目录

1．余穗珠诉海南省三亚市国土环境资源局案

2．奚明强诉中华人民共和国公安部案

3．王宗利诉天津市和平区房地产管理局案

4．杨政权诉山东省肥城市房产管理局案

5．姚新金、刘天水诉福建省永泰县国土资源局案

6．张宏军诉江苏省如皋市物价局案

7．彭志林诉湖南省长沙县国土资源局案

8．钱群伟诉浙江省慈溪市掌起镇人民政府案

9．张良诉上海市规划和国土资源管理局案

10．如果爱婚姻服务有限公司诉中华人民共和国民政部案

一、余穗珠诉海南省三亚市国土环境资源局案

（一）基本案情

余穗珠在紧临三亚金冕混凝土有限公司海棠湾混凝土搅拌站旁种有30亩龙眼果树。为掌握搅拌站产生的烟尘对周围龙眼树开花结果的环境影响情况，于2013年6月8日请求三亚市国土环境资源局（以下简称三亚国土局）公开搅拌站相关环境资料，包括：三土环资察函[2011] 50号《关于建设项目环评审批文件执法监察查验情况的函》、三土环资察函[2011] 23号《关于行政许可事项执法监察查验情况的函》、三土环资监[2011] 422号《关于三亚金冕混凝土有限公司海棠湾混凝土搅拌站项目环评影响报告表的批复》、《三亚金冕混凝土有限公司海棠湾混凝土搅拌站项目环评影响报告表》。7月4日，三亚国土局作出《政府信息部分公开告知书》，同意公开422号文，但认为23号、50号文系该局内部事务形成的信息，不宜公开；《项目环评影响报告表》是企业文件资料，不属政府信息，也不予公开。原告提起行政诉讼，请求判令三亚国土局全部予以公开。

（二）裁判结果

三亚市城郊人民法院经审理认为，原告请求公开之信息包括了政府环境信息和企业环境信息。对此，应遵循的原则是:不存在法律法规规定不予公开的情形并确系申请人自身之生产、生活和科研特殊需要的，一般应予公开。本案原告申请公开的相关文件资料，是被告在履行职责过程中制作或者获取的，以一定形式记录、保存的信息，当然属于政府信息。被告未能证明申请公开之信息存在法定不予公开的情形而答复不予公开，属于适用法律法规错误。据此,判决撤销被告《政府信息部分公开告知书》中关于不予公开部分的第二项答复内容，限其依法按程序进行审查后重新作出答复。

一审判决后，余穗珠不服，提出上诉，二审期间主动撤回上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案的典型意义表现在三个方面：第一，对外获取的信息也是政府信息。本案涉及两类信息，一是行政机关获取的企业环境信息；二是行政机关制作的具有内部特征的信息。关于前者，根据《政府信息公开条例》的规定，政府信息不仅包括行政机关制作的信息，同样包括行政机关从公民、法人或者其他组织获取的信息。因此，本案中行政机关在履行职责过程中获取的企业环境信息同样属于政府信息。关于后者，本案行政机关决定不予公开的23号函和50号函，虽然文件形式表现为内部报告，但实质仍是行政管理职能的延伸，不属于内部管理信息。第二，例外法定。政府信息不公开是例外，例外情形应由法律法规明确规定。本案判决强调，凡属于政府信息，如不存在法定不予公开的事由，均应予以公开。被告未能证明申请公开的信息存在法定不予公开的情形，简单以政府内部信息和企业环境信息为由答复不予公开，属于适用法律错误。第三，行政机关先行判断。考虑到行政机关获取的企业环境信息可能存在涉及第三方商业秘密的情形，应当首先由行政机关在行政程序中作出判断，法院并未越俎代庖直接判决公开，而是责令行政机关重新作出是否公开的答复，体现了对行政机关首次判断权的尊重。

二、奚明强诉中华人民共和国公安部案

（一）基本案情

2012年5月29日，奚明强向中华人民共和国公安部（以下简称公安部）申请公开《关于实行“破案追逃”新机制的通知》（公通字〔1999〕91号）、《关于完善“破案追逃”新机制有关工作的通知》（公刑〔2002〕351号）、《日常“网上追逃”工作考核评比办法（修订）》（公刑〔2005〕403号）等三个文件中关于网上追逃措施适用条件的政府信息。2012年6月25日，公安部作出《政府信息公开答复书》，告知其申请获取的政府信息属于法律、法规、规章规定不予公开的其他情形。根据《政府信息公开条例》第十四条第四款的规定，不予公开。奚明强不服，在行政复议决定维持该答复书后，提起行政诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

