Can anyone give a case of the Administrative Litigation Law

You can refer to the following Administrative Litigation Law case questions and answers: Zhang was beaten and slightly injured on his way off work one day. The public security bureau of a certain county determined that Zhao had committed the crime, and decided to impose an administrative penalty of 15 days of administrative detention on Zhao and compensate Zhang for medical expenses and other losses.

Zhao was dissatisfied and applied to the public security department at the next higher level, that is, the Municipal Public Security Bureau, for reconsideration. After review, the Municipal Public Security Bureau found that the suspect was determined to have made a mistake in Zhang's identification, and that Zhao did not beat Zhang, but Cai beat Zhang (Cai is a mentally ill person and an incapacitated person), and revoked the punishment decision of the County Public Security Bureau. In addition, Cai was added as a third party, and because Cai was an incapacitated person, only a decision was made to order Cai's guardian to compensate Zhang for his medical expenses.

Zhang was dissatisfied with the reconsideration decision of the Municipal Public Security Bureau, believing that the person who beat him was Zhao, not Cai, a mentally ill person, and that the reason why the Municipal Public Security Bureau made a contrary determination in the reconsideration process was that it was caused by abuse of power and favoritism, so he filed an administrative lawsuit with the people's court for this reconsideration decision. Question: (1) Does Zhang have or has the qualifications to be a plaintiff in an administrative lawsuit?

Why? (2) Can Cai file an administrative lawsuit against the reconsideration decision? Why?

3) Cai died in an accident shortly after the reconsideration decision was made, so if his rights are to be protected, who has the right to exercise the right to sue? I.1The administrative act violated Zhang's legitimate rights and interests, so he had the right to file a lawsuit.

2.Although the administrative reconsideration decision is not directly aimed at Cai, it involves Cai's interests, so he also has the right to file a lawsuit. Article 13 of the Interpretation of the Administrative Litigation Law.

3.In the event of the death of a party, the law stipulates that it is his close relatives who have the right to file a lawsuit. Article 24 of the Administrative Litigation Law clearly stipulates.

For specific reasons, see the Administrative Litigation Law and its interpretation.

After the analysis of the political, legal and administrative litigation law cases, I think that if the two of them are to pay more attention to that book, I think that their quiet analysis of the relatives should be the same.

I feel that this should be illegal, and this administrative law is a marketing method.

The contradiction between mediation and the legality of the Administrative Litigation Law is designed by the controversy caused by the examination. Administrative law is very closely integrated with modern imitation and reality, involving a large number of hot side issues, and it is more likely to test cases and essay questions.

Administrative Law and Nuclear Car Grilling Administrative Litigation Law Case Study Question Change, because this question is a genus, because this case is an administrative law type input method, here**? Therefore, even a fool can't understand these problems.

1.Is the administrative punishment imposed by the Industrial and Commercial Bureau on Li's illegal acts legal?

Legitimate. Because Li violated the law and should be punished.

2.Is the administrative penalty imposed by the Administration for Industry and Commerce on Li's illegal acts reasonable?

Irrationality. The punishment cannot be increased because he has been in prison.

3. Illegal gains shall be confiscated and a fine of 500 shall be imposed

China's people's courts hear administrative cases on the basis of facts and the law as the criterion. At the same time, the people's courts are to handle administrative cases in accordance with the law, and implement the system of collegiality, recusal, open trial, and final adjudication of both sides of the court. The people's courts exercise their adjudication power independently in administrative cases in accordance with law, and are not to be interfered with by administrative organs, social groups, or individuals.

2. Legal basis: Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 4: People's courts exercise adjudication power independently in administrative cases in accordance with law, and are not to be interfered with by administrative organs, social groups, or individuals.

The people's courts are to establish administrative tribunals to hear administrative cases.

Article 5: People's courts adjudicating administrative cases are based on the facts and the law is the measure.

Article 7: People's courts hearing administrative cases are to lawfully implement systems of collegial deliberation, recusal, open trial, and two-instance final adjudication.

Categories: Social, Cultural, >> Law.

Problem description: On August 13, 2002, a group of "special guests" were received at the Starlight Hotel in a certain city. After weighing the seafood they had ordered with their own scales, the guests showed their work cards: the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision, and pointed out that their seafood was short of two catties.

After the inspection, he took out a temporary handwritten note inspection certificate and asked the store to sign it, but the store felt that the situation was serious and did not sign it. The restaurant explained that the chef had confused the seafood in the two private rooms when he caught the seafood, and asked the chef to explain it to the inspectors himself. On August 24, the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision held a press conference, pointing out that after a secret investigation, it was found that a number of hotels and restaurants lacked two catties of seafood.

Major ** have reported on this. Starlight became the target of public criticism. On September 15, Starlight Hotel asked the court to rule that its act of circulating criticism was illegal on the grounds that the Municipal Quality and Technical Supervision Group's Bureau determined that its behavior of "deliberately missing catties and deducting consumers" had constituted administrative infringement, so that it could restore its reputation and eliminate the negative impact on Starlight.

Q: What is the point of contention in this case?

What kind of arguments should be made as a defendant?

What if it is a plaintiff? In what ways will they prosecute the defendants for their actions?

Thank you! Collapse shouting rush!!

Analysis: Because the bureau did not make an administrative penalty decision on the Starlight Hotel, the focus is on whether the behavior of the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision is an administrative act or a civil act, and the second is whether it is illegal.

As the defendant in his arguments, he should adduce all the evidence obtained, paying particular attention to the fact that the said incident was an act of the hotel and not an individual.

As a plaintiff, the defense should be based mainly on the personal conduct of the chef and not the conduct of the hotel. The hotel shall file a lawsuit with the People's Court against the Municipal Bureau of Quality and Technical Supervision for infringing on its right to reputation, request the defendant to restore its reputation, publicly apologize, and compensate for the economic losses caused to it.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. Article 69 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that where the evidence of an administrative act is conclusive, the laws and regulations are correctly applied, and the legal procedures are complied with, or the plaintiff's reasons for applying to the defendant for performing statutory duties or payment obligations are not sustained, the people's court shall make a judgment to reject the plaintiff's lawsuit. 2. Revoke the judgment.

Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that in any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall make a judgment to revoke or partially revoke an administrative act, and may make a judgment that the defendant shall take a new administrative act: (1) the main evidence is insufficient; (2) Applying laws and regulations incorrectly; (3) Violation of legal procedures; (4) exceeding authority; (5) Abuse of power; (6) Obviously improper. Article 71 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if a people's court makes a judgment that the defendant shall take a new administrative act, the defendant shall not take an administrative act that is basically the same as the original administrative act on the same facts and grounds.

When the court judgment is remade, the administrative organ must not use the same factual reasons to perform the same act as the original act, unless the main factual reasons change; The court revokes the original act on the grounds of violation of legal procedures. 3. Modification of judgment. Article 77 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the administrative punishment is obviously improper, or if the other administrative acts of the uproar involve the determination or determination of the amount, the people's court may make a judgment to modify it.

Modifications of people's court judgments must not increase the plaintiff's obligations or derogate from the plaintiff's rights and interests. However, the interested parties are also plaintiffs, and the litigation claims are opposite.

Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China: In any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall make a judgment to revoke or partially revoke an administrative act, and may make a judgment that the defendant shall make a new administrative act: (1) the main evidence is insufficient; (2) Applying laws and regulations incorrectly; (3) Violation of legal procedures; (4) exceeding authority; (5) Abuse of power; (6) Obviously improper.