(The 76th ordinary meeting of the Government of the Northern Province, 14 December 2010, was considered by the People's Government Order No. [2010] No. 13 of the Northern Province of the River 24 December 2010] to be published effective 1 February 2011)

Chapter I General

Article 1 promotes the administration of justice in accordance with the provisions of the relevant laws, regulations and the Department of State's Comprehensive Framework for the Promotion of the Implementation of the Law, in line with the actual practice of the province.

Article 2 refers to the misperformance of administrative law, which means that the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations are jeopardized by the executive law, legislative authority or organizations entrusted under the law (hereinafter referred to as executive law enforcement agencies) and their law enforcement officials in administrative law enforcement activities, and that acts of administrative responsibility should be confirmed by the statutory procedures.

This approach refers to acts of misappropriation of administrative law enforcement by administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials, which investigate, identify responsibility and conduct activities in accordance with the provisions of this approach.

Article 3. Administrative law enforcement authorities at all levels of the province and their law enforcement officials are held accountable and apply this approach.

Article IV is responsible for administrative law enforcement and should uphold the principles of equity, justice, timeliness and real demand.

Administrative law enforcement has been held accountable and should be clear, substantiated, qualitative and appropriate, procedural legitimacy and integrity.

Article 5

The Government of the more people at the district level and its administrative law enforcement authorities are responsible for administrative enforcement. The executive law enforcement body responsible for the rule of law of the organs responsible for the administration of justice has been responsible for the accountability of administrative law enforcement and performs the following duties:

(i) To receive complaints, reports, complaints, reports and recommendations that have been held accountable for administrative law enforcement;

(ii) Examination of evidence to relevant organizations and personnel, access to the files and information;

(iii) Review the determination of excessive accountability for administrative law enforcement and recommend accountability for administrative law enforcement;

(iv) To monitor the implementation of the erroneous responsibilities of administrative law enforcement;

(v) The matter of transfer of cases should be handled by the inspectorate, the personnel exemption authority and the judiciary;

(vi) Removal requests from the Government of the People or the administrative law enforcement authorities to deal with the misperception of administrative law enforcement;

(vii) To conduct oversight inspections of administrative misperceptions in the executive branch at the lower level;

(viii) To coordinate the handling of disputes arising between lower-level administrative law enforcement erroneous responsibilities and the determination of responsibility;

(ix) Statistical matters in cases where administrative law enforcement was wrongly held;

(x) Administrative law enforcement has been responsible for other responsibilities under the authority.

Article VI, in accordance with the law, legislation and this approach, should be dealt with by the inspector, the staff member's office or the superior administrative body, in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws, regulations and regulations, such as the People's Republic of China inspection law, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China and the Civil Service Disposal Regulations of the Administrative Authority.

Article 7. Administrative law enforcement agencies at all levels should establish a regulatory framework for the sound administration of justice, regulate law enforcement activities, strengthen oversight mechanisms, strengthen training and management of law enforcement personnel and avoid and reduce the occurrence of excessive administrative law enforcement.

Article 8. Administrative law enforcement agencies at all levels should strengthen administrative law enforcement informationization, build up the number of administrative law enforcement officers in the form of personal law enforcement files, law enforcement credit information banks and electronic video surveillance facilities in key law enforcement locations, and provide modern scientific and technical safeguards for reducing and detecting administrative law error.

Article 9. Governments of all levels of the population and their administrative law enforcement agencies should be held accountable for the miscarriage of administrative law as the main element of the administrative law enforcement system, the legal administrative appraisal system, and serve as an important basis for the performance of the executive branch, the leadership of the BPR and the annual civil service evaluation.

Chapter II Accountability

Article 10 Administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials are one of the following cases in administrative law enforcement activities:

(i) go beyond or abuse of authority;

(ii) Violations of statutory procedures;

(iii) The application of laws, regulations, regulations and errors;

(iv) Determining that the facts are not clear and that the main evidence is inadequate;

(v) Specific administrative acts are clearly inappropriate;

(vi) Non-fulfilment of statutory responsibilities;

(vii) Laws, regulations and regulations should be held accountable for other cases where administrative law enforcement was wrong.