北京市第二中级人民法院经审理认为，公安部受理奚明强的政府信息公开申请后，经调查核实后认定奚明强申请公开的《关于实行“破案追逃”新机制的通知》是秘密级文件；《关于完善“破案追逃”新机制有关工作的通知》、《日常“网上追逃”工作考核评比办法（修订）》系根据前者的要求制定，内容密切关联。公安部经进一步鉴别，同时认定奚明强申请公开的信息是公安机关在履行刑事司法职能、侦查刑事犯罪中形成的信息，且申请公开的文件信息属于秘密事项，应当不予公开。判决驳回奚明强的诉讼请求。

奚明强不服，提出上诉。北京市高级人民法院经审理认为，根据《政府信息公开条例》第二条规定，政府信息是指行政机关在履行职责过程中制作或者获取的，以一定形式记录、保存的信息。本案中，奚明强向公安部申请公开的三个文件及其具体内容，是公安部作为刑事司法机关履行侦查犯罪职责时制作的信息，依法不属于《政府信息公开条例》第二条所规定的政府信息。因此，公安部受理奚明强的政府信息公开申请后，经审查作出不予公开的被诉答复书，并无不当。判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三）典型意义

本案的焦点集中在追查刑事犯罪中形成的秘密事项的公开问题。根据《政府信息公开条例》第十四条的规定，行政机关不得公开涉及国家秘密的政府信息。《保守国家秘密法》第九条规定，“维护国家安全活动和追查刑事犯罪中的秘密事项”应当确定为国家秘密。本案中，一审法院认定原告申请公开的文件信息属于秘密事项，应当不予公开，符合前述法律规定。同时，公安机关具有行政机关和刑事司法机关的双重职能，其在履行刑事司法职能时制作的信息不属于《政府信息公开条例》第二条所规定的政府信息。本案二审法院在对公安机关的这两种职能进行区分的基础上，认定公安部作出不予公开答复并无不当，具有示范意义。

三、王宗利诉天津市和平区房地产管理局案

（一）基本案情

2011年10月10日，王宗利向天津市和平区人民政府信息公开办公室（以下简称和平区信息公开办）提出申请，要求公开和平区金融街公司与和平区土地整理中心签订的委托拆迁协议和支付给土地整理中心的相关费用的信息。2011年10月11日，和平区信息公开办将王宗利的申请转给和平区房地产管理局（以下简称和平区房管局），由和平区房管局负责答复王宗利。2011年10月，和平区房管局给金融街公司发出《第三方意见征询书》，要求金融街公司予以答复。2011年10月24日，和平区房管局作出了《涉及第三方权益告知书》，告知王宗利申请查询的内容涉及商业秘密，权利人未在规定期限内答复，不予公开。王宗利提起行政诉讼，请求撤销该告知书，判决被告依法在15日内提供其所申请的政府信息。

（二）裁判结果

天津市和平区人民法院经审理认为，和平区房管局审查王宗利的政府信息公开申请后，只给金融街公司发了一份第三方意见征询书，没有对王宗利申请公开的政府信息是否涉及商业秘密进行调查核实。在诉讼中，和平区房管局也未提供王宗利所申请政府信息涉及商业秘密的任何证据，使法院无法判断王宗利申请公开的政府信息是否涉及第三人的商业秘密。因此，和平区房管局作出的《涉及第三方权益告知书》证据不足，属明显不当。判决撤销被诉《涉及第三方权益告知书》，并要求和平区房管局在判决生效后30日内，重新作出政府信息公开答复。

一审宣判后，当事人均未上诉，一审判决发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

本案的焦点集中在涉及商业秘密的政府信息的公开问题以及征求第三方意见程序的适用。在政府信息公开实践中，行政机关经常会以申请的政府信息涉及商业秘密为理由不予公开，但有时会出现滥用。商业秘密的概念具有严格内涵，依据《反不正当竞争法》的规定，商业秘密是指不为公众知悉、能为权利人带来经济利益、具有实用性并经权利人采取保密措施的技术信息和经营信息。行政机关应当依此标准进行审查，而不应单纯以第三方是否同意公开作出决定。人民法院在合法性审查中，应当根据行政机关的举证作出是否构成商业秘密的判断。本案和平区房管局在行政程序中，未进行调查核实就直接主观认定申请公开的信息涉及商业秘密，在诉讼程序中，也没有向法院提供相关政府信息涉及商业秘密的证据和依据，导致法院无从对被诉告知书认定“涉及商业秘密”的事实证据进行审查，也就无法对该认定结论是否正确作出判断。基于此，最终判决行政机关败诉符合立法本意。该案例对于规范人民法院在政府信息公开行政案件中如何审查判断涉及商业秘密的政府信息具有典型示范意义。

