Government information disclosure is a factual behavior under the background of government public service. In the litigation of government information disclosure in some places, the main reasons why administrative organs refuse to disclose it are as follows: First, the information applied for does not belong to the government information stipulated in China's Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations); Second, there is a statutory situation in which the government information applied for is not disclosed. The basic meaning of Article 2 1 of the Regulations is that the administrative organ shall, according to the applicant's application, make an open, confidential or other reply on various carriers that can constitute "government information" according to different situations. The "Regulations" do not clearly stipulate how to reply when the public application does not belong to the scope of "government information". Of course, even if the law does not stipulate, according to the principle of due process, the administrative organ must give a clear and standardized answer to the application. In administrative litigation, when the administrative organ gives a reply that does not belong to government information, the discrimination and judgment of government information will usually become the main controversy in court.
(A) the elements of government information
Article 2 of the Regulations stipulates: "The government information mentioned in these Regulations refers to information produced or obtained by administrative organs in the course of performing their duties, and recorded and preserved in a certain form." Accordingly, the subject of information disclosure is an organization authorized by administrative organs and laws and regulations to manage public affairs. Information is generated by administrative organs in the process of performing their duties, and it is generated by administrative organs themselves or obtained from other organs, organizations and individuals when performing their duties. Information exists in a certain physical form as a carrier for recording and preservation. The definition of government information should include three basic elements:
1. From the nature of government information, government information is closely related to the performance of administrative duties. Article 2 of the Regulations makes it clear that government information is information produced and obtained by administrative organs. Therefore, it should be located from the legal nature of administrative organs (including organizations authorized by laws and regulations and public enterprises and institutions applicable according to law), and should not include criminal investigation organs. At the same time, "obligation" is opposite to power and belongs to the category of administrative law and non-civil law. The field of civil law is the relationship of rights and obligations between equal subjects, not the relationship of rights and obligations. Therefore, the "performing duties" stipulated in this article should be understood as administrative duties in principle. It should be noted that the fifth item of Article 12 of the Regulations, "Creditor's rights and debts and fund-raising remuneration of villages and towns"; Item 7 "Contracting, leasing and auction of township collective enterprises and other township economic entities" is included in the information scope of voluntary disclosure. On the surface, it is not closely related to the performance of administrative duties, mainly because both types of information are related to the interests of grassroots people and evolved from the practice of making village affairs public, which is a special case. Under different circumstances of information disclosure, the above explanation still cannot fully reflect various situations in practice. Administrative trial is based on individual disputes first, so it should be discussed on the basis of examples.
First, whether the information of criminal law enforcement documents belongs to government information. The scope of application of administrative regulations is limited by the legislative power, and the production and acquisition organs can only refer to administrative organs (including organizations authorized by laws and regulations and public enterprises and institutions that are applicable according to law), so we should first locate the legal nature of administrative organs, and generally should not include judicial organs, political party organs, people's congresses, etc. Therefore, "in the process of performing duties" as stipulated in Article 2 of the Regulations should be understood as the process of performing administrative duties. As a criminal investigation organ, the documents formed in the process of performing criminal investigation duties belong to the field of criminal law enforcement, whether they are the main body of production or the nature of performing duties, and the information formed undoubtedly belongs to the information produced by judicial organs. Of course, if the administrative organ obtains and saves the above information when performing administrative duties, whether the judicial information is converted into government information needs to be further clarified in practice, which will be explained later.
Second, monitor whether the suggested information belongs to government information. (2) China's "Administrative Supervision Law" stipulates that the supervisory organ is the organ that the people's government exercises administrative functions and supervises the administrative organs, state civil servants and other personnel appointed by the administrative organs. The supervisory organ may make a supervisory decision or put forward supervisory suggestions when investigating and handling acts violating administrative discipline. Some people say that the supervision proposal belongs to the internal self-supervision management document of the administrative organ, is an internal behavior, does not have social publicity, and does not belong to the category of government information. The author believes that Article 2 of the Regulations does not require that the information generated during the performance of duties must be external documents, and only the relevant information such as personnel and finance unrelated to the performance of administrative duties is excluded from government information. (3) The supervision proposal is put forward by the supervisory organ in the process of performing administrative supervision duties, and it has a clear and standardized carrier. The purpose of law enforcement is to promote the construction of a clean government and improve administrative management, which is closely related to the public interest and there is no reason to be excluded from government information.