Article 11, as confirmed by the authorities of the following States, that administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials have committed administrative law enforcement offences, should be found to be wrongly responsible for administrative enforcement.

(i) The General Assembly and its Standing Committee of the People's Representatives have found and confirmed administrative law enforcement violations in oversight;

(ii) The judgement of the People's Court of entry into force, the decision to withdraw, change and administrative law enforcement for the fulfilment of the statutory duties. or the People's Court of Justice considers that the competent officers of the executive branch, who are directly responsible, are in violation of political discipline and are transferred to administrative law enforcement offences handled by administrative law enforcement agencies;

(iii) The prosecution opinion of the People's Procurator's Office that the circumstances of the offence are considered minor and that the sentence is not subject to a sentence or a waiver, provided that administrative law enforcement offences are to be dealt with by the administration;

(iv) The executive review of the executive review body decided to remove, modify, identify administrative law enforcement violations of the law and determine administrative law enforcement of its statutory responsibilities within a period of time. Or the rule of law organs of the executive review body, in accordance with the recommendations made by article 38 of the National People's Republic of China Administrative Review Act, shall be held accountable for administrative law enforcement violations;

(v) The Government of the people and the executive law enforcement agencies found and confirmed administrative law enforcement offences in cases of administrative law enforcement complaints, reports, letters of visits by citizens, legal persons and other organizations;

(vi) The Government of the people and administrative law enforcement agencies have found and confirmed administrative law enforcement violations in their activities to carry out administrative law enforcement oversight duties;

(vii) Special oversight bodies, such as the Government of the People's Government, which perform specific oversight duties such as administrative inspection, audit and etc., have found and confirmed that administrative law enforcement should be transferred under the law to the executive branch responsible for the administration of justice;

(viii) The State organs have confirmed and transferred to other administrative law enforcement offences handled by administrative law enforcement authorities in accordance with the law.

Article 12 Administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials have one of the following cases and do not be seen as excessive administrative law enforcement:

(i) The State's laws, regulations, amendments or repeals, or significant changes in objective circumstances leading to changes in administrative law enforcement;

(ii) Force majeure or other special circumstances, such as emergency risk avoidance, resulting in mismanagement of administrative law;

(iii) Administrative law enforcement errors resulting from the misperception of the administration;

(iv) Administrative law enforcement errors caused by error;

(v) Laws, regulations and regulations stipulate other cases where administrative law enforcement was wrong.

Article 13. Administrative law enforcement agencies have been wrongly responsible for administrative law enforcement in the course of approved exploration and experimental law enforcement innovations. However, timely corrections should be made.

Chapter III Differences and responsibilities

Article 14.

The two categories of responsibilities listed in the preceding paragraph should be distinguished between the primary responsibility, the secondary responsibility or the same responsibilities in the context of two or more responsibilities.

Article 15 distinguishs between miser responsibilities and determines the subject of responsibility, and should be based on the executive law enforcement of the wrongdoing, the reviewor and the rator, and the role of administrative law errors in different types of administrative law enforcement and administrative law enforcement in different parts.

Article 16, in which administrative law enforcement agencies alone cause miscarriage of administrative law, should assume full responsibility as a direct responsible person.

Two or more administrative law enforcement agencies co-located administrative law enforcement and should be the primary responsibility of the host authorities, and other organs bear secondary responsibility or responsibility.

Administrative law enforcement authorities have been wrongly responsible for the enforcement of administrative law due to the enforcement of decisions of superior administrative authorities and the error of orders, and should be held by the wrong decision-making and ordering superior administrative authorities. The executive branch found that decisions, orders were wrong, did not provide a changeive opinion at the superior level or that the enforcement of decisions and orders that were clearly incompatible should be held in accordance with the law.

The removal, modification of administrative law enforcement by superior administrative law enforcement agencies, resulting in a misperception of administrative law enforcement, should be borne by superior administrative law enforcement agencies.

The applicable circumstances of the organization, which is the subject of administrative law enforcement, are governed by the provisions of the former article.