四、杨政权诉山东省肥城市房产管理局案

（一）基本案情

2013年3月，杨政权向肥城市房产管理局等单位申请廉租住房，因其家庭人均居住面积不符合条件，未能获得批准。后杨政权申请公开经适房、廉租房的分配信息并公开所有享受该住房住户的审查资料信息（包括户籍、家庭人均收入和家庭人均居住面积等）。肥城市房产管理局于2013年4月15日向杨政权出具了《关于申请公开经适房、廉租住房分配信息的书面答复》，答复了2008年以来经适房、廉租房、公租房建设、分配情况，并告知，其中三批保障性住房人信息已经在肥城政务信息网、肥城市房管局网站进行了公示。杨政权提起诉讼，要求一并公开所有享受保障性住房人员的审查材料信息。

（二）裁判结果

泰安高新技术产业开发区人民法院经审理认为，杨政权要求公开的政府信息包含享受保障性住房人的户籍、家庭人均收入、家庭人均住房面积等内容，此类信息涉及公民的个人隐私，不应予以公开，判决驳回杨政权的诉讼请求。

杨政权不服，提起上诉。泰安市中级人民法院经审理认为，《廉租住房保障办法》、《经济适用住房管理办法》均确立了保障性住房分配的公示制度，《肥城市民政局、房产管理局关于经济适用住房、廉租住房和公共租赁住房申报的联合公告》亦规定，“社区（单位），对每位申请保障性住房人的家庭收入和实际生活状况进行调查核实并张榜公示，接受群众监督，时间不少于5日”。申请人据此申请保障性住房，应视为已经同意公开其前述个人信息。与此相关的政府信息的公开应适用《政府信息公开条例》第十四条第四款“经权利人同意公开的涉及个人隐私的政府信息可以予以公开”的规定。另，申请人申报的户籍、家庭人均收入、家庭人均住房面积等情况均是其能否享受保障性住房的基本条件，其必然要向主管部门提供符合相应条件的个人信息，以接受审核。当涉及公众利益的知情权和监督权与保障性住房申请人一定范围内的个人隐私相冲突时，应首先考量保障性住房的公共属性，使获得这一公共资源的公民让渡部分个人信息，既符合比例原则，又利于社会的监督和住房保障制度的良性发展。被告的答复未达到全面、具体的法定要求，因此判决撤销一审判决和被诉答复，责令被告自本判决发生法律效力之日起15个工作日内对杨政权的申请重新作出书面答复。

（三）典型意义

本案的焦点问题是享受保障性住房人的申请材料信息是否属于个人隐私而依法免于公开。该问题实质上涉及了保障公众知情权与保护公民隐私权两者发生冲突时的处理规则。保障性住房制度是政府为解决低收入家庭的住房问题而运用公共资源实施的一项社会福利制度，直接涉及到公共资源和公共利益。在房屋供需存有较大缺口的现状下，某个申请人获得保障性住房，会直接减少可供应房屋的数量，对在其后欲获得保障性住房的轮候申请人而言，意味着机会利益的减损。为发挥制度效用、依法保障公平，利害关系方的知情权与监督权应该受到充分尊重，其公开相关政府信息的请求应当得到支持。因此，在保障性住房的分配过程中，当享受保障性住房人的隐私权直接与竞争权人的知情权、监督权发生冲突时，应根据比例原则，以享受保障性住房人让渡部分个人信息的方式优先保护较大利益的知情权、监督权，相关政府信息的公开不应也不必以权利人的同意为前提。本案二审判决确立的个人隐私与涉及公共利益的知情权相冲突时的处理原则，符合法律规定，具有标杆意义。

五、姚新金、刘天水诉福建省永泰县国土资源局案

（一）基本案情

2013年3月20日，姚新金、刘天水通过特快专递，要求福建省永泰县国土资源局书面公开二申请人房屋所在区域地块拟建设项目的“一书四方案”，即建设用地项目呈报说明书、农用地转用方案、补充耕地方案、征收方案、供地方案。2013年5月28日，永泰县国土资源局作出《关于刘天水、姚新金申请信息公开的答复》，称：“你们所申请公开的第3项（拟建设项目的“一书四方案”），不属于公开的范畴。”并按申请表确定的通信地址将《答复》邮寄给申请人。2013年7月8日，姚新金、刘天水以永泰县国土资源局未就政府公开申请作出答复为由，提起行政诉讼。永泰县国土资源局答辩称：“一书四方案”系被告制作的内部管理信息，处在审查中的过程性信息，不属于《政府信息公开条例》所指应公开的政府信息，被告没有公开的义务。

