? Administrative inaction? As a special administrative subject of administrative behavior often harms the rights and interests of the administrative relative, the following is what I share with you about the public security administrative inaction case, welcome to read!
Public security administrative omission case 1:
The night of July 5, 2007 was Yuan Youbin, You Guohong, Wu Xiongbing, Xie Yue'e and other gangs of local black forces kidnapped, after repeated alarms, the defendant Jiujiang Municipal Public Security Bureau *** Qingcheng Branch received the police arrived at the scene, but did not stop and rescue, resulting in the plaintiff was unlawfully detained for up to four days. In the plaintiff was unlawfully detained during the July 7, 2007 afternoon, Yuan Youbin, tour country Hong, WuXiongBing, XieYueE, a group of people rushed to *** qingcheng yuguang clothing factory want to carry out coaxing, factory leaders and employees repeatedly to the defendant alarm seeking protection. The defendant received the police six or seven police arrived at the scene, but did not stop and protection, resulting in the plaintiff's machinery and equipment and other property was ransacked. July 10, 2007, the defendant jiujiang city public security bureau *** qingcheng sub-bureau in order to? misappropriation? This trumped-up charge of criminal detention of the plaintiff after the Procuratorate decided not to prosecute.
Therefore, the requirements of the defendant:
First, compensation for direct property losses 4379850 yuan (garment factory was robbed after the cost of property losses; the plaintiff was injured, due to the defendant to take coercive measures did not treat in a timely manner, resulting in the loss of part of the cost.)
Second, compensation for the plaintiff's father because of his criminal detention after being stimulated by the disability caused by the medical expenses, disability fees, etc. *** counted 520,000 yuan;
Third, bear all the costs of the litigation process.
Public security administrative inaction case article 2:
In early March 2011, Inner Mongolia Chifeng City, a flag county of Wang Moumou find Tang Feng Yuan lawyer, said in 1995 a foreign village with Wang Moumou the same age of the girl Liu Moumou exams no Mongolian identity (minority status has additional treatment), to borrow my account, Wang Moumou's mother to consider the relationship with the intermediary's close neighbors, but not open the face of the situation, the Wang Moumou's account book page lent out. After three days to return, the family did not pay attention. Waiting until June 2007, Wang Moumou in Liaoning Shenyang working back to the local for the second generation of identity cards, found that the household registration has been canceled, and the existence of another identity card number and Wang Moumou consistent, the same address, just a different photo of a woman's identity information.
To this end, Wang Moumou and her family repeatedly to find the local public security departments to give a solution, the local public security quickly gave her back to the account, and for the second generation of identity cards. When she returned to her part-time job in Liaoning to apply for a bank card, the bank checked and found that the photo on the network is still the woman's, so the bank did not give the bank card. In the past few years, she has borrowed her sister's identity information for business, which has brought great inconvenience to her life, and she is afraid of attracting trouble when she goes out to stay. And many times to find the local public security organs, the public security organs to large library information in the autonomous region of the Public Security Bureau, they can not do anything about it, and other reasons, so that the person concerned to find their own. The person himself contacted the Public Security Bureau many times, but only to wait. Under no circumstances, I want to solve the legal way.
Public security administrative omission case 3:
March 3, 2006 3:00 am, the victim Liu Weizhou passing through the city of Tianshui City, Gansu Province, Maiji District, Bridge South Boyang Road in front of the Agricultural Bank of Gansu Province Savings, by criminals Su Fotang, Wu Liqiang, Tong Bin roadblock robberies.
Liu Weizhou was stabbed and shouted for help, individual driver Hu, beauty center manager Liang heard the call for help, has used a cell phone at 4:02, 4:13, 4:20 minutes three times to dial ?110? phone call to the police, ?110? duty officer to let the ?120? phone call, ?120? to let the ?110? phone call. Liang mou at 4:24:20 (duration of 79 seconds) again to ?110? call the police, ?110? duty police officer on duty at 6:23:35 seconds telephone instructions to the Qiaonan police station out of the police.
