Guiding Case No.77： Luo Rongrong v. Ji ‘an Price Bureau.
Guiding case no.77
Luo Rongrong v. Ji ‘an Price Bureau (case of price administration)
(the Supreme People’s Court Judicial Committee discussed and passed the release on December 28, 2016)
Keywords: administrative litigation/report reply/scope of accepting cases/plaintiff qualification
Referee points
1. The administrative organ only gives an informative reply to the report that has an interest with the informant, and fails to deal with the report according to the law. It does not belong to the "behavior that has no actual impact on the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons or other organizations" as stipulated in Item 6 of Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China, so it is actionable and belongs to the scope of administrative litigation of the people’s court.
2. Informants who report violations of their own legitimate rights and interests to administrative organs have a legal interest in the handling of reports by administrative organs, and are qualified as plaintiffs in administrative litigation.
Related laws and regulations
Articles 12 and 25 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended on November 1, 2014)
Basic facts
Luo Rongrong, the plaintiff, claimed that on May 20, 2012, when he handled the mobile phone number in the telecom business hall of Jinggangshan Avenue, Jizhou District, Ji ‘an City, Ji ‘an Telecom Company charged the plaintiff 20 yuan’s card fee and issued an invoice. The plaintiff believed that Ji ‘an Telecom Company charged the plaintiff the card fee for handling the mobile phone number for the first time, which violated the prohibition of not charging users separately in the Administrative Measures for the Application and Charge of Integrated Circuit Cards, so it complained to the defendant Ji ‘an Price Bureau and made demands for the defendant to perform legal duties, investigate and make a written reply. Although the defendant issued a written reply, the reply letter only stated that the defendant found a document and part of the document during the investigation. The reply letter did not deal with the matters requested in the plaintiff’s complaint report letter, and the defendant’s behavior violated the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Price Law, the Provisions on Reporting Price Violations and other relevant laws and regulations. Request the court to confirm that the defendant’s behavior in handling the plaintiff’s complaint and report was illegal, revoke the defendant’s reply according to law, and order the defendant to investigate and deal with the illegal behavior involved in the plaintiff’s complaint and report letter according to law.
Defendant Ji ‘an Price Bureau argued that the plaintiff’s prosecution did not comply with the relevant provisions of the administrative procedure law. Administrative litigation refers to the litigation brought by citizens, legal persons and other organizations against the specific administrative acts of administrative organs. In this case, the defendant’s reply to the plaintiff on July 3, 2012 was not a specific administrative act and was not actionable. The defendant’s reply to the plaintiff meets the procedural requirements of the Provisions on Price Violations, and the content of the reply is also to inform the plaintiff of the situation verified by the defendant after investigation. Request the court to reject the plaintiff’s claim according to law.
The court found through trial that on May 28th, 2012, the plaintiff Luo Rongrong mailed a complaint and report letter to the defendant Ji ‘an Price Bureau, reporting that Ji ‘an Telecom Company had charged the plaintiff the fee for handling mobile phone card for the first time, and asked the defendant to order Ji ‘an Telecom Company to return the 20 yuan who illegally charged the plaintiff’s mobile phone card fee, investigate and confiscate the card fees charged by all telecom users for handling mobile phone cards for the first time according to law, and reward the plaintiff according to law and give a written reply to the plaintiff’s relevant processing results. On May 31, 2012, the defendant received a complaint report letter from the plaintiff. On July 3, 2012, the defendant made a Reply on the Handling of Luo Rongrong’s Complaint on May 28, 2012, and sent it to the plaintiff by post. The reply content is: "On May 31st, 2012, our bureau received your complaint that users of new mobile phone cards of Ji ‘an Telecom Company charged 20 yuan mobile phone card fees, and we paid great attention to it. After investigation, it was verified that the Reply on Jiangxi Telecom’s Full-service Package Tariff Optimization Scheme (No.14 [2012] of Jiangxi Telecom Bureau) jointly issued by Jiangxi Provincial Bureau of Communications and Jiangxi Provincial Development and Reform Commission stipulated that the upper limit of UIM card charges is 50 yuan. Our bureau is very grateful for your support and help in price work. " After receiving the defendant’s reply, the plaintiff appealed to the court on the grounds that the defendant’s reply was illegal.
Referee result
On November 1, 2012, the People’s Court of Jizhou District, Ji ‘an City, Jiangxi Province made a judgment of (2012) Jixingchuzi No.13: The Reply of Ji ‘an Price Bureau on the Handling of Luo Rongrong’s Complaint on May 28, 2012 was revoked, and it was limited to make a new written reply within fifteen days. After the verdict is pronounced, the parties have not appealed, and the judgment has taken legal effect.
Referee’s reason
The court’s effective judgment holds that: regarding the actionable issue of Ji ‘an Price Bureau’s report and reply. According to Item 5, Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Procedure Law, adopted on April 4, 1989), if an application is made for an administrative organ to perform its statutory duties of protecting personal rights and property rights, and the administrative organ refuses to perform or refuses to reply, the people’s court shall accept the lawsuit filed by the parties concerned. In this case, Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau should investigate and determine whether the card fees charged by Ji ‘an Telecom Company reported by Luo Rongrong are illegal and inform the investigation results. However, the report reply made by Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau listed the UIM card fees ceiling standards stipulated in the Reply on the Optimization Scheme of Jiangxi Telecom’s Full-service Package Fees (hereinafter referred to as the Reply), and did not specify the handling results of the reported matters. This act of informing the relevant contents of the Reply instead of informing the investigation results of the report fails to fulfill the legal duty of protecting the property rights of the informant according to law, which is an infringement of Luo Rongrong’s right to seek relief through proper reporting channels, and does not belong to the act of "having no actual impact on the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons or other organizations" as stipulated in Item 6 of Article 1 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Law).
On the plaintiff qualification of Luo Rongrong. According to the provisions of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of Article 24 of the Administrative Procedure Law and Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Law, an informant must have a legal interest in the act of handling a report when he files an administrative lawsuit. In this case, although Luo Rongrong asked Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau to "investigate and confiscate the card fees charged by all telecom users for handling mobile phone cards for the first time", he still reported to Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau on the basis that Ji ‘an Telecom Company’s collection of card fees infringed his own legitimate rights and interests, and held the invoices for the fees as evidence. Therefore, Luo Rongrong has a legal interest in reporting and handling, and has the qualification of plaintiff in administrative litigation, so he can bring an administrative lawsuit according to law.
On the legality of reporting reply. Article 14 of the Provisions on Reporting Price Violations stipulates: "After the report is completed, if the reporter asks for a reply and has contact information, the competent price department shall inform the reporter of the result in writing or orally within five working days after the completion." In this case, Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau, as the competent price department, has the legal duty to accept reports of price violations, review whether prices are illegal or not, and put forward opinions on classified treatment. Luo Rongrong clearly listed three reporting requests in the complaint reporting letter, and asked the Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau to inform Luo Rongrong of the handling results in writing after the investigation was completed. This reply did not specify the handling results of the reported items by the Ji ‘an Municipal Price Bureau according to law, which violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Provisions on Reporting Price Violations and was not legal, so it should be corrected.
(Effective judges: Hu Jianming, Zhang Binghua, Liu Taosheng)