（二）裁判结果

永泰县人民法院经审理认为，“一书四方案”系永泰县国土局在向上级有关部门报批过程中的材料，不属于信息公开的范围。虽然《答复》没有说明不予公开的理由，存在一定的瑕疵，但不足以否定具体行政行为的合法性。姚新金、刘天水要求被告公开“一书四方案”于法无据，判决驳回其诉讼请求。

姚新金、刘天水不服，提出上诉。福州市中级人民法院经审理认为，根据《土地管理法实施条例》第二十三条第一款第（二）项规定，永泰县国土资源局是“一书四方案”的制作机关，福建省人民政府作出征地批复后，有关“一书四方案”已经过批准并予以实施，不再属于过程性信息及内部材料，被上诉人不予公开没有法律依据。判决撤销一审判决，责令永泰县国土资源局限期向姚新金、刘天水公开“一书四方案”。

（三）典型意义

本案的焦点集中在过程性信息如何公开。《政府信息公开条例》确定的公开的例外仅限于国家秘密、商业秘密、个人隐私。《国务院办公厅关于做好政府信息依申请公开工作的意见》第二条第二款又规定：“……行政机关在日常工作中制作或者获取的内部管理信息以及处于讨论、研究或者审查中的过程性信息，一般不属于《条例》所指应公开的政府信息。”过程性信息一般是指行政决定作出前行政机关内部或行政机关之间形成的研究、讨论、请示、汇报等信息，此类信息一律公开或过早公开，可能会妨害决策过程的完整性，妨害行政事务的有效处理。但过程性信息不应是绝对的例外，当决策、决定完成后，此前处于调查、讨论、处理中的信息即不再是过程性信息，如果公开的需要大于不公开的需要，就应当公开。本案福建省人民政府作出征地批复后，当事人申请的“一书四方案”即已处于确定的实施阶段，行政机关以该信息属于过程性信息、内部材料为由不予公开，对当事人行使知情权构成不当阻却。二审法院责令被告期限公开，为人民法院如何处理过程信息的公开问题确立了典范。

六、张宏军诉江苏省如皋市物价局案

（一）基本案情

2009年5月26日，如皋市物价局印发皋价发[2009]28号“市物价局关于印发《行政处罚自由裁量权实施办法》的通知”。该文件包含附件“如皋市物价局行政处罚自由裁量权实施办法”，该实施办法第十条内容为“对《价格违法行为行政处罚规定》自由裁量处罚幅度详见附件一（2）”。

2013年1月9日，张宏军向如皋市物价局举报称，如皋市丁堰镇人民政府在信息公开事项中存在违规收费行为。该局接到举报后答复称，丁堰镇政府已决定将收取的31位农户的信息检索费、复印费共计480.5元予以主动退还，按照“如皋市物价局行政处罚自由裁量权实施办法”第九条第（三）项的规定，对其依法不予行政处罚。

2013年3月8日，张宏军向如皋市物价局提出政府信息公开申请，要求其公开“皋价发[2009]28号”文件。如皋市物价局答复称，该文件系其内部信息，不属于应当公开的政府信息范围，向原告提供该文件主文及附件“如皋市物价局行政处罚自由裁量权实施办法”，但未提供该文件的附件一（2）。张宏军不服，提起诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

如东县人民法院认为，本案的争议焦点为涉诉信息应否公开。首先，行政机关进行行政管理活动所制作和获取的信息，属于政府信息。行政机关单纯履行内部管理职责时所产生的信息属于内部管理信息。如皋市物价局称其对丁堰镇政府作出不予处罚决定的依据即为“皋价发[2009]28号”文件，在相关法律法规对某些具体价格违法行为所规定的处罚幅度较宽时，该文件是该局量罚的参照依据。可见，涉诉信息会对行政相对人的权利义务产生影响，是被告行使行政管理职责过程中所制作的信息，不属于内部管理信息。其次，涉诉信息是如皋市物价局根据该市具体情况针对不同的价格违法行为所作的具体量化处罚规定，根据《国务院关于加强市县政府依法行政的决定》（国发〔2008〕17号）第十八条的规定，针对行政裁量权所作的细化、量化标准应当予以公布，故涉诉信息属于应予公开的政府信息范畴。再次，如皋市物价局仅向张宏军公开涉诉文件的主文及附件“如皋市物价局行政处罚自由裁量权实施办法”，而未公开该文件的附件一（2），其选择性公开涉诉信息的部分内容缺乏法律依据。如皋市物价局应当全面、准确、完整地履行政府信息公开职责。据此判决被告于本判决生效之日起15个工作日内向原告公开“皋价发[2009]28号”文件的附件一（2）。

