Key Benefits:
(Adopted at the 32th ordinary meeting of the Government of the Blackonang Province on 15 March 2006 and issued by Decree No. 1 of 22 March 2006 by the Government of the Blackonang Province, effective 1 May 2006) Chapter I General Article 1 ensures an objective and impartial review of administrative review cases, protects the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, guarantees and monitors the exercise of their functions by the executive branch in accordance with the National People's Republic of China's Administrative Review Act and the relevant national provisions, and develops this provision in the light of the actual circumstances of the province. Article 2 Article 3. Organization responsible for the review of administrative review of hearings of cases by the executive review body of the rule of law. Article IV reviews of administrative review cases should be made public, except for State secret, commercial secret or personal privacy. The legal status of the parties in the hearings review is equal. Article 6 censorship review is in place. Article 7. Chapter II Scope of the hearings review The following administrative review cases shall be conducted: (i) Two or more applicants with independent requests for administrative review of specific administrative acts of the same or similar category, and the rule of law bodies decide to consolidate administrative review cases; (ii) Administrative review cases involving third parties; (iii) Administrative review cases involving administrative compensation; (iv) Administrative review of cases involving national interests and public interest; (v) Administrative review cases received or reviewed by the superior administrative authority; (vi) The Territory has a significant impact and involves cases of administrative review of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Macao Special Administrative Region and the Taiwan region; (vii) Significant, suspected and complex administrative review cases. Article 9. The applicant submits a request for a hearing review or the rule of law of the executive review body, which considers it necessary to review the hearings. Chapter III Organization of the hearings review and review of participants Article 10. The rule of law organs of the executive review body shall appoint three persons with administrative review qualifications to serve as a hearing review chamber responsible for the review of the hearings, to designate one of them or members of the executive review body other than members of the hearings review board to serve as a record of the review. The members of the hearing review were avoided and the rule of law of the executive review body should be assigned separately to the members of the administrative review chamber. Article 11. The heads of the rule of law bodies of the members of the hearings review chamber, the heads of the rule of law bodies presided over the hearings; the heads of the rule of law institutions without the rule of law body, decided by the hearing review chamber to preside over the hearings. Article 12. Participants in the hearings review included members of the hearing review board, the applicant and his commissioner, the applicant and his commissioned agent, the third and his commissioned agent, witnesses, experts, surveyers and translators. The difficulty, complexity or the issue of professional technology may be invited to participate in the hearings review. Article 13. One of the members of the hearing review chamber shall be avoided: (i) Near relatives of the parties or parties to the present case, who are entrusted to the agent; (ii) Relationship with the present case; (iii) Other relations with the parties in the present case may affect a fair review of the case. The Head of the Rule of Law Institutions of the Administrative Review Body decided to hear from the members of the Court. The head of the executive review body decided to avoid the Head of the Rule of Law Institutions of the Administrative Review Body. Article 14. (i) Determine the facts of the case and confirm the validity of the evidence; (ii) Decisions to identify, investigate; (iii) Decide to invite experts to participate in the hearings review; (iv) A preliminary review of the case after the hearing review; (v) Other matters to be decided by the hearing review chamber. Article 15 (i) Presided over hearings; (ii) Proclamation of the examination of discipline and maintenance of the hearings review order; (iii) Inquiries to the applicant and his commissioner, the applicant and his client representative, the third and his commissioner, witnesses, experts, surveyors, translators and guest experts; (iv) The decision of the hearing review chamber; (v) Other matters to be decided by the moderator. The applicant has the following rights: (i) Request for hearing review; (ii) Authorize the agent to participate in the hearings review; (iii) To apply for the avoidance of members of the hearing review chamber; (iv) To apply for the removal of evidence materials; (v) Applications for identification, survey tests; (vi) Evidence, evidence; (vii) Upon the agreement of the moderator of the hearing review, the participants in the hearing review other than members of the hearings review; (viii) The debate and the final presentation; (ix) Access to the relevant