Resolution 2006/hdtp: Guide The Implementation Of Some Provisions Of The Ordinance On Procedures For Administrative Cases Solved Has Been Modified And Supplemented By The Ordinance Amending And Supplementing A Number Of ...

Original Language Title: Nghị quyết 04/2006/NQ-HĐTP: Hướng dẫn thi hành một số quy định của Pháp lệnh thủ tục giải quyết các vụ án hành chính đã được sửa đổi, bổ sung theo các Pháp lệnh sửa đổi, bổ sung một số ...

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now for only USD$20 per month, or Get a Day Pass for only USD$4.99.
RESOLUTION guiding the implementation of some provisions of the Ordinance on procedures for administrative cases solved has been modified and supplemented by the Ordinance amending and supplementing some articles of the Ordinance on procedures for settling administrative cases on 25 December 1998 and January 4, 2006 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ the COUNCIL of JUDGES of the SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT pursuant to act The people's courts;
To the correct and uniform enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance on procedures for administrative cases solved has been modified and supplemented by the Ordinance amending and supplementing some articles of the Ordinance on procedures for settling administrative cases on 25 December 1998 and on 5th April, 2006 (hereafter abbreviated as ordinances);
After the comments of Minister Supreme People's Prosecutor and the Minister of Justice.
RESOLUTION: 1. the provisions of article 2 of the Ordinance on 1.1. On the "who has the authority to resolve complaints for the first" the "Who has the authority to resolve the complaint the first time" specified in article 2 of the Ordinance is the State administrative bodies, the competent administrative authority in the State or the head of the Agency, held in one of the following circumstances : a) issued a decision in the administrative, disciplinary dismissal, or having one of the administrative acts provided for in article 11 of the Ordinance;
b) direct management officers, public servants have a administrative decision or having one of the administrative acts provided for in article 11 of the Ordinance.
1.2. About the provisions in point c of paragraph 1 of article 2 of the Ordinance a) upon receiving a petition for administrative decisions, administrative acts that the first complaints under the authority of Ministers, ministerial heads the Court is based on article 11 of the Ordinance to check complaints which have in the jurisdiction of the Court or do not. That grievance cases in the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court shall proceed with the case according to the General procedure, if the petitioner has to complain to the Minister, the heads of ministerial agencies and were running out of time to resolve a complaint first, but complaints not resolved or had decided to resolve the complaint.
b) upon receiving a petition for administrative decisions, administrative acts that the first complaints under the authority of the Chairman of the provincial people's Committee, the Court must, pursuant to article 25 and article 39 of the law on complaints and denunciation to consider; specifically the following: b. 1) for administrative decisions, administrative acts are the content of State management of ministries, ministerial agencies, government agencies, the Court shall proceed with the case according to the General procedure, if the petitioner has first complaint to the Chairman of the provincial people's Committee but the expiry settlement under the provisions of the law on complaints and denunciation that complaints not resolved or had decided to resolve the first complaint and no further appeal to the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time;
b. 2) with respect to the administrative decisions, administrative acts are not administered by the State ministries, ministerial agencies, government agencies, the Court shall proceed with the case according to the General procedure, if the petitioner has to appeal to the President of the provincial people's Committee but the expiry settlement under the provisions of the law on complaints and denunciation that complaints not resolved or had decided to resolve the complaint.
1.3. The application of article 2 paragraph 1 d of the Ordinance When receiving the petition for administrative decisions, administrative acts was the second grievance, the need to distinguish as follows: a) for these incidents arise before 0:00 on 1 June 2006, and the complainant had complained to the complaints authority for the second time and has expiry times two complaints under the provisions of the law on complaints and denunciation before 0:00 on 01 June 2006 that complaints not resolved (unless the instructions in subsection 13.1 section 13 of this resolution) or have been resolved before 0:00 on 01 June 2006 but the complainant did not consent, if they petition the administrative case, the Court pursuant to article 31 paragraph 1 point a of Ordinance to return the petition to the petitioner.
b) for these incidents arise before 0:00 on 1 June 2006, and the complainant had complained to the authorities the second grievance and complaint resolution period two times under the provisions of the law on complaints and denunciation following the end 0:00 on 01 June 2006 that complaints not resolved or has been resolved After 0:00 on 1 June 2006, but the complainant did not consent, if they have administrative lawsuit petition the Court pursuant to the provisions of the Ordinance to conduct the case according to the General procedure.
 1.4. The handling of administrative cases petition immediately after receiving the petition the administrative case, the Chief Justice or the Associate Chief Justice was Chief Justice Chief Justice Court, credential or Associate Chief Justice the Court are Chief Justice mandate assigned a judge to consider the petition.  Within five working days from the date of receiving the petition, the judge must consider this case of type claim would the provisions of article 11 of the Ordinance and contrast with conditions administrative case petitioner stipulated in article 2 of the Ordinance to: a) the conduct of the case under the General procedure If eligible start-up administrative lawsuits;
b) return the petition to the petitioner and stating the reason for returning the petition, if not eligible to sue the administrative case.
