Key Benefits:
(Adopted at the 11th ordinary meeting of the People's Government of the State of Land, 20 June 2008, No. [2008] of 3 July 2008, by Order No. 3 of the People's Government of the State of the Interior, No. 3 of 3 July 2008) Chapter I General Article 1 provides for the effective implementation of administrative law enforcement responsibilities, protects the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, regulates the conduct of administrative law enforcement and its administrative law enforcement personnel, and develops this approach in line with the State Department's Comprehensive Framework for the Promotion of the Implementation of the Law. Article II refers to administrative law enforcement responsibilities as described in this approach to the responsibility that the executive law enforcement authorities, the law and regulations authorize organizations with administrative law enforcement functions, the organizations entrusted by the administrative law enforcement services (hereinafter referred to as “the administrative law enforcement sector”) and their law enforcement officials should be responsible for violations, inappropriate administrative law enforcement or failure to perform their statutory duties. Article 3. Administrative law enforcement services at all levels of the city and administrative law enforcement responsibilities of their law enforcement officials are held accountable and are applicable. Article IV. Administrative law enforcement is held accountable for upholding the principles of integrity, inviolability, misresponsibility, punishment and education. Chapter II Accountability Article 5 The legitimacy of administrative law enforcement is determined by the Government's rule of law bodies, dueness and statutory responsibilities, as well as administrative law enforcement. The Executive Inspectorate (OAS) is responsible for the identification and prosecution of the specific responsibilities of executive law enforcement officers. Administrative law enforcement responsibilities have been identified by the personnel sector and administrative enforcement officials have been given administrative disposal. Article 6 The executive law enforcement agencies are specifically responsible for administrative law enforcement in this sector. Article 7 Article 8. Administrative accountability institutions have an obligation to provide citizens, legal persons or other organizations with corresponding information to respond to cases of investigation. Chapter III Accountability procedures Article 9 is one of the following cases in which administrative law enforcement is prosecuted by administrative law enforcement responsibility: (i) Removal, change, accountability orders by the People's Court of Appeal (which have entered into force) of specific administrative acts, enforcement deadlines or recognition of violations; (ii) Removal, change, accountability and re-establishing specific administrative acts, enforcement deadlines or recognition of violations by administrative review bodies (which have entered into force); (iii) At the superior or at the same level, senior executive law enforcement authorities request to investigate administrative law enforcement; (iv) At the senior level or at the same level, the members of the Preparatory Commission are advised, in the form of proposals, to investigate administrative law enforcement; (v) At the superior or at the same level, administrative law enforcement oversight bodies, administrative oversight bodies request to investigate administrative law enforcement; (vi) To receive mass reports, complaints or correspondence visits, consistent with the requirements for the investigation of administrative law enforcement; (vii) Laws, regulations stipulate that other circumstances in which administrative law enforcement responsibility should be held. Article 10. Complaints, prosecutions, complaints, complaints by citizens, legal persons or other organizations with respect to administrative law enforcement should be made promptly by the executive law enforcement responsible, and if there is no case, they should be informed and justified. Article 11. In cases where there have been a case, the executive law enforcement responsible should be held accountable under the relevant provisions and methods of the State within 30 days of the date of the self-exclusiveness. Article 12. The executive law enforcement accountability authority shall be fully informed of the representation and defences of the responsible administrative law enforcement organs or administrative law enforcement officials prior to the decision of accountability. The persons responsible for administrative law enforcement responsibility investigations should be composed of more than two persons, who are in the interest of the relevant administrative law enforcement or administrative law enforcement officials, which may affect fair treatment. Article 13 Administrative law enforcement agencies or administrative law enforcement officials are inconsistency in the handling of administrative law enforcement responsibilities, which may apply for review in writing to the responsible prosecution body, either within 15 days of the date of receipt of the decision or in accordance with the relevant laws, regulations and regulations. Article 14. The administrative law enforcement department responsible for accountability should be applied to the accountability of administrative law enforcement responsibilities to be brought to justice. Chapter IV should be held accountable for administrative law enforcement Article 15. The executive law enforcement branch and its administrative law enforcement officials shall be held accountable for administrative law enforcement without fulfilling their statutory responsibilities, abuse of the statutory authority or failure to perform their statutory duties in accordance with the statutory procedures. Article 16 contains one of the following acts in the implementation of administrative licences and should be held accountable for the administration of justice: (i) Inadmissibility of application for administrative licence in accordance with statutory conditions, no legal statement of the grounds for immunity of administrative licences or the non-administrative licence; (ii) In the process of admissibility, review and decision-making, no