Key Benefits:
(The 34th ordinary meeting of the Government of the Honoural State, held on 28 September 2005, considered the adoption of the Decree No. 86 of 18 October 2005 of the People's Government Order No. 86 of 18 October 2005 and the introduction of 1 January 2006) Chapter I General Article I, in order to promote the administrative effectiveness of the administration, regulate administrative law enforcement, guarantee the legitimate, impartial and efficient administration of administrative law enforcement, administrative law enforcement officials, administrative law enforcement officials, prevent and respond promptly to the misperception of administrative law enforcement by the relevant administrative organs or administrative law enforcement officials, protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and develop this approach in line with the relevant laws, regulations. Article 2 The law, legislation and regulations provide otherwise, from their provisions. Article 3. The accountability of administrative law enforcement has been held and the principle of proportionality between authority and responsibility, accountability and corrections, education and corrections are consistent. Article IV. The Government of the people at the district level has led the administration of justice in the current administrative region. Article 5 Administrative law enforcement error Article 6. The misperformance of administrative law enforcement refers to acts by administrative law enforcement agencies and their administrative law enforcement officers in administrative law enforcement activities, which are deliberately or wrong, in violation of the law or manifestly inappropriate administrative acts, as well as non-performance of statutory duties. Article 7. (i) Applications for administrative licences consistent with the statutory conditions are inadmissible; (ii) In the absence of office space to disclose material that should be disclosed by law or that information should be made public by law; (iii) In the process of admissibility, review and decision-making of administrative licences, the applicant and the stakeholder have not fulfilled their statutory notification obligations; (iv) No administrative licence application or grounds for administrative licence are provided by law; (v) The holding of hearings by law without hearing; (vi) To grant administrative licences to applicants who do not meet statutory conditions; (vii) No administrative licence shall be granted to the applicant in accordance with the statutory conditions or to the decision of the administrative licence within the specified time frame; (viii) An administrative licence decision shall be made in accordance with the law by solicitation, auction, examination preference, without solicitation, auction, examination or approval of an administrative licence based on tenders, auctions, examination performance; (ix) It is not possible to determine the basis for the fees or to not be charged under the statutory items and standards; (x) In the case of administrative licences involving different sectors, the duration of the period of time, delays, or, after completion, the transfer of other departments should be transferred in a timely manner, or delays in the transfer; (xi) No relevant written voucher to the applicant as required; (xii) To entrust the right to administrative licence in violation to the exercise of civil, legal and other organizations; (xiii) Other violations of administrative licence provisions, mismanagement of administrative licences and damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the licensor. Article 8. (i) It is not possible to determine the basis for the imposition and application of the legal mandate; (ii) Expropriation, expropriation projects or unauthorized alteration, scope and criteria; (iii) No levied and used in accordance with the statutory procedures; (iv) Other violations of the provisions of the collection, application. Article 9. The following acts in the course of the administrative inspection are committed by administrative law error: (i) It is not possible to impose administrative inspections on the basis of the legislative authority; (ii) Excluding the application of administrative inspections by the statutory authority; (iii) Execution of administrative inspections for unjustifiable purposes; (iv) Execution of administrative inspections in accordance with statutory procedures and time limits; (v) Denouncing, ferventing, delaying and refusing to perform administrative inspection duties; (vi) To conceal, cover, favour and condon the offence; (vii) Other violations of administrative inspection provisions undermine the legitimate rights and interests of the administration. Article 10. The following acts in the course of administrative enforcement are erroneous acts of administrative law: (i) It is not in a position to determine its mandate or 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, loss, destruction and seizure of property; (v) Other violations of administrative coercive provisions undermine the legitimate rights and interests of the administration. Article 11. (i) Failure to impose penalties on the basis of the fact that administrative sanctions are imposed; (ii) Designation, commissioning organizations that do not have administrative law enforcement qualifications and implementing administrative penalties for personnel; (iii) Excellence in setting administrative penalties or changing the types of administrative sanctions; (iv) Repetitive fines for the same offence committed by the parties; (v) In violation of the provisions of the “Criminal separation”, the imposition of a fine was charged with him; (vi) The imposition of fines on the parties and the penalties for the confiscation of property are not subject to a fine issued by the statutory branch and the confiscation of property documents; (vii) The transfer of criminal responsibility by the judiciary and not the transfer; (viii) Toys negligence and to refrain from suppressing, punishing violations that should be stopped and punished; (ix) No obligation to communicate under the law; (x) The law should organize hearings without organizing hearings; (xi) Administrative punishment is not fair; (xii) Other violations of the law. Article 12 (i) Violations of pooled funds, assessed expenses or requirements for citizens, legal persons and other organizations to fulfil their unlawful obligations; (ii) Violations of legitimate ownership by citizens, legal persons and other organizations; (iii) To