catalogue

1. Yu Suizhu v. Sanya Municipal Bureau of Land, Environment and Resources, Hainan Province

2. Xi Mingqiang v. Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China

3. Wang Zongli v. Tianjin Heping District Real Estate Management Bureau

4. Yang Regime v. Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau in Shandong Province

5. Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui v. Yongtai County Land and Resources Bureau, Fujian Province

6. Zhang Hongjun v. Price Bureau of Rugao City, Jiangsu Province

7. Peng Zhilin v. Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau, Hunan Province

8. Qian Qunwei v. People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, Zhejiang Province

9. Zhang Liang v. Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources Management

10. If Love Marriage Service Co., Ltd. sues the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China

1、 Yu Suizhu v. Sanya Municipal Bureau of Land, Environment and Resources, Hainan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

Yu Suizhu has planted 30 acres of longan fruit trees next to the Haitang Bay concrete mixing plant of Sanya Jinmian Concrete Co., Ltd. In order to understand the environmental impact of the smoke and dust generated by the mixing plant on the flowering and fruiting of surrounding longan trees, on June 8, 2013, the Sanya Municipal Bureau of Land, Environment and Resources (hereinafter referred to as the Sanya Bureau of Land and Resources) was requested to publicly disclose the relevant environmental information of the mixing plant, including the "Letter on the Law Enforcement, Supervision and Inspection of Environmental Impact Assessment Approval Documents for Construction Projects" issued by Santu Huanzi Cha Han [2011] No. 50 San Tu Huan Zi Cha Han [2011] No. 23 "Letter on the Law Enforcement, Supervision and Inspection of Administrative Licensing Matters", San Tu Huan Zi Jian [2011] No. 422 "Reply on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report Form of Sanya Jinmian Concrete Co., Ltd. Haitang Bay Concrete Mixing Station Project", and "Sanya Jinmian Concrete Co., Ltd. Haitang Bay Concrete Mixing Station Project Environmental Impact Assessment Report Form". On July 4th, the Sanya Land and Resources Bureau issued a "Notice on Partial Disclosure of Government Information", agreeing to disclose Document No. 422, but believing that Documents No. 23 and No. 50 were formed by the internal affairs of the bureau and should not be disclosed; The "Project Environmental Impact Assessment Report Form" is a corporate document and is not government information, nor is it publicly available. The plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit requesting that the Sanya Land and Resources Bureau make all of it public.

（2） Judgment results

The Suburban People's Court of Sanya City held that the information requested by the plaintiff for disclosure includes government environmental information and enterprise environmental information. The principle to be followed in this regard is that there is no situation where laws and regulations prohibit disclosure and it is indeed the applicant's own production, living, and research special needs, which should generally be made public. The relevant documents and materials applied for public disclosure by the plaintiff in this case are information produced or obtained by the defendant in the process of fulfilling their duties, recorded and preserved in a certain form, and of course, belong to government information. The defendant's failure to prove that the information applied for disclosure is legally prohibited and their response to not disclosing it is an error in the application of laws and regulations. Based on this, the judgment revokes the second response in the defendant's "Notice on the Disclosure of Government Information Part" regarding the non disclosure part, and restricts them to make a new response after reviewing according to the procedure in accordance with the law.

After the first instance judgment, Yu Suizhu was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. During the second instance, she voluntarily withdrew her appeal.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is reflected in three aspects: firstly, the information obtained from external sources is also government information. This case involves two types of information: firstly, enterprise environmental information obtained by administrative agencies; The second is the information produced by administrative agencies with internal characteristics. Regarding the former, according to the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, government information not only includes information produced by administrative agencies, but also includes information obtained by administrative agencies from citizens, legal persons, or other organizations. Therefore, the enterprise environmental information obtained by the administrative agency in the process of fulfilling its duties in this case also belongs to government information. Regarding the latter, the administrative organs in this case have decided not to disclose the letters 23 and 50, although they appear as internal reports, their essence is still an extension of administrative management functions and does not belong to internal management information. Secondly, exceptions are statutory. Non disclosure of government information is an exception, and exceptions should be clearly defined by laws and regulations. The judgment in this case emphasizes that all government information should be made public if there are no legal reasons for not disclosing it. The defendant failed to prove that the information applied for disclosure was legally not disclosed, and simply replied that it was not disclosed on the grounds of government internal information and enterprise environmental information, which is an applicable legal error. Thirdly, administrative agencies make judgments first. Considering that the environmental information of enterprises obtained by administrative agencies may involve third-party trade secrets, it should first be judged by the administrative agency in the administrative procedure. The court did not overstep its authority to directly make a public judgment, but ordered the administrative agency to make a new response on whether to make a public decision, reflecting respect for the administrative agency's right to make the first judgment.