Article 17 is one of the following cases in which the holder should assume responsibility for error as a direct responsible person:

(i) The independent exercise of the right to law enforcement has resulted in a mistake in administrative law enforcement;

(ii) Execution of administrative law enforcement without a statutory review, approval process, resulting in misperformance of administrative law enforcement;

(iii) For reasons such as concealment of facts, concealment of evidence or the provision of non-removable circumstances, the wrong decision of the reviewor, the rator and the author has resulted in mismanagement of administrative law enforcement;

(iv) Reimbursement, approval, resulting in mismanagement of administrative law;

(v) There is no reason to carry out the statutory duties.

Article 18, without the consent of the licensor or without the approval of the licensor, directly implements administrative law enforcement, resulting in a misperformance of administrative law and should be held as a direct responsible person.

Article 19 Changes in the right opinion of the licensor and the veracity of administrative law should be assumed.

The author's approval should be responsible as a direct custodian without the preparation, reviewer and direct administrative law enforcement decisions.

In article 20, the licensor suggested that the licensor, the licensor, the rator should find that the author should not be found, or that the latter had not been corrected, resulting in a mismanagement of administrative law, the custodian, the licensor, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator, the rator and the licensor should assume the corresponding responsibility.

The reviewor does not adopt or change the right opinion of the custodian, with the approval of the author, which has resulted in a misperception of administrative law, the responsibility of the licensor and the responsibility of the author.

Article 21, two or more individuals jointly implement administrative law enforcement, resulting in a misperception of administrative law enforcement, and the hostr should assume the primary responsibility and the secondary responsibility of other personnel, cannot distinguish between the primary responsibility and assume direct responsibility.

Article 22, which was determined by collective discussion, should be the primary responsibility of the executive law enforcement authorities chairing the discussion, with the secondary responsibility of other heads and specific law enforcement officials involved in the discussion and the responsibility of those who had not been accepted.

Article 23, which had been determined by administrative review, constituted a miscarriage of administrative law enforcement, should be vested with the primary responsibility of the former specific administrative law enforcement agencies, and the administrative review body should assume secondary responsibility or corresponding responsibility.

In accordance with the administrative review decision to withdraw, change specific administrative acts, resulting in excessive administrative law enforcement and should be held accountable by the executive review body.

Article 24 was wrong in the administration of justice by the commissioning organization and should be held externally by the commissioning authority, with the responsibility of the specific law enforcement officers entrusted to the commissioning organization and the responsibility of the responsible organ.

Chapter IV

Article 25 Administrative processing and administrative disposal can be applied either alone or in combination.

Article 26

(i) To caution against statements;

(ii) To inform criticism;

(iii) A written inspection order;

(iv) Restructuring or transition period;

(v) Removal of administrative law enforcement documents and induction training;

(vi) Removal of administrative law enforcement documents;

(vii) Removal of administrative law enforcement positions;

(viii) Removal of prequalification for the year;

(ix) Removal;

(x) Other forms of administrative treatment under laws, regulations and regulations.

The types of responsibility set out in the preceding paragraph may be applied either alone or in combination.

Article 27 Types of administrative disposition apply to the provisions of the Civil Service Disposal Regulations of the Administration.

With regard to job adjustments, the relevant provisions apply to the exemption of personnel.

The types of disposal of law enforcement and law enforcement officers who are not granted civil service status are authorized to apply the rules relating to the organization.

Article 28 Administrative treatment is governed by this approach by administrative law enforcement authorities. The law, legislation and regulations provide otherwise in accordance with their provisions.

Administrative disposition or other administrative treatment involving job adjustments shall be carried out by a personnel exemption authority or by an inspection authority.

Article 29 determines the form of misperceptance of administrative law enforcement and should be adapted to the facts, nature, circumstances and level of harm of administrative law enforcement.

