catalogue

1. Zhang Enqi v. Tianjin Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and Tianjin Social Insurance Fund Management Center for Administrative Negligence

2. Zhang Fengzhu v. Puyang Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources for Administrative Inaction

3. Peng v. Shenzhen Nanshan District Planning and Land Supervision Brigade for Administrative Omission

4. Zhong Hua v. Tongzhou Branch of Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Inaction

5. Wang Shunsheng v. Shouguang City People's Government for Administrative Inaction

6. Shen and Cai v. Nantong Public Security Bureau Development Zone Branch Administrative Inaction Case

7. Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. v. Lanzhou Chengguan District Urban Management Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau for Administrative Omission Case

8. Zhao Yongtian v. Wudian Town People's Government of Fengyang County for Administrative Inaction

9. Ai Liren v. Shenyang Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission for Administrative Inaction

10. Zhang Meihua and Five Others v. Maiji Branch of Tianshui Public Security Bureau for Compensation for Administrative Negligence

1、 Zhang Enqi v. Tianjin Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and Tianjin Social Insurance Fund Management Center for Administrative Negligence

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zhang Enqi sent a letter to the Tianjin Human Resources and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Social Security Bureau) on March 13 and October 16, 2013, and to the Tianjin Social Insurance Fund Management Center (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Social Security Fund Center) on September 25, 2013. The main content of the letter was to demand the fulfillment of legal responsibilities and mandatory collection of social insurance contributions due to low base, underpayment, and omission. After receiving the letter on October 26, 2013, the Municipal Social Security Bureau believed that the issues mentioned did not belong to the responsibility of the bureau, but rather to the responsibility of the Municipal Social Security Fund Center. Therefore, the letter was transferred to the center for processing. On November 29, 2013, the center issued a "Reply to Zhang Enqi's Complaints" to Zhang Enqi. The main content was that he had completed retirement procedures, and his retirement benefits were determined and approved by the social security bureau in the area where he participated in the insurance. Prior to the approval, the center had already confirmed the payment base, payment period, and other matters. As a social security agency, the center acted as a social security agency, Responsible for timely and fully distributing retirement benefits in accordance with the approval results of the district and county social security bureaus and relevant policies and regulations. Zhang Siqi first filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Social Security Bureau and the Municipal Social Security Fund Center, and applied to withdraw the lawsuit because their respective defense did not have corresponding responsibilities. Later, they were jointly informed to the court, requesting confirmation that the transfer of letters by the Municipal Social Security Bureau to the Municipal Social Security Fund Center was illegal, revoking the aforementioned response from the Municipal Social Security Fund Center, and ordering the two defendants to fulfill their legal responsibilities and respond to their demands.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Heping District, Tianjin held in the first instance that, according to Article 5 of the Provisional Regulations on the Collection and Payment of Social Insurance Premiums, the Municipal Social Security Bureau has administrative functions responsible for the management, supervision and inspection of the collection and payment of social insurance premiums throughout the city. On October 19, 2011, it issued a document to the Municipal Social Security Fund Center, which has a subordinate relationship with it, titled "Notice on the Division of Responsibilities for the Acceptance, Investigation and Handling of Social Insurance Reporting and Complaint Cases", The second item clearly stipulates that "for reports and complaints of employers who fail to pay social insurance premiums in full and on time, the social insurance agency shall accept and investigate them. If they still fail to pay within the time limit, the social insurance agency shall request the labor supervision agency with jurisdiction to impose administrative penalties. The specific procedures shall be formulated by the municipal labor supervision agency and the municipal social insurance agency. Therefore, it is not improper for the Municipal Social Security Bureau to transfer the letter to the Municipal Social Security Fund Center for processing. The Municipal Social Security Fund Center should clearly handle the matters requested by the plaintiff's letter, but it did not respond within 60 days. In the previous case where the plaintiff sued the center for not fulfilling its statutory duties, it concealed the issuance of the above-mentioned documents by the Municipal Social Security Bureau. In the defense, it denied that it had corresponding responsibilities, resulting in the plaintiff believing that the subject of the lawsuit against the defendant was incorrect and applying for withdrawal, which was a failure to fulfill its statutory duties and shirking responsibility. It is obviously inappropriate for the plaintiff to directly respond in the form of a petition without clearly addressing the plaintiff's request in the response to Zhang Enqi's complaint. Judgment: 1. The Municipal Social Security Fund Center shall handle the plaintiff's request within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment and notify the plaintiff in writing of the results. If the plaintiff fails to comply within the specified time limit, a fine of 70 yuan shall be imposed on each day from the expiration date; 2、 Reject the plaintiff's other claims. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court has clarified the relevant responsibilities of the administrative subject in social security management through administrative adjudication. Due to the complexity of administrative management and unclear legal provisions, in cases where the boundaries of authority are not clear, administrative agencies should actively communicate and contact each other, coordinate and solve problems together, and cannot shift blame or even play hide and seek with the people. Social insurance benefits involve thousands of households and are related to personal life, aging, illness, and death. Both social security agencies and handling agencies must actively fulfill their responsibilities in order to fulfill the responsibilities of a responsible government. The people's court shall impose legal sanctions on administrative subjects who conceal relevant documents regarding the division of powers between them and relevant units in litigation, and may report to the disciplinary inspection and supervision department if necessary; In the case of administrative entities evading each other and denying corresponding legal responsibilities, relevant administrative entities can be listed as defendants in accordance with the law, jointly participating in the litigation, and ultimately determining the responsible party through trial evidence, cross examination, and debate. At the same time, in order to ensure the timely performance of the judgment, the legal consequences of not fulfilling the judgment can be clearly defined at the time of the judgment, which not only urges the administrative subject to fulfill their responsibilities as soon as possible, but also helps to ensure the rapid execution of the effective judgment. The judgment in this case has guiding and exemplary significance for the handling of similar cases.