At this time, the victim Liu Weizhou due to blood loss has died. The forensic medical identification: the victim Liu Weizhou is held by others with a sharp instrument piercing the femoral artery, resulting in hemorrhagic shock death. 2007 March, Tianshui City, Maijie District People's Court made a criminal verdict, found that Tianshui City Public Security Bureau Mai integral bureau?110?duty police officer Gao Mou guilty of negligence, exempted from criminal penalties. Gao appealed, the second trial upheld the original verdict. Tianshui City Intermediate People's Court also made a criminal incidental civil judgment, sentenced the defendant Su Futang, Wu Liqiang, Tong Bin to compensate Liu Weizhou corresponding death compensation and so on.
But because the defendant Su Fotang has been executed, no property available for execution; defendant Wu Liqiang, Tong Bin before serving his sentence on his parents, no property available for execution, Tianshui City Intermediate People's Court to the civil judgment to end the execution.
So, the victim Liu Weizhou's close relatives Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhong议, Zhang Fengxian five people in January 2009 to the public security organs of administrative inaction to Tianshui City Public Security Bureau of Mai Points Bureau of administrative compensation application, the Bureau made the decision not to administrative compensation.
Public security administrative omission case 4:July 9, 2004, the plaintiff reported to the defendant that: the plaintiff operated by the company and the company has business dealings with the Gnada, because the company issued blank checks to the Gnada, and the company is the main assets transferred and hidden, the company responsible for the person in charge and other employees have fled or demobilized, suspected of bill fraud, the request to pursue the company's criminal responsibility. On the same day, the defendant accepted the plaintiff's police, and launched an investigation and evidence collection work, and the relevant personnel to take retention measures. Afterwards, the defendant that the evidence in possession of the person in charge of the company can not be confirmed CaiZuLi have note fraud subjective intent, so did not take criminal coercive measures. 2004 November 4, the plaintiff to the defendant after receiving the report but did not immediately review the case, did not take any urgent measures for, to the defendant to file an application for compensation. 2004 December 22, the defendant to make the "confirmation of decision", rejected the defendant's application. On 22 December 2004, the defendant issued a "Confirmation Decision" rejecting the defendant's application. It was also established that on March 31, 2005, the Defendant issued a Decision on Opening a Case, deciding to open a case for investigation on the grounds of contract fraud. However, the defendant did not serve the plaintiff with the "decision to file". The plaintiff that the defendant is negligent and incorrect fulfillment of duties is administrative omission, and directly caused by its economic losses, then filed this lawsuit.
The trial that the administrative dispute is: 1, the defendant whether the "Criminal Procedure Law" expressly authorizes the act; 2, the plaintiff sued the defendant administrative omission of the grounds; 3, the defendant should be compensated for the plaintiff's losses. First of all, according to the supreme people's court on the implementation of the interpretation of the second paragraph of article 1? Citizens, legal persons or other organizations of the following acts of dissatisfaction with the lawsuit, does not belong to the scope of the people's court administrative litigation? :? (ii)? Acts carried out by public security, state security and other organs in accordance with the express authorization of the Criminal Procedure Law? , and Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China? The public security organs shall be responsible for investigating, detaining, arresting and pre-trial investigation of criminal cases? The provisions of the case, the defendant in July 9, 2004 accepted the plaintiff's criminal report, has been in accordance with the law to carry out investigation work, the relevant personnel to take measures to retain, and on March 31, 2005 to make the "case decision", to contract fraud investigation. The defendant's behavior belongs to the criminal justice act, which has implemented the law ? Acts carried out in accordance with the express authorization of the Criminal Procedure Law? , so this case does not belong to the scope of the people's court administrative litigation. Secondly, the defendant has fulfilled its statutory duties, there is no administrative omission. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not notify the plaintiff of the decision whether to file and negligence in the exercise of duties, because the "Chinese people's *** and state criminal procedure law", "the public security organs for criminal cases procedural provisions" does not set the public security organs of criminal investigation shall notify the accuser of the relevant procedures and take coercive measures, so the defendant's law enforcement procedures are not in violation of the legal provisions of the plaintiff's claim lack of legal basis shall be unsupported. The plaintiff's claim lacks legal basis, should not be supported.
Public security administrative omission cases related to the search content:
1. administrative omission of illegal state liability
2. leading cadres do not act as the experience
3. administrative omission of the reasons for the generation of what
4. The experience
5.