responded to Tu Jian's application for information disclosure, informing him that he had fulfilled his legal obligation to inform, and would not reply repeatedly to his repeated applications for information disclosure on this matter. Is the applicable law in this reply correct? . There are a series of mistakes in this determination.
First, Ben doesn't exist? Verbal reply? The truth, but for sure? Made an oral reply? .
There is no evidence to prove that the staff of Duodao District People's Government of Jingmen City gave an oral reply to the retrial applicant in the original trial and final judgment.
Second, the application content is not repeated, but it is considered to be repeated.
By comparing the two application forms for government information disclosure [see the original evidence of first instance], it can be seen that the information disclosure applied on March 30th, 20th118th15th, October is completely different.
Third, did not fulfill the statutory obligation to inform, but was recognized? Have you fulfilled your legal obligation to inform? .
The so-called statutory obligation to inform actually refers to the provisions in Article 21 of the Regulations on the Openness of Government Information, namely? For the government information applied for disclosure, the administrative organ shall give an answer according to the situation: if it belongs to the scope of disclosure, it shall inform the applicant of the ways and means to obtain the government information; If it belongs to the scope of non-disclosure, it shall inform the applicant and explain the reasons; If the administrative organ refuses to disclose the government information according to law or the government information does not exist, it shall inform the applicant; if the government information disclosure organ can be determined, it shall inform the applicant of the name and contact information of the administrative organ; If the application content is not clear, the applicant shall be informed to make changes and supplements.
And the so-called retrial that the original final judgment found the respondent to perform? Legal obligation to inform? so this is it？
? It is a basic work to educate citizens about law popularization in building a socialist country with legal system. We set up a legal education class in our district to educate Tu J and his wife on legal publicity and letters and visits regulations, so as to help citizens raise their awareness of legal rights protection. Now we will give a written reply? . [See the original evidence of first instance]
It can be seen that the actual state of defense given by the respondent in retrial is far from the legal requirements.
It can be seen that this reply is obviously against the law and illegal, and it should be revoked, but the original judgment is recognized? Is the applicable law in this reply correct? Then, the first error in the first paragraph of Article 89 of the Administrative Procedure Law is applied to maintain the original judgment of the first instance.
Therefore, the retrial applicant thinks that the original final judgment found the facts wrong, which seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of the retrial applicant. Now, according to the provisions of Article 91 of the Administrative Procedure Law, we apply for retrial, requesting your hospital to support the retrial request of the retrial applicant.
I am here to convey
The Supreme People's Court, People's Republic of China (PRC)
Applicant for retrial: _ _
Time:
?