2、 Zhang Fengzhu v. Puyang Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 16, 2013, Zhang Fengzhu submitted a written application to the Land and Resources Bureau of Puyang City, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau), requesting the bureau to investigate and punish the illegal and forced occupation of farmland in his village by relevant engineering projects in accordance with the law, and sent the application to the bureau. After receiving the application on October 17, 2013, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau did not accept, file a case, handle it, or inform Zhang Fengzhu. Zhang Fengzhu then sued the court on the grounds that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau did not fulfill its statutory duties, requesting confirmation that the defendant's specific administrative act of not fulfilling its statutory duties was illegal, and requiring the defendant to investigate and punish the land illegal act.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Hualong District, Puyang City held in the first instance that the land management department should accept land illegal cases assigned by superiors, transferred by other departments, and reported by the public. After accepting land illegal cases, the land management department shall conduct an examination, and any cases that meet the conditions for filing shall be promptly filed and investigated; If the conditions for filing a case are not met, the unit or informant responsible for handling or transferring the case shall be notified. After the plaintiff Zhang Fengzhu submitted an application to the defendant's Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources to investigate and punish illegal land occupation, the defendant should accept it. The defendant neither accepted it nor informed the plaintiff whether to file the case. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to confirm that the defendant did not perform legal duties and violated the law, and to fulfill legal duties within a specified time limit has factual and legal basis, and this court supports it. Judgment: Firstly, it is confirmed that the defendant's failure to accept the plaintiff's request for investigation and punishment of illegal land occupation is illegal. 2、 The defendant is limited to fulfilling legal responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the "Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Illegal Cases" from the effective date of this judgment.

The Municipal Land and Resources Bureau is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Puyang Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that according to the "Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Illegal Cases", the land administrative departments of local people's governments at or above the county level shall supervise and inspect violations of land management laws and regulations. The appellant, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau, appealed that after receiving the application for supervision of land illegal activities on October 17, 2013, it had undergone acceptance and verification. However, the appellant did not promptly inform the applicant of the examination results, and the appellant's actions did not fully fulfill their work responsibilities, violating the provisions of Article 16 of the "Measures for the Investigation and Punishment of Land Illegal Cases". The second instance decision rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in: through the exercise of administrative trial functions, urging the land management department to promptly handle public reports, effectively fulfilling the legal responsibilities related to investigating and punishing illegal land occupation, in order to respond to public concerns and ensure the legitimate use of land resources. The current situation of scarce land resources and a shortage of people and land determines that China must implement the strictest land management system. However, for a long time, there has been serious waste of land resources, and illegal and irregular land use has emerged one after another. This is due to inadequate land management and protection, as well as factors that make it difficult for the people to effectively participate in protection. Public participation is an important channel for timely detection and correction of land violations, as well as an effective means to ensure the implementation of the strictest land management system. It is the power and obligation of the land management department to accept and promptly investigate reports of illegal land use by the people in accordance with the law. Article 13 of the Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Illegal Cases stipulates that "land management departments shall accept land illegal cases assigned by superiors, transferred by other departments, and reported by the public." Article 16 also specifies the procedures for filing and handling cases after acceptance. It is understood that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau not only failed to fulfill its duties in accordance with the law regarding Zhang Fengzhu's application in this case, but also had the same problem with the application of nine other people and was ruled against by the court. The ruling in this case has positive significance in ensuring the correct implementation of the strictest land management system and public participation.

3、 Peng v. Shenzhen Nanshan District Planning and Land Supervision Brigade for Administrative Omission