material in the case, as required. The third person enjoys other rights other than subparagraph (i). Article 17: The applicant has the following rights: (i) Authorize the agent to participate in the hearings review; (ii) To apply for the removal of evidence materials; (iii) The content of requests for administrative review before the hearings review; (iv) Applications for identification, survey tests; (v) Evidence, evidence; (vi) Upon the consent of the moderator of the hearing review, the participants in the hearing review other than the members of the hearings review; (vii) The debate and the final presentation; (viii) Access to the relevant material in the case as provided for. Chapter IV Procedure for hearing review The applicant shall apply for a review of the hearing and shall submit a written application to the organs of the executive review body within 20 days of the date on which the rule of law of the administrative review body is admissible. The application for the hearing review shall contain the following matters: (i) The name or name of the applicant; (ii) The reasons for the application of the hearing review; (iii) The applicant's signature or seal; (iv) Date of submission of applications for review of hearings. Article 19, in which the party entrusts the agent with the review of the hearings, shall submit a letter of authorization and the identity of the author to the organ of the executive review body, which shall contain the matter of the commission and the specific competence. The author of a party shall not exceed two persons. Article 20 shall, after receipt of the request for a hearing review by the organs of the executive review body, decide to conduct a hearing review within five days. The decision not to conduct a hearing review shall justify the applicant. Article 21, the rule of law organs of the executive review body shall take a telephone notice, written notice or other means to inform the participants of the hearing review, in addition to members of the hearing review chamber. The following matters should be included in article 22: (i) The name of the case reviewed; (ii) Examination of the names or names of participants; (iii) The reasons for the hearing review; (iv) The time and venue for the hearings review; (v) In the absence of a legal consequence of the hearings review; (vi) Other matters requiring notification. The hearing review is conducted in accordance with the following order: (i) The hearing review recorders collate the identity of participants other than members of the hearing review and record their names, units, functions and contact; (ii) The moderator's announcement of a hearing review; (iii) Presentation by the moderator of the hearing review of the members of the hearing review chamber; (iv) The moderator of the hearing review asked whether the applicant, the third party had applied to the members of the hearing review collusion, and whether the application should be justified and whether it would be avoided in accordance with article 13 of the present article; (v) Fact-finding; (vi) Evidence, evidence; (vii) The debate; (viii) Final statements. Article 24 Fact-finding is conducted in accordance with the following order: (i) The applicant submits the administrative review requests, facts and reasons; (ii) The applicant's reply; (iii) Presentations by third parties; (iv) The members of the hearing review chamber are asked to the parties; (v) The facilitators of the hearing review agreed that the facts of the case could be questioned by each party. Article 25 (i) The applicant's testimony, the applicant and the third hostage certificate; (ii) The applicant's evidence of the applicant and the third hostage certificate; (iii) Third-party evidence that the applicant and the application of the hostage-taking certificate; (iv) The moderator of the hearing review sought the views of the parties and asked whether the evidence was obtained, identified or tested. The members of the hearing review chamber may refer to the facts of the cases to be certified by the material of the evidence and to the participants for the hearing review, in addition to members of the hearing review chamber. Introduction (i) The trial review moderator determines the focus of the case; (ii) The parties and their commissioners debate the issue of the focus of the case in the order of the applicant, the applicant and the third person. A final statement was made by the parties and their agents after the debate. Article 28 shall not apply once again for the review of the hearing or for the absence of a fair hearing. The applicant who has renounced the right to participate in the hearings review shall not apply or apply again for the hearing review. Article 31 was not justified by participation in the hearings review without the duration of the hearings, without prejudice to the conduct of the hearings review, except for the applicant for the hearing review. Article 31 has the legitimacy of the parties and their commissioners, which cannot participate in the hearings on time, and the dates for the hearings are determined separately by the executive review body's rule of law. In the hearings review, the participants should observe the following disciplines: (i) Subject to the command of the moderator; (ii) No unauthorized recording, video and