Third, whether the internal records, reports and contact work of administrative organs belong to government information. Some plaintiffs apply to the administrative organ for public investigation report, hearing sign-in list, meeting minutes, license stub, request for approval and other information. However, administrative organs often reply to information that does not belong to the government. After investigation, some local governments found that the scope of exemption from publicity in law enforcement was too narrow. In practice, discussion, investigation, processing and other information is not suitable for disclosure for the time being, but they can't find the reason for exemption from disclosure from the existing laws and regulations. Therefore, the response to non-governmental information has gradually become a convenient reason for administrative organs to refuse to disclose it. Observing the legislative cases of the disclosure of government information in the United States, Japan and other countries, internal information is not excluded from the scope of government information, but some situations are not disclosed, because the disclosure of internal affairs may make the relative party evade laws or regulations. The author believes that when examining the administrative behavior of government information disclosure, we should make careful judgment on the determination of internal affairs of the organs. An overly broad interpretation will easily lead the administrative organs to evade information disclosure on this ground, which is not conducive to the healthy development of this system.
2. From the perspective of production methods, it includes information produced by government agencies themselves and information obtained from other organizations or individuals. (1) There are two kinds of information obtained by administrative organs. One is formulated by other administrative organs, and the lower level transmits some management information to the higher level; Another kind of information itself is not government information, such as personal information and information produced by non-administrative organs (including information formulated by legislatures, political party departments and judicial organs). All this information is obtained by the government, and information that does not belong to the government becomes government information. (2) The understanding of "acquisition" includes two aspects: acquisition approach and acquisition subject. The former includes superior distribution, peer distribution, subordinate submission and self-investigation and collection. The latter includes information obtained from citizens, legal persons or other organizations. This "acquisition" must be related to the performance of administrative duties. It can be judged from two levels: one is to perform duties; Second, there is a legal basis. Information generated by other subjects (including judicial organs, legislatures, other political parties and individual citizens) that is not obtained in the course of performing their duties is generally not government information if it is not used to perform administrative duties. (3) Whether it is possible for judicial information to be transformed into government information. Law enforcement information produced by criminal investigation organs or jury list information produced by courts are all judicial information. The administrative organ obtains this information when performing its duties, which conforms to the government information defined in Article 2 of the Regulations. This is similar to the administrative organ's transformation of personal information into government information after obtaining it. Take the application for the judicial bureau to disclose the information of the list of jurors as an example. ① As the Judicial Administration Bureau, it is responsible for the appointment, removal, training and assessment of jurors, so it is necessary for the judicial bureau to obtain the list to perform its duties. It can be concluded that the list of people's jurors belongs to the government information obtained and preserved by the judicial bureau from the court.
If an administrative organ, as a party to a civil or administrative lawsuit, receives a judicial judgment, the judicial information stated and conveyed by the judgment does not belong to government information. But even if some judicial information is transformed into government information, it has nothing to do with whether it is open or not.
3. From the existing form, government information is recorded and preserved in a certain form. (1) Government information must be true. Information disclosure is different from answering questions. The obligation of information disclosure of administrative organs is only to provide existing records, and cannot undertake the task of making records because of private requests. That is, the government information applied for disclosure should be static and original, and government departments cannot be required to provide information that does not yet exist and needs to be processed, sorted out or statistically summarized. In the process of information disclosure, it sometimes happens that the applicant requests the administrative organ to handle certain matters or requests the corresponding integration of materials by applying for information disclosure. This kind of consultation usually does not belong to the category of government information. (2) Government information includes all carriers that record information. According to the Regulations, government information is "information recorded and preserved in a certain form", but there is no corresponding explanation for what information is. In fact, "government information includes all the objects of information recording". According to this understanding, the object of government information disclosure is "object" rather than "content". In some cases, the applicant only requires the administrative organ to disclose the name of the relevant document (not the whole content of the document). Does the file name belong to government information? The file name is a part of the file. If the file belongs to the information produced or obtained by the government in the process of performing its duties, and it does not belong to the scope of exemption from disclosure, then the title, name and document number as part of the file also belong to the government information. It is only a matter of information ability to disclose all the contents and only the name, and there is no qualitative difference whether it belongs to government information. As for the catalogue information, similar to the name information, the administrative organ has made a catalogue of files when performing its administrative duties, which should be made public upon application. Of course, the government information decided to be made public should also adhere to the carrier characteristics of government information, that is, it must be recorded and saved in a certain form, rather than the existence of a simple information catalogue or the subjective processing of new information by the administrative organs themselves.
(2) Pure internal information does not belong to government information.