（1） Basic facts of the case

Peng and Lu are the owners of Room 902 and Room 901, Block A, a residential area in Nanshan District, Shenzhen. On September 1, 2011, the Nanshan District Planning and Land Supervision Brigade (hereinafter referred to as the District Supervision Brigade) received a call from the public to report that the residents of Room 901 had engaged in illegal construction. After investigation and evidence collection, it was found that Lu had illegally built a steel structure glass curtain wall on the open balcony of Room 901. Therefore, on September 4, 2011, a notice was issued ordering the cessation (correction) of illegal activities, Order them to immediately cease their illegal activities and clean up and dismantle them on their own before 12:00 pm on September 7, 2011. On October 25, 2011, the district supervision team issued the "Administrative Penalty Decision Letter (2011) No. 07017", which determined that Lu's illegal construction of glass curtain walls violated the relevant provisions of the Shenzhen Urban Planning Regulations. They decided to demolish the glass curtain walls in accordance with the law and informed him in writing that he should automatically fulfill the decision within 15 days from the date of delivery of the above-mentioned penalty decision letter. If he fails to fulfill the decision within the time limit, he will be enforced in accordance with the law. The Administrative Penalty Decision was delivered to Lu on the same day. On January 9, 2012, the district supervision team proposed to the Shenzhen Real Estate Property Rights Registration Center to temporarily suspend the registration of property rights for 901 properties. On January 28, 2013, the district supervision team issued a "reminder letter" requesting Lu to demolish the balcony and build a glass curtain wall, and restore the balcony to its original state. Regarding the Notice of Ordering to Stop (Correct) Illegal Acts and the Administrative Penalty Decision in the case, Lu did not file an administrative lawsuit or apply for administrative reconsideration within the statutory deadline. As of the date of the trial of the case, the illegally constructed glass curtain wall mentioned above has not been removed. Peng, the owner of Room 902, believes that the district supervision team, after issuing the "Notice of Ordering to Stop (Correct) Illegal Behaviors", disregarded the subsequent execution and was deemed an administrative inaction. Therefore, the district supervision team was informed to the court and requested confirmation that the defendant's failure to perform compulsory demolition was illegal. The defendant was ordered to immediately act in accordance with the law and forcibly demolish the illegal part.

（2） Judgment results

The Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen held in the first instance that the District Supervision Brigade, as a district planning and land supervision institution, has the responsibility to investigate, collect evidence, identify illegal land use and illegal construction activities within its administrative area, implement administrative penalties in accordance with the law, and enforce enforcement. After making an administrative decision to demolish illegal buildings within a prescribed time limit in accordance with the law, if the party concerned does not apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit within the prescribed time limit, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the compulsory execution procedures stipulated in laws and regulations such as the Administrative Compulsory Law of the People's Republic of China and the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Planning and Land Supervision Regulations. As for the deadline within which the competent authority must make a mandatory decision and implement mandatory demolition in accordance with the law, there is no clear provision in laws and regulations, but it should fulfill its legal responsibilities within a reasonable period of time. In this case, after the defendant made an administrative decision to demolish the case within a specified period of time and in accordance with the law, and the administrative counterpart did not apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit, and refused to comply, for more than a year until the date of the trial, they only made reminders without further processing the case, and did not provide evidence to prove that there were relevant legal and reasonable reasons. Their behavior was clearly improper, which has constituted a negligence in fulfilling their legal responsibilities, It should be corrected. Considering that the decision to make compulsory execution and the implementation of compulsory demolition belong to the administrative authority of administrative organs, and the implementation of administrative compulsory demolition has strict legal procedures, it is not appropriate to directly order the district supervision team to forcibly demolish illegal buildings. Therefore, it is decided that the district supervision team will continue to handle the illegal construction issue of Room 901, Building A, in a certain community in Nanshan District within three months from the effective date of the judgment. Peng and the district supervision team both appealed against the first instance verdict. The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the same grounds in the second instance.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court has declared through judgment that a legally effective administrative decision must be executed. Penalty decisions that are not backed by legal coercion are like flameless flames or dim lights, ultimately damaging the public's belief in the rule of law and even inducing group violations. The investigation and demolition of illegal buildings has always been a difficulty in urban management, and is also a key law enforcement focus for planning departments, land management, and urban appearance management departments. The investigation and punishment of illegal buildings by relevant administrative law enforcement agencies should not only end in making punishment decisions, but should take effective measures in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Compulsory Law to ensure the execution of punishment decisions, in order to fully fulfill legal responsibilities. Although it is difficult to remove violations, it cannot be an excuse for administrative agencies to neglect their statutory duties. Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law stipulates that if the competent department in charge of urban and rural planning makes a decision to order the cessation of construction or the demolition within a specified time limit, and the party concerned fails to stop construction or the demolition within the specified time limit, the local people's government at or above the county level in the place where the construction project is located may order the relevant departments to take measures such as sealing up the construction site or compulsory demolition. Of course, due to the diversity of administrative management, laws and regulations generally do not specify a deadline for administrative agencies to forcibly demolish after making a penalty decision, but it still needs to be fulfilled within a reasonable period of time. In this case, the People's Court found that the district supervision team has not been forced to execute the "Administrative Penalty Decision" for more than a year, which has clearly exceeded a reasonable deadline, and is considered to be negligent in fulfilling legal responsibilities. In terms of the judgment method, the court ordered it to continue processing, which is not only in line with the spirit of legal regulations, but also conducive to ensuring the implementation of the punishment decision through education and persuasion rather than coercive means as much as possible, and has certain exemplary significance.