photography; (iii) Nothing shall be carried out; (iv) No statement, questions and questions shall be made; (v) No telephone booths shall be made or heard; (vi) No attack shall be directed against the participants in the hearings review; (vii) Non-disclosure of State secrets, commercial secrets and personal integrity; (viii) No one shall be in possession, morphology or other acts that affect the review of hearings. Article 33 shall record objectively, impartially and really all the activities of the hearing review. After the hearing review, the parties and their agents should collate the hearing review, consider that the records are missing or wrong and may apply for the replacement. After a review of the hearing checked, it should be signed or a chapter. A person who refuses to sign a signature or chapter shall be recorded as such. Article XV Review of hearings should serve as a basis for making administrative review decisions. Evidence and effectiveness of the hearings review The evidence reviewed by the hearing is mainly the following: (i) A certificate; (ii) Evidence; (iii) Audiovisual information; (iv) Witness statements; (v) Presentation by the parties; (vi) Identification of conclusions; (vii) Surveys, on-site notes. The above-mentioned evidence is reviewed by the executive review body's rule of law bodies in order to serve as a basis for the determination. The hearing review shall present the original or original material of the evidence. Evidence that cannot be presented at the site or does not facilitate the presentation of the original or raw material, with the consent of the hearing review chamber, the author of the evidence may present a photocopy, copies, photographs, reproduction, etc. In providing evidence material to the executive review body's rule of law bodies, article 37 should be accompanied by a catalogue of evidence indicating the origins of the material of the evidence, the time and the facts of the cases to be certified. The applicant and the third party should provide evidence material before the end of the hearings. The late provision of evidence materials was considered to give up the right to testify. The witness shall be given testimony at the time of the hearing review. The witness may be read by the author of the witness's testimony on the grounds that the witness is not able to testify on the ground, with the consent of the hearing review chamber. In the course of the hearings, the applicant has the burden of proof on the following matters: (i) To prove that the application for administrative review is in accordance with the statutory conditions; (ii) In cases where the applicant does not perform his or her statutory duties, it has proved that his application has been submitted to the applicant for the performance of his statutory duties; (iii) The fact that the application for administrative review has been made and the application for administrative compensation has proved to be detrimental to their legitimate rights and interests; (iv) The rule of law body of the executive review body considers that the applicant should bear the burden of proof. In one of the following cases, the applicant has agreed that the relevant evidence could be supplemented by the hearing review chamber: (i) The applicant has been collected in making specific administrative acts, but it cannot be provided for in cases of non-retroactive or otherwise justified; (ii) In the course of the hearing review, the applicant or the third person presented no arguments or evidence in the course of the applicant's administrative conduct. The following evidence in article 42 is not based on the fact that the specific administrative conduct is determined to be lawful: (i) Evidence collected by the applicant in violation of the statutory procedures; (ii) The evidence collected by the applicant after making specific administrative acts; (iii) The applicant or the third person provided in the course of the administrative review process, but the applicant has not been used as evidence of the facts of the specific administrative conduct. In one of the following cases, the rule of law organs of the executive review body have the authority to investigate evidence, access documents and information to relevant organizations and personnel: (i) The facts concerning national interests, public interests or the legitimate interests of others; (ii) Procedural matters, such as an additional party to the right of access; (iii) The applicant or the third party provided the evidence or the basis for the defectiveness, but it was not able to collect themselves and apply for the redeployment of the rule of law institutions of the executive review body; (iv) The applicant or the third person shall provide the original or raw material that cannot be provided; (v) In order to ascertain the facts, there is a need for other evidence-based materials. In investigating evidence, access to documents and information, it should be conducted by more than two persons with administrative review qualifications and present work documents and administrative reviewers' qualifications documents, and the relevant organizations and personnel should cooperate to prevent or reject them. Article 444 applies to the parties to apply for the transfer of evidence materials and shall submit written requests to the