The Regulations do not directly stipulate that internal information belongs to "non-government information". However, Article 2 "in the course of performing duties" can explain this meaning, because "personnel, finance and other related information that are purely managed by administrative organs do not belong to the government information stipulated in these Regulations". ③
The internal information here mainly refers to the rules of garage use, canteen rules, sick leave policies, and the rules, guidelines and investigation procedure manuals of public institutions that only guide the staff of public institutions. The reason why internal information is exempt from disclosure is that these matters are trivial and trivial, and the public has no interest in these matters. Asking for such documents only increases the work of the administrative organs and does not help the public's interests; At the same time, if some internal rules and customs are made public, it will greatly hinder the important functions of the organs. ④
How to judge a piece of information as "personnel, financial and other related information that belongs to the internal management of administrative organs" can be carried out from two aspects: first, the scope of the effectiveness standard, the effectiveness of internal information should be limited to the inside of the organ, and if the effectiveness of administrative actions extends outside the organ, it will no longer be internal information; Second, the nature of information, internal information mainly involves internal personnel, financial management and other matters unrelated to the public interest. Of course, there are still uncertainties in the actual operation of this screening method, which needs to be further refined in judicial practice.
(C) examples of non-governmental information
In judicial practice, "personnel, financial and other related information managed by administrative organs" is considered as government information not mentioned in the Regulations, at least in the following cases: (1) Accounting vouchers and accounting files of government organs have nothing to do with economic and social management and public services; (two) the post subsidy of the administrative organ to its staff; (three) invoices and vouchers related to the implementation of civil activities by administrative organs. The above three situations do not belong to the category of government information.
It is worth pointing out that government information is closely related to the performance of administrative duties, and the law does not require that the performance of administrative duties must be a specific administrative act with external effect. Except for personnel and financial information that is purely the internal affairs of administrative organs, other information generated or obtained in the process of performing administrative duties still belongs to government information, even if there is no externalization and uncertainty in performing duties. For example, the relevant information and reports obtained by the administrative organs from other places in the process of performing their internal investigation and management duties mentioned in the above cases still belong to the scope of government information stipulated by the laws and regulations on information disclosure.
Second, how to grasp the exception of government information disclosure.
According to Article 14 of the Regulations, government information that cannot be disclosed includes state secrets, business secrets and personal privacy.
(A) the identification of state secrets
1. The connection between the disclosure of government information and the law on guarding state secrets. The Regulations make more specific provisions on the protection of state secrets. Article 13 of the Law on Guarding State Secrets clearly stipulates that if there is any dispute about whether it belongs to a state secret or what kind of classification it belongs to, it shall be finally determined by the state secrecy department or the secrecy department of a province, autonomous region or municipality directly under the Central Government. Therefore, the court cannot conduct public judicial review on whether it belongs to state secrets. At present, the situation of wide range and high level of state secrets is more prominent. According to the regulations, state secrets must be confirmed by the competent department. In judicial review, the administrative organ must provide reasonable confidentiality basis and reasons for matters belonging to "state secrets" before the court can admit them. It is necessary to improve the secrecy system and the scope of secrecy in the system, especially by amending the Law on Guarding State Secrets, so as to be consistent with the matters of state secrets in the scope of application exceptions in the legal norms of information disclosure.
2. Criteria for determining cases involving state secrets. (1) The administrative organ has affixed the seal of "secret", "secret" or "top secret" on the information carrier that applies for disclosure. When accepting a case or hearing a case, the people's court shall first follow up the case involving secrets. (2) When the administrative organ replies, the relevant information documents are not stamped with the secret-related seal, but the administrative organ refuses to disclose them on the grounds of involving state secrets, and provides the confidentiality review conclusions of the information disclosure organ or the confidentiality review opinions of the confidentiality department, the court shall consider them as secret-related cases. (3) If the administrative organ does not provide the above two materials, but still insists on confidentiality, the people's court should still follow the idea of confidentiality in the trial to avoid leaking secrets through negligence, but the trial should be strictly examined.
(2) Determination of business secrets and personal privacy
1. In the case of information disclosure, there is no uniform judgment rule for the determination of trade secrets in practice. Although the Anti-Unfair Competition Law defines trade secrets, the trial of cases is still too abstract. In judicial practice, the judgment of general trade secrets can be based on whether it will damage the competitive position of trade secret holders. ① It can be judged according to the following principles: first, whether the administrative organ has a confidentiality commitment to the information provider; Second, whether information providers usually disclose this information to the public; Third, the disclosure of relevant information will affect the administrative organs to obtain similar necessary information in the future; Fourth, the disclosure of relevant information has caused substantial damage to the competitive position of information providers. Government departments have the obligation to protect this kind of information involving trade secrets.