legal notification obligation has been fulfilled; (iii) No hearings shall be organized by law; (iv) Execution of administrative licences in violation of prescribed procedures; (v) It is not possible to determine the basis for fees or for fees based on statutory projects and standards; (vi) To entrust the right to administrative licence in violation to the exercise of civil, legal or other organizations; (vii) Other violations of administrative licence provisions. Article 17: In implementing administrative penalties, one of the following acts shall be held accountable for the administration of justice: (i) Failure to impose penalties on the basis of the fact that administrative sanctions are imposed; (ii) To entrust, assign organizations that do not have legal qualifications and carry out administrative sanctions; (iii) Excellence in setting administrative penalties or changing the types of administrative sanctions; (iv) To impose more than two fines on the parties for the same offence; (v) In violation of the provisions of the “Criminal separation”, the imposition of a fine was charged with him; (vi) impose a fine on the parties, forfeiture of property without legal documents; (vii) No suppression, punishment and punishment of offences to be committed and punished; (viii) No obligation to communicate under the law; (ix) No hearings shall be organized by law; (x) The transfer of criminal responsibility by the judiciary without transfer; (xi) Administrative penalties have become fair; (xii) Other violations of administrative penalties. Article 18 (i) It is not possible to determine its mandate or to go beyond the application of administrative coercion; (ii) The fact cannot be determined on the basis of administrative enforcement; (iii) Execution of administrative coercion in violation of the statutory procedures; (iv) unauthorized use or loss, destruction of seizures, seizures, freezing of property; (v) Other violations of administrative coercive provisions. Article 19 is one of the following acts in the administration and should be held accountable for the administration of justice: (i) It is not possible to determine the basis of or go beyond the statutory authority to implement administrative charges; (ii) Removal of the scope and criteria; (iii) No levied in accordance with the statutory procedures; (iv) Other violations of administrative provisions. Article 20: In implementing administrative decisions, one of the following acts shall be held accountable for the corresponding administrative enforcement responsibilities: (i) It is not possible to determine its mandate or to go beyond the application of administrative decisions; (ii) The fact cannot be determined on the basis of administrative decisions; (iii) Implementation of administrative decisions in violation of statutory procedures; (iv) Other violations of administrative decisions. Article 21, in the implementation of administrative recognition, is one of the following acts and should be held accountable for administrative enforcement: (i) It is not possible to determine its mandate or to go beyond the application of administrative recognition; (ii) The fact cannot be determined on the basis of administrative recognition; (iii) Implementation of administrative recognition in violation of statutory procedures; (iv) Other violations of administrative recognition provisions. Article 22 provides one of the following acts in the execution of the administration and shall be held accountable for the corresponding administrative enforcement responsibility: (i) It is not possible to determine its mandate or to go beyond the administrative payment of its mandated functions; (ii) Execution of administrative payments in violation of statutory procedures; (iii) Other violations of administrative provisions. Chapter V Article 23. Administrative law enforcement responsibilities are vested by direct responsibilities and direct supervisors. The specific responsibilities of administrative law enforcement matters are the direct responsibilities of personnel, the reviewers and approval of administrative law enforcement matters. Article 24 directly commits unlawful, inappropriate administrative law enforcement or failure to perform statutory duties by the licensor to assume full administrative enforcement responsibility. Article 25 shall be subject to review and approval of administrative law enforcement, and the responsibility for administrative law enforcement shall be divided and assumed in accordance with the following provisions: (i) The licensor, without the examination, approval of the licensor, makes direct administrative law enforcement and is assumed by the custodian; (ii) Notwithstanding the review and approval of the author, the licensor shall not be carried out in accordance with the terms and requirements of the review, approval, and shall be borne by the contractor; (iii) The custodian of false and provocative private fraud, resulting in the inability of the licensor, the rator to properly perform the duties of the review, approval, which is assumed by the custodian; (iv) The programmes or observations made by the licensor were wrong, and the licensor, the rator, the rator should be found to be uncovered, or if they were found to have not been corrected, and are assumed by the custodian, the licensor and the author; (v) A reviewor does not adopt or change the correct opinion of the licensor and, with the approval of the author, is assumed by the licensor and the rator, respectively; (vi) A reviewor who has not submitted a request for approval to take a decision directly, which is assumed by the reviewor; (vii) A reviewor to misleading, favouring private fraud, leading directly to an error of decision by the author, which is assumed by the reviewor; (viii) The wrong instruction made by the reviewor, with the consent of the author, shall be borne by the reviewor and the author, in accordance with the size of the activity; (ix) The author does not accept or change the right opinion of the custodian, the holder of the author; (x) The author's decision is taken directly by the author without the preparation, review and approval of the contractor. Article 26 violates the law, inappropriate administrative law enforcement or does not perform the statutory duties, which arises from a separate decision of an administrative