organs of the executive review body before the end of the hearings. Article 42, the rule of law of the executive review body, upon application by the parties, shall be communicated to the parties and to the reasons. Article 46 of the administrative review case concerned the need for identification, surveying and inspection, which was commissioned by the executive review body to conduct the identification, investigation and inspection of the institution established by law. Article 47 imposes the burden of proof on the parties who need to be identified, surveyed and, within the time period of the evidence, are not justified by the failure to make the application for the identification, inspection fees or refusal to provide the relevant material, resulting in the fact that the dispute in the case cannot be determined through the identification, survey findings, and should bear the legal consequences of the fact that it cannot justify. Article 48 provides evidence collected and supplemented by the rule of law organs of the executive review body in the course of the hearings review, which cannot be used as legal, effective and appropriate evidence for the maintenance of specific administrative acts or for the recognition of specific administrative acts, but may be used as a revocation, change of specific administrative acts or confirming that the former specific administrative acts are incompatible, null and void or inappropriate. During the forty-ninth hearing review, the parties may apply to the executive review body for the preservation of the evidence in cases where evidence of a particular relevance to the case may be lost or otherwise difficult to obtain. The administrative review body may take photographs, audio recordings, videos, replication, identification, survey tests, and the production of interrogation orders, according to specific circumstances. Article 50 of the hearings should be based on the facts of the case that the evidence can prove. Article 50 testifies to the number of evidence of the same fact that its effectiveness is generally determined according to the following circumstances: (i) The public-language instruments produced by State organs and other functional departments are superior to other documents; (ii) Identification of conclusions, on-site photographs, survey notes, archival material and documents obtained by evidence or registered are superior to other documents, audio-visual material and witness statements; (iii) Originals, raw material preferences for reproduction and reproduction; (iv) The identification findings of the statutory accreditation sector are superior to the findings of other identification components; (v) The primacy of the original evidence to be transmitted; (vi) Other witness testimony is preferable to the testimony provided by witnesses who have relatives or other close relationships with the parties; (vii) A number of different types of evidence that is consistent with content is superior to an isolated evidence. The contradictory testimony provided by the same witness to the same fact cannot serve as a basis for determining the facts of the case. The hearing review chamber shall, in accordance with the statutory procedures, fully, objectively and impartially review the evidence, in accordance with the provisions of the law, regulations, regulations and regulations, be guided by the professional ethics of the administrative reviewer, the application of the logic and daily experience and the judgement of the size of the evidence and the credibility of the evidence, determine the relationship between the evidence and the facts of the case, exclude the unrelated evidence and accurately determine the facts of the case. Chapter VI Legal responsibility Article 53 examines the violation of this provision by members of the Cassation Review Board, which is being reorganized by an administrative review body to re-examine the hearings and to give administrative treatment to the facilitators and other direct responsibilities under the law. Article 54 of the hearings review recorders do not record the review of the hearings, the self-destructed video review, which is subject to administrative disposition by the executive review body. Article 55 of the parties and their commissioners do not comply with the disciplines of the hearings review and seriously affect the order of the hearings, which are not redirected and transferred to the relevant organs to be treated in accordance with the law. Article 56 Staff of State organs obstructed or denied the investigation of evidence, access to documents and information by the Rule of Law Institutions of the Administrative Review Body and its administrative reviewers, which shall be subject to administrative disposition by law of persons directly responsible. Chapter VII Article 57 Review costs are incurred by the executive review body in the context of the special funds for administrative review and shall not be charged to the parties. Article 58 identifies, investigates the costs incurred by the applicant's party. The qualifications of the administrative reviewer was confirmed by the organization of the examination by the People's Government Office of the Rule of Law of the Blackang province. Article sixtieth provides for the operation of article 172 for a period of 1 May. |