Example 1: Mr. Nair had A petition decision sanctioning administrative violations against him by the President of the people's Committee of the district S, the DD and he A was a complaint to the Chairman of the district people's Committee, but not all the time limit complaints first and have decided to resolve the claims of the President of the people's Committee of the district S , the Court pursuant to article 2 paragraph 1 point a and point c of paragraph 1 to article 31 of the Ordinance to return the petition for Mr. a. example 2: Mr. Tran B are officers of the enforcement of the judgment of the district e the Q have the petition for disciplinary dismissal for he's Director of the Department of justice the Q and B he was complaining to the Executive Director of the Department of Justice Q, but not yet have decided to resolve the complaint to the Director of the Department of Justice Q or had decided to resolve the complaint to the Director of the Department of Justice Q, but Mr. B disagree and have complained to the Minister of Justice and has decided to settle a complaint by the Minister of Justice , the Court pursuant to paragraph 4 to article 2 point c of paragraph 1 and article 31 of the Ordinance to return the petition for him B. 2. The administrative decision is subject to complaint to ask the Court to resolve the case of the administrative decision is administrative grievance object to request the Court to resolve the case the Administration is the first administrative decision. In addition to the administrative decision was the State administrative bodies or competent person in State administrative bodies issued in the first when resolving specific things, dealt in his jurisdiction, then the following administrative decisions is also considered the first administrative decision :

a) after the enactment of the administrative decision but no complaints, the State administrative bodies or competent person in State administrative bodies issued administrative decision it issued an administrative decision to replace the previous administrative decisions, the new decision was issued is the first administrative decision;
b) after the enactment of the administrative decision but no complaints, the State administrative bodies or competent person in State administrative bodies issued administrative decision it issued an administrative decision to modify, complement some of the administrative decision before the , the part of the administrative decision before being modified, cancelled and decided to amend and supplement certain points of the administrative decision before the administrative decision is first;
To note that for the two cases of a and b above if the decision was issued after the administrative agency of the State or the competent administrative authorities in the State have received the complaint and the decision that is the result, then the complaint resolution decision following the appeal decision is the first that is not decided first administration;
c) after the courts have the jurisdiction to resolve the case of the administrative decision to cancel whole or part of the administrative decision being litigated; delivered to the State administrative bodies or competent person in the State administrative organs to solve the case again for part or all of the administrative decision had been canceled and the results solve is the State administrative bodies or competent person in the State administrative agency has new administrative decision This new decision, it is the first administrative decision;
d) after the person has the authority to resolve the complaint twice complaint resolution decision and the administrative decision was the administrative decision to modify a part or the whole of the administrative decision, the administrative decision to modify a part or the whole of the previous administrative decision and the decision of the previous Administration not been modified are administrative decisions the first time.
For example, Ward people's Committee Chairman T, H, H city decision sanctioning administrative violations against him with sanctions is a fine of 400,000 contract and the additional sanctions is bound to restore the original status is changed due to administrative violations caused. A complaint against the decision on sanctioning administrative violations and ward people's Committee Chairman T have complaint resolution decision preserved the conclusion decision sanctioning administrative violations.
A complaint to the district people's Committee Chairman H, H city. President of the district people's Committee decision H complaint resolution conclusion of the content of the complaint are true in part to decide on additional sanctions and requested Ward people's Committee Chairman T modify the decision.
Ward people's Committee Chairman T decision sanctioning administrative violations new sanctions addition rather forced to restore the original status is changed due to administrative violations caused by forced execution remedy environmental pollution due to administrative violations caused.
In this case the decision sanctioning administrative violations with sanctions is a fine fellow and 400,000 sanction decisions following administrative violations with additional sanctions is forcing implementation of remedy environmental pollution due to administrative violations caused by Ward people's Committee Chairman T are all administrative decisions.
3. administrative acts is subject to complaint to ask the courts to resolve the case the administration under the provisions of clause 2 article 4 and article 11 of the Ordinance, the administrative acts is subject to complaint to ask the Court to resolve the case includes the administrative acts of the State administrative bodies or of the competent administrative authority in the home the country made or not made the task of the public service, in the work or the fields are specified in the from clause to clause 17 article 11 of the Ordinance and in the work or other areas that are stipulated by law.
4. The identification of the person being sued in the case the administration under the provisions of clause 6 article 4 of the Ordinance, the person being sued is individual, agency, organization of administrative decisions, administrative behavior, disciplinary dismissal were grievances; Therefore, to identify the right person being sued when is personal, when is the Agency, eager to pay pursuant to the provisions of the law of jurisdiction in that case.
For example, there are two administrative decision being required to claim the courts in resolving administrative and are led by the Chairman of the people's committees at district level (a decision on sanctioning administrative violations and a decision to revoke the land of households). Pursuant to the provisions of the law of the jurisdiction in this case, the person being sued in the case of the administrative grievance decision sanctioning administrative violations as individuals people's Committee Chairman at district level (article 29 of the Ordinance on handling administrative violations), who sued in the case of the administrative grievance decision to revoke the land of households is the people's committees at district level (article 37 and article 38 of the law of the land).