require citizens, legal persons and other organizations to accept designated services that cannot be determined or to purchase designated commodities that cannot be determined; (iv) Other violations of the rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations and property rights; (v) In violation of the relevant provisions, inter alia, the seizure, separation, misappropriation of funds, the seizure, separation, use, damage to the confiscation, collection and confiscation of property. Article 13 does not carry out the following acts of a statutory responsibility, which are misperceptions of administrative law enforcement: (i) At the request of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, reject the fulfilment of specific obligations under the laws, regulations and regulations; (ii) To reject, delay the implementation of the administrative decisions taken by the superior organs in accordance with the law; (iii) There is no statutory obligation within the statutory period; (iv) Administrative compensation, administrative remedies, administrative compensation and administrative payments to citizens, legal persons and other organizations in accordance with the law; (v) In accordance with the law, citizens, legal persons and other organizations should be given no evidence; (vi) Other legal, regulatory and regulatory provisions should be not used. Chapter III Excellencies and forms of accountability for administrative law enforcement Article 14. Administrative law enforcement should be held accountable for administrative law enforcement authorities and their administrative law enforcement officials, which impede the normal administration order and undermine the relative legitimate rights and interests of the administration. Article 15. Specific administrative acts that have been reviewed and approved should result in misperceptions of administrative law enforcement and accountability to administrative law enforcement officials in the following cases: (i) The custodian's administrative error is held without the approval, approval and approval of the author; (ii) The failure of the custodian, the author, the author, the author, the author, the author, the author, to properly perform the duties of the review, approval and accountability for the administration of the custodian; (iii) In spite of the review and approval of the author, the custodian is not responsible for the administrative enforcement of the custodian in accordance with the review, approval; (iv) The custodians should not be found, the licensor, the licensor, the rator, the rator, the rator and the author's administrative error of enforcement, as the result of the misconduct; (v) The reviewor does not adopt or change the right opinion of the custodian, and the author should find that, with the approval of the reviewor, there should be no finding that the responsibilities of the registrar, the executive law of the rator should be erroneous; (vi) The auditor's failure to submit a mistaken decision directly to the extent that the custodian is responsible for the administration of justice; (vii) The author has changed the good opinion of the custodian, the licensor or, without the contractor's proposal, the reviewor, the author's direct decision of error and accountability for the administrative enforcement of the author. Article 16, in collective discussions among executive law enforcement agencies on specific administrative actions taken, resulted in misperceptions of administrative law enforcement and accountability for administrative law enforcement of the main executive heads of the executive law enforcement agencies. Article 17 acts of administrative error arising from joint law enforcement by more than two administrative law enforcement authorities, centralized law enforcement activities, and accountability for administrative law enforcement of the relevant administrative law enforcement agencies and their heads. Article 18, when administrative law enforcement officials carry out their official duties, considers that decisions at the superior level, orders are wrong, may propose changes to the superior or withdraw their opinions, orders, or require immediate implementation, that the administrative error arising after the execution is carried out shall be subject to the corresponding responsibility at the superior level; however, executive law enforcement officials are responsible for implementing decisions that are clearly incompatible with the law and order, the corresponding responsibility for administrative law enforcement should be assumed by law. Article 19 Administrative law enforcement officials have the following circumstances and should be held accountable for their administrative enforcement: (i) Administrative law enforcement officials are aware that their administrative law misperceptions are continuing without active measures to remedy them; (ii) Administrative law enforcement officials have experienced more than three misperceptions of administrative law enforcement within one year, or more than two have been held accountable for administrative law enforcement and still have the same nature and the same type of administrative law enforcement error; (iii) Interference, obstruction, opposition to the investigation into the misperceptions of administrative law enforcement; (iv) Counter retaliation against the complainant, the prosecution, the accused or the custodian. Article 20 provides for administrative law enforcement officers who have a subsidiary or secondary role to play in the common administration, and should be held in a light or mitigation manner, mutatis mutandis to administrative law enforcement officers who have a decisive role or primary role in the act. Article 21, Administrative law enforcement officials have found that administrative law enforcement is wrong and are actively taking remedial measures to prevent the occurrence of the consequences of the harm, may not be held accountable for their administrative law enforcement; remedies are not taken to prevent the consequences of the harm and should assume responsibility for administrative law enforcement, but may be prosecuted for them. Article 22 states that administrative law enforcement agencies and their administrative law enforcement officials are one of the following cases and do not assume responsibility for administrative enforcement. (i) Administrative law error resulting from force majeure; (ii) Administrative law misperceptions resulting from legitimate defence, emergency