2、 Xi Mingqiang v. Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 29, 2012, Xi Mingqiang applied to the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Ministry of Public Security) for the publication of the "Notice on Implementing a New Mechanism for" Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes "(Gong Tong Zi [1999] No. 91)," Notice on Improving the Work Related to the New Mechanism for "Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes" (Gong Xing [2002] No. 351) The government information on the application conditions of online pursuit and evasion measures in three documents, including the "Evaluation and Evaluation Measures for Daily Online Pursuit and Escape Work (Revised)" (Gong Xing [2005] No. 403). On June 25, 2012, the Ministry of Public Security issued a "Reply to Government Information Disclosure", informing them that the government information they applied to obtain belongs to other situations that are not allowed to be disclosed according to laws, regulations, and rules. According to Article 14 (4) of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, it shall not be disclosed. Xi Mingqiang was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit after the administrative reconsideration decision upheld the response.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held that after accepting Xi Mingqiang's application for government information disclosure, the Ministry of Public Security, after investigation and verification, determined that Xi Mingqiang's "Notice on Implementing a New Mechanism of" Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes "applied for disclosure was a secret level document; The "Notice on Improving the New Mechanism of" Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes "and the" Evaluation and Evaluation Measures for Daily "Online Pursuing Escapes" (Revised) "are formulated based on the requirements of the former and are closely related in content. After further identification, the Ministry of Public Security has determined that the information Xi Mingqiang applied for public disclosure is information formed by the public security organs in fulfilling their criminal judicial functions and investigating criminal crimes, and the file information applied for public disclosure belongs to confidential matters and should not be disclosed. The judgment rejected Xi Mingqiang's lawsuit request.

Xi Mingqiang was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that according to Article 2 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, government information refers to information produced or obtained by administrative agencies in the process of fulfilling their duties, recorded and preserved in a certain form. In this case, Xi Mingqiang applied to the Ministry of Public Security for the disclosure of three documents and their specific contents, which were information produced by the Ministry of Public Security as a criminal judicial organ in fulfilling its responsibility to investigate crimes. According to law, they do not belong to the government information stipulated in Article 2 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information. Therefore, after accepting Xi Mingqiang's application for government information disclosure, the Ministry of Public Security, after examination, issued a response not to be disclosed, which was not inappropriate. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of secret matters formed in the pursuit of criminal offenses. According to Article 14 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, administrative agencies shall not disclose government information involving state secrets. Article 9 of the Law on Guarding State Secrets stipulates that "secret matters in the maintenance of national security activities and the investigation of criminal offenses" shall be determined as state secrets. In this case, the first instance court determined that the document information applied for by the plaintiff to be disclosed is a confidential matter and should not be disclosed, in accordance with the aforementioned legal provisions. At the same time, public security organs have dual functions as administrative organs and criminal justice organs, and the information they produce during the performance of criminal justice functions does not belong to the government information specified in Article 2 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information. On the basis of distinguishing between these two functions of public security organs, the second instance court of this case found that the Ministry of Public Security's decision not to respond publicly was not inappropriate and had exemplary significance.