Note that the authority in the State administrative agency prescribed in article 4 of the Ordinance is specific titles, and in accordance with the law, then the positions titles that have the jurisdiction of administrative decisions or administrative acts. Although an administrative decision or an administrative behaviour due to a particular person (he, Ms. Tran Thi X...) or make the person, but the signing of the administrative decision or perform administrative acts that are under a duty, authoritative titles (for example : The President of the people's Committee of the district ... Police Chief, ...); so, can only call that administrative decisions, administrative acts of the President of the people's Committee of the District of ..., the Chief of police ... which could not call that administrative decisions, administrative acts of a specific person (he, Ms. Tran Thi X. ..). So, in the case of the administrative decision or administrative behavior has transformed the work go elsewhere or retired ... that the administrative decision or administrative acts which were grievances, who are elected, appointed, were appointed ... instead of the position, the title of that person must inherit the rights and obligations , meaning they were sued.
5. The resolution requesting compensation for damages in the administrative case Under the provisions of article 3 (1) of the Ordinance the petitioner administrative case can simultaneously ask for damage compensation. The damage in this case is the actual damage due to administrative decisions, disciplinary dismissal or administrative behavior caused. If the petitioner has requested administrative lawsuits claiming compensation for damage shall be obliged to provide evidence. The case required the Court to be able to collect more evidence to ensure the resolution of the case was correct. The collection of evidence in this case was made under the provisions of the code of civil procedure. The case of the petitioner in the case the Administration has demanded compensation for damage can provide evidence, then the part request compensation for damage to solve later in a civil case under the General procedure when litigants have requested.

For example, A petitioner asks the Court to settle administrative decision revoke confiscated vehicles are used for administrative violations, and demanded compensation for the damage caused by some parts of the media that is lost, damaged or real income lost because the media are being kept. If the Court deems the decision to confiscate the means used for administrative violations are contrary to law and deem the request compensation for damage of the petitioner was based (by the petitioner provide adequate evidence, the witness ...), the Court decided to cancel the administrative decision which at the same time decide on the compensation of the damage; If the petitioner has not demonstrated that means lost, damaged parts, real income was lost as the account would, the Court only decides to cancel the decision and administrative spend resolving requests compensation for damages to solve in a civil case under the General procedure when litigants have requested.
6. The resolution in the case who sued modification or annulment of administrative decisions, disciplinary dismissal be grievances Under the provisions of article 3 (paragraph 4), and article 20 of the Ordinance then in the process of resolving the Administration who sued to have the right to modify or cancel the administrative decision disciplinary, dismissal was filed; Therefore, in the process of resolving administrative person sued has decided to revise or revoke administrative decisions, disciplinary dismissal be grievance the Court should notify the petitioner to know and the need to differentiate: a) If the petitioner agrees with the decision to modify or cancel that and withdraw the petition , the Court pursuant to point b paragraph 1 Article 41 of France ordered the decision suspended the settlement of the case;
b) If the petitioner does not agree with the decision to amend or cancel it and not to withdraw the petition, the Court continued the case according to the General procedure. In this case, the Court must review the legality of the decision were grievances and decide to modify or revoke the decision were grievances to customize to each specific case a decision is lawful.
7. Regarding the provisions of article 11 of the Ordinance on 7.1. On the concept "works, architectural objects solidly" prescribed in clause 5 article 11 of the Ordinance a) "works" to be sure, that sustainable building it elaborately, there must be scientific, technical or artistic. For example, a picture of the monument; a system serving aquaculture. b) "another solidly architecture" is outside the House, then work the fortified architecture must be built sure and valuable sustainable long term use. For example, water wells, home to the automobile, the Church, the wall Masonry fence attached to houses, factories, warehouse ... c) regardless of the value of housing, works, materials in other fortified architecture from how much over, if there are appeals of administrative decisions, administrative acts in the application of the measures forced the scrapping of a new Court of accepting the settlement , which simply determine the right that is housing, works, materials in other fortified architecture, the courts are accepting the resolution according to the General procedure.
7.2. the provisions of paragraph 9 Of article 11 of the Ordinance When enforcing the provisions in paragraph 3 article 11 of the Ordinance should note is the only courts of competent jurisdiction of the case for the administrative appeals of administrative decisions, administrative acts in the requisitioning, purchasing, asset seizure referendum was issued or made after July 2-10-1991 (day Chairman of the Council of Ministers now is the Prime Minister issued decision No. 297/CT).
7.3. About administrative decisions, administrative acts in the field of land management provisions in clause 17 article 11 of Ordinance on administrative decisions, administrative acts in the field of land management that litigants have the right to sue to the Court resolving the administration includes the administrative decision administrative behavior, prescribed in clause 1 and clause 2 article 4 of the Ordinance in the case of land, land, land for lease, requisition of land, allowing the transfer of the land use purpose; compensation, assistance, clearance, resettlement; to grant or revoke the certificates of land use; extension of the time limit for use of the land.
To note that for administrative decisions, administrative acts on land management in resolving land disputes, then in every case is not the object of administrative lawsuits.