avoidance; (iii) Administrative law misperceptions caused by mismanagement. Article 23. The circumstances in which administrative law enforcement was wrong and the consequences of the harm could not be held accountable for administrative law enforcement. Article 24, in accordance with the nature, circumstances, consequences and consequences of administrative law enforcement by administrative law enforcement officials, may give the following forms of treatment: (i) The nature, circumstances of a minor nature and the consequences of the harm, caution against a statement or acquiescence of a written review; (ii) The nature, circumstances and circumstances, which affect the society and communicate criticisms; (iii) The nature, circumstances generally, the consequences of the harm and the training of the induction; (iv) The nature of the harshness and circumstances, the consequences of the harm, the removal of the law enforcement or the removal of the law enforcement qualifications. The executive law enforcement officers are not eligible for an annual evaluation, and the administrative law enforcement errone is liable to be treated in accordance with the preceding paragraph. It is suspected that there is a violation of political discipline, which is dealt with in accordance with the law by an exemption authority and inspection body. It was suspected to constitute a crime and was transferred to the judiciary. Article 25, with the following circumstances, is the case in which the administrative law enforcement errone is held accountable to the executive law enforcement authorities for the duration of the period; in serious circumstances, it may be criticized or removed from the advanced qualifications: (i) Specific administrative acts made are recognized as violations or changes in administrative review and administrative proceedings, with a high proportion of cancellations; (ii) The low level of satisfaction of the external reviewers when administrative law enforcement responsibilities are reviewed; (iii) There is no administrative law enforcement accountability system or a misleading and misstatement of administrative law enforcement responsibilities. In accordance with this approach, administrative law enforcement agencies or administrative law enforcement officers have been held accountable for the misperception of administrative law enforcement, and there is a need to take an organizational approach to administrative law enforcement officials, in accordance with the competent authority and procedures established by the Ministry. Administrative law enforcement erroneously has the authority to make recommendations to the authorities concerned without direct competence to manage. Chapter IV Accountability for administrative law enforcement Article 27, administrative law enforcement agencies and their heads, are responsible for accountability by the Government of the current people or by the inspectorate. The executive law enforcement agencies and their heads are responsible for the administration of vertical management and for the administration of justice. The administrative law enforcement authorities and their heads have been responsible for double management and are held by the relevant authorities in accordance with the relevant management responsibilities. Other administrative law enforcement officers have been responsible for the administration of justice. Article twenty-eighth people at the district level and the rule of law institutions affiliated with their executive law enforcement agencies are responsible for the specific work of the current Government and the organ in charge of accountability for administrative law enforcement. The administrative law enforcement at the last sentence of article 29 was erroneous and could be held directly by the executive body, which was considered to be excessively responsible for the administration of justice. In one of the following cases, the responsible administrative law enforcement should conduct investigations: (i) Specific administrative acts are determined by the People's Court, the executive review body, or decides to withdraw, partially withdraw, modify, reorder, recognize as a violation and impose a statutory responsibility; (ii) There may be miscarriage of administrative law enforcement, at the superior or at the same level, and at the level of administrative law enforcement authorities are required to investigate; (iii) There may be a miscarriage of administrative law enforcement, a high-level or a representative of the same rank, a member of the political union, in a proposal and form of proposals, requiring the investigation; (iv) There may be miscarriage of administrative law enforcement, either at the senior level or at the same level of administrative law enforcement oversight, inspection authorities request to investigate; (v) There may be miscarriage of administrative law enforcement, and the various sectors of society reflect strong calls for investigation; (vi) Administrative law enforcement erroneously responsible for other cases identified by the prosecution bodies. Article 31 Complaints, prosecution, charges against the administrative law enforcement authorities and their administrative law enforcement officials, and administrative law enforcement erroneous accountability should be determined by the executive branch within 15 working days after receipt of the relevant material. The review requires accountability for administrative law enforcement by the executive law enforcement officials concerned and investigations should be conducted. The decision not to conduct an investigation, but there is a clear complaint, the prosecution and the accused, and should be informed of the reasons for the investigation. The administrative error of law enforcement by administrative law enforcement officials constitutes an offence, administrative unconstitutionality, which is criminalized by law or subject to administrative disposition, still requires accountability for administrative law enforcement, based on facts, nature and circumstances determined by the relevant organs. After the completion of criminal cases, administrative inspection cases, the administrative law enforcement officials involved were not prosecuted for criminal responsibility and had not been subject to administrative disposition, with administrative error, requiring accountability for administrative law enforcement and accountability based on facts, nature and circumstances determined by the relevant organs. The conduct of