Administrative complaint

        Plaintiff:Hebei Zhongxing, male,1979Years12Month1Day of birth, Da Ji Zhuang Ji Zhuang Xing Zheng Cun, Heze City, Shandong province Fuchun township of Juancheng County, on suspicion of Beijing Capital International Airport bombing, was in custody in Beijing Chaoyang District detention center, after the disease to Beijing City second detention center hospital (Beijing Police Hospital).

Attorney: Liu Xiaoyuan, lawyer of Beijing edge.

Defendant: Guangdong Provincial Public Security Bureau, Guangzhou City, Yuexiu District Huang Hualu domicile97No..

Legal representative: Li Chunsheng, director of the office of the vice governor of Guangdong Provincial People's government, the public security office.

The claim:

1, ordered to revoke the defendant made of the Guangdong Public Affairs [2013]65"A number of application for disclosure of government information.";

2The defendant was ordered to open, "conclusion on Hebei Zhongxing complaints maim case" review to the plaintiff;

3, the litigation costs to be borne by the defendant.

The facts and reasons:

2005Years6Month28On the evening of the plaintiff, driving a motorcycle with guests Gong Tao (real name Gong Mingzhao) after Xintang Houjie town of Dongguan City, the village committee door security team, security team beaten by interception. The security team to Houjie traffic police squadron to report, the plaintiff and Gong Tao is Dongguan City Public Security Bureau to Houjie branch. The traffic police after investigation, think not traffic accidents, hand the case to Houjie Branch Bridge police station processing. Since then, there has been no treatment results of Bridge police station. The plaintiff has repeatedly to the complaints, also not in eight years time just solution.

In order to cause social attention,2013Years7Month20Evening, the plaintiff carrying reflect the demands of materials and self-made explosive device to the Beijing Capital International Airport "foul". Sporadic petition materials at the airport, took out a home-made explosive devices, after accidentally exploded.

The case after the explosion, police on suspicion of explosion control and crime Xingju the arrest, already by Beijing Chaoyang District people's court to the crime explosion was sentenced to six years.

According to the CCTV news reports,7Month20Evening, Dongguan municipal Party committee, City Council held an emergency meeting and set up a task force, to the complaint "beaten and mutilated case review". Then, in this case the defendant -- Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department also claimed the media to the complaint "beaten and mutilated case investigation".

2013Years8Month1Day, the plaintiff's criminal defense Liu Xiaoyuan met in Beijing City, second guards, commissioned him to mail to the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department of government information disclosure application form, by the security team to beat disability case re investigation concluded asked the public to the complaint.

2013Years8Month5Day, the public affairs office a receipt sent Liu Xiaoyuan a lawyer. Receipt of the said, "the star: I do in Hebei Province2013Years8Month2Days of receipt of the application for disclosure of government information of your proposed (serial number:2013017)".

2013Years8Month21Day, and the public affairs office sent a copy of this book to Liu Xiaoyuan lawyer. This book called "Hebei Zhongxing: I do in2013Years8Month2Days from receiving the application for disclosure of government information you submit (serial number:2013017). According to "the people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information" twenty-fourth paragraph second, I shall be in2013Years8Month23A reply. Now unable to reply, I do agree, will be postponed until2013Years9Month13A reply".

2013Years9Month12Day, the public affairs office to give Liu Xiaoyuan the lawyer sent a reply. Reply said "Hebei Zhongxing: I do in2013Years8Month2Days of receipt of the application for disclosure of government information of your proposed (serial number:2013017No.). After review, you apply for public information does not belong to the "government information referred to in article second of the people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information". We inform you that we have."

The plaintiff argues that the plaintiff, the defendant will apply for public maim case review conclusion, identified as Does not belong to the "government information referred to in article second of the people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information", this is completely wrong.

"The people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information" second that government information, is refers to the administrative organ is produced or acquired in the course of their duties, information recording, kept in a certain form.

   The people's Government of Guangdong Province, the defendant is under the administrative organ, which the plaintiff complaints "beaten and mutilated case investigation" belongs to administrative functions.

