Administrative Law Case Study Answers are urgently needed, Administrative Law Case Study Questions a

The farm is not an administrative agency and has no administrative power, and the punishment is invalid.

Whether the 66 farmers in this case have the right to file a lawsuit against the "initiative" behavior of the township ** to abandon grain and plant flowers, the first key is whether the "initiative" behavior of ** is an "administrative guidance" or a "specific administrative act". According to Article 1 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Enforcement (adopted at the 1088th meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court on November 24, 1999, Fa Shi [2000] No. 8), "administrative guidance acts that do not have coercive force" do not fall within the scope of administrative litigation.

The so-called administrative guidance refers to the use of non-coercive means by a state administrative organ to obtain the consent or assistance of a specific administrative counterpart within the scope of the affairs under its jurisdiction, and to guide the administrative counterpart to take or refrain from taking certain acts in order to achieve a certain administrative purpose. The biggest characteristic of administrative guidance is that it is a kind of persuasive and guiding behavior, and it is not mandatory.

Therefore, the Supreme People's Court expressed it as "an act of administrative guidance that does not have coercive force" in its judicial interpretation. This expression only shows that administrative guidance is not coercive; And it doesn't mean:

There are two types of administrative guidance, one is non-coercive and the other is coercive. If some kind of "administrative guidance" has "coercive force", it can only be said that it is an act called "administrative guidance", which is actually a "specific administrative act".

Administrative guidance is generally expressed in the form of "suggestions", "initiatives", "guidance", etc., but the most important thing is to look at its substance. If the act is coercive in substance, then it will be determined as a specific administrative act, not as an administrative guidance, regardless of the name it is called.

In this case, the "Proposal" of the township **, from a formal point of view, does not have coercive force, and obviously belongs to the category of "administrative guidance". However, from the actual point of view, the township ** compulsory pilot project in a village obviously does not have "guidance", but has "mandatory", so this is a kind of "specific administrative act" called "administrative guidance" that is actually mandatory, and the people's court should accept the lawsuit of 66 farmers.

1. The reconsideration organ's practice is illegal, because the law enforcement bureau should submit evidence, basis and other relevant materials for the specific administrative act at the beginning.

2. The main body of responsibility is the Law Enforcement Bureau.

3. Evidence not submitted during the reconsideration period cannot be used as evidence in the verdict.

1. The decision of the reconsideration organ is unlawful because its procedures are illegal. 2. The main body of the burden of proof in this case is the Urban Management Law Enforcement Bureau, and the evidence that the Urban Management Law Enforcement Bureau did not submit during the reconsideration period cannot be used as evidence in the verdict.

1. Fluorite mine is not a dispatched agency or functional institution of a provincial health administrative department, and does not have the right to impose administrative penalties, and is an illegal administrative subject. It only has the right to supervise and the authority to reflect, and cannot make decisions on administrative penalties directly for violations.

2. The Public Security Section of the Jianghe County Public Security Bureau is an internal functional organ of the Jianghe County Public Security Bureau, and is the administrative body, and can impose a public security fine on Li in its own name.

3. Zhang Cheng, a citizen who was deceived into buying spoiled sausages, is not an administrative counterpart by definition, and the administrative counterpart is Li Li, the owner of a food store in the district.

1. A provincial health administrative department entrusts fluorite mines to carry out health inspections, and the administrative body is a provincial health administrative department;

2. The Public Security Section of the Jianghe County Public Security Bureau is not an administrative body, the County Public Security Bureau is an administrative body, and Li must be punished in the name of the County Public Security Bureau;

3. Zhang, a citizen who was deceived and bought spoiled sausages, could not become the counterpart of the administrative subject.

1. Fluorite mines have the right to impose administrative penalties, but they are not legal administrative subjects.

2. The Public Security Section of the Hexian Public Security Bureau is not an administrative body, and cannot impose a public security fine on Li in his own name.

3. Zhang Cheng is not an administrative counterpart.

Yuncai's, right? Civil Service Final Exam Questions

Inadequacy. It does not conform to the principle of legality in administrative punishment. Administrative punishments shall follow the principle of reasonableness and lawfulness.

Penalties shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the law. Wang's behavior shall be subject to administrative punishment and shall be subject to the Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Individual Catering Industry (Trial)", which stipulates that the industrial and commercial department shall confiscate the illegally produced ice cream and illegal gains in accordance with the law. However, the 1,150 yuan imposed by Wang was illegal, because Wang's behavior had nothing to do with being sentenced and just released from prison, and the law did not stipulate that the sentenced person could be punished more when he was punished, so the punishment of the Industrial and Commercial Bureau was illegal.

Not true. These are two different things. You can go to the previous authority for administrative reconsideration or go to the court for litigation

Five times the fine, it's not okay. Wang had been sentenced to 3 years in prison for the crime of assault, and was just released from prison a year ago, if Wang is now a crime, the court can give a heavier punishment according to the law, but now Wang is only breaking the law, and the industrial and commercial bureau cannot impose a heavy penalty because he has been sentenced, and it has the intention of law enforcement.

The five-fold fine does not seem to be supported in the provisions of the "Measures for the Supervision and Administration of Individual Catering Industry (Trial)"! But in the group of individual industrial and commercial households, it seems that the industrial and commercial organs say what is what, hey! Migrant workers are a vulnerable group, and the state attaches great importance to them, and individual industrial and commercial households are also a vulnerable group, and the state does not seem to attach so much importance to them!

(1) The notice of the city is a specific administrative act. In this case, the notice issued by the city clearly determined that only A would be issued with designated signs, and the city originally only had four designated slaughterhouses A, B, C, and D, which meant that the slaughterhouses B, C, and D were deprived of their slaughtering qualifications. It can be seen that the circular was made in response to the specific matter of fixed-point slaughtering and the specific person A, B, C, and D, and infringed on the right of fair competition of the three slaughterhouses B, C, and D, and is a typical specific administrative act.

2) The issuance of designated slaughtering signs is an administrative licensing act, specifically a qualification licensing act, that is, a license that gives the administrative counterpart the qualification to engage in a certain activity. Since the act of issuing a designated slaughtering sign is a qualification license, the enterprise that has not obtained the license shall not engage in the business activities of pig slaughtering, and the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce and the Municipal Health Bureau have the right to revoke their licenses and permits accordingly. However, in this case, because the act of the city ** was illegal, the industrial and commercial bureau and the health bureau were not allowed to revoke the licenses and permits of B, C and D on this basis.

Answer: 1. The notice of the city is not an abstract administrative act, but a specific administrative act. Specific administrative acts refer to administrative acts taken by administrative entities against specific administrative counterparts.

Abstract administrative acts refer to administrative acts made by administrative subjects against unspecified administrative counterparts, and are acts that issue rules of conduct with general applicability. Whether or not an administrative act is made against a specific object, that is, a specific thing and a specific person, is an important difference between a concrete administrative act and an abstract administrative act. In this case, the city issued a notice on confirming and issuing designated slaughtering signs, clearly determining that only A was issued with designated signs, and the city originally had four designated slaughterhouses A, B, C, and D, which means that the notice was made for the specific "thing" of designated slaughtering and the specific "person" of A, B, C, and D, which is a typical specific administrative act.

2. The issuance of fixed-point slaughtering signs is an administrative licensing act. Administrative licensing refers to a specific administrative act in which an administrative entity grants or confirms the legal qualifications or legal rights of the administrative counterpart to engage in certain activities through the issuance of permits, licenses, etc., upon application by the administrative counterpart and after examination in accordance with law, under the circumstances generally prohibited by law.

I remember doing this in a previous case study.