Article 33: There is one of the following cases in which the responsibilities for administrative law enforcement are wrong and should be held accountable:

(i) intentional or gross negligence;

(ii) When administrative law enforcement is wrong, conceals or does not take effective measures to increase the consequences of damage;

(iii) Administrative law enforcement of wrongdoing or serious consequences;

(iv) Over two years should be held accountable for the misperception of administrative law enforcement;

(v) Interference by means such as concealing the truth of error and impeding the handling of the wrongly responsible investigation;

(vi) Combat reprisals against complainants, reporters, investigators and associated personnel;

(vii) Other cases under laws, regulations and regulations may be held accountable.

Article 31 has one of the following cases in which the responsibilities of administrative law enforcement have been wrong and should be prosecuted with light or mitigation:

(i) A minor, dangerous consequences and impacts;

(ii) Increased consequences of administrative law enforcement due to force majeure;

(iii) The intentional intrusion or concealment of important evidence by the relative executive, which has resulted in an increase in administrative law enforcement;

(iv) Active remedial measures to effectively prevent the expansion of the consequences of the harm;

(v) To cooperate actively with investigations or with other performances;

(vi) Other provisions of laws, regulations and regulations may be taken from a light to ameliorate accountability.

Article 32, in one of the following cases, should not be held accountable:

(i) The misperceptive circumstances of administrative law enforcement, with the initiative of administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials to detect and correct them in a timely manner, without causing the consequences of the harm;

(ii) Other cases under laws, regulations and regulations may not be held accountable.

Article 33 imposes a State liability on the executive branch due to the misappropriation of administrative law, and shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the National Compensation Act of the People's Republic of China, recover the portion of the responsibility for administrative enforcement or all compensation costs.

Chapter V Accountability for the executive branch

Article 34 erroneous responsibility for administrative law enforcement is determined by the accountability authorities at all levels.

More than the people at the district level are responsible for erroneous responsibilities for the administration of justice and the administration of the lower-ranking people.

The executive branch of the people of the district level is responsible for responsibilities for administrative law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials, law enforcement organizations entrusted with them and their law enforcement officials.

The executive law enforcement branch, which is administered in the province, is responsible for erroneous determination of administrative law enforcement errors committed by executive law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials and lower-level administrative law enforcement authorities. The Government of the people of the municipalities, districts (communes, districts) where the executive law enforcement agencies are managed directly may make recommendations to their superior authorities for accountability in administrative law enforcement.

Article XV. The rule of law institutions at all levels responsible for the administration of justice are responsible for the specific work identified by excessive responsibility for administrative law enforcement.

Administrative law enforcement at all levels may also be established by the principal head or head of the executive body, with the participation of the relevant bodies, such as the rule of law, inspection, personnel, as well as the organization of administrative misaccountability, responsible for the specific work identified by the excessive responsibility of administrative law enforcement.

Article XVI determines that administrative law enforcement should be given administrative treatment and that administrative law enforcement errone is responsible for the administration of authority; administrative disciplinary or placement adjustments should be granted to personnel dispensing with the authority of management.

The criminal responsibility of the judiciary should be transferred to the judiciary.

Article 37 erroneous accountability for administrative law enforcement is not held accountable by the executive authorities for the erroneous accountability of administrative law enforcement, and the accountability of the superior administrative law enforcement errone is responsible for the prosecution of a case, or for a direct case under the authority of management.

In the region, the system has a greater impact on the part of the thirty-eighth executive branch, which is considered to be wrongly responsible for the administration of justice at the lower level, and can be held directly.

Chapter VI Accountability procedures

Article 39 of the responsibilities of administrative law enforcement erroneously found that administrative law in compliance with article 10, paragraph 11 of this approach had been wrong and should be promptly documented and comprehensive, objective and impartially reviewed to investigate the collection and verification of evidence.

Article 40 erroneous accountability of administrative law enforcement agencies to conduct misperceptions of administrative law enforcement in accordance with article 11 of this approach, which can be determined directly by a review of written material transferred by other State organs. It was found that there was a lack of facts or a lack of evidence and should be reviewed by means of investigation.