一审宣判后，当事人均未上诉，一审判决发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

该案涉及内部信息的界定问题。所谓内部信息，就是对外部不产生直接约束力的普遍政策阐述或对个案的非终极性意见。之所以要免除公开内部信息，目的是保护机构内部或不同机构之间的交流，从而使官员能够畅所欲言，毫无顾忌地表达自己的真实想法。本案中，如东县人民法院通过三个方面的分析，确认涉诉政府信息是被告行使行政管理职责过程中所制作的信息，是对价格违法行为进行量化处罚的依据，会对行政相对人的权利义务产生影响，因而不应属于内部信息。同时，判决对行政机关公开政府信息的标准进行了严格审查，明确要求行政机关应当准确、完整、全面履行政府信息公开职责，不能随意地选择性公开。这些都具有较大的参考价值。

七、彭志林诉湖南省长沙县国土资源局案

（一）基本案情

2012年10月6日，彭志林向长沙县国土资源局提出政府信息公开申请，申请获取本组村民高细贵建房用地审批信息。11月28日，长沙县国土资源局作出答复：根据《档案法实施办法》第二十五条的规定，集体和个人寄存于档案馆和其他单位的档案，任何单位和个人不得擅自公布，如需公布必须征得档案所有者的同意。故查询高细贵建房用地审批资料必须依照上述法律规定到本局档案室办理。同时建议如反映高细贵建房一户两证的问题，可以直接向局信访室和执法监察大队进行举报，由受理科、室负责依法办理。彭志林不服，提起诉讼，请求法院撤销被告作出的答复，并责令被告公开相关信息。

（二）裁判结果

长沙县人民法院经审理认为，根据《最高人民法院关于审理政府信息公开行政案件若干问题的规定》第七条的规定，原告申请的政府信息系保存在被告的档案室，并未移交给专门的档案馆，被告长沙县国土资源局依法应适用《政府信息公开条例》的规定对原告申请公开的信息进行答复，而被告在答复中却适用《档案法实施办法》的相关规定进行答复，属于适用法律、法规错误，依法应予撤销。原告申请公开的信息是否应当提供，尚需被告调查和裁量，故原告该项诉讼请求不予支持。判决撤销被诉答复，责令被告30个工作日内重新予以答复。长沙县国土资源局不服，提出上诉，长沙市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案的焦点集中在档案信息的公开问题。政府信息与档案之间有一定的前后演变关系。对于已经移交各级国家档案馆或者存放在行政机关的档案机构的行政信息，是应当适用《政府信息公开条例》，还是适用档案管理的法规、行政法规和国家有关规定，存在一个法律适用的竞合问题。《最高人民法院关于审理政府信息公开行政案件若干问题的规定》第七条，将已经移交国家档案馆的信息与存放在行政机关档案机构的信息加以区分处理，有利于防止行政机关以适用档案管理法规为借口规避政府信息的公开。本案很好地适用了这一规则，认定被告在答复中适用《档案法实施办法》不予公开政府信息，属于适用法律、法规错误。同时，法院考虑到涉案政府信息是否应当提供，尚需被告调查和裁量，因此判决其重新答复，亦属对行政机关首次判断权的尊重。

八、钱群伟诉浙江省慈溪市掌起镇人民政府案

（一）基本案情

钱群伟于2013年1月17日向慈溪市掌起镇人民政府邮寄政府信息公开申请书，申请公布柴家村2000年以来的村民宅基地使用的审核情况、村民宅基地分配的实际名单及宅基地面积和地段，柴家村的大桥拆迁户全部名单及分户面积，柴家村大桥征地拆迁户中货币安置户的全部名单及分户面积，在柴家村建房的外村人员的全部名单及实际住户名单，并注明其建房宅基地的来龙去脉。2013年4月10日，慈溪市掌起镇人民政府作出《信访事项答复意见书》，其中关于信息公开的内容为：“柴家村大桥拆迁涉及拆迁建筑共367处，其中，拆迁安置317户，货币安置16户。上述信息所涉及的相关事宜已通过相关程序办理，且已通过一定形式予以公布，被相关公众所知悉。”钱群伟对此答复不服，提起诉讼。认为该答复是“笼统的，不能说明任何问题的信息，与原告所要求公开的信息根本不符，实质上等于拒绝公开”。

（二）裁判情况

慈溪市人民法院经审理认为，被诉答复内容仅对少量的政府信息公开申请作出了答复，对其他政府信息公开申请既没有答复，亦没有告知原告获取该政府信息的方式和途径，而且被告在诉讼中未向本院提供其作出上述答复的相应证据，故应认定被告作出的答复主要证据不足。被告辩称，《政府信息公开条例》于2008年5月1日起才实施，在此之前的政府信息不能公开。法院认为，原告申请公开政府信息时，该条例早已实施。针对原告的申请，被告应当依据该条例的相关规定作出答复。如原告申请公开的政府信息属于不予公开范围的，被告应当告知原告并说明理由。况且，被告认为该条例施行之前的政府信息不能公开，缺乏法律依据。故被告上述辩称意见，理由并不成立，不予采信。判决撤销被告慈溪市掌起镇人民政府作出的政府信息公开答复；责令其在判决生效之日起30日内对钱群伟提出的政府信息公开申请重新作出处理。