   The defendant to the plaintiff can have "complaints of beating the case investigation", and that they are in their performance of duties. Then, after a thorough investigation concluded, is the administrative organ made or obtained in the course of their duties, information recording, kept in a certain form. This information belongs to the "government information of the people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information" provisions must be open.

The plaintiff as "beaten and mutilated case" the complainant, accuser as "beaten and mutilated case" in the party, should have the right to obtain the investigation organ to the event review conclusion.

Consider the plaintiff, defendant to maim review conclusion case, not involving state secrets, is not related to personal privacy, and closely related to the life, must be in accordance with the law to the public.

Reports from the media point of view, whether the defendant or, or the Dongguan Municipal Public Security Bureau, or the Public Security Bureau of Dongguan City Houjie branch, did not inform the investigation of "maim" case the plaintiff is a criminal case. Step back and say, is a criminal case review, in accordance with the "law of criminal procedure", in the review after the end of the conclusion should also inform the reporter.

In summary, the admissibility of the government information publicity for the plaintiff sent nearly one and a half months, and delayed reply for twenty days, to apply for information not included in the government information and may not be disclosed, in love, Yu Li, in the law can not be justified.

Now, the Plaintiff alleged explosions have made a decision not to inform the defendant still declared, "maim" case review conclusion, a serious violation of the plaintiff's right to know.

The defendants are not likely to thoroughly investigate the maim case "". The defendant's behavior, not only against the law, but also the flicker of the plaintiff, also got media. In order to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff, the administrative proceedings, request the court to adjudicate according to law.

Yours sincerely

 Guangzhou City Intermediate People's court

 

                                                                Plaintiff: Hebei Zhongxing

                                                             2013Years 10Month16Day

                                 Guangzhou city in the level people court

                                              Administrative ruling

                                                              (2013Vertical line) ear France at the beginning of the word no.21No.

         Prosecutor: Hebei Zhongxing, male, the Han nationality,1979Years12Month1Day of birth, ID card address: Ji Zhuang Cun Ji Zhuang Xing Zheng Cun, Juancheng County, Shandong province Fu Chun Xiang140Numbers (remains).

     Attorney: Liu Xiaoyuan, lawyer of Beijing edge.

     2013Years10Month18Day, the school received the prosecution Hebei Zhongxing administrative indictment, the prosecutor called:2013Years8Month1Day, the prosecution commissioned Liu Xiaoyuan to open its complaints by the security team to beat disability case to re investigate the conclusion to the accused. Guangdong Provincial Public Security Bureau to apply for. Guangdong Province Public Security Bureau Public Affairs Office to make a written reply: "Hebei Zhongxing: I do in8Month2Days of receipt of the application for disclosure of government information you put. After review, you apply for public information does not belong to the "government information referred to in article second of the people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information". We inform you that we have." Prosecutors think, conclusion of the review the requirements of Guangdong Province Public Security Bureau Public maim case, not involving state secrets, is not related to personal privacy, and closely related to life, even in the criminal case review must also be in accordance with the law to the public, or a serious violation of the right to know, the administrative proceedings, request the court ordered:1Revocation of the accused, Guangdong Provincial Public Security Bureau made public affairs [Guangdong2013]65"A number of application for disclosure of government information.";2Conclusion of the review, the accused the prosecutor "to open to Hebei Zhongxing complaints maim case";3In this case, the litigation costs shall be borne by the accused.

After review, the opinion of this court, the prosecution of government information public application is presented in Hebei Zhongxing investigation in criminal cases to understand, do not belong to the "people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information" adjustment range. In accordance with the "PRC Administrative Litigation Law" forty-first, "the Supreme People's Court on the implementation of<Administrative procedure law of the people's Republic of China>Interpretation of several issues "the first the second paragraph of article (two) the provisions of item, ruling as follows:

The Hebei Zhongxing prosecution, the court shall not accept the.

Any party who refuses to accept the ruling, but within ten days after the receipt of the order book, submit the written appeal to the court of appeal in Guangdong Province, the higher people's court.