4、 Zhong Hua v. Tongzhou Branch of Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 27, 2013, Tongzhou Branch of Beijing Municipal Administration of Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as Tongzhou Branch of Industry and Commerce) received a letter of complaint (report) from Zhong Hua, claiming that the "Beida Rice Shortage and Selenium Enrichment" purchased in Carrefour did not comply with the provisions of the General Principles on Nutrition Labeling of Prepackaged Food, and was an illegal product that did not meet the food safety standards, and asked Tongzhou Branch of Industry and Commerce to order Carrefour to return its payment and make compensation, Administrative penalties shall be imposed in accordance with the law. On December 30 of the same year, the Tongzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce issued a response stating that according to the bureau's investigation, the food safety issues reported by Zhong Hua are currently not within its functional scope. Zhong Hua submitted a reconsideration application to the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce on January 8, 2014. The machine made a reconsideration decision on April 2 of the same year and maintained the "Reply". Zhong Hua was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit against the Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Bureau as the defendant, requesting confirmation that the procedures for handling reported cases by the Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Bureau were illegal and ordering them to fulfill their transfer responsibilities.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing held in the first instance that according to the Food Safety Office of the State Council, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine According to the Food Safety Office (2013) No. 13 of the State Food and Drug Administration, the Notice on Further Improving the Supervision of Food and Cosmetics during the Institutional Reform Period, and the Notice of the General Office of the Beijing Municipal People's Government on Printing and Distributing the Regulations on the Main Responsibilities of the Internal Institutions and Personnel Staffing of the Beijing Food and Drug Administration, the food safety supervision responsibilities in the circulation process of Beijing are currently undertaken by the Beijing Food and Drug Administration, Therefore, the defendant Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Branch no longer has the responsibility to supervise the food safety in the circulation process, and upon receiving a report from the plaintiff Zhong Hua, it should be able to determine the competent authority for the case. Article 15 of the Regulations on Administrative Penalty Procedures for Industrial and Commercial Administrative Organs stipulates that if the industrial and commercial administrative organ discovers that the case being investigated and dealt with belongs to the jurisdiction of other administrative organs, it shall be transferred to other relevant organs in accordance with the law. In this case, when the defendant believes that the matter reported by the plaintiff does not fall under its jurisdiction, it should be transferred to the relevant competent authority. Therefore, the defendant is judged to fulfill the transfer responsibility for the plaintiff's reported matter within fifteen working days, and other litigation requests of the plaintiff are rejected. The Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Branch was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the same grounds.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that it has been clarified through adjudication that administrative agencies should promptly transfer matters that do not fall within their responsibilities. If relevant normative documents stipulate that they should be transferred to competent authorities for handling, they should be promptly transferred. In the field of administrative management, the responsibilities of administrative agencies have both division of labor and overlap. The sources of statutory responsibilities may be laws, regulations, rules, and normative documents in the administrative field, legal norms in other administrative management fields, or even administrative needs and practices. The supervision and management responsibilities related to food production and circulation are transferred from the industrial and commercial authorities to the food and drug supervision and management departments. However, in the initial stage of responsibility adjustment, the people may not be very clear. If the industrial and commercial authorities find that the reporting matters of food safety issues by the people belong to the jurisdiction of other administrative organs, they should transfer them to the relevant competent authorities and cannot be pushed forward. Actively transferring is also a legal responsibility.

5、 Wang Shunsheng v. Shouguang City People's Government for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 11, 2014, the People's Government of Shouguang City (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Government) received a request from Wang Shunsheng to order the Chuzhuang Village Village Committee of Luocheng Street (hereinafter referred to as the Chuzhuang Village Committee) to publicly disclose village affairs. After investigation and verification, the Municipal Government issued (2014) No. 009 Notice on Ordering the Publication of Village Affairs on April 4 of the same year, The main content is: "On February 11, 2014, the village committee of Chuzhuang Village in Luocheng Street accepted the application from Wang Shunsheng, a villager of your village, for ordering Chuzhuang Village in Luocheng Street to publish village affairs." According to Article 31 of the Organization Law of the Village Committee and the Measures for the Implementation of the Organization Law of the People's Republic of China on Village Committees in Shandong Province Article 38 stipulates that your unit is hereby ordered to disclose relevant village affairs information to Wang Shunsheng in accordance with the law. This notice is hereby issued and delivered to the Chuzhuang Village Committee on the same day. The municipal government believes that it has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities. However, at the time of the trial in this case, the village committee of Chuzhuang Village did not disclose the matter of Wang Shunsheng's application to him. Wang Shunsheng filed an administrative lawsuit with the municipal government as the defendant, requesting confirmation that the defendant's failure to fulfill the duty of ordering the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose village affairs was illegal; Order the defendant to promptly fulfill the duty of ordering the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose village affairs.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Weifang City held in the first instance that, in accordance with Article 31 of the Organizational Law of the Villagers' Committee If the village committee fails to timely announce the matters that should be announced or the announced matters are not true, the villagers have the right to report to the people's government of the township, ethnic township, town or the county-level people's government and its relevant competent departments. The relevant people's government or competent departments shall be responsible for investigating and verifying the truth, and order the announcement to be made in accordance with the law. If it is found that there is indeed an illegal act, the relevant personnel shall bear the responsibility in accordance with the law, The defendant city government is legally responsible for investigating and verifying the matters reflected by the plaintiff Wang Shunsheng according to the application, and ordering the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose relevant village affairs. When fulfilling the duty of ordering, the defendant should not be limited to making and delivering the order notice, but should also limit the reasonable period of disclosure and follow up and supervise the implementation of the order notice by the village committee to achieve a public result. In this case, although the defendant has issued a notice to the Chuzhuang Village Committee ordering the disclosure of village affairs information in accordance with legal provisions, there is no reasonable time limit for disclosure, nor has there been any verification of the implementation of the notice by the Chuzhuang Village Committee. The defendant's so-called performance of duty did not reach the level of "ordering" required by law, lacking binding force and enforcement force, resulting in the Chuzhuang Village Committee not disclosing relevant village affairs to the plaintiff until the trial of this case. Therefore, the defendant has not fully fulfilled its statutory obligations and should continue to fulfill its obligation to order. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to order the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose relevant village affairs information to the plaintiff within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the clarification through adjudication that administrative agencies should not only fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner, but also comprehensively fulfill their responsibilities, and achieve the purpose of fulfilling their responsibilities in accordance with the law. In this case, the municipal government has formally ordered the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose relevant village committee information, which seems to have fulfilled its statutory responsibilities; However, due to the fact that the "Notice of Ordering the Announcement of Village Affairs" does not specify the specific content, nor does it specify the specific or reasonable deadline, it actually constitutes a failure to fully fulfill legal responsibilities, resulting in the plaintiff and other villagers' right to know and supervise village affairs being delayed in implementation. Therefore, the people's court has ordered the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose village affairs information within a specified time limit, which can better promote the disclosure of village affairs and effectively safeguard the right of the majority of villagers to know.