3、 Wang Zongli v. Tianjin Heping District Real Estate Management Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 10, 2011, Wang Zongli submitted an application to the Information Disclosure Office of the People's Government of Heping District, Tianjin (hereinafter referred to as the Heping District Information Disclosure Office), requesting the disclosure of information on the entrusted demolition agreement signed between the Heping District Financial Street Company and the Heping District Land Consolidation Center, as well as the relevant fees paid to the Land Consolidation Center. On October 11, 2011, the Peace Zone Information Disclosure Office forwarded Wang Zongli's application to the Peace Zone Real Estate Management Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Peace Zone Housing Management Bureau), which was responsible for responding to Wang Zongli. In October 2011, the Heping District Housing Management Bureau issued a "Third Party Consultation Letter" to the Financial Street Company, requesting a response from the Financial Street Company. On October 24, 2011, the Housing Management Bureau of Heping District issued a "Notice on the Involvement of Third Party Rights and Interests", informing Wang Zongli that the content of the application for inquiry involved trade secrets, and the rights holder did not respond within the specified time limit and would not be made public. Wang Zongli filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the revocation of the notice, and ordered the defendant to provide the government information requested within 15 days in accordance with the law.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Heping District, Tianjin found that after reviewing Wang Zongli's application for government information disclosure, the Heping District Housing Management Bureau only sent a third-party opinion consultation letter to the Financial Street Company, and did not investigate and verify whether Wang Zongli's application for government information disclosure involved commercial secrets. In the lawsuit, the Heping District Housing Management Bureau also did not provide any evidence that Wang Zongli's application for government information involved trade secrets, making it impossible for the court to determine whether the government information Wang Zongli applied for disclosure involved trade secrets of third parties. Therefore, the evidence provided by the Housing Management Bureau of Heping District regarding the Notification of Third Party Rights and Interests is insufficient and clearly inappropriate. The judgment revokes the defendant's "Notice Concerning Third Party Rights and Interests" and requires the Heping District Housing Management Bureau to provide a new government information disclosure response within 30 days after the judgment takes effect.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of government information related to trade secrets and the application of the procedure for soliciting third-party opinions. In the practice of government information disclosure, administrative agencies often refuse to disclose the applied government information on the grounds that it involves trade secrets, but sometimes there is abuse. The concept of trade secrets has strict connotations. According to the Anti Unfair Competition Law, trade secrets refer to technical and business information that is not known to the public, can bring economic benefits to the rights holder, has practicality, and has been subject to confidentiality measures by the rights holder. Administrative agencies should conduct reviews based on this standard, rather than relying solely on whether third parties agree to make public decisions. In the legality review, the people's court shall make a judgment on whether it constitutes a trade secret based on the evidence provided by the administrative organ. In the administrative proceedings of this case, the Housing Management Bureau of Heping District directly and subjectively determined that the information applied for disclosure involved trade secrets without conducting investigation and verification. In the litigation proceedings, there was also no evidence and basis provided to the court for the relevant government information involving trade secrets, resulting in the court being unable to review the factual evidence of the defendant's determination of "involving trade secrets", and thus unable to make a judgment on whether the determination conclusion is correct. Based on this, the final judgment that the administrative agency lost the lawsuit is in line with the legislative intent. This case has typical exemplary significance for regulating how people's courts review and judge government information involving trade secrets in administrative cases of government information disclosure.

4、 Yang Regime v. Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau in Shandong Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

In March 2013, Yang regime applied for low rent housing to Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau and other units, but was unable to obtain approval due to the per capita living area of his family not meeting the conditions. Hou Yang's regime applied to disclose the distribution information of affordable housing and low rent housing and the review information of all households enjoying the housing (including registered residence, per capita income of families and per capita living area of families). On April 15, 2013, the Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau issued a written response to the Yang regime regarding the application for disclosure of information on the allocation of affordable housing and low-rent housing. It replied to the construction and distribution of affordable housing, low-rent housing, and public rental housing since 2008, and informed that the information of three batches of affordable housing owners has been publicly disclosed on the Feicheng Government Information Network and the Feicheng City Housing Management Bureau website. The Yang regime filed a lawsuit demanding that the review materials and information of all individuals who enjoy affordable housing be publicly disclosed.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tai'an High tech Industrial Development Zone held after hearing that the government information required by Yang regime to be disclosed includes the registered residence, per capita income, per capita housing area of the family and other contents of the people enjoying affordable housing. Such information involves the personal privacy of citizens and should not be disclosed. The court rejected Yang regime's lawsuit.