2. Identification of personal privacy. Information related to personal privacy mainly refers to personal materials, such as personnel, medical care, income and other information related to personal identity, reputation and property status. ① The boundary of the right to privacy is vague, but a broad interpretation of the right to privacy is an inevitable trend. There are two main reasons why the United States excludes personal privacy from the scope of information disclosure: first, it avoids disclosing facts that may cause embarrassment; The second is freedom from harassment. For people with different identities, the intensity of information protection is roughly the same in the first case, and there is a step difference in the second case. For example, for senior government employees, the scope of disclosure is very wide (including name, position, property, salary, income, misconduct, etc.). ), and low-level government employees only need to disclose their work-related names, positions, salaries, etc. And ordinary people don't need to disclose any of the above information. Even in the United States, where typology is defined, the criteria for judging privacy are still unclear. In some local judicial practice, the interpretation of the privacy right of specific personal information is still relatively broad on the whole, but it needs to be considered differently in combination with its identity. On the whole, the scope of privacy of public figures and government officials is smaller than that of ordinary citizens.
(three) the judicial balance of business secrets, personal privacy and public interests.
When disclosing the above-mentioned business secrets and personal privacy, administrative organs should generally consider whether the information infringes on business secrets and personal privacy, and the balance between protecting this right and protecting public interests when obtaining information disclosure. According to Article 23 of the Regulations, if the administrative organ believes that non-disclosure (business secrets and personal privacy) may have a significant impact on public interests, it should be made public even if the third party does not agree to it. The determination of public interest is a subjective judgment. In judicial review, we should properly respect the judgment of administrative organs and make basic judgments at the same time. The author believes that the understanding of this article needs to adhere to the interest measurement theory and comprehensively understand it from two aspects: "public interest" and "significant influence". The understanding of "public interest" can be judged by focusing on the relative uncertainty of interest subjects, the great influence of interest nature and the special needs of interest protection, such as public health, national security or environmental protection interests. At present, on the basis of respecting administrative discretion, the understanding of "significant influence" can require administrative organs to provide the basic factual basis for their determination of "significant influence", especially the scientific, complete and realistic factors they choose when comparing with the private interests of third parties.
The "Regulations" only explicitly involve the issue of non-disclosure of trade secrets or personal privacy, which does not mean that all information involving the interests of third parties is not disclosed. The concepts of "third-party interests" and "involving third-party business secrets or personal privacy" overlap, but they are not completely equivalent.
(4) Other non-disclosure exceptions.
1. Judicial judgment on whether government information is open after it is filed. In the trial practice, some administrative organs take the relevant provisions of the National Archives Law as the basis for not disclosing information. As the carrier of government information, relevant documents can belong to the archives department in the form of archives after a certain period of time and the adjustment of archives law. China's current archives legislation emphasizes the management and protection of archives, and there are too many restrictions and strict regulations on the disclosure and utilization of archives. According to the law, as long as the information materials of administrative organs form archives, they will not be made public for 30 years in principle. As the Archives Law is a national law, its effectiveness level is higher than administrative regulations, and the provisions of the Archives Law on the preservation and opening of sensitive information left over from history still have certain applicable value, there are not a few cases of refusing to disclose information files on the grounds that they have been filed in administrative proceedings.
Archives law and current information disclosure regulations belong to different management fields. Archived documents are only the text carrier of information, and the information content that can be made public is still necessary and valuable even after archiving. The basic way to properly handle the relationship between the disclosure of government information and the Archives Law is that the files that have been handed over to the archives are undisclosed files stipulated in the Archives Law and its implementation measures, and shall not be disclosed. However, if the archives are still managed by the archives institution or archivist to which the defendant belongs or handed over after accepting the application for publicity, the provisions of the Archives Law shall not apply and shall not be made public. ② The nature of government information does not change because it is transferred to archives for preservation. Of course, under the premise of ensuring the effectiveness of the archives law, how to prevent administrative organs from refusing to disclose information on the grounds of filing needs to be clarified through legislation in order to obtain stronger support.
