Fan decided not to make administrative compensation.
Claimant for compensation: Liu Wei, male, born on April 6,198/kloc-0, Han nationality, living at No.228, Shannan, Tiancun, Haidian District, Beijing.
Organ liable for compensation: Beijing Haidian District Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Supervision Bureau, legal representative: Sun Peng, and address: Shangdi Office Center, No.27, Northeast Road, Wang Nan, Haidian District, Beijing.
Beijing Haidian District Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Supervision Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the administrative organ) received the compensation application from the claimant on 20 15 12 16. This administrative organ conducted a review in accordance with the law.
The Claimant seeks compensation for:
1. Repair or rebuild the demolished building (Store Warehouse No.3 16) according to its original structure and deliver it to the claimant for continued use;
2. Return the property in the demolished building to its original place, and compensate according to the price if it is lost or damaged;
3. Compensation for the goods in the demolished building is 853,000 yuan;
4. The telephone installation fee is 5,000 yuan;
5. Cable TV installation fee 300 yuan;
6. Compensation for mental damage is 200,000 yuan;
7. From 20165438+10,65438 in 2003 to the date of signing the compensation agreement, the monthly loss of business suspension is 12000 yuan;
8.201311kloc-0/410, and the rent from the date of signing the compensation agreement is 5793 yuan per month.
The main reasons for the claimant to claim compensation are:
1, 2065438+On August 9, 2003, Haidian Urban Management Bureau made a decision and issued a notice, which identified the houses at No.8 and No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District as illegal buildings.
2. On October 20, 20031KLOC-0/6543810, Haidian Urban Management Bureau raided and demolished the house located at No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District, in the morning, resulting in the disappearance of furniture, electrical appliances, daily necessities, cash and other property in the house. This administrative act has caused great property and serious mental harm to my family, which has deprived me of my only economic source and spiritual sustenance and seriously infringed on my legitimate rights and interests.
On June 3, 20 15, Liu Wei, the claimant for compensation, filed an administrative lawsuit with Haidian District People's Court (hereinafter referred to as Haidian Court) in Beijing. Haidian Court made an administrative judgment (2015) No.882, and decided to cancel Haidian Urban Management Bureau from Beijing Urban Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Urban Construction Group) on August 9, 20 13.
After investigation, the claimant Liu Wei lives in the courtyard of No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District. On August 9, 20 13, the Japanese administrative organ notified the Urban Construction Group. Liu Wei, the claimant for compensation, believed that the administrative act of this administrative organ in making the above notification was illegal, and filed an administrative lawsuit with Haidian Court on June 3, 20 15. Haidian Court made (20 15) Administrative Judgment No.882 on October 30th, 20 13, and decided to cancel the notice given by this administrative organ to the Urban Construction Group on August 9th, 2013.
According to another investigation, the administrative organ did not participate in the demolition of the quadrangle at No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District, Beijing.
The administrative organ believes that:
1, 2065438+On August 9, 2003, the notice given by the Japanese administrative organ to Urban Construction Group was not binding and did not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of Liu Wei, the claimant for compensation, thus causing damage. According to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), if a state organ or its staff infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of a citizen, legal person or other organization as stipulated in this law and causes damage, the victim has the right to obtain state compensation according to this law. ? Therefore, Liu Wei does not have the subject qualification to file state compensation.
2. The administrative organ did not participate in the demolition of the building in the courtyard of No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District, Beijing, so the administrative organ is not the subject of compensation obligation in this case.
To sum up, according to the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), this administrative organ decides:
The state compensation request made by Liu Wei, the claimant, will not be compensated.
If the claimant refuses to accept this decision, he may bring a lawsuit to the Haidian District People's Court of Beijing within three months from the date of receiving this decision.
Beijing Haidian District City Management Comprehensive Law Enforcement Supervision Bureau
February fifteenth
Decision not to grant administrative compensation
Applicant: Wen Daocai, male, aged 68. Id number: 432421194210082790. He lives in Group 8, Beijigong Village, Shigongqiao Town, Dingcheng District, Changde City, Hunan Province. He is the owner of individual industrial and commercial households in Wuling District, Changde City, and also the head of the original restaurant.
On 2011117, the applicant Wen Daocai filed an application for administrative compensation with this organ, requesting the Wuling District People's Government to compensate the applicant for the necessary recurrent expenditure of nearly15 * * 900,000 yuan during the period of suspension of production and business, resulting in operational autonomy, that is, to compensate the loss of the business premises accordingly.
The applicant thinks: 1. The former Changde Pastry Factory is a state-owned enterprise and an organization entrusted by the former Changde Municipal People's Government. 1988 The former Changde Municipal People's Government was revoked and upgraded to a prefecture-level city, and the Wuling District People's Government continued to exercise its functions and powers. 2. Changde Pastry Factory rents out expired temporary buildings to the applicant for use, which violates the urban planning law and has been confirmed as illegal by Changde Planning Bureau; Later, he was forced to remove the facade rented by the applicant. His behavior violated relevant laws and caused economic losses to the applicant. 3. The applicant began to petition, complain, accuse and report from August 1996, claiming his legitimate rights and interests, and the time limit for applying for compensation has not expired. 4. The applicant submitted written evidence of transportation, accommodation, catering, lost time and other expenses.