The Yang regime was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Tai'an City believes that both the "Measures for the Guarantee of Low Rent Housing" and the "Measures for the Administration of Affordable Housing" have established a public notice system for the distribution of affordable housing. The "Joint Announcement of the Feicheng Civil Affairs Bureau and the Real Estate Management Bureau on the Application of Affordable Housing, Low Rent Housing, and Public Rental Housing" also stipulates that:, The community (unit) shall investigate and verify the household income and actual living conditions of each applicant for affordable housing, and make a public announcement, and accept public supervision for no less than 5 days. The applicant applying for affordable housing based on this shall be deemed to have agreed to disclose their aforementioned personal information. The disclosure of government information related to this shall be subject to the provisions of Article 14 (4) of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, which states that government information related to personal privacy that is publicly disclosed with the consent of the rights holder may be made public. In addition, the registered residence, per capita family income, per capita housing area and other information declared by the applicant are the basic conditions for the applicant to enjoy the affordable housing, and he must provide the competent department with personal information that meets the corresponding conditions for review. When the right to information and supervision involving the public interest conflicts with the personal privacy of affordable housing applicants within a certain range, the public nature of affordable housing should be considered first, so that citizens who obtain this public resource can transfer some personal information, which not only conforms to the principle of proportionality, but also benefits the healthy development of social supervision and housing security system. The defendant's response did not meet the comprehensive and specific legal requirements. Therefore, the first instance judgment and the defendant's response were revoked, and the defendant was ordered to provide a new written response to Yang's application within 15 working days from the date of legal effect of this judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is whether the application materials and information of individuals who enjoy affordable housing belong to personal privacy and are exempt from disclosure according to law. This issue essentially involves the handling rules when there is a conflict between protecting the public's right to know and protecting citizens' privacy rights. The affordable housing system is a social welfare system implemented by the government using public resources to solve the housing problems of low-income families, which directly involves public resources and public interests. In the current situation of a significant gap in housing supply and demand, obtaining affordable housing for an applicant will directly reduce the number of available housing, which means a reduction in opportunity benefits for waiting applicants who wish to obtain affordable housing in the future. In order to exert the effectiveness of the system and ensure fairness in accordance with the law, the right to know and supervision of stakeholders should be fully respected, and their requests to disclose relevant government information should be supported. Therefore, in the allocation process of affordable housing, when the privacy rights of those who enjoy affordable housing directly conflict with the right to know and supervise those who have the right to compete, priority should be given to protecting the right to know and supervise those who have a greater interest by transferring some personal information to those who enjoy affordable housing according to the principle of proportionality. The disclosure of relevant government information should not and does not need to be based on the consent of the rights holders. The principle of handling conflicts between personal privacy and the right to information related to public interests established in the second instance of this case is in line with legal provisions and has benchmark significance.

5、 Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui v. Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County, Fujian Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 20, 2013, Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui requested the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County, Fujian Province to publicly disclose in writing the "one book and four plans" for the proposed construction project in the area where the second applicant's house is located, including the construction land project submission manual, agricultural land conversion plan, supplementary farmland plan, expropriation plan, and land supply plan. On May 28, 2013, the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County issued a response regarding Liu Tianshui and Yao Xinjin's application for information disclosure, stating: "The third item you applied for disclosure (the" one book, four plans "for the proposed construction project) does not fall within the scope of disclosure And mail the 'Reply' to the applicant according to the communication address determined in the application form. On July 8, 2013, Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui filed an administrative lawsuit on the grounds that the Yongtai County Land and Resources Bureau did not respond to the government's public application. The Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County defended that the "One Book, Four Plans" are internal management information produced by the defendant, which is under review and does not belong to the government information that should be disclosed under the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure". The defendant has no obligation to disclose it.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Yongtai County held that the "One Book, Four Plans" were materials submitted by the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County to the relevant higher-level departments for approval, and were not within the scope of information disclosure. Although the Reply does not provide a reason for not disclosing it and has certain flaws, it is not sufficient to deny the legality of specific administrative actions. Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui demanded that the defendant disclose the "One Book, Four Plans" without legal basis, and the judgment rejected their lawsuit request.

Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui were dissatisfied and appealed. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Fuzhou City held that according to Article 23, Paragraph 1 (2) of the Implementation Regulations of the Land Management Law, the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County is the production agency of the "One Book, Four Plans". After the Fujian Provincial People's Government issued an approval for land acquisition, the "One Book, Four Plans" have been approved and implemented, and are no longer procedural information or internal materials. The appellant's refusal to disclose them has no legal basis. The judgment revoked the first instance judgment and ordered Yongtai County to disclose the "One Book, Four Plans" to Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui during the limited period of land and resources.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on how to disclose procedural information. The exceptions for disclosure determined by the Government Information Disclosure Regulations are limited to state secrets, trade secrets, and personal privacy. The second paragraph of Article 2 of the "Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Doing a Good Job in the Disclosure of Government Information According to Applications" also stipulates: "... The internal management information produced or obtained by administrative organs in their daily work, as well as the process information under discussion, research or review, generally do not belong to the government information that should be disclosed within the scope of the" Regulations " Procedural information generally refers to research, discussions, requests, reports, and other information formed within or between administrative agencies prior to the making of administrative decisions. Such information may be made public or prematurely disclosed, which may hinder the integrity of the decision-making process and the effective handling of administrative affairs. However, procedural information should not be an absolute exception. After the decision is made, information that was previously under investigation, discussion, or processing is no longer procedural information. If the need for disclosure outweighs the need for non disclosure, it should be made public. After the Fujian Provincial People's Government issued an approval for land acquisition in this case, the "one document, four plans" applied for by the parties were already in the determined implementation stage. The administrative authorities refused to disclose the information on the grounds that it belonged to process information and internal materials, which constituted an improper obstruction to the parties' exercise of their right to know. The second instance court ordered the defendant to make the deadline public, setting a model for the people's court to handle the issue of process information disclosure.

