[case]
Plaintiff: Xiong.
Defendant: B Town people's Government of A City.
Legal representative: Xiaomou, mayor.
On March 5, 2001, the public security team and agricultural technical station of the people's Government of Town B confiscated about 300 jin of male hybrid rice seeds and fined 200 yuan on the grounds that Xiong did not have a seed management license. On May 12 of the same year, the male two-night hybrid rice seeds were confiscated for about 1100 jin for the same reason, with a fine of 800 yuan. On June 2, 2001, the people's government of town B, accused of selling seeds beyond the scope of business, confiscated 58 jin of male two-night hybrid rice seeds for the third time. The seeds confiscated the first two times have been returned after Xiong paid a fine of 1000 yuan. now Xiong demands that the illegal specific administrative act of the government of town B be revoked, the fine of 1000 yuan and the confiscated seeds of 58 jin be returned, and the people's government of town B is asked to compensate for economic losses. on the grounds of apology, he filed an administrative lawsuit with the people's Court of A City.
The original told that: since the promulgation and implementation of China's seed Law, in early 2001, I applied to the Jiangxi seed Company to sell crop seeds with the provincial seed company. After the examination and approval of the provincial seed company, I issued a seed consignment certificate (Jiangxi Agricultural seed Commission No. 2001-80106), which was put on record by the seed management station of A City, and was issued with a business license for individual operation and consignment of seeds by the department of industry and commerce, allowing seeds to be sold on commission in Zhangxiang. On March 5, 2001, Zeng Bing, director of the agrotechnical station in B town, and seven people from the town security team confiscated about 300jin of my seeds in B town and fined 2000.And on May 12, they confiscated about 1100 jin of my seeds, fined 800yuan, and returned the confiscated seeds only after paying the fine twice, with a fine of 1000 yuan. On June 2, I confiscated 58 jin of seeds that I was going to bring to my father-in-law's house in Xiu City, so I sued to the court for revocation of the illegal and specific administrative acts of the defendant B town government, returned a fine of 1000 yuan and confiscated seeds of 58 jin, and compensated for economic losses of 8800 yuan. and ordered the defendant not to illegally interfere with my business autonomy in selling and managing seeds, and ordered the defendant B town government to restore the reputation of the plaintiff, eliminate the influence, and make an apology.
The defendant B town government argued that the reason for confiscating seeds at that time was that the plaintiff did not have a seed business license, and the third confiscation of seeds was because although the plaintiff had a seed business license at that time, the business scope was not in town B, but in town C. the plaintiff sold seeds beyond the business scope, and the town government did not illegally interfere with the plaintiff's seed management, but legally, and we did not say that the plaintiff was selling fake seeds. Mainly think that the plaintiff business procedures are not perfect, the sales area is not suitable, so the plaintiff's fine of 1000 yuan can not be refunded, confiscated 58 jin of seeds can not be returned, economic losses can not be compensated.
[trial]
The people's Court of A City held that the defendant fined the plaintiff 1000 yuan and confiscated 58 jin of seeds on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have a business license and that the business went beyond the regional scope. According to the provisions of Article 55, paragraph 1, of the seed Law of the people's Republic of China, the production and operation of seeds shall be managed by the competent departments of agriculture and forestry of the people's governments at the county level. Operators who have not obtained the business license for industry and commerce shall be under the administration of the administrative department for industry and commerce. On the grounds that the plaintiff did not obtain a seed business license and exceeded the scope of the business area, the plaintiff was investigated and dealt with by the town agricultural technical station and the security team, which exceeded its terms of reference and was an ultra vires act. The plaintiff's request to revoke the fine imposed by the B town government and the specific administrative act of confiscating seeds is in line with the relevant laws and regulations, and the court supports it. The plaintiff's claim for compensation for the loss of operating profits and compensation for transportation, missed work and other expenses has not been proved by the relevant evidence, and the court will not support it. If there is no legal basis, the court will not accept the litigation request to order the defendant to restore his reputation, eliminate the influence and make an apology. To this end, in accordance with the fourth purpose of Article 54, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, of the Administrative procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, the Court made a judgment on September 6, 2001:
First, revoke the specific administrative act of the defendant B town government fining the plaintiff Xiong 1000 yuan and confiscating 58 jin of Xiannong brand two-night hybrid rice seeds.
Second, the defendant B town government will refund the plaintiff Xiong's fine of 1000 yuan and Xiannong brand two-night hybrid rice seeds of 58 jin within 3 days after this judgment takes effect.
Other claims of the plaintiff shall not be supported.
After the verdict was pronounced in this case, both parties obeyed the verdict, and the judgment has come into force.
[comment]
In this case, the main focus of the dispute between the original and the defendant on the content of the punishment is whether the defendant is ultra vires and whether the defendant can bear tort liability.
(1) the question of whether the defendant has exceeded his or her functions and powers
Administrative powers are the qualifications of administrative agencies to carry out national administrative activities and are the basis for administration in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of Article 55, paragraph 1, of the Seed Law of the People's Republic of China,"the production and management of seeds shall be managed by the competent agricultural and forestry departments of the county-level people's governments. Operators who have not obtained industrial and commercial business licenses shall be managed by the industrial and commercial administrative department." The plaintiff Xiongmou has obtained a business license for selling seeds on a self-employed basis, and his act of selling seeds on a commission basis should be managed by the agricultural and forestry authorities of City A. However, the People's Government of Town B of City A does not have this power conferred by law, and the specific administrative actions it makes are acts that exceed its authority. The characteristics of transcending authority are: (1) The subject of administrative law enforcement may be a national administrative agency and its staff that exercises administrative powers and assumes responsibility for its actions, or it may be other organizations directly authorized by laws and regulations to exercise administrative functions and assume responsibility for it;(2) Subjectively Intentionally or negligently;(3) Objectively implemented specific administrative actions that exceed their powers;(4) This specific administrative act exceeds the scope of authority stipulated by law, or implements a specific administrative act that has no right to perform at all. The specific administrative act of confiscating seeds and imposing fines by the People's Government of Town B meets the above characteristics. Excess of authority is an illegal and invalid specific administrative act that should be revoked in accordance with the law.
(2) The issue of whether the plaintiff's requirement for the defendant to bear administrative tort liability can be established
According to the law, administrative agencies bear administrative tort liability in two ways: paying compensation, returning property, restoring the original condition and eliminating the impact, restoring reputation, and making an apology. In this case, the plaintiff not only required the defendant to compensate 8800 yuan for economic losses, but also required the defendant to apologize. So, should the defendant bear administrative tort liability in this case? The answer is obviously no. Because first of all, the plaintiff did not provide any relevant evidence to require the defendant to compensate for economic losses during the trial of this case, and there was no basis, the court did not support it. Secondly, according to Article 30 of the State Compensation Law, only if an illegal or illegal infringement of a citizen's personal freedom rights and causes damage to the victim's reputation and honor rights, the administrative agency should eliminate the impact of the infringement on the victim., restore reputation, and apologize. In this case, the defendant only decided to confiscate 58 kilograms of second-night hybrid rice seeds and impose a fine of 1000 yuan on the plaintiff, which involved the plaintiff's property rights and did not infringe on the plaintiff's personal freedom rights. Therefore, the court was correct not to support the plaintiff's request for compensation for losses and an apology.