Upon examination, on March 7th and 8th, 1996, the applicant of Wenren Road signed a facade lease contract with the former Changde Pastry Factory to rent the facade to operate the restaurant. On June 24th, 1996, Changde City Planning Bureau issued a Notice of Dismantling Temporary Buildings ([96] Chang Chenggui Jian Zi No.002) to the former Changde Pastry Factory on the grounds that the temporary fa? ade had exceeded the approval period and the municipal government decided to build Wanqi overpass, which would affect the municipal engineering construction, requesting the former Changde Pastry Factory to dismantle the fa? ade within a time limit. On July 2nd, the former Changde Pastry Factory informed the applicant in writing to remove the facade, and the facade was removed at the end of July. The applicant thinks that the former Changde Pastry Factory is an organization entrusted by the former Changde Municipal People's Government, and its act of renting out the expired temporary buildings to the applicant and forcing the applicant to dismantle them belongs to a specific administrative act, which infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of the applicant, so it applied for administrative compensation in 20 1 1 year 1 month 65438+7 years.
According to Articles 4 and 7 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the scope of administrative compensation is: if the administrative organ and its staff, organizations or individuals entrusted by the administrative organ infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations when exercising the entrusted administrative power, the victims have the right to compensation. The Wuling District People's Government of Changde City (and the former Changde Municipal People's Government) did not authorize the former Changde Pastry Factory to exercise its administrative authority. The former Changde Pastry Factory did not commit any specific administrative act against the applicant illegally. The former Changde Pastry Factory leased the facade to the applicant and asked the applicant to remove the facade, which was a civil act and did not belong to the exercise of administrative authority. Second, the application time limit for humanities and talents has passed. According to the provisions of Article 39 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the time limit for an applicant to claim state compensation is two years, counting from the day when he knows or should know that the state organs and their staff members' actions in exercising their functions and powers infringe their personal rights and property rights. The applicant's claim for compensation failed to be submitted to this organ within the limitation period, so this case has exceeded the limitation period for compensation.
To sum up, according to the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), this organ has decided not to compensate the application for administrative compensation for humanities talents. If the applicant refuses to accept this decision, he may bring a lawsuit to the people's court within three months from the date of this decision.
March 2(nd)
Fan Wensan's decision not to grant administrative compensation
Claimant for compensation: Zhou Qixi, male,1born on September 7, 953, Han nationality, living at No.228 Shannan, Tiancun, Haidian District, Beijing.
Organ liable for compensation: Beijing Haidian District Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Supervision Bureau, legal representative: Sun Peng, and address: Shangdi Office Center, No.27, Northeast Road, Wang Nan, Haidian District, Beijing.
Beijing Haidian District Urban Management Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Supervision Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the administrative organ) received the compensation application from the claimant on 20 15 12 16. This administrative organ conducted a review in accordance with the law.
The Claimant seeks compensation for:
1. The demolished building (No.24, Row 3) was repaired or rebuilt in the original site and delivered to the claimant for continued use;
2. Return the property in the demolished building to its original place, and compensate according to the price if it is lost or damaged;
3. Compensation for mental damage is 7 million yuan;
4.2 1, the lost time expenses from June 2065438 to the date of signing the compensation agreement are 5223 yuan, 5793 yuan and 6463 yuan per month respectively;
5. The monthly rent from June 2065438 to June 2, 2003 to the date of signing the compensation agreement is 10500 yuan.
The main reasons for the claimant to claim compensation are:
1, 2065438+On August 9, 2003, Haidian Urban Management Bureau made a decision and issued a notice, which identified the houses at No.8 and No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District as illegal buildings.
2. 2065438+June 2 1 In 2003, Haidian Urban Management Bureau raided the house located at No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District in the morning without delivering the notice of demolition and other legal documents, resulting in the disappearance of furniture, electrical appliances, daily necessities, cash and other property in the house. This administrative act has caused great property and serious mental harm to my family, and caused me to have no fixed place at home, which seriously violated my legitimate rights and interests.
On June 3, 2015, Zhou Qixi, the claimant for compensation, filed an administrative lawsuit with the Haidian District People's Court in Beijing (hereinafter referred to as Haidian Court). Haidian Court made an administrative judgment (20 15) and decided to cancel the decision made by Haidian Urban Management Bureau to Beijing Urban Construction Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Urban Construction Group) on August 9, 20 13.
After investigation, the claimant Zhou Qixi lives in the courtyard of No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District. On August 9, 20 13, the Japanese administrative organ notified the Urban Construction Group. Zhou Qixi, the claimant for compensation, believed that the administrative act of the administrative organ in making the above notification was illegal and filed an administrative lawsuit with Haidian Court on June 3, 20 15. Haidian Court made (20 15) Administrative Judgment No.882 on October 30th, 20 13, and decided to cancel the notice given by this administrative organ to the Urban Construction Group on August 9th, 2013.
According to another investigation, the administrative organ did not participate in the demolition of the quadrangle at No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District, Beijing.
The administrative organ believes that:
1, 2065438+On August 9, 2003, the notice given by the Japanese administrative organ to Urban Construction Group was not binding and did not infringe upon the legitimate rights and interests of Zhou Qixi, the claimant for compensation. According to the first paragraph of Article 2 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), if a state organ or its staff infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of a citizen, legal person or other organization as stipulated in this law and causes damage, the victim has the right to obtain state compensation according to this law. ? Therefore, Zhou Qixi does not have the subject qualification to file state compensation.
2. The administrative organ did not participate in the demolition of the building in the courtyard of No.228 Shannan Road, Tiancun, Haidian District, Beijing, so the administrative organ is not the subject of compensation obligation in this case.
To sum up, according to the provisions of Articles 13 and 14 of the State Compensation Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), this administrative organ decides:
Zhou Qixi, the claimant of compensation, will not be compensated for the state compensation request.