6、 Shen and Cai v. Nantong Public Security Bureau Development Zone Branch Administrative Inaction Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

At around 13:5 pm on September 20, 2013, a dispute arose between the owner of Store 1 and Store 2 in a residential area of Nantong Development Zone, Jiangsu Province, due to the stacking of empty oil drums. Personnel from both sides were involved in a dispute, which led to beatings. After receiving the alarm, the Development Zone Branch of Nantong Public Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Development Zone Public Security Bureau) instructed the police to call the police and investigate and collect evidence from the personnel and witnesses involved in the case. On September 22, 2013, the Development Zone Branch officially filed the dispute as a public security case and organized multiple mediation efforts between the two parties. On October 9th, when summoned for questioning, Shen clearly expressed his disagreement with mediation. On December 2nd, Shen and Cai filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on the grounds that the Development Zone Branch did not fulfill its statutory responsibility for administrative penalties for public security management, requesting confirmation that the defendant's failure to make a decision on public security penalties within the legally prescribed time limit was illegal. During the litigation period, the defendant made administrative penalty decisions on the individuals involved on December 9th in accordance with the provisions of the Public Security Management Penalty Law.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the People's Court of Gangzha District, Nantong City believes that whether the defendant's Development Zone Branch has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities within the statutory time limit should be examined from two aspects: the legal and regulatory deadline for handling cases, and whether there are legitimate reasons not included in the deadline for handling cases. According to Article 99 of the Public Security Management Penalty Law, the time limit for public security organs to handle public security cases shall not exceed 30 days from the date of acceptance; A major and complex public security case may be extended for an additional 30 days with the approval of the higher-level public security organ. This means that the general deadline for public security organs to handle public security cases is 30 days, and the maximum deadline cannot exceed 60 days. The defendant filed a case on September 22, 2013, and made an administrative penalty decision on December 9, 2013. The deadline for handling the case clearly exceeded the general legal deadline and also exceeded the maximum 60 day deadline. Mediation should also adhere to the principle of voluntariness. If the parties clearly express their unwillingness to mediate, mediation should not be applied. Even if there is a fact of mediation, the period from the date of the plaintiff Shen's refusal to mediate on October 9th to the defendant's administrative penalty decision on December 9th is still 61 days, still exceeding the maximum 60 day deadline for handling the case. Moreover, the defendant failed to provide evidence within the time limit for providing evidence, which was approved by the higher-level public security organ to extend the case handling period. Based on this, the judgment confirms that the defendant's failure to make an administrative penalty decision within the prescribed time limit is illegal. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is to standardize the performance requirements of public security organs in the field of public security management through the exercise of administrative trial functions, which is conducive to the timely resolution of public security disputes. The Public Security Management Penalty Law clearly stipulates the deadline for public security organs to handle public security cases. According to the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Procedure for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Relations Organs" of the Ministry of Public Security, for violations of public security management such as beating others caused by civil disputes, if the circumstances are relatively minor, mediation can be carried out. The deadline for handling mediation cases starts from the date when the mediation agreement is not reached or the mediation agreement is not fulfilled. However, mediation cannot be an excuse for the public security organs to not fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner. In this case, if Shen has clearly expressed his disagreement with mediation, the public security organs should make a punishment decision within 30 days in accordance with the law. If the deadline for handling cases exceeds 30 days, evidence should be provided to prove that the extension has been approved by the higher-level public security organ. The defendant clearly violated relevant regulations. Of course, the defendant also recognized the illegality of failing to fulfill their duties in a timely manner and made a punishment decision within one week after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, demonstrating respect for the law and the sincerity of correcting mistakes, and obtaining the plaintiff's understanding. In modern rule of law countries, an administrative act that clearly violates the legal deadline, even if the physical content is completely legal, will be labeled as illegal due to its late arrival.