7.4. The rules in paragraph 22 article 11 of the Ordinance a) prescribed in clause 22 article 11 of the Ordinance is also the claim specified in the account from paragraph 1 to paragraph 21 Article 11 of the Ordinance, if in a legal text or international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member that has the specified initiator Court to settle according to the provisions of the law on the procedure of resolving administrative cases for this type of complaint administrative decisions, administrative acts, then appeals against administrative decisions, administrative acts that are in the jurisdiction of the Court according to the General procedure.
b) When there are complaints of administrative decisions, administrative acts that are not in one of the cases specified in the from clause 1 to clause 21 to article 11 of the Ordinance, the Court needs to check whether there were legal text or international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member of the field which regulates the right to sue the determination Executive administrative acts which, under the provisions of the law on the procedure of settling the case or not administrative. Case of legal text or international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Vietnam is a member, the Court rules pursuant to paragraph 22 of article 11 of the Ordinance and the respective provisions of the legal text or international treaties which to handle the case administratively under the General procedure; If not yet have legal documents or any international treaties regulating the Court pursuant to article 31 paragraph 1 of the Ordinance on the return of the petition for the petitioner.
8. Regarding the provisions in point g item 2 article 12 of Ordinance The following cases the Court may take up to address grievances in the jurisdiction of the District Court: a) grievance administrative decisions, administrative acts of the people's committees at district level, the President of the people's Committee of the district level related to multiple objects , complex;
b) appeals of administrative decisions, administrative acts of the people's committees at district level, the President of the people's Committee of the district level in the case of the judges of the Court of the district in which the case is refused to conduct the proceedings or altered.
9. Regarding the provisions of article 13 of the directive 9.1. The determination of the jurisdiction of the courts and of the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time To properly enforce the provisions in clause 1 article 13 of Ordinance on the authority, first of all need to review administrative decisions, administrative acts which involve a person or several people (up from two). Depending on the specific case of determining the jurisdiction of the Court or of the competent person a second grievance shall be as follows:

a) If administrative decisions, administrative acts which only involves a person who had just run the administrative lawsuits in the courts of competent jurisdiction, the complaint to the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time and who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time yet have decided to resolve the complaint , then the resolution of the jurisdiction of the Court. The Court accepting the case under the General procedure, at the same time notify the competent person complaint resolution times two whole transfer requirement to know and record complaints for the Court (if any). If before the time of the court case had decided to resolve the complaints of people who have the authority to resolve the complaint, the Court pursuant to article 31 paragraph 1 c of the Ordinance to return the petition to the petitioner. If after the court case could decide second complaint resolution authority to resolve the complaint, the Court pursuant to paragraph 3 to article 41 of the Ordinance on the decision to suspend the case, delete the name of the case in accepting and returning the petition of the same document , and evidence for the petitioner. In case the Court returned the petition or to suspend the case according to the instructions at point a, if people have to sue does not agree with the decision to solve the second complaint and have the administrative case of the petition, the Court shall consider to conduct the case according to the General procedure.
b) If administrative decisions, administrative acts that are relevant to many people, the distinction as follows: b. 1) where only one person has just kicked the administrative lawsuits in the courts of competent jurisdiction, the complaint to the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint, who else is left not to sue the administrative case and also not complaining to the person having jurisdiction the second complaint, the settlement under the jurisdiction of the courts and be made as the case was directed at point a of this subsection.
b. 2) where many people just start the administrative lawsuits in the courts of competent jurisdiction, the complaint to the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time then the settlement under the authority of the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time. If the Court is not yet the case the Court pursuant to article 31 paragraph 1 c of the Ordinance to return the petition to the petitioner; If the Court has the case the court cleared up accepting and transferring the case file for the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time and notify the petitioner said. In this case, if the expiry of the second grievance in accordance with the law on complaints and denunciation that complaints not resolved or had decided to resolve the complaint, but the complainant did not consent, and they have administrative lawsuit petition the Court pursuant to the provisions in point c of paragraph 1 article 13 of Ordinance to proceed conduct the case according to common procedures, if the law has no provisions regarding that case.
b. 3) where only one or some of the petitioner in the case of the Administrative Tribunal of competent jurisdiction, or some other people just complain to the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time then the settlement under the authority of the person who has the authority to resolve the complaint the second time and is done as instructed in point b. 2 of this subsection.
9.2. The resolution of the case the Court was accepting the case politically incorrect (since this is the case, or in the jurisdiction of the other court) in case the Court was accepting the case politically incorrect (since this is the case, or in the jurisdiction of other courts), then customize the case that resolved the following : a) in the course of resolving the appeals process that detects the resolution of this case is in his authority, but this is not the case that the Administration is another case (civil, labor, economic) the Court resolved the case under the General procedure regulating proceedings by law for the resolution of the case that at the same time notify litigants and Procuracy same level know;
b) During the process of resolving the appeals process which detect the resolution of this case is under the jurisdiction of other courts, the Court has the case pursuant to paragraph 2 article 13 of Ordinance cleared acceptance, transfer the case file to the competent court at the same time notify litigants and Procuracy same level know;
c) When appellate administrative case that uncovered the case in case of instructions at points a and b of this subsection, the Court of appeal pursuant to Article 64 2 of clause c Ordinance canceling the verdict, the decision of first instance due to serious violations of the proceedings and records of the case to the Court of competent jurisdiction records appeals to resolve the case at first instance according to the General procedure regulating proceedings by law for the resolution of the case;
d) When a trial of Cassation or retrial of the case discovered that administrative lawsuits in case of instructions at points a and b of this subsection, the Court of Cassation or retrial pursuant to paragraph 3 to article 72 of the Ordinance to cancel judgment, the decision has force of law due to the serious infringement proceedings and records service the judgment for the Court to have jurisdiction at first instance to resolve the case at first instance according to the General procedure by the law regulating procedure for the resolution of the case.