2. Judicial judgment of historical information disclosure. Historical policies, documents and other materials before the implementation of the Regulations are called "historical materials" here. Whether this information is made public in judicial practice is a realistic problem worth studying. In the retroactivity of information disclosure, it is generally believed that the information generated before the implementation of the regulations is also government information, and the disclosure of government information not only refers to the information generated after the implementation of the regulations. At present, the problem that puzzles administrative organs is that some contents in historical information often reflect irregular or defective government information. Such as the early land transfer contract, planning, and the approval behavior of the real estate department in an earlier period. According to the author's understanding, the government information disclosure system emphasizes the disclosure of government information according to law, rather than reviewing the legitimacy of historical information. Although some information is not standardized, it still belongs to government information. Generally speaking, we should follow the principle of "publicity is the principle, and non-publicity is the exception". As long as it meets the requirements of information disclosure, it should be made public in principle and provided in the form required by the parties. If the administrative organ refuses to make it public, it shall provide sufficient evidence and a basis for reasonable discretion.
Three, how to hear the case of government information disclosure
The administrative procedure law and its judicial interpretation stipulate six ways of judgment: upholding the original judgment; Revoke the judgment; Fulfill the judgment and change the judgment; Reject the lawsuit and confirm the judgment. In the trial of information disclosure cases, it is common to perform the judgment, reject the litigation request and confirm the judgment.
(1) The plaintiff requests to cancel the choice of judgment mode when the administrative organ informs the decision.
1. Whether the administrative actions of the administrative organs to disclose and not to disclose government information are correct. Under normal circumstances, they can decide to maintain and confirm the legality or reject the litigation request according to the relevant provisions of the Interpretation of Litigation.
2. The decision of the administrative organ not to disclose government information is illegal. If the court can confirm that the government information involved should be made public after hearing the case, it may, at the same time as revoking the specific administrative act, order the defendant's administrative organ to make public the government information within a time limit, and the attached time limit shall not exceed the time limit for reply stipulated in the Regulations; If the plaintiff has obtained the government information that he applied for disclosure, it will be deemed illegal.
3. The decision of the administrative organ to make public is illegal, and if the government information involved is not suitable for publicity, it can be directly judged illegal.
4. If the contents disclosed by the administrative organ are wrong, the defendant may be ordered to make a new decision within a time limit while revoking the specific administrative act.
(two) the judgment method of the plaintiff's request to the administrative organ to perform the statutory duty of information disclosure.
Two types of administrative information disclosure litigation and two corresponding judgment methods;
1. A judgment requiring an administrative organ to fulfill its obligation of reply. If the administrative organ fails to fulfill the obligation of reply within the statutory time limit, it shall make a reply within the time limit according to the provisions of Item (3) of Article 54 of the Administrative Procedure Law; If the administrative organ has fulfilled its obligation to reply before the judgment, the judgment will confirm that it is illegal.
2. Judgments requiring administrative organs to perform public duties. If the administrative organ has not replied, the trial and judgment shall be conducted in the way required by the reply; If the administrative organ has replied, the trial and judgment shall be conducted in the form of notice from the administrative organ requesting the cancellation of the case. In fact, there is a great difference in execution between revocation of judgment and performance of judgment, and the emphasis is completely different. Except for cases of administrative omission, if there is a clear administrative decision, the judgment will be revoked, which reflects the limited intervention of judicial review on administrative power. The administrative organ may make a specific administrative act again to determine whether the information is open. However, in practice, it is difficult to measure the discretion to directly order the administrative organ to fulfill the obligation of government information disclosure, especially when some professional issues are involved, which is more risky than revoking the judgment and needs careful consideration. We can consider giving the plaintiff an appropriate explanation, so that the litigation request revolves around the decision of information disclosure, that is, taking the administrative decision as the litigation object, so as to avoid the situation that when the plaintiff's litigation reason is difficult to establish and the administrative decision is illegal, the final judgment result is to revoke the specific administrative act.
(three) the way to judge several special circumstances.
1. If it is correct for the administrative organ not to disclose the government information on the grounds that the information does not exist, it is appropriate to decide to dismiss the claim, because although the administrative organ determines that the information does not exist after retrieval, it does not rule out the possibility that the information actually exists, and there is room for dismissing the judgment. In addition, if government information should exist, but it is lost or damaged due to improper storage, or it has been destroyed according to regulations, the Regulations clarify the form of reply in this case. If the defendant replies that "the information does not exist", he can decide to dismiss the claim.