一审宣判后，当事人均未上诉，一审判决发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

本案的焦点集中在历史信息的公开问题。所谓历史信息，是指《政府信息公开条例》施行前已经形成的政府信息。虽然在立法过程中确有一些机关和官员希望能够将历史信息排除在适用范围之外，但《政府信息公开条例》对政府信息的定义并没有将信息的形成时间进行限定，亦未将历史信息排除在公开的范围之外。本案判决确认“被告认为该条例施行之前的政府信息不能公开，缺乏法律依据”，符合立法本意。至于“法不溯及既往”原则，指的是法律文件的规定仅适用于法律文件生效以后的事件和行为，对于法律文件生效以前的事件和行为不适用。就本案而言，所谓的事件和行为，也就是原告依照条例的规定申请公开政府信息，以及行政机关针对申请作出答复。本案判决指出，“原告申请公开政府信息时，该条例早已实施”，就是对“法不溯及既往”原则的正确理解。

九、张良诉上海市规划和国土资源管理局案

（一）基本案情

2013年2月19日，张良向上海市规划和国土资源管理局申请获取“本市116地块项目土地出让金缴款凭证”政府信息。上海市规划和国土资源管理局经至其档案中心以“缴款凭证”为关键词进行手工查找，未找到名为“缴款凭证”的116地块土地出让金缴款凭证的政府信息，遂认定其未制作过原告申请获取的政府信息，根据《政府信息公开条例》第二十一条第（三）项答复张良，其申请公开的政府信息不存在。张良不服，提起诉讼，要求撤销该政府信息公开答复。

（二）裁判结果

上海市黄浦区人民法院经审理认为：原告申请公开的相关缴款凭证，应泛指被告收取土地使用权受让人缴纳本市116地块国有土地使用权出让金后形成的书面凭证。在日常生活中，这种证明缴纳款项凭证的名称或许为缴款凭证，或许为收据、发票等，并不局限于缴款凭证的表述。原告作为普通公民，认为其无法知晓相关缴款凭证的规范名称，仅以此缴款凭证描述其申请获取的政府信息内容的主张具有合理性。而与之相对应，被告系本市土地行政管理部门，应知晓其收取土地使用权出让金后开具给土地使用权受让人的凭证的规范名称，但在未与原告确认的前提下，擅自认为原告仅要求获取名称为缴款凭证的相关政府信息，并仅以缴款凭证为关键词至其档案中心进行检索，显然检索方式失当，应为未能尽到检索义务，据此所认定的相关政府信息不存在的结论，也属认定事实不清，证据不足。判决撤销被诉政府信息公开答复，责令被告重新作出答复。

一审宣判后，当事人均未上诉，一审判决发生法律效力。

（三）典型意义

本案涉及政府信息公开的两项重要制度，一是申请人在提交信息公开申请时应该尽可能详细地对政府信息的内容进行描述，以有利于行政机关进行检索。二是政府信息不存在的行政机关不予提供。本案在处理这两个问题时所采取的审查标准值得借鉴。也就是，行政机关以信息不存在为由拒绝提供政府信息的，应当证明其已经尽到了合理检索义务。申请人对于信息内容的描述，也不能苛刻其必须说出政府信息的规范名称甚至具体文号。如果行政机关仅以原告的描述为关键词进行检索，进而简单答复政府信息不存在，亦属未能能尽到检索义务。

十、如果爱婚姻服务有限公司诉中华人民共和国民政部案

（一）基本案情

2013年1月28日，石家庄市如果爱婚姻服务有限公司(以下简称如果爱公司)请求中华人民共和国民政部（以下简称民政部）向其书面公开中国婚姻家庭研究会的社会团体登记资料、年检资料、社会团体法人登记证书及对中国婚姻家庭研究会涉嫌欺诈行为的查处结果。民政部接到如果爱公司的申请后，未在法定的15日期限内作出答复。在行政复议期间，民政部于2013年4月26日向申请人作出《政府信息告知书》。如果爱公司不服，提起行政诉讼。