10. Regarding the provisions of paragraph 1 article 15 of the Ordinance The following case of trial of first instance can consist of two judges and three people's assessors: a) grievance administrative decisions, administrative acts of the provincial people's Committee, Chairman of the provincial people's Committee involving multiple objects , complex;
b) grievance decision to resolve a complaint regarding the decision to handle the case competition.
11. Regarding the provisions of article 16 of Ordinance 11.1. About prescribed in clause 1 article 16 of Ordinance a) as defined in art. Article 16 of the Ordinance, the person conducting the proceedings to refuse to conduct the proceedings or be changed, if they are like relatives of the litigants (including the petitioner, who sued, has the related obligation), in the administrative case.
b) relatives of litigants who have the following relations with litigants: b. 1) Is a wife, husband, father, mother, father, foster mother, child, adopted child of litigants;
b. 2) Is the grandfather, grandmother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, children of litigants;
b. 3) Is your doctor, uncle, aunt, boy, aunt of litigants;
b. 4) is the nephew of litigants, litigants whose grandfather, grandmother, grandfather, grandmother, uncle, uncle, aunt, boy, my aunt.
c) clear base that they can not indifferent while on duty is in addition to the cases prescribed in points from point a to point h paragraph 1 article 16 of Ordinance then in other cases (such as in the relationship, media relations, public relations work economic relations, ...) clear base is to be confirmed as the judge, jurors, Prosecutor, court clerk not indifferent while on duty. For example, people's assessors is the brother of the petitioner; The judge is the son-in-law of people have rights, obligations in relation ...

Also considered is the obvious base to argue that they can not indifferent while on duty if in the same trial of administrative cases, judges, assessors and the clerk of courts as relatives like together or if judges, people's jurors , The Prosecutor was assigned appellate case Administration has loved like is people's jurors, the judge, the Prosecutor participated in a trial of first instance, appeal case.
11.2. the provisions in paragraph 2 Of article 16 of Ordinance a) according to the provisions of point b item 2 article 16 of the Ordinance, the judge, the jurors to refuse to conduct the proceedings or changed if they are in a trial and is loved like together. However, when there are two people in the trial close together then only one person is denied or changed. Changing one before opening the trial by court decision, Chief Justice at the trial because the trial decision. The determination of the judges, people's assessors in the same trial is loved like together is done similarly as instructed in point b subsection 11.1 of this item.
b) as specified in point c clause 2 article 16 of Ordinance, judges and people's assessors must refuse to conduct the proceedings or changed if they have joined a trial of first instance, appellate ... case. "Have joined a trial of first instance, appellate ... case" is already taking the case and issued the judgment at first instance, a Court of appeal, decided to suspend the case.
12. Regarding the provisions in paragraph 2 of article 17 Ordinance 12.1. At the trial the request to change the conduct of the proceedings must be presented clearly the reasons and grounds of the request to change the conduct of the proceedings.
The trial heard people being asked to change their opinions about the request to change the conduct of the proceedings.
Request to change the conduct of the proceedings and the presentation of the request, the change request must be written in full on the minutes of the trial. Trial discussion in the room and based on the provisions of article 16 of the Ordinance and the guidelines in section 11 of this resolution by majority decision to change or not to change the conduct of the proceedings.
The case decided to change the conduct of the proceedings, the decision must specify the postponed the trial and suggested the authority sent others to replace the person conducting the proceedings has been modified within three days from the date of the decision and the deadline postponed the trial.
12.2. The decision to change or not to change the conduct of the proceedings must be the trial publicly at the trial. The decision to change the conduct of the proceedings must be sent immediately to the person who has the authority to send the replacement; specifically the following: a) decided to change the conduct of the proceedings was the Procurator must be sent immediately to the Minister the Prosecutor the same level; If the Prosecutor is changed is the Minister the Prosecutor must then send the right decision for the superior prosecutor Minister directly;
b) decided to change the conduct of the proceedings must be sent immediately to the Chief Justice of the Court; If the proceedings are conducted is changed is the Chief Justice, the Court must send the right decision for the Chief Justice of the superior court.
13. Regarding the provisions in paragraph 2 of article 30 13.1 Ordinance. When enforcement of clause 2 article 30 of Ordinance note that in the case of the petitioner in the case because the Government does not agree with the decision to settle a complaint the first time or the second time then just the petitioner did petition the courts for resolving the administration within the time limit specified in the item 2 Article 30, 3 and 4 of the Ordinance, since the date of the complaint resolution decision the first time or the second time that does not depend on the decision on complaint resolution which was issued at the time.