6、 Zhang Hongjun v. Price Bureau of Rugao City, Jiangsu Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 26, 2009, the Price Bureau of Rugao City issued the Notice of the Price Bureau on Issuing the "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power" (Gaojingfa [2009] No. 28). This document contains the attachment "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Price Bureau". Article 10 of the implementation measures reads "The discretionary punishment range for the Administrative Penalty Provisions on Price Violations is detailed in Attachment 1 (2)".

On January 9, 2013, Zhang Hongjun reported to the Price Bureau of Rugao City that the People's Government of Dingyan Town in Rugao City had engaged in illegal charges in information disclosure matters. After receiving the report, the bureau replied that the Dingyan Town government has decided to voluntarily refund the total information retrieval and copying fees of 480.5 yuan collected by 31 farmers. In accordance with Article 9 (3) of the "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Price Bureau", they will not be subject to administrative punishment in accordance with the law.

On March 8, 2013, Zhang Hongjun submitted an application for government information disclosure to the Price Bureau of Rugao City, requesting it to disclose the "Gao Jia Fa [2009] No. 28" document. The Rugao Municipal Price Bureau replied that the document is internal information and does not fall within the scope of government information that should be disclosed. The plaintiff was provided with the main text of the document and the attachment "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Municipal Price Bureau", but Annex 1 (2) of the document was not provided. Zhang Hongjun refused and filed a lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Rudong County believes that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the information involved in the lawsuit should be made public. Firstly, the information produced and obtained by administrative agencies in their administrative management activities belongs to government information. The information generated by administrative agencies solely performing their internal management responsibilities belongs to internal management information. The Price Bureau of Rugao City stated that the basis for its decision not to impose punishment on the Dingyan Town government is the "Gaojianfa [2009] No. 28" document. When the punishment range for certain specific price violations is relatively wide in relevant laws and regulations, this document serves as a reference for the bureau's quantitative punishment. It can be seen that litigation related information will have an impact on the rights and obligations of the administrative counterpart. It is information produced by the defendant in the process of exercising administrative management responsibilities and is not internal management information. Secondly, the litigation related information is the specific quantitative punishment provisions made by the Price Bureau of Rugao City for different price violations based on the specific situation of the city. According to Article 18 of the "Decision of the State Council on Strengthening the Administration of City and County Governments in accordance with the Law" (Guo Fa [2008] No. 17), the refinement and quantification standards for administrative discretion should be disclosed, so the litigation related information belongs to the category of government information that should be disclosed. Once again, the Rugao Municipal Price Bureau only disclosed the main text and attachment of the litigation document to Zhang Hongjun, including the "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Municipal Price Bureau", without disclosing Annex 1 (2) of the document, which lacked legal basis for selectively disclosing some of the litigation information. The Price Bureau of Rugao City should comprehensively, accurately, and completely fulfill the responsibility of government information disclosure. According to this judgment, the defendant shall disclose Annex 1 (2) of the "Gao Jia Fa [2009] No. 28" document to the plaintiff within 15 working days from the effective date of this judgment.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The case involves the issue of defining internal information. The so-called internal information refers to a general policy statement or non ultimate opinion on a case that does not have direct binding force on the outside. The reason for exempting internal information from disclosure is to protect communication within institutions or between different institutions, so that officials can express their true thoughts freely and without hesitation. In this case, the People's Court of Rudong County confirmed through three aspects of analysis that the government information involved in the lawsuit is information produced by the defendant during the exercise of administrative management responsibilities, and is the basis for quantitative punishment of price violations. It will have an impact on the rights and obligations of the administrative counterpart, and therefore should not be classified as internal information. At the same time, the judgment conducted a strict review of the standards for administrative agencies to disclose government information, clearly requiring administrative agencies to accurately, completely, and comprehensively fulfill their responsibilities for government information disclosure, and not to selectively disclose it at will. These all have significant reference value.