investigations should be carried out by more than two staff members of the administrative law enforcement errone. Article 34 concerned that administrative law enforcement agencies and their administrative law enforcement officials should cooperate actively with the investigation, such as a factual description of the administrative law enforcement acts investigated. A staff member responsible for investigating misperceptions of administrative law enforcement may investigate the relevant or informed civil, legal or other organizations. Article 36 erroneous administrative law enforcement responsible for the prosecution of persons responsible for the conduct of the proceedings with the benefit of the executive law errone or other causes that may affect justice should be avoided. Article 37 erroneous accountability for administrative law enforcement should be heard before a decision is taken by the responsible organ, and the parties have the right to make statements and to justify them. Article 338 Accountability for administrative law enforcement must be clear, valid and objective. In accordance with the findings of article 39, the executive law enforcement errone should take the following decisions or determinations: (i) The fact that the evidence is true and the decision to hold accountability for administrative law enforcement; (ii) Notwithstanding the misperceptance of administrative law enforcement, the decision to refrain from accountability for administrative law enforcement is taken in cases of immunity under this scheme; (iii) The fact is unclear, the evidence does not exist and the decision not to hold accountability for administrative law enforcement; (iv) There is no administrative law enforcement error and the determination that there is no administrative law enforcement error; (v) The decision to be transferred to the relevant organs shall be dealt with by other organs. Article 40. When administrative law enforcement erroneously held accountable for the decision of the executive law enforcement body, it should be necessary to produce an administrative error of accountability for the decision. The following should be included in the letter of accountability for administrative law enforcement: (i) The basic situation of administrative law enforcement organs or administrative law enforcement personnel who have been held accountable for administrative law enforcement; (ii) Facts and evidence of misconduct by administrative law enforcement; (iii) The determination of excessive responsibility for administrative law enforcement; (iv) The basis for accountability for administrative enforcement; (v) Administrative law enforcement erroneously responsible for the management of organs; (vi) The way, duration and manner in which administrative law enforcement is not responsible for the prosecution of decisions; (vii) The organ and date of the decision. Administrative law enforcement erroneously held accountable for decision-making must be accompanied by a chapter of administrative law enforcement accountability. Article 40. The parties in cases where administrative law enforcement errone is wrongly responsible for the decisions taken by the executive law enforcement bodies, may be held accountable for the administrative error of decision-making in writing within 30 days of the date of receipt of the decision. Administrative law enforcement erroneously responsible for the prosecution should take a review decision within 30 days of receipt of written complaints. In accordance with the relevant circumstances set out in the National People's Republic of China's Administrative Monitoring Act, the Civil Service Act of the People's Republic of China, complaints can be made by law to the inspectorate, the personnel sector. During the complaint, administrative law enforcement erroneously held accountable for the decision not to stop implementation. Article 42, which has been confirmed by an administrative law enforcement error, should be corrected by the relevant administrative law enforcement agencies and their administrative law enforcement officials themselves. Article 43 thirteenth misconduct by administrative law enforcement authorities against this body is not dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the investigation, and the executive branch, the rule of law and the inspectorate of the Government of the same people, may be responsible for the investigation. After a notice to be processed by an order of responsibility, it was denied implementation and was held accountable to the competent organ. Article 44 erroneous administrative law enforcement has not been found within two years and no administrative law enforcement responsibility for the administration of law enforcement and its administrative law enforcement officials has been held. Administrative law enforcement has been in a continuing or continuing state, and the statute of limitation has been calculated at the end of the miscarriage of administrative law enforcement. Laws, regulations and national ministerial regulations provide for the imposition of statutes. Article 41 XV Administrative law enforcement and administrative law enforcement officials have a negative impact on society or seriously undermines the physical rights, property rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and makes it necessary to be held without limitation. Chapter V The administrative law enforcement organs referred to in Article 46 of this approach refer to all levels of executive organs with administrative law enforcement functions, organizations authorized by law, legislation and regulations that manage the functions of public affairs, and organizations entrusted by administrative law enforcement agencies to conduct administrative enforcement activities. Administrative law enforcement officials referred to in this approach refer to staff at all levels of administrative law enforcement. The administrative law enforcement erroneous responsibilities referred to in this approach refer to the Government of the people at all levels who have been responsible for administrative law enforcement, administrative law enforcement officials and administrative law enforcement, in accordance with article 27 of this approach, as well as to all levels of government. In accordance with this approach, the executive law enforcement organs of the people of the district and the provincial governments should be established in conjunction with the region and the system. Article 48 is implemented effective 1 January 2006. |