Article 40, when administrative law enforcement erroneously held accountable for the investigation, the investigators must not be less than two persons and should present an effective document to the investigating authorities and the persons concerned. The investigators may investigate, reproduce the relevant administrative law enforcement agencies and enquire relevant personnel. The investigation authority and its associated personnel should assist in the investigation, as well as in the case of the answer.

The survey should produce a notice.

It should be avoided by investigators in their relations with the administrative law enforcement authorities that investigate or are investigated.

Article 42 reviews of administrative law enforcement errors, which should be reviewed within 30 days of the date of the submission and the findings of responsibility. The situation is complex and, with the approval of the executive law enforcement errone, the executive head can extend the period of review as appropriate, but the extension period should not exceed 20 days.

Article 43 Administrative law enforcement should fully hear the views of the responsible person and review the facts, evidence, grounds and reasons presented therein; the facts, evidence, grounds established should be adopted.

Administrative law enforcement should not be held accountable for the increased responsibility of the responsible organs and responsible.

Article 44 investigates the end of which the heads of administrative law enforcement errones should review the findings and, according to the circumstances, hold responsibility on the basis of:

(i) The existence of an administrative error to be held accountable and the specific administrative responsibility to which the responsible person is responsible should be clearly defined in accordance with the circumstances and the relevant provisions of chapter III, chapter IV of this approach;

(ii) The fact that administrative law enforcement was not established or that the miscarriage of administrative law was in compliance with article 33, paragraph 2, of the scheme should determine whether administrative responsibility should be held;

(iii) The miscarriage of administrative law has been committed and the transfer of justice.

In the case of complex or significant administrative misperceptions, the heads of administrative law enforcement errone should collectively discuss the determination of responsibility.

Article 42 erroneous responsibility for administrative law enforcement has been established by the responsible determination of the organs of the executive, in accordance with article 44 of this approach, to produce the responsibilities of administrative law enforcement error. The responsibilities for administrative law enforcement should be determined by the following:

(i) Sources of cases and basic merits;

(ii) The facts, nature, circumstances and extent of social harm;

(iii) Determining whether administrative law enforcement was wrong;

(iv) Recommendations on the division of responsibility and accountability of the persons concerned;

(v) Recturing administrative law errors and eliminating the consequences.

The responsibilities for administrative law enforcement have been found to be signed by a reviewer, a reviewer, a reviewer and a reviewer, with the approval of the main head or head of the reporting body, attaching the responsibility for administrative law enforcement.

Administrative law enforcement erroneous accountability should be brought to the executive branch within 7 days of the determination of excessive accountability for administrative law enforcement.

Article 46 determines that the results of administrative law enforcement should be dealt with by the executive branch, and that administrative law enforcement errants should produce the administrative handling decision. The Executive Decisions shall contain the following matters:

(i) The name, unit, place of the responsible person;

(ii) Facts and evidence that administrative law enforcement is responsible for error;

(iii) Type and basis for administrative processing;

(iv) Reimbursement and timelines for administrative processing decisions;

(v) organs and dates for the administrative processing of decisions.

The Administrative Processing Decision should highlight the seals of the executive management decision organs.

The organs that make administrative decisions and those found to be wrongly responsible for administrative enforcement are the same organ, and administrative processing decisions are considered to be in conjunction with the responsibilities of administrative law enforcement.

Article 47 determines that the results of administrative law enforcement should be subject to administrative disposition or to job adjustments, and that administrative law enforcement should produce proposals for administrative disposal. The Recommendations on Administrative Disposal should contain the following matters:

(i) The name, unit, place of the responsible person;

(ii) Facts and evidence that administrative law enforcement is responsible for error;

(iii) Recommendations for administrative disposition or for job adjustments;

(iv) The organs and dates of the recommendations.

The Recommendations on Administrative Disposal should highlight the seals of the proposed organs for administrative disposal.

Article 48 erroneous accountability for administrative law enforcement should be transferred to a competent staff exemption authority or inspection authority within 7 days of the determination of an administrative error.