7、 Peng Zhilin v. Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau, Hunan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 6, 2012, Peng Zhilin submitted an application for government information disclosure to the Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau, requesting approval information for the construction land of Gao Xigui, a villager in this group. On November 28th, the Land and Resources Bureau of Changsha County replied that according to Article 25 of the Implementation Measures of the Archives Law, collective and individual archives stored in archives and other units are not allowed to be disclosed by any unit or individual without authorization. If disclosure is required, the consent of the archive owner must be obtained. Therefore, when querying the approval documents for the construction of high precision and expensive housing land, it is necessary to go to the archives of this bureau in accordance with the above legal provisions. At the same time, it is suggested that if there is a problem with the construction of one household and two certificates for high-end and high-end housing, it can be directly reported to the Bureau's Letters and Calls Office and the Law Enforcement and Supervision Brigade, which will be handled by the science department and department in accordance with the law. Peng Zhilin was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the defendant's response and ordering the defendant to disclose relevant information.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Changsha County believes that according to Article 7 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Government Information Disclosure", the government information applied for by the plaintiff is kept in the defendant's archives and has not been transferred to a specialized archive. The defendant Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau should respond to the plaintiff's application for public information in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure" in accordance with the law, However, the defendant applied the relevant provisions of the Implementation Measures of the Archives Law in their response, which is an error in the application of laws and regulations and should be revoked in accordance with the law. Whether the information requested by the plaintiff for public disclosure should be provided still requires investigation and discretion by the defendant, so the plaintiff's request for litigation is not supported. The judgment revokes the respondent's response and orders the defendant to provide a new response within 30 working days. The Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Changsha Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of archival information. There is a certain evolutionary relationship between government information and archives. There is a competing issue of legal application regarding whether administrative information that has been transferred to national archives at all levels or stored in administrative institutions should be subject to the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", or to regulations, administrative regulations, and relevant national regulations on archive management. Article 7 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Government Information Disclosure" distinguishes and processes information that has been transferred to the national archives from information stored in the archives of administrative organs, which is conducive to preventing administrative organs from using the application of archives management laws and regulations as an excuse to evade the disclosure of government information. This rule was well applied in this case, and it was found that the defendant's application of the "Measures for the Implementation of the Archives Law" in their response did not disclose government information, which was an error in the application of laws and regulations. At the same time, the court considered whether the government information involved in the case should be provided, which still requires investigation and discretion by the defendant. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should respond again, which also respects the administrative authority's right to make the first judgment.

8、 Qian Qunwei v. People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, Zhejiang Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 17, 2013, Qian Qunwei mailed a government information disclosure application to the People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, requesting the publication of the review of the use of residential land by villagers in Chaijia Village since 2000, the actual list of village residential land allocation, the area and location of the residential land, the full list and individual area of the demolition households of the large bridge in Chaijia Village, and the full list and individual area of the monetary resettlement households among the demolition households of the large bridge in Chaijia Village, A complete list of people from other villages who have built houses in Chaijia Village, as well as a list of actual residents, indicating the background of their homestead construction. On April 10, 2013, the People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City issued a "Letter of Opinion on Letters and Visits", which stated that the information disclosure was: "The demolition of the Chaijia Village Bridge involves a total of 367 demolished buildings, including 317 households for demolition and resettlement, and 16 households for monetary resettlement. The relevant matters related to the above information have been handled through relevant procedures and have been disclosed in a certain form, and have been known to the relevant public." Qian Qunwei was dissatisfied with this response, Bring a lawsuit. Believing that the response is "general and cannot explain any issues with the information, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the information requested by the plaintiff to be disclosed, essentially equivalent to refusing to disclose it".