13.2. In case after the complaint resolution decision the first time or the second time and the complainant still claims and the agency or person who has the authority to resolve complaints have complaint resolution decision the first time or the second time that a decision (or written) complaints should distinguish as follows : a) case settled a complaint after complaint resolution content to another part or all of the content of the complaint resolution decision before, then the time limit for claims is calculated from the date the complainant received complaints after the decision;
b) case settled a complaint after complaint resolution content does not differ from the contents of the previous grievance decision or just the answer about the resolution of the complaint before, then the time limit for claims is calculated from the date of the previous grievance decision.
14. Regarding the provisions in clause 5 Article 33 of the Ordinance on the application of provisional measures prescribed in clause 5 Article 33 of the Ordinance made under the respective provisions of the code of civil procedure; Therefore, when the application of provisional measures in this case, the Court should follow the provisions in paragraph 2 to article 99, 100, 101, 117, 120, 123, 124, 125 and 126 of the code of civil procedure and the guidelines in resolution No. 02/2005/hdtp on 27 April 2005 the Council of judges of the Supreme People's Court passed a number of regulations in Chapter VIII "provisional measures" of the code of civil procedure.
15. Regarding the provisions in clause 5 and clause 6 of 37 Articles 15.1 Ordinances. The time limit for pretrial preparation of first instance administrative cases is two months from the date of the case. Only in the case of complex case or objective obstacles due to the time limit for pretrial preparation for a maximum of three months from the date of the case.
a) "complex cases" is the case there are many litigants, are related to many areas; the case has many documents, have contradicted evidence needed more time to study the documentation in the case file or the consultation of the professional body or need complex technical inspection; the case where the Privy is that foreigners are in foreign countries or Vietnam people are residing, studying, working abroad ... b) "objective obstacles" are the obstacles due to objective circumstances impact such as: natural disasters, pest, the needs of combat, combat service ... make the courts can't solve the case within the prescribed time limit.
For example: B district people's Court, the L in the mountains had decided to bring the case to trial in which fixed the date of opening of the trial. However, two more days is conducting open trial, then the flash floods occurred. The headquarters of the people's courts of the District of B is damaged. Due to recovery of flash floods, repaired the headquarters, district courts should B cannot proceed to trial within the time limit prescribed.
15.2. Within the time limit specified in paragraph 5 to article 37 of the Ordinance and are guided in subsection 15.1 this section, the judge assigned to preside the trial must do one of the following decisions: a) bringing the case to trial;
b) temporarily suspend the resolution of the case;
c) suspended the settlement of the case.
15.3. The case has decided to take the case to trial that the trial was not open within twenty days from the date of a decision bringing the case to trial because of that reason, the time limit is a maximum plus ten more days.

"Reason" is the events occurring objectively unforeseen, such as the need to change, the assignment back to the person conducting the proceedings named in the decision to bring the case to trial that authorities have yet to send other people to replace; the case has complicated the trial many times in many different, courts should not have enough judges to conduct the trial of the case it had to transfer the case to superior court for trial or to wait for the judges seconded from other courts to ... should hinder the court conducting the trial in the prescribed time limit.
15.4. The case has decided to temporarily suspend the resolution of cases, the time limit for pretrial preparation ended on a decision to temporarily suspend. The time limit for pretrial preparation be started again from the day the Court continued the case when the reason for suspension no longer exist.
16. Regarding the provisions of Article 9, paragraph 43 of the Ordinance in the case of the case there are litigants who do not use are Vietnamese and the Court has appointed interpreter, if the translation is absent at trial and no immediate replacement, the trial still conducted trial If litigants do not use was that Vietnamese still require criminal proceedings (not dependent on the other litigants have to agree or not agree the trial was still underway judging).
17. Regarding the provisions in paragraph 2 to article 49 of the Ordinance 17.1. Administrative judgments of first instance should have the main content stipulated in item 2 Article 49 of the Ordinance and must be presented in the same form the judgment of first instance was attached to resolution No. 12/2005/hdtp on 31-3-2005 of the Council of judges of the Supreme People's Court.
In case the Procuracy to prosecute the case, the administrative record of the litigants as follows: a) instead of the "plaintiff" (the petitioner) with the "Procuracy prosecuted the case politically". The case of the provincial people's Procuratorate prosecuted the case shall record the name of the Government Procurator (for example, the Procuracy to prosecute the case: people's Procuracy H. T.). Case-level people's Procuracy prosecute administrative case shall record the name of the people's Procuratorate at district level which in the central cities, would (for example, the Procuracy to prosecute the case: administrative district people's Procuratorate, the city G H).
b) instead of the "defendant" (Who sued) by "The administrative decision (administrative acts) be prosecuted the case (for example, The administrative decision is administrative cases: people's Committee Chairman Ward B, H, H City).
17.2. When hearing administrative cases depending on each particular case that the Court can have one or several of the following decisions: a) your doctor requested by the petitioner, if the request has no legal base;
b) accepted a part or the whole of the petitioner requests a cancellation claim part or all of the administrative decision contrary to law; forcing the State administrative bodies or competent person in State administrative bodies responsible for implementation of the public service in accordance with the law;
c) accept a part or the whole of the petitioner's request to declare some or all of the administrative acts contrary to law; forcing the State administrative bodies or competent person in the State administrative organs to terminate the unlawful administrative acts;
d) Forced the State administrative agency compensation, restoration of rights, legitimate interests of individuals, agencies and organizations be compromised due to administrative decisions, administrative acts contrary to law cause;
DD) accepted the request of the petitioner declares cancel disciplinary dismissal is unlawful; forcing the head of the Agency, the organization responsible for implementation of the public service in accordance with the law; force compensation, restoration of rights, legitimate interests of individuals due to disciplinary dismissal is unlawful cause.