Personnel dispensing with the Recommendations on Administrative Disposal, inspection bodies may make administrative decisions directly on the basis of the erroneous responsibilities identified by administrative law enforcement agencies; and, if necessary, after their own investigation. There are differing views on the responsibilities identified by the Personnel Exemptive Authority, the inspectorate with regard to the accountability of administrative law enforcement agencies and should be proactive in communication and consultation with administrative law enforcement responsibilities. There is greater disagreement and unanimity that can be reported to the Government of the current people or the authorities at the highest level.

Article 49, Administrative Disposal Decisions, entered into force after declaration or notification and shall deliver the responsible person within 5 days.

It is recommended that those responsible for administrative disposition or for job adjustments be granted, and that they should be declared or notified in a timely manner, after the administrative processing decision is made. Where circumstances warrant, either a declaration or notice may be made in conjunction with a decision on administrative disposition or a decision on restructuring.

Article 50 of the errone of administrative law enforcement is not deemed to be wrongly responsible for administrative law enforcement, or if there is no administrative handling decision, may apply for review to the competent organ of the former if it knows the results of the responsibility or the date of the decision to be taken within 15 days, the decision shall be taken within 15 days; the non-conformation of the outcome of the review may be filed within 15 days of the date of the receipt of the review decision; or the possibility of restatement, whether the outcome of the responsibility has been determined or the direct complaint filed within 30 days of the decision.

The implementation of the decision was not stopped during the review and the appeals period. The bodies that receive review and application are of the view that implementation needs to be stopped and implementation can be stopped.

Administrative law enforcement erroneous decisions of the responsible person with respect to administrative disposition are not consistent and apply for review or appeal in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Service Disposal Regulations of the Administration.

Chapter VII Implementation and oversight

The executive branch of article 50 should conduct oversight inspections of the implementation of a system of accountability for administrative law enforcement by subordinate executive organs, identify and correct problems in a timely manner, and ensure the implementation of the system of accountability for administrative law enforcement.

Article 52 erroneous accountability for administrative law enforcement should be inspected, inspected and inspected on the implementation of the erroneous responsibilities for administrative law enforcement, the Administrative Disposal Decisions and the Administrative Disposal Recommendations.

Article 53, once administrative law enforcement has been confirmed, should be corrected by the relevant executive and law enforcement agencies and their law enforcement officials themselves; they should not be corrected, and the administrative law enforcement erupted to the accountability period.

Article 54, when administrative law enforcement erroneously assumes responsibility and takes decisions in accordance with the circumstances set out in article 11 of this approach, shall report or inform the relevant State organs within 30 days of the administrative processing of decisions.

In accordance with complaints, reports, correspondence visits by citizens, legal persons and other organizations, the administrative organs that receive complaints, reports and correspondence should be informed, in writing, by the relevant provisions, of the complainant, the reportor, the respondent.

According to information gathered by the media, administrative law enforcement errors have been found and confirmed, and the media should receive feedback in a timely manner when they are found to be wrong and decided.

The investigation by administrative law enforcement erroneously does not constitute a miscarriage of administrative law enforcement and is communicated by administrative law enforcement erroneously to the relevant complainants, the reportingers, the custodians and relevant administrative law enforcement agencies.

Article 55, in violation of article 53 of this approach, is still not corrected after the deadline for the accountability of the executive branch at the senior level, should be criticized and administratively disposed of the responsible person directly responsible.

Article 56 erroneously responsible for the administration of justice, the personnel-administering body, the inspectorate has one of the following cases in the administration of justice, to communicate criticism and the impossibility of the period of time; to the extent serious, to the administrative disposition of the person directly responsible and other responsible personnel under the law; to constitute an offence and to hold criminal responsibility under the law:

(i) The intentional concealment of misperceptions of administrative law enforcement, or the discovery of misperceptions of administrative law enforcement, without prosecution;

(ii) deliberately aggravate or mitigate the responsibility of the responsible person;

(iii) The law should be transferred to the judiciary to hold criminal responsibility without being transferred.

Chapter VIII

In accordance with article 57, executive law enforcement agencies, which are located in the city, the city, the district, and the provincial people's government, should establish administrative law enforcement erroneously responsible for the enforcement of the rules.

Article 58 of this approach is implemented effective 1 February 2011.