（2） Judgment situation

After trial, the People's Court of Cixi City found that the defendant's response only responded to a small number of government information disclosure applications, and did not respond to other government information disclosure applications, nor did they inform the plaintiff of the ways and means to obtain the government information. Moreover, the defendant did not provide the corresponding evidence for its response to the court in the lawsuit, so it should be determined that the main evidence for the defendant's response is insufficient. The defendant argued that the Government Information Disclosure Regulations were only implemented on May 1, 2008, and prior government information could not be disclosed. The court believes that when the plaintiff applied for the disclosure of government information, the regulation had already been implemented. In response to the plaintiff's application, the defendant shall provide a response in accordance with the relevant provisions of the regulations. If the government information requested by the plaintiff for disclosure falls within the scope of non disclosure, the defendant shall inform the plaintiff and explain the reasons. Moreover, the defendant believes that government information prior to the implementation of this regulation cannot be made public and lacks legal basis. The defendant's above defense opinion is not valid and cannot be accepted. The judgment revokes the government information disclosure response made by the People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, as the defendant; Order them to re process the government information disclosure application submitted by Qian Qunwei within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of historical information. The so-called historical information refers to government information that had already been formed before the implementation of the Government Information Disclosure Regulations. Although some agencies and officials do hope to exclude historical information from the scope of application during the legislative process, the definition of government information in the Government Information Disclosure Regulations does not limit the formation time of information, nor does it exclude historical information from the scope of disclosure. The judgment in this case confirms that "the defendant believes that government information prior to the implementation of this regulation cannot be disclosed and lacks legal basis", which is in line with the original intention of the legislation. As for the principle of "non retroactivity of law", it refers to the fact that the provisions of legal documents only apply to events and actions after the legal documents take effect, and do not apply to events and actions before the legal documents take effect. In this case, the so-called events and actions refer to the plaintiff's application for the disclosure of government information in accordance with the regulations, and the administrative agency's response to the application. The judgment in this case points out that "when the plaintiff applied for the disclosure of government information, the regulation had already been implemented", which is a correct understanding of the principle of "non retroactivity of the law".

9、 Zhang Liang v. Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources Management

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 19, 2013, Zhang Liang applied to the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources Management to obtain government information on the "Certificate of Payment for Land Transfer Fees for the 116 Plot Project in this City". The Shanghai Municipal Planning and Land Resources Management Bureau conducted a manual search at its archives center using the keyword "payment voucher", but did not find the government information of the 116 plot land transfer fee payment voucher named "payment voucher". Therefore, it was determined that it had not produced the government information requested by the plaintiff. According to Article 21 (3) of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", Zhang Liang replied that the government information requested for disclosure does not exist. Zhang Liang was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit demanding the revocation of the government's public response to information disclosure.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai believes that the relevant payment vouchers applied for by the plaintiff to be made public should generally refer to the written vouchers formed by the defendant after receiving the transfer fee for the state-owned land use rights of the 116 plots in this city from the transferee of the land use rights. In daily life, the name of this proof of payment voucher may be payment voucher, receipt, invoice, etc., and is not limited to the expression of payment voucher. As an ordinary citizen, the plaintiff believes that they are unable to know the standardized name of the relevant payment voucher, and the claim that they only use this payment voucher to describe the government information content they apply for is reasonable. Correspondingly, the defendant is the land administrative department of this city, and should be aware of the standardized name of the certificate issued to the transferee of the land use right after receiving the land use right transfer fee. However, without confirming with the plaintiff, the defendant arbitrarily believes that the plaintiff only requires relevant government information with the name of the payment voucher, and only uses the payment voucher as the keyword to search its archive center. Obviously, the search method is inappropriate, The conclusion that the relevant government information determined based on the failure to fulfill the search obligation does not exist is also considered unclear and insufficient evidence. The judgment revokes the respondent's government information disclosure response and orders the defendant to provide a new response.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves two important systems of government information disclosure. Firstly, when submitting an application for information disclosure, the applicant should provide as detailed a description of the content of government information as possible to facilitate retrieval by administrative agencies. Secondly, administrative agencies do not provide government information that does not exist. The review standards adopted in handling these two issues in this case are worth learning from. That is to say, if an administrative agency refuses to provide government information on the grounds that the information does not exist, it should prove that it has fulfilled its reasonable retrieval obligation. The applicant cannot be strict in describing the content of the information and must state the standardized name or even specific document number of the government information. If the administrative agency only searches based on the plaintiff's description and simply replies that government information does not exist, it is also a failure to fulfill the search obligation.