18. The suspension of the case in the appellate stage according to the provisions of article 62 of the Ordinance before the appellate court, has the right to suspend the case under the provisions of the Ordinance. At the same time as specified in clause 2 of 64 Things Ridin the Ordinance the Court of appeal has the right "to cancel the judgment of the first instance decision and suspend the case when one of the cases specified in article 41 of this Ordinance"; Therefore, to ensure consistency, the prior appellate trial if there is one in the cases specified in article 41 of the Ordinance, the Court of appeal must also establish the Board of review, if the results of the trial showed the correct one in the circumstances specified in article 41 of the Ordinance the Court of appeal cancelled the judgment or the decision of the first instance and suspension of the resolution of the case. Note that if the first instance judgment and cancel the suspension of the case, the Court of appeal judgments appeal; If canceling the decision of first instance and the suspension of the case, the Court of appeal of the appellate decision.
19. Regarding the provisions of article 69 of the Ordinance on 19.1. As for the verdict, the decision of the Court on the case of legally administrative law before 0:00 on 1 June 2006, the deadline to protest under procedure of Cassation is six months from the date of the judgment, the decision to have the rule of law; the time limit for protest under procedure of a retrial is one year from the date of the judgment, the decision has the effect of law.
19.2. for the verdict, the decision of the Court on the case of the administrative legal effect after 0:00 on 1 June 2006, the deadline to protest under procedure of Cassation is one year from the date of the judgment, the decision to have the rule of law; the time limit for protest under procedure of a retrial is one year from the date of the appeal authorities know the grounds for protest under procedure of a retrial stipulated in item 2 Article 67 of the Ordinance.
20. The resolution of grievances about the electoral list deputies election, election voter list peoples Council deputies prescribed in clause 18 article 11 of the Ordinance the Court just accepting the case for complaints about electoral list deputies election or election voter list peoples Council deputies , if the petition is the latest five days before the election. When solving for this grievance the Court need do the following: 20.1. Shortly after receiving the petition for grievances about the electoral list deputies election or election voter list peoples Council deputies, Chief Justice courts (or Associate Chief Justice to be Chief Justice of the Court of the credentials) assigned a judge accepting the right of the case. Within two days from the date of the case the judge assigned the case to one of the following decisions: a) decided to take the case to trial;
b) suspended the case and returned the petition.
20.2. Immediately after the decision to take the case to trial, the Court must send the right decision for the litigants and the Procurator at the same level.
20.3. within two days from the date of the decision to bring the case to trial, the courts must open trial. The judgment of the administrative court to resolve grievances about the electoral list deputies election or election voter list peoples Council deputies have enforceable right. The litigants have no right of appeal, the Prosecutor does not have the right to protest. The Court must send the right administrative judgment for the litigants and the Procurator at the same level.
21. Regarding the initiation of prosecutions of administrative prosecution prescribed in article 18 and paragraph 6 article 30 of Ordinance

21.1. the Procurator has the right to prosecute the case for the administration of administrative decisions, administrative acts concerning the rights, legitimate interests of minors, who lost the capacity for civil acts, if there is no one to sue. The decision to prosecute the case administratively by the Minister the Prosecutor or Deputy Prosecutor Minister was authorized to sign and seal.
21.2. The case of Procuratorate prosecute the case, the Administration upon the decision to prosecute, the Court asked the Prosecutor Institutes must have the documents, and evidence of proof for prosecution of the Procurator is based and legally. At the trial the Prosecutor must present decided to prosecute the case, the administrative base of the prosecution and join the trial according to the general procedures for the Prosecutor.
21.3. The case of Procurator have the decision to prosecute the case administratively withdraw the decision to prosecute, the Court pursuant to article 41 of the Ordinance on the decision to suspend the case, delete the name of the case in accepting.
22. Regarding the notice of the case to the Procurator 22.1. Within five working days from the date of the case according to the sequence of first instance, the Court notified in writing to the Procuratorate at the same level on the court case. In the case of accepting administrative cases, the Court can announce in a text about the case which the Court was accepting. Written notice must be fully defined the main content at points a, b, c, d and DD item 2 Article 37 of the Ordinance.
22.2. within five working days from the date of the case according to the order, the Court of appeal notice in writing to the Procuratorate at the same level on the court case. In the case of accepting administrative cases, the Court can announce in a text about the case which the Court was accepting. Written notice must contain the following major contents: a) the day, month, year written notice;
b) name, address, the Court announced;
c) the name, address of the appellant;
d) numbers, days, months, years of administrative judgment of first instance was appealed;
DD) specific issues the appellant asked the Court of appeal.