 

                                                     The presiding judge   Lin Ping

                                                     Judge  Feng Jingfen

                                                      Acting judge Peng Zhan

                                           Guangdong Province Guangzhou City Intermediate People's Court (seal)

                                                 Two0In October 24th one three 

                                                    

                                                  The Administrative AppealsLike

Appellant:Hebei Zhongxing, male,1979Years12Month1Day of birth, Da Ji Zhuang Ji Zhuang Xing Zheng Cun, Heze City, Shandong province Fuchun township of Juancheng County, from the Beijing Capital International Airport bombing in custody in Beijing Chaoyang District detention center, after the disease to Beijing City second detention center hospital (Beijing Police Hospital).

Attorney: Liu Xiaoyuan, lawyer of Beijing edge.

Respondent: Guangdong Provincial Public Security Bureau, Guangzhou City, Yuexiu District Huang Hualu domicile97No..

Legal representative: Li Chunsheng, director of the office of the vice governor of Guangdong Provincial People's government, the public security office.

Attorney Liu Xiaoyuan lawyers to appeal to people2013Years11Month1Days from Guangdong Province Guangzhou City Intermediate People's Court (2013)SpikeThe French made at the beginning of the word no.21Administrative ruling, the appeals against the first instance ruled, special appeal.

The appeal:

1Request for revocation of Guangdong Province, Guangzhou City Intermediate People's Court (2013)SpikeThe French made at the beginning of the word no.21Administrative ruling, the appellate court prosecute people;

2, the litigation costs shall be borne by the appellee.

The grounds of appeal:

     An appeal to the court of first instance, the prosecution, in accordance with "administrative procedure law" and the Supreme Court Regulations on open government information in cases of judicial interpretation of the provisions, the court of first instance shall not accept the case, no basis in law.

2013Years8Month1Day, the appellant to appellee submitted an application for disclosure of government information, disclosure requirements by the appellant maim case review conclusion.

In the previous7Month20Day Beijing Capital International Airport explosion after the incident, the appellee to inform the media to sue the appellant's maim case review.

     The appellant commissioned Liu Xiaoyuan the lawyer to the appellee mail out the government information disclosure application,8Month5By the appellant sent a copy of receipt, says it has to8Month2Days of receipt of the application for disclosure of government information, the serial number is2013017.

     8Month21Day, the appellee and send us a copy of this book, known to delay to a government information disclosure application submitted to the appellant9Month13Recently reply.

     9Month12Day, the appellee will send a reply, "said audited, you apply for public information does not belong to the" government information referred to in article second of the people's Republic of China Regulations on open government information ". We inform you that we have."

    In this reply, the appellee did not explain the "conclusion of the review" maim case does not belong to the government information to reason.

    The Appellant was not satisfied with this answer, that the respondent to maim case review conclusions should be the government information shall not be disclosed, the appellee, infringement of the legitimate rights and interests of the people. Therefore, lawyers in the commission the appellant2013Years10Month18To the court of first instance -- Guangzhou City Intermediate People's court in the administrative litigation.

      In view of the fact that the Appellant had no personal freedom in custody, the appellant in accordance with the "administrative procedure law", entrust a lawyer to appellee domicile -- Guangzhou City Intermediate People's court filing, in addition to the indictment, also submitted the following case material: (a), my identity documents; (two), commission the book, law firms lawyer letter of authorization; (three), table application for disclosure of government information to the Guangdong Provincial Public Security Bureau submitted; (four), Guangdong Provincial Public Security Department of government information disclosure application return receipt, book, reply. The four categories of filing materials as prosecution evidence.

The Appellant maintains, administrative cases arising from the causes of open government information, fully in line with the "four conditions" administrative litigation law of the provisions of article forty-first:

(a), although the appellant because Beijing Capital International Airport bombings in custody, and by the Beijing Chaoyang District court to the crime explosion sentenced to six years in prison (has filed an appeal, the case in the second instance.). But the appellant and appellee in government information disclosure in the case, still has the qualification of plaintiff.

    An appellant applies the maim case review conclusion, range by the appellant does not give column for government information not to be open, a serious violation of the legitimate rights and interests of the people. Because, the conclusion of the review is closely related with the life, only for the government information, to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests. That year, the Appellant had no such conclusion as evidence, and even to the courts for compensation also dismissed.