（二）裁判结果

北京市第二中级人民法院经审理认为，民政部认为如果爱公司申请的该政府信息属于公开范围，遂答复如果爱公司获取该政府信息的方式和途径，即登录中国社会组织网查询并附上网址，并无不当。民政部在《政府信息告知书》中并未引用相关法律条款，导致该被诉具体行政行为适用法律错误，应予撤销。作出《政府信息告知书》超过法定答复期限，且没有依法延长答复的批准手续，属程序违法。此外，在作出对外发生法律效力的《政府信息告知书》时，应以民政部的名义作出，并加盖民政部公章。综上，判决撤销民政部所作《政府信息告知书》，并判决民政部应于本判决生效之日起60日内针对如果爱公司的政府信息公开申请重新作出具体行政行为。

如果爱公司不服，提出上诉。北京市高级人民法院经审理认为，民政部认定中国婚姻家庭研究会的社会团体登记情况、历年年检情况属于公开信息，并告知如果爱公司登录中国社会组织网查询。但通过前述网址查询到的内容显然不能涵盖如果爱公司申请公开的中国婚姻家庭研究会的社会团体登记资料、年检资料所对应的信息。对于中国社会组织网查询结果以外的，中国婚姻家庭研究会的其他社会团体登记资料、年检资料信息，民政部未在被诉告知书中予以答复，亦未说明理由，其处理构成遗漏政府信息公开申请请求事项的情形。同时，尽管民政部不保留登记证书的原件及副本，但作为全国性社会团体的登记机关，民政部应当掌握中国婚姻家庭研究会登记证书上记载的相关信息。民政部在未要求如果爱公司对其申请事项予以进一步明确的情况下，仅告知其不保留登记证书原件及副本，未尽到审查答复义务。一审法院关于民政部答复内容并无不当的认定错误，本院予以纠正。民政部作出被诉告知书明显超过法定期限，且无依法延长答复期限的批准手续，民政部在复议程序中已经确认超期答复违法，本院予以确认。此外，被诉告知书有可援引的法律依据而未援引，应属适用法律错误。民政部作为政府信息公开义务主体，应以其自身名义对外作出政府信息公开答复。综上，判决驳回上诉，维持一审判决。

（三）典型意义

本案涉及主动公开和依申请公开的关系以及行政机关应当充分履行告知义务问题。政府信息公开的方式包括主动公开和依申请公开，两者相辅相成，互为补充。对于已经主动公开的政府信息，行政机关可以不重复公开，但应当告知申请人获取该政府信息的方式和途径。本案中，被告虽然在复议期间告知申请人可以查询信息的网址，但登陆该网址仅能查询到部分信息，二审判决认定其遗漏了申请中未主动公开的相关信息，构成未完全尽到公开义务，是对《政府信息公开条例》的正确理解，从而对行政机关是否充分履行告知义务进而完全尽到公开义务确立了比较明确的司法审查标准。此外，行政机关不予公开政府信息，应当援引具体的法律条款并说明理由。本案判决认定被告有可援引的法律依据而未援引，属于适用法律错误，能够敦促行政机关规范政府信息公开的法律适用，增强政府信息公开的说理性。判决还针对行政机关超期答复和答复主体不当等问题作出确认，也有利于促进政府信息公开答复形式与程序的规范化。

catalogue

1. Yu Suizhu v. Sanya Municipal Bureau of Land, Environment and Resources, Hainan Province

2. Xi Mingqiang v. Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China

3. Wang Zongli v. Tianjin Heping District Real Estate Management Bureau

4. Yang Regime v. Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau in Shandong Province

5. Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui v. Yongtai County Land and Resources Bureau, Fujian Province

6. Zhang Hongjun v. Price Bureau of Rugao City, Jiangsu Province

7. Peng Zhilin v. Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau, Hunan Province

8. Qian Qunwei v. People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, Zhejiang Province

9. Zhang Liang v. Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources Management

10. If Love Marriage Service Co., Ltd. sues the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China

1、 Yu Suizhu v. Sanya Municipal Bureau of Land, Environment and Resources, Hainan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

Yu Suizhu has planted 30 acres of longan fruit trees next to the Haitang Bay concrete mixing plant of Sanya Jinmian Concrete Co., Ltd. In order to understand the environmental impact of the smoke and dust generated by the mixing plant on the flowering and fruiting of surrounding longan trees, on June 8, 2013, the Sanya Municipal Bureau of Land, Environment and Resources (hereinafter referred to as the Sanya Bureau of Land and Resources) was requested to publicly disclose the relevant environmental information of the mixing plant, including the "Letter on the Law Enforcement, Supervision and Inspection of Environmental Impact Assessment Approval Documents for Construction Projects" issued by Santu Huanzi Cha Han [2011] No. 50 San Tu Huan Zi Cha Han [2011] No. 23 "Letter on the Law Enforcement, Supervision and Inspection of Administrative Licensing Matters", San Tu Huan Zi Jian [2011] No. 422 "Reply on the Environmental Impact Assessment Report Form of Sanya Jinmian Concrete Co., Ltd. Haitang Bay Concrete Mixing Station Project", and "Sanya Jinmian Concrete Co., Ltd. Haitang Bay Concrete Mixing Station Project Environmental Impact Assessment Report Form". On July 4th, the Sanya Land and Resources Bureau issued a "Notice on Partial Disclosure of Government Information", agreeing to disclose Document No. 422, but believing that Documents No. 23 and No. 50 were formed by the internal affairs of the bureau and should not be disclosed; The "Project Environmental Impact Assessment Report Form" is a corporate document and is not government information, nor is it publicly available. The plaintiff filed an administrative lawsuit requesting that the Sanya Land and Resources Bureau make all of it public.