7、 Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. v. Urban Management and Law Enforcement Bureau of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City

（1） Basic facts of the case

Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongguang Company) has reported to multiple agencies such as the street community where it is located and the Urban Management Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau) of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, on the grounds that Gansu Yonglong Cultural Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yonglong Company) has engaged in illegal construction and has affected the normal use of its training ground. However, the above authorities have not dealt with any of the matters they have reported. In October 2012, Hongguang Company reported the issue of Yonglong Company's illegal construction to the Lanzhou Municipal Party Committee Letters and Calls Office. The Lanzhou Municipal Party Committee Letters and Calls Office forwarded the report materials to the Lanzhou Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau, which then forwarded the report materials to the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau. However, until Hongguang Company filed a lawsuit, the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau had not yet provided any response to the company's report. Therefore, Hongguang Company took the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau as the defendant, Bring an administrative lawsuit to the court, requesting that the defendant be ordered to fulfill their statutory duties.

（2） Judgment results

During the first instance of this case, the People's Court of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City realized that there was a risk of losing the case if the defendant's administrative law enforcement bureau did not perform its duties. Therefore, after consultation with the plaintiff Hongguang Company, they reached a consensus and agreed to accept the plaintiff's report and conduct investigations within their authority, that is, according to the plaintiff's application, they fulfilled their corresponding legal responsibilities. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal application to the first instance court on June 7, 2013. The court, in accordance with Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law, Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Withdrawal of Administrative Litigation, and Article 63, Paragraph 1 (10) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, has ruled to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the lawsuit.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the purpose of administrative litigation is to resolve administrative disputes. After the parties file the lawsuit, sometimes it is tried by the court. During the litigation period, the administrative organ becomes aware of its own problems and actively corrects them. On the premise of not harming national interests and social public interests, the parties actively apply for withdrawal of the lawsuit and obtain the permission of the court, which can also achieve the trial effect of the case being concluded. Administrative inaction cases are often caused by subjective factors such as "laziness" and "laziness" among administrative agencies and their staff, or some objective reasons. Compared to other types of administrative cases, the legal relationship is clearer and the difficulty of case trial is relatively low. As long as administrative agencies fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the law, the crux between the parties is often easy to resolve. In practice, in many cases, the plaintiff chooses to seek relief through litigation after repeatedly reporting to the administrative authorities and complaining fruitlessly. Once the lawsuit is filed, the dispute is often quickly resolved during the litigation period. This highlights the significant influence of administrative trials as an external supervision mechanism from one side. On the basis of clarifying facts and distinguishing right from wrong, the court can resolve disputes through reconciliation by explaining legal provisions and consequences to the defendant, which can achieve the original request in a short period of time, solving the problem without harming the "harmony".

8、 Zhao Yongtian v. Wudian Town People's Government of Fengyang County for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

The People's Government of Fengyang County, Anhui Province, in accordance with the relevant documents of the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, the Ministry of Finance, and Chuzhou City, has formulated the "Implementation Plan for the 2012 Rural Dangerous Housing Renovation Work in Fengyang County" (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), promoting the implementation of the rural dangerous housing renovation project for the benefit of the people throughout the county. Zhao Yongtian submitted an application for a subsidy for the renovation of dilapidated houses to the Zhao Guai Village Village Committee in Wudian Town, Fengyang County on April 22, 2012, in accordance with the spirit of the above-mentioned documents. After evaluation, the village committee agreed with Zhao Yongtian's application opinions and submitted the application materials to the People's Government of Wudian Town, Fengyang County (hereinafter referred to as the town government) for review. But until Zhao Yongtian filed a lawsuit, the town government did not fulfill its duty of reviewing the application for renovation of dilapidated buildings in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned documents. On April 17, 2013, Zhao Yongtian filed an administrative lawsuit with the town government as the defendant, claiming that the defendant did not make a review decision in accordance with the "Plan" and requesting the defendant to fulfill the responsibility of reviewing the application for renovation of dangerous buildings.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Fengyang County People's Court held that the "Plan" formulated by the Fengyang County People's Government clearly stipulates the application procedures and review methods for the renovation of rural dilapidated houses. After receiving the application materials from the village committee, the township people's government shall organize personnel to conduct on-site inspections. If the inspection meets the conditions, the township people's government shall sign the review opinions and submit them to the county's rural dangerous house renovation leading group for approval; If the conditions are not met, the materials will be returned to the local village committee and the reasons explained, and the review results will be publicly displayed in the village affairs public column for seven days. The plan also stipulates that the inspection and acceptance period for the renovation of dilapidated buildings in Fengyang County is from December 11 to December 31, 2012. The plaintiff Zhao Yongtian submitted an application for the renovation of a dilapidated building in accordance with regulations, but the defendant town government failed to fulfill its review responsibilities in accordance with the procedures and methods specified in the "Plan" after receiving the application materials, and its behavior constitutes administrative inaction. During the trial of this case, the defendant conducted a supplementary verification of the plaintiff's application for renovation of dilapidated buildings and found that it did not meet the subsidy conditions for renovation of dilapidated buildings. The defendant also informed the Zhaoguai Village Villagers' Committee and the first instance court in writing of the reasons for the non-compliance. The court has informed the plaintiff of the verification results, but the plaintiff is unwilling to withdraw the lawsuit. Therefore, the first instance court ruled that the defendant's failure to fulfill the duty of reviewing the application for renovation of dangerous buildings was illegal. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that the people's court emphasized the responsibility of the township government in the renovation of rural dilapidated houses through its judgment, which has a positive role in urging them to fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the law and ensuring the basic living rights and interests of farmers. The renovation of dilapidated rural houses is an important livelihood project determined by the central government and also a popular project. Local people's governments at all levels should resolutely implement and ensure the unity and smooth flow of central government orders, and ensure that rural households living in dilapidated houses provide scattered housing for the five guarantees, low guarantee households, impoverished families with disabilities, and other impoverished households have their own homes. In the process of determining the subsidy targets reasonably by local governments, villages, towns, and counties each have corresponding responsibilities for evaluation, review, and approval. Failure to fulfill their responsibilities at any stage can lead to "intestinal obstruction". The defendant town government in this case failed to verify the plaintiff Zhao Yongtian's application in accordance with the law for a period of up to a year, neglecting the protection of his rights and seriously affecting the determination of the subsidy target, which constitutes a failure to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the law. Due to the review conducted by the defendant during the litigation period, the court ruled that its continued performance was no longer of practical significance, but still confirmed that its non performance was illegal and in line with the provisions of administrative litigation, demonstrating the value of judicial review.