2 to determine the government information disclosure organs, the administrative organs did not correctly inform the situation. Item 3 of Article 2 1 of the Regulations stipulates that if the administrative organ is not open but can determine the government information, it shall inform the applicant of the name and contact information of the administrative organ. The author believes that if the administrative organ fails to inform or fails to inform correctly, the court shall make a judgment according to different circumstances. First of all, it is sometimes relatively difficult to find out through trial that the defendant knew or was able to determine the subject of disclosure obligation when the plaintiff applied, unless the defendant himself admitted it in court. Secondly, if the defendant loses the trial because he thinks he can determine the disclosure organ of government information, it will lead the defendant to deny the factual premise that he can determine the relevant disclosure obligation subject in the future trial or in the defense, thus ensuring that he is in an invincible position. Because the orientation of the court's judgment should be conducive to the administrative organ's better performance of the obligation of publicity and convenience, if a judgment leads the defendant to evade the obligation of convenience, the judgment result is obviously inappropriate. In this regard, in some cases, it can be pointed out that it is an administrative flaw and requires a warning. It is not necessarily decided to withdraw the reply or confirm the violation.
3. The administrative organ refuses to reply to the application for information disclosure on the grounds that it is not an information disclosure obligation organ. The "Regulations" and some local laws and regulations put forward specific requirements for the form and content of the reply: whether it belongs to the information disclosure obligation organ or not, it should give a timely written reply to the application for information disclosure. If the defendant does not reply, which violates the provisions of the Regulations, the judgment generally adopts the method of confirming the illegality, instead of simply equating the establishment of the substantive reason for the plaintiff's application with the defendant's inability to set responsibility and adopting the judgment method of rejecting the plaintiff's claim.
Four, how to prevent and deal with the abuse of litigation right in practice.
In practice, there are not a few prosecutors for various irrational motives, such as one person filing dozens or hundreds of information disclosure lawsuits, many people repeatedly filing lawsuits on the same information, or disturbing the court order. For this kind of abuse of rights, the current law does not provide specific sanctions, and the preventive mechanism has not been established in practice. It is necessary to take reasonable countermeasures within the framework of existing laws and regulations:
1. Strict prosecution and review. The intentional abuse of subjective litigation right is obvious, and there are improper words and deeds and opposing emotions objectively, and there is no reasonable litigation reason, and the court's explanations and suggestions are ignored, and the litigation request is not clearly explained and explained. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully examine and deal with this case. According to the Administrative Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations, those who do not meet the acceptance conditions shall be ruled not to accept or reject the prosecution according to law.
2. Increase the burden of proof. First, if there are explicit provisions in laws and judicial interpretations, we should make full use of them. If the facts, contents and reasons of the application of the parties are carefully examined, it is necessary to ask them to make a clear explanation and proof of the application; In addition, in cases where the defendant's defense information does not exist or cannot be obtained, if it is found that there is suspicion of abusing the right to appeal, the parties may be required to provide corresponding evidence for their contrary claims. Second, if there is no provision in the law and judicial interpretation, the burden of proof of the suspect should be reasonably increased. In fact, this is also to raise the litigation threshold for those who abuse the right to appeal. Even if the judge can't express and punish clearly because of the lack of law, it will at least increase the risk of irrational litigation.
3. Control the program rhythm. First, organize the parties to fully disclose the evidence before the trial to prevent the evidence from being raided and make the court passive. Second, the time limit for proof is strict, and overdue proof (without reasonable explanation) is generally not accepted. Although the Rules of Evidence in Administrative Litigation stipulates more broadly the time limit for the plaintiff to give evidence than the defendant, if there is sufficient reason to suspect that the party may abuse the right to appeal, the time limit for giving evidence can be strictly limited.
4. Strengthen the authority of evidence collection. Under the current litigation mode of introducing adversary system, the authority of judges should not be weakened too much. In the case of abuse of litigation rights by the parties, the judge should consciously exercise his powers to investigate in order to find out the truth and avoid mistakes. The lenient interpretation of obtaining evidence according to authority allows the judge to strengthen the investigation of authority, find out the facts and background of the case, and conduct necessary investigations in addition to the original request, the focus of disputes between the parties and the elements of legality review as needed, so as to grasp the initiative and effectively prevent and prevent the abuse of the right of action.
5. Pay attention to resolving disputes. Parties often file administrative or civil lawsuits on other related issues, which constitute double or multiple demands, mainly involving housing demolition, planning, labor security, environmental protection and so on. We should pay attention to understanding the practical interests pursued by the parties, strengthen the legal interpretation work, solve their practical difficulties as much as possible, eliminate emotional opposition, and urge the parties to rationally claim their legitimate rights and interests.