10、 If Love Marriage Service Co., Ltd. sues the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 28, 2013, Shijiazhuang Ruoai Marriage Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Ruoai Company") requested the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry of Civil Affairs") to publicly disclose in writing the social organization registration information, annual inspection information, social organization legal person registration certificate of the China Marriage and Family Research Association, as well as the investigation and punishment results of suspected fraud by the China Marriage and Family Research Association. The Ministry of Civil Affairs did not respond within the statutory 15 day limit after receiving the application from RuoAi Company. During the administrative review period, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a "Government Information Notification" to the applicant on April 26, 2013. If Love Company is not satisfied, file an administrative lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held that the Ministry of Civil Affairs believed that if the government information applied for by Love Company was within the scope of public disclosure, it replied that if Love Company obtained the government information by logging in to the China Social Organization Network and attaching the website, it was not inappropriate. The Ministry of Civil Affairs did not cite relevant legal provisions in the "Government Information Notification", which resulted in an error in the application of law to the specific administrative act being sued and should be revoked. The issuance of the 'Government Information Notification' exceeds the statutory response deadline and does not extend the approval procedures for the response in accordance with the law, which is considered a procedural violation. In addition, when making a legally binding Government Information Notification, it should be made in the name of the Ministry of Civil Affairs and stamped with the official seal of the Ministry of Civil Affairs. In summary, the judgment revokes the "Government Information Notification Letter" made by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and stipulates that the Ministry of Civil Affairs shall, within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment, make a new specific administrative action in response to the government information disclosure application of If Love Company.

If Love Company is not satisfied, file an appeal. After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court found that the Ministry of Civil Affairs has determined that the registration status and annual inspection status of social organizations of the China Marriage and Family Research Association are public information, and informed the company to log in to the China Social Organization Network for inquiries. However, the content found through the aforementioned website clearly cannot cover the information corresponding to the social group registration and annual examination data of the China Marriage and Family Research Association that the company has applied for public disclosure. The Ministry of Civil Affairs did not provide a response or explain the reasons for the registration and annual inspection information of other social groups of the China Marriage and Family Research Association, except for the query results of the China Social Organization Network. Its handling constitutes the omission of government information disclosure application matters. Meanwhile, although the Ministry of Civil Affairs does not retain the original and copy of the registration certificate, as the registration authority for national social organizations, the Ministry of Civil Affairs should have access to the relevant information recorded on the registration certificate of the China Marriage and Family Research Association. The Ministry of Civil Affairs only informed the company that it would not retain the original and copy of the registration certificate without further clarifying the application matters, and did not fulfill its obligation to review and respond. The first instance court has made no improper determination errors regarding the content of the response from the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and this court has corrected them. The Ministry of Civil Affairs has issued a notice of complaint that clearly exceeds the statutory deadline and there is no approval procedure to extend the response deadline in accordance with the law. The Ministry of Civil Affairs has confirmed in the reconsideration process that the overdue response is illegal, and this court has confirmed it. In addition, if the defendant's notice has legal basis that can be cited but is not cited, it should be considered a mistake in the application of law. The Ministry of Civil Affairs, as the subject of government information disclosure obligations, should provide government information disclosure responses in its own name. In summary, the judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the relationship between active disclosure and disclosure upon application, as well as the issue of administrative agencies fully fulfilling their obligation to disclose. The methods of government information disclosure include active disclosure and application based disclosure, which complement and complement each other. For government information that has already been voluntarily disclosed, administrative agencies may not repeat the disclosure, but should inform applicants of the ways and means of obtaining the government information. In this case, although the defendant informed the applicant during the reconsideration period of the website where information can be accessed, only a portion of the information can be found by logging on to the website. The second instance judgment found that the defendant missed relevant information that was not actively disclosed in the application, which constitutes a failure to fully fulfill the obligation of disclosure and is a correct understanding of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", Thus, a relatively clear judicial review standard has been established for whether administrative agencies have fully fulfilled their disclosure obligations and thus fully fulfilled their public obligations. In addition, administrative agencies should cite specific legal provisions and provide reasons for not disclosing government information. The judgment in this case finds that the defendant has a legal basis that can be cited but has not been cited, which is a mistake in applying the law. It can urge administrative agencies to regulate the legal application of government information disclosure and enhance the reasoning of government information disclosure. The judgment also confirms issues such as overdue responses from administrative agencies and improper response subjects, which is also conducive to promoting the standardization of the form and procedure of government information disclosure responses.