9、 Ai Liren v. Shenyang Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 2, 2013, Ai Liren sought medical attention at Shenyang Zhongda Orthopedics Hospital (hereinafter referred to as Zhongda Orthopedics) for a closed fracture of his right calf. Not only was the fracture not cured after surgery, but the closed fracture also caused exposure of bone formation and bone infection. After ten surgeries, he was unable to cure and now has a leg disability. Ai Liren believes that there is medical damage during the treatment, and the doctor Wu who participated in the first surgery has violated the law of performing a grade skipping surgery. From May to December 2013, Ai Liren repeatedly reported and complained to the Shenyang Municipal Health Bureau (now renamed as the Shenyang Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission) in Liaoning Province about multiple issues such as orthopedic surgery at CUHK, but the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission did not respond. On December 24, 2013, after the CCTV News Channel reported this matter, Ai Liren received a reception from the Medical Affairs Department of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission and promised to investigate and handle it. On the afternoon of February 19, 2014, Zhang, a medical staff member of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission, replied by phone that "Wu is not a skip level surgery". Ai Liren was dissatisfied with the response and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission as the defendant, requesting that the defendant impose administrative penalties on the surgical hospital and doctors.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Heping District, Shenyang City held in the first instance that the plaintiff Ai Liren did not provide evidence to prove that he had applied to the defendant Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission for administrative punishment of surgical hospitals and doctors. Therefore, the plaintiff believed that the defendant's viewpoint of not fulfilling legal responsibilities did not have factual basis and did not support the plaintiff's lawsuit request, which should be rejected. Therefore, the judgment rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After Ai Liren appealed, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission argued that Zhongda Orthopedics is a second-level specialized hospital with medical qualifications for Ai Liren's surgery. The surgeon Wu is a senior resident physician, and the hospital authorizes him to engage in first and second level surgeries, and can organize partial third level surgeries under the guidance of higher-level doctors; The "Management Measures for Clinical Application of Medical Technology" stipulate that surgical grading is organized and implemented by medical institutions themselves. Currently, there is no relevant grading in the orthopedics department of CUHK, so there is no issue of bypassing the level of surgery in Wu.

The Shenyang Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that based on relevant evidence and the court statement of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission, it can be determined that Ai Liren has submitted a report and the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission has provided an oral response. Therefore, the original trial found that Ai Liren did not submit an application because the facts were unclear. According to Article 5 (2) of the Regulations on the Management of Medical Institutions and Article 5 (2) of the Management of Surgical Grading System, the matters applied for by Ai Liren belong to the scope of authority of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission. The Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission has conducted an investigation into the matter reported by Ai Liren and made a determination of relevant facts. However, due to the lack of corresponding evidence submitted to the court regarding this part of the facts, it should be determined that the evidence is insufficient; And based on its existing investigation facts, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission should also handle it in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, without the need for Ai Liren to reapply for how to handle illegal acts. Therefore, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission has failed to fulfill its duties and has revoked the first instance judgment, ordering the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission to take specific administrative actions against Ai Liren's reporting application.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the judicial review of the legal responsibilities of the health administrative department in handling doctor-patient disputes, which has a positive effect on protecting the rights and interests of patients in accordance with the law. Medical disputes between doctors and patients have increasingly become a hot topic in society. The health administrative department should strengthen the supervision of medical institutions, actively investigate and fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the law when patients raise violations of medical institutions. It is not only necessary to protect the legitimate rights and interests of patients, but also to clarify responsibilities as soon as possible, promoting trust between doctors and patients. Due to the high professionalism and high risk of medical surgery, as well as the limitations of patient medical knowledge, the health administrative department, as a bridge in the doctor-patient relationship, must adhere to openness, fairness, and impartiality when investigating and handling doctor-patient disputes, and fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the law, without favoring any party. In this case, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission found through investigation that the hospital involved in the case did not establish a grading system, and should order the hospital involved to make corrections and take corresponding remedial measures. However, it responded to the application of the parties that the hospital involved did not establish a grading system and therefore did not have the problem of violating the rules and regulations of surgery. This clearly violates the provisions of relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, the people's court ruled that the hospital involved should take a specific administrative action again, which is legally valid. The second instance judgment of this case has a demonstrative effect on the court's handling of similar cases.