23. Regarding the administrative case file transfer for Procurator 23.1. Procuracy case involved the trial of first instance in accordance with Article 43 paragraph 1 of the Ordinance, the Court of first instance in administrative case file sent along with the decision to take the case to trial to Prosecutor Research Institute immediately after the decision of court bringing the case to trial as stipulated in clause 7 of the 37 Articles Ordinance. The expiry of fifteen days from the day the Procuracy received the case file, the Court of first instance requesting procuratorate must return the record to the Court to conduct the trial of the first instance trial of the case.
23.2. the Procurator case involved appellate prescribed in paragraph 1 to article 63 of the Ordinance, the Court of appeal sent the case file to the administrative Prosecutor Research Institute. The expiry of ten days from the day the Procuracy received the case file, the Court of appeal asked Procurator must return the case file to the Court to conduct the trial appellate case.
23.3. The case of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People's Court or the Chief Justice of the provincial people's courts of cassation appeal or retrial, the Court will trial of Cassation or retrial must send the case file, together with the administrative appeals decision for the Procurator studied immediately after the Chief Justice decides the appeal. The expiry of fifteen days from the day the Procuracy received the case file, which will trial courts of Cassation or retrial request the Procurator must return the case file to open the trial of Cassation or retrial of the case.
23.4. in case of Procurator requested move case file administration to consider protest under procedure of Cassation or retrial, the administrative case file transfer is done according to the instructions in subsection 2.3 section 2 section I joint circular No. 03/2004/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC on 01-10-2005 of the Supreme People's Procuratorate The Supreme People's Court, guiding the implementation of some provisions of the code of civil procedure regarding the Prosecutor obeys the law of civil procedure and participation of the people's Procuratorate in the settlement of the civil case.
23.5. The case of Procurator should study the case file administration to consider protest under procedure of appeal, the Court Procuratorate to study the case file at the Court.
24. On the Prosecutor to institute prosecution involved the trial session, 24.1. Paragraph 1 to article 43, paragraph 1 Article 63 and Article 71 paragraph 1 of the Ordinance regulating the same Procuracy Prosecutor level must attend the trial; Therefore, after accepting the case, the Court must notify the Procuratorate at the same level know as instructed in section 22 this resolution and asked the Prosecutor to Institute the same level assigned Prosecutor joined the trial. Case complexity, the trial could last several days and review necessarily requires Procurator assigned Prosecutor membership. Procuracy sends the notice in writing of the Prosecutor, the Prosecutor membership (if any) for the Court. In the written notice must clearly, the name of the Prosecutor and the Prosecutor membership (if any) was assigned Director of the trial. If absent, the Court to postpone the trial.
24.2. The Ordinance does not prescribe the same Procuracy Prosecutor level must attend the session in the cases specified in article 61 of Ordinance. However, for cases considering the appeal of the Prosecutor, the Court shall notify the Procuratorate at the same level know and request the Procurator assigned Prosecutor participated in the session. The case Prosecutor was assigned to join the session absence have legitimate reasons and was procurator notice of absence that the Court postpone the session. Also in this case the absence of the Prosecutor if the Court still conducts the session according to the General procedure.
25. Regarding the right to protest under procedure of appeal according to the rules in paragraph 55 of that Ordinance, the Minister issued the same Prosecutor and supervisor has the right to protest under the procedure for appeal against the judgment, decided to temporarily suspend or discontinue the resolving of the Court of first instance is not yet in force law. However, with regard to the administrative case by people's courts of provinces and cities under central Government resolved under the procedure of first instance, the Director or Deputy Director of the Institute of practice public prosecutor and Prosecutor of appeals was Director the Supreme People's Procuratorate authorized protest under procedure of appeal against the judgment , decided to solve the case of the Court of first instance is not yet in force law.
26. Regarding the Procuracy altered, supplemented or protest specified in article 58 of the Ordinance 26.1. The Court accepted the Procurator have protested change, additional protest as follows: a) case and yet the time limit for appeal under the provisions of clause 2 Article 56 of the Ordinance, the Procurator has the appeal has the right to change, complement the protest without being limited by the scope of the original protest.
b) case was the appeal expiry under the provisions of clause 2 Article 56 of the Ordinance, shall before the commencement of the trial or at the trial who were protesting the right to change, Supplement, but do not exceed the range that has appeal in the time limit for appeal.

26.2. The change, adding the protest before the opening of the trial must be made in writing and sent to the Court of appeal as defined in paragraph 3 to article 58 of the Ordinance. The change, additional protest at the trial must be recorded in the minutes of the trial.
27. Effect of 27.1 resolutions. This resolution was the Council of judges of the Supreme People's Court passed on August 4, 2006 and is effective after fifteen days from the date The report.
This resolution replaces resolution No. 30/2003/hdtp on April 18 of 2003 of the Council of judges of the Supreme People's Court to guide the implementation of some provisions of the Ordinance on procedures for administrative cases solved.
27.2. for administrative cases which the Court was accepting but not yet on trial at first instance, appellate, cassation trial or retrial shall apply the guidance in this resolution to resolve.
27.3. for the verdict, the decision of the Court has legal effect before the date of this resolution have effect shall not apply the guidance in this resolution to protest under procedure of Cassation or retrial, unless there are other protest base./.

Related Laws