Plaintiff's statement
Mr. Xu claimed that on March 4, 2016, as a disabled soldier, he went to the "Love Ticket Window" No. 2 in the Beijing North Railway Station Ticket Hall to buy tickets. The discounted ticket from Beijing to Benxi that day was rejected by the conductor and asked to queue up to buy the ticket. After the plaintiff showed his military pension certificate and informed the conductor that he had priority to purchase tickets in accordance with the "Regulations on Military Pensions and Preferential Treatments", the plaintiff was still refused. The conductor later even announced publicly over the broadcasting equipment that the plaintiff was not in line. Lawyer Xu believed that the defendant's behavior damaged his image as a disabled soldier and violated his right to reputation and honor.
The Defendant’s Argument
China Railway Corporation argued that the company did not commit the acts described in Mr. Xu’s complaint, nor did it infringe upon any of Mr. Xu’s interests. In 1995, the company promulgated and implemented the "Notice on Priority Purchase of Tickets for Military Personnel", which not only stipulated that military personnel had priority in purchasing tickets and took the train, but also stipulated that troops did not need train tickets to enter the station when performing combat training and other tasks, which was a priority than what Teacher Xu said. From a procedural point of view, the head office is not a business entity and is not a qualified entity in this case, so Mr. Xu’s application is not approved.
China Railway Beijing Bureau argued that Beijing North Railway Station belongs to the Beijing Railway Bureau’s business premises, and the staff Mr. Xu mentioned are also employees of the Beijing Railway Bureau. The staff of Beijing North Railway Station did not infringe on Mr. Xu’s interests during the ticket sales process. Beijing North Railway Station has set up a love window for the elderly, the weak, the sick, the disabled and pregnant women as its special ticket purchase entrance. In this case, when Mr. Xu went to the charity window No. 2 of Beijing North Railway Station on the morning of March 4, 2065438+2006, there were also relevant people queuing up to buy tickets. Among the six categories of people who did not meet the priority, Mr. Xu should also be on a first-come, first-served basis. people. Whether they are military disabilities or other disabilities, they should be included in the "disabilities" of the elderly, the young, the sick, the disabled, and pregnant women. This case does not involve the purchase of tickets by soldiers and does not infringe on any of Mr. Xu’s interests, so we do not agree with Mr. Xu’s petition.
Court Hearing
The court found that on the morning of March 4, 2016, Xu went to window No. 2 of Beijing North Railway Station with his ID card and disabled military ID card to request Priority purchase of tickets. The conductor used the window microphone to tell Xu not to wait in line and told Xu to wait in line to buy a ticket. Later, Xu reported the situation to the personnel on duty and requested to exercise his right of priority to purchase tickets in accordance with the regulations on military pensions and preferential treatment, but no solution was obtained.
At the same time, Xu believed that the duty officer asked him to explain to other people queuing at window 2, which was shirking the responsibility of explanation and an insult to him. Afterwards, in order to solve the problem, Beijing North Railway Station opened window No. 3, which was closed at the time, and Xu went to window No. 3 to buy tickets.
After trial, the court held that there were two main points of dispute in this case. First, when receiving services from relevant social organizations, do disabled military personnel have the same priority as the elderly, weak, sick, and pregnant women? Second, did the actions of China Railway Corporation and China Railway Beijing Bureau infringe on Mr. Xu’s right to reputation and honor?
As for the first point of controversy,
First of all, from the perspective of legal protection for disabled people in general and disabled military personnel, the "Disability Protection Law" applies to both. Article 12 of the Law, as a special provision, clearly requires the state and society to provide disabled military personnel with more pensions and preferential treatment than ordinary disabled people.
Secondly, in addition to the "Law on the Protection of Disabled Persons", the "Regulations on Military Pension and Preferential Treatment", as a special law, also clearly stipulates the priority purchase rights of disabled military personnel. Therefore, both general laws and special laws clearly stipulate protection measures for disabled military personnel, which is a legal protection for the pension and preferential treatment of disabled military personnel.
Third, respecting the elderly and caring for the young is a fine tradition of the Chinese nation. Taking care of and helping the elderly, the weak, the sick and the disabled in public places and public services is a manifestation of social civilization, health and progress, and is an act advocated by the core socialist values. China Railway Beijing Bureau has set up a special priority window for the elderly, the weak, the sick and the disabled to take care of ticket purchases for special groups such as the elderly, the weak, the sick and the disabled, which is worthy of recognition. However, the China Railway Corporation and China Railway Beijing Bureau equate disabled military personnel with general disabled people, and then provide care and assistance to the elderly, weak, sick and disabled, which is obviously inconsistent with the provisions of the "Disabled Persons Protection Law" and the "Regulations on Military Pensions and Preferential Treatment" . Disabled military personnel are given priority legally, while the elderly, weak, sick and disabled are given priority ethically.
When there is a conflict between the two, priority should be given to ensuring the exercise and realization of the priority rights of disabled military personnel. China Railway Beijing Bureau treated Mr. Xu as an ordinary disabled person during the ticket purchase process. It is obvious that he failed to fulfill his relevant legal obligations and acted inappropriately.
The second focus of the controversy
From the perspective of the constituent elements of infringement of reputation rights, the liability for infringement of reputation rights should be based on the damage to the victim's reputation and the illegal conduct of the perpetrator. , there is a causal relationship between the illegal act and the damage result, and the perpetrator is subjectively at fault.
In this case, the relevant staff of the Beijing Bureau of China Railway refused Mr. Xu to exercise his right of priority to purchase tickets even though they knew that there were laws and regulations that stipulated that military personnel and disabled military personnel had priority in purchasing tickets. There is a subjective element of deliberately making things difficult, but is this kind of deliberate making things difficult equal to a wrongful act that infringes on the right of reputation? This is also the key point of dispute in this case. In this regard, a comprehensive judgment should be made based on the words and deeds of the staff of the China Railway Beijing Bureau, the environment at the time, the situation where the parties were involved, and other factors.
Judging from the facts of this case, although the staff of China Railway Beijing Bureau deliberately made things difficult and pushed back when Mr. Xu exercised his right to purchase tickets first, the nature of his behavior cannot be equivalent to an infringement of reputation rights. Although it should be criticized morally, it does not constitute a wrongful act that infringes on Mr. Xu's reputation. On this basis, Mr. Xu requested the Railway Corporation and China Railway Beijing Bureau to publicly apologize and compensate for related losses. The relevant responsible persons apologized in court, but the court did not support it.