law enforcement department and assumes full responsibility by the administrative law enforcement branch, as a result of a joint decision of the two administrative law enforcement authorities, with the primary responsibility of the host authorities and the corresponding responsibility of other departments. Article 27, after leading the collective decision-making process, led to the creation of violations, inappropriate administrative law enforcement or non-performance of statutory responsibilities, the main leadership involved in the decision-making process was considered as an rator, a supervisory authority, and assumed responsibility by a direct supervisor. The change in executive law enforcement at the secondary level of article 28, the removal of administrative law enforcement actions by the lower administration of justice, resulting in violations or inappropriate administrative enforcement, and the corresponding responsibilities of the supervisors, reviewers and approvalers in the senior administrative law enforcement sector. Chapter VI Article 29 provides for accountability for administrative law enforcement in the administrative law enforcement sector, including: (i) A written inspection order; (ii) Removal of deadlines; (iii) To inform criticism; (iv) Removal of the year-by-year assessment of integrated and advanced qualifications; (v) Other accountability provided for in laws, regulations and regulations. The manner in which administrative law enforcement responsibilities are established may be treated separately or consolidated. Article 33 provides for administrative enforcement responsibilities for administrative law enforcement officials, including: (i) A written inspection order; (ii) Removal of deadlines; (iii) To inform criticism; (iv) induction training; (v) Removal of higher-level qualifications in the year; (vi) Removal of administrative law enforcement qualifications; (vii) Removal of law enforcement positions; (viii) Receive parts or all administrative compensation expenses by law; (ix) Administrative disposal; (x) Other accountability provided for in laws, regulations and regulations. The administrative law enforcement responsibilities set out may be treated separately or consolidated. In accordance with article 31, administrative law enforcement responsibilities are held in accordance with the following provisions: (i) A minor, harmful consequences, a criticism of education or a warrant of written examination; (ii) Distinguished circumstances and the social impact are criticized; (iii) In the light of the gravity of the circumstances and the greater consequences of the harm, warning, induction training or suspension of administrative law enforcement documents; (iv) Indicate administrative law enforcement posts or collect administrative law enforcement documents, or give certain administrative dispositions, where circumstances are serious, detrimental or have a major social impact; (v) In violation of political discipline, the law is dealt with by an exemption authority and inspection body; (vi) Be suspected of constituting a crime and the transfer of the judiciary. Chapter VII Exemptation, mitigation and increased processing of administrative law enforcement responsibilities The executive law enforcement authorities and their administrative law enforcement officials have one of the following cases and should not be held accountable for their respective administrative enforcement responsibilities: (i) The administrative law enforcement sector and its administrative law enforcement officers cannot be properly judged because of the misrepresentation of the administrative administration; (ii) Inadequate administrative law enforcement, triggered by force majeure, or inadmissibility to perform statutory duties; (iii) Other cases where law, regulations and regulations do not assume administrative law enforcement responsibilities. Article 33 of the misdemeanours of administrative law enforcement may not be held accountable for administrative law enforcement. Article 34 of the erroneous nature of administrative law enforcement, the consequences of which are minor, the prompt correction of administrative law enforcement, administrative law enforcement officials, the active removal of the negative impacts, the removal of the parties' losses and the consent of the parties, may reduce the penalties. Article XV has one of the following cases for administrative law enforcement officials and should be addressed in an increased manner: (i) Restructuring and concealing information about significant administrative law enforcement responsibilities that are not reported or are not examined; (ii) To refrain from redressing violations, inappropriate administrative law enforcement or failure to perform statutory duties; (iii) More than two cases of accountability for administrative law enforcement should be held within one year; (iv) Interference, obstruction, rejection and accountability for administrative law enforcement; (v) To prosecute the complainant, the complainant, the reporting person or the responsible person to fight reprisals; (vi) Direct mass collective visits, serious negative social impacts or causing significant damage to the life of the State and the people due to violations, inappropriate administrative law enforcement or failure to perform statutory duties; (vii) Other cases to be addressed by law, regulations and regulations. Chapter VIII Article XVI. The form of instruments used by the executive law enforcement responsibility for the prosecution of work is developed by the Government's rule of law and should contain the following: (i) Sources of administrative law enforcement responsibility cases and basic merits; (ii) Confirmation of the grounds, causes and consequences of administrative law enforcement responsibility; (iii) Recommendations for accountability of persons concerned; (iv) Recommendations to correct administrative law enforcement and eliminate the consequences of the harm; (v) Accreditation of investigators, a reviewer and approval by the head of the reporting body. In accordance with this approach, the State's rule of law institutions and administrative law enforcement authorities can establish administrative law enforcement responsibilities in the region and in this sector. Article 338 is implemented effective 1 September 2008. |