(two), the appellant submitted the indictment, a definite defendant, i.e. not appealed to the people of the publicity of government information (referred to as "maim case review conclusion") -- Guangdong Province Public Security department.

(three), a specific claim and the facts. The appellant in the indictment, proposed three specific claims, facts and details.

(four), the appellant's prosecution belongs to the scope of jurisdiction of courts and be subject to the jurisdiction of the people's Court of appeal.

In accordance with the provisions of the judicial interpretation of "administrative procedure law" and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme People's Court on the disclosure of government information of judicial interpretations, triggered by the disclosure of government information administrative appellant and appellee, which belongs to the people of the scope of the court, the appellee's Provincial government departments, and is a a departmental unit, located in the city of Guangzhou. Therefore, to file the administrative proceedings, the Guangzhou City Intermediate People's court has jurisdiction.

In accordance with the "administrative procedure law" and the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, the people's court to prosecute parties, only formal review in the case, as long as meet four conditions "administrative procedure law" provisions of article forty-first shall accept, but not to prosecute substantive issues involved in review.

For the real issues involved in lawsuits, after accepting the cases, by the Administrative Tribunal for substantive hearing.

Therefore, the court of first instance in the investigation stage, the substantive issues of the case involved, namely: the petitioner asks respondent disclosed maim case review conclusion whether belonging to the government information is identified, is completely wrong.

Moreover, the appellee has not filed any evidence of "review conclusion maim case" is a criminal case information.

Two point of view, the court of first instance to distort the appellant in the prosecution, serious deviation from the basic principles of justice, the judges have constituted a breach of privilege, perverting the law.

    The court of first instance ruled that the book the first page seventh to last to the fourth line from the bottom, "said prosecutors think, conclusion of the review the requirements of Guangdong Province Public Security Bureau Public maim case, not involving state secrets, is not related to personal privacy, and closely related to life, even to the criminal cases review must also be in accordance with the law to the public, or a serious violation of the right to know,-

   This is a trial court judges, from the three page indictment, deliberately pick out some words are combined into the appellant's point of view, these views are completely distorted the appellant intended.

In order to save space, the appellant not enumerated in this complaint. Request the court of second instance will first instance administrative rulings and the appellant's administrative indictment carefully controlled, is easy to understand the true meaning of the appellant opinion.

The first instance court judges had deliberately distorted the appellant opinion, violate the judge's occupation morals, a serious departure from the principle of justice. The three judges the illegal act, the appellant will be charged according to law.

 The appellant in2013Years10Month18To date, Guangzhou City Intermediate People's court to submit registration materials, including the appellee -- Guangdong Provincial Department of public security, public security organs at any level, are not informed of the appellant against maim case for criminal case.

So far, the appellant and their families and lawyers have not received notice of "criminal record" or "decision" of any criminal case file and relevant legal documents.

      The appellant in a hypothesis (remind the court of second instance not as court of first instance which wrong understanding), i.e., assuming that the appellee or the public security organ at a lower level to "maim" case as a criminal case, in this case, the court of first instance should also be the first appellate prosecute people. Case to the Administrative Tribunal hearing, the respondent provided to the court for criminal evidence. If the respondent provides for criminal evidence (i.e. filing legal documents), the court can only be the grounds, information disclosure government rejected the appeal.

We appeal the government information public case has not been Guangzhou City Intermediate Court, the hospital is also the government information through which informed the appellant to appellee disclosed ", is on the progress of the investigation in criminal cases, to understand" (see the paragraph ruling second pages along the number line second)? Is Guangzhou City Intermediate Court of appeal against the maim case for a criminal case?

In summary, the trial court decides not to accept the appellant's prosecution, have no basis in fact, there is no legal basis. More serious is, in order not to accept the case, also deliberately distorted the view. Therefore, the appeal to you in the hospital, request justice!

            Yours sincerely

Guangdong Provincial Higher People's court

 

                                                    The appellant: Hebei Zhongxing

                                                     2013Years 11Month4Day