10、 Zhang Meihua and Five Others v. Maiji Branch of Tianshui Public Security Bureau for Compensation for Administrative Omission

（1） Basic facts of the case

At around 3am on March 3, 2006, when the victim Liu Weizhou passed by the Agricultural Bank of China Savings Office in Qiaonan Boyang Road, Maiji District, Tianshui City, Gansu Province, he was blocked and robbed by criminals Su Futang, Wu Lijiang, and Tong Bin. Liu Weizhou was stabbed and shouted for help. Upon hearing the call for help, individual driver Hu and beauty center manager Liang used their mobile phones to call the police three times at 4:02, 4:13, and 4:20. The "110" duty officer gave the call to "120" and "120" to "110". After Liang called "110" again at 4:24:20 (79 seconds in length), the "110" on duty police officer instructed the Qiaonan Police Station to call the police at 6:23:35. At this time, the victim Liu Weizhou had already died due to excessive blood loss. According to forensic identification, the victim Liu Weizhou was stabbed through the femoral artery with a sharp tool, resulting in hemorrhagic shock and death. On March 23, 2007, the People's Court of Maiji District, Tianshui City issued a criminal judgment (2007) Maixingchu Zi No. 4, which found that the "110" duty police officer of Maiji Branch, Gao, was guilty of dereliction of duty and was exempted from criminal punishment. After Gao appealed, the second instance upheld the original judgment.

The Intermediate People's Court of Tianshui City issued a criminal incidental civil judgment (2006) No. 24, which sentenced the defendants Su Futang, Wu Deqiang, and Tong Bin to compensate Liu Weizhou for the corresponding death compensation. In the execution of civil judgments, the defendant Su Futang had already been executed and had no property available for execution; The defendants Wu Liqiang and Tong Bin relied on their parents to support them before serving their sentences, and currently have no property available for execution. On June 3, 2008, the Tianshui Intermediate People's Court terminated the execution with (2008) Tianzhi Zi No. 29 civil ruling. On January 16, 2009, Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi, and Zhang Fengxian, the close relatives of the victim Liu Weizhou, filed an administrative compensation application with the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau on the grounds of administrative inaction by the public security organs. The bureau made a decision not to grant administrative compensation. Zhang Meihua and five others sued the bureau as defendants and filed an administrative compensation lawsuit with the court, requesting that the defendant compensate Liu Weizhou with 498640 yuan in death compensation and funeral expenses, and 26959.95 yuan in living expenses for the dependent.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Maiji District, Tianshui City held in the first instance that Article 34, Paragraph 1 (3) of the National Compensation Law stipulates that if a citizen's right to life and health is infringed upon, the compensation shall be calculated according to the following provisions: (3) If death is caused, death compensation and funeral expenses shall be paid, with a total amount of 20 times the average annual salary of employees in the previous year of the country. For those who were supported by the deceased before their death and were unable to work, living expenses should also be paid. The Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau in this case shall pay 20% of the total amount of death compensation and funeral expenses in accordance with national regulations. Therefore, judgment: 1. According to the national average annual salary of on-the-job employees in 2008, 29229 yuan × 20x × According to the 20% standard, within ten days from the effective date of the judgment, compensate Zhang Meihua and five others with Liu Weizhou's death compensation and funeral expenses of 116916 yuan; 2、 Reject the lawsuit filed by Zhang Meihua and five others requesting compensation for the living expenses of the dependent.

After the first instance judgment was pronounced, Zhang Meihua and five others believed that the 20% compensation liability in the judgment was too low, while the defendant, the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau, believed that compensation should not be given. Both parties were dissatisfied and appealed. During the second instance of the Intermediate People's Court of Tianshui City, after mediation led by the court, both parties reached a mediation agreement on April 25, 2014. Firstly, the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau paid a one-time compensation of 200000 yuan to Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi, and Zhang Fengxian for Liu Weizhou's death before June 10, 2014. 2、 Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi, and Zhang Fengxian have waived their lawsuit to demand that the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau pay the living expenses of the dependent and Liu Weizhou's funeral expenses.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is to clarify the corresponding responsibilities that the public security organs should bear due to their failure to call out the police in a timely manner, and to properly resolve disputes through mediation. Having power must have responsibility, exercising power under supervision, holding accountable for dereliction of duty, and compensating for infringement are the basic requirements for placing power in a institutional cage. The People's Police Law clearly stipulates that the tasks of the people's police are to maintain national security, maintain social security and order, protect the personal safety, freedom, and legitimate property of citizens, protect public property, and prevent, stop, and punish illegal and criminal activities. Therefore, not only may the illegal implementation of administrative penalties, administrative coercion, and other infringement behaviors bear compensation liability, but also those who cause personal and property damage due to failure to fulfill their duties in accordance with the law or timely assistance to the masses may also bear compensation liability. In this case, the unfortunate death of victim Liu Weizhou was caused by another person's crime. However, the public security organs also have illegal delays in calling the police and failed to fulfill their obligations to protect the personal safety of citizens in a timely manner, and should bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. At the same time, the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates that administrative compensation cases can be mediated. On the basis of identifying facts and distinguishing responsibilities, the second instance court of this case presided over the conclusion of a mediation agreement and produced an administrative compensation mediation agreement, which not only maintains the authority of the law but also helps to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.