（2） Judgment results

The Suburban People's Court of Sanya City held that the information requested by the plaintiff for disclosure includes government environmental information and enterprise environmental information. The principle to be followed in this regard is that there is no situation where laws and regulations prohibit disclosure and it is indeed the applicant's own production, living, and research special needs, which should generally be made public. The relevant documents and materials applied for public disclosure by the plaintiff in this case are information produced or obtained by the defendant in the process of fulfilling their duties, recorded and preserved in a certain form, and of course, belong to government information. The defendant's failure to prove that the information applied for disclosure is legally prohibited and their response to not disclosing it is an error in the application of laws and regulations. Based on this, the judgment revokes the second response in the defendant's "Notice on the Disclosure of Government Information Part" regarding the non disclosure part, and restricts them to make a new response after reviewing according to the procedure in accordance with the law.

After the first instance judgment, Yu Suizhu was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. During the second instance, she voluntarily withdrew her appeal.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is reflected in three aspects: firstly, the information obtained from external sources is also government information. This case involves two types of information: firstly, enterprise environmental information obtained by administrative agencies; The second is the information produced by administrative agencies with internal characteristics. Regarding the former, according to the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, government information not only includes information produced by administrative agencies, but also includes information obtained by administrative agencies from citizens, legal persons, or other organizations. Therefore, the enterprise environmental information obtained by the administrative agency in the process of fulfilling its duties in this case also belongs to government information. Regarding the latter, the administrative organs in this case have decided not to disclose the letters 23 and 50, although they appear as internal reports, their essence is still an extension of administrative management functions and does not belong to internal management information. Secondly, exceptions are statutory. Non disclosure of government information is an exception, and exceptions should be clearly defined by laws and regulations. The judgment in this case emphasizes that all government information should be made public if there are no legal reasons for not disclosing it. The defendant failed to prove that the information applied for disclosure was legally not disclosed, and simply replied that it was not disclosed on the grounds of government internal information and enterprise environmental information, which is an applicable legal error. Thirdly, administrative agencies make judgments first. Considering that the environmental information of enterprises obtained by administrative agencies may involve third-party trade secrets, it should first be judged by the administrative agency in the administrative procedure. The court did not overstep its authority to directly make a public judgment, but ordered the administrative agency to make a new response on whether to make a public decision, reflecting respect for the administrative agency's right to make the first judgment.

2、 Xi Mingqiang v. Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 29, 2012, Xi Mingqiang applied to the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Ministry of Public Security) for the publication of the "Notice on Implementing a New Mechanism for" Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes "(Gong Tong Zi [1999] No. 91)," Notice on Improving the Work Related to the New Mechanism for "Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes" (Gong Xing [2002] No. 351) The government information on the application conditions of online pursuit and evasion measures in three documents, including the "Evaluation and Evaluation Measures for Daily Online Pursuit and Escape Work (Revised)" (Gong Xing [2005] No. 403). On June 25, 2012, the Ministry of Public Security issued a "Reply to Government Information Disclosure", informing them that the government information they applied to obtain belongs to other situations that are not allowed to be disclosed according to laws, regulations, and rules. According to Article 14 (4) of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, it shall not be disclosed. Xi Mingqiang was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit after the administrative reconsideration decision upheld the response.

（2） Judgment results

The Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held that after accepting Xi Mingqiang's application for government information disclosure, the Ministry of Public Security, after investigation and verification, determined that Xi Mingqiang's "Notice on Implementing a New Mechanism of" Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes "applied for disclosure was a secret level document; The "Notice on Improving the New Mechanism of" Solving Cases and Pursuing Escapes "and the" Evaluation and Evaluation Measures for Daily "Online Pursuing Escapes" (Revised) "are formulated based on the requirements of the former and are closely related in content. After further identification, the Ministry of Public Security has determined that the information Xi Mingqiang applied for public disclosure is information formed by the public security organs in fulfilling their criminal judicial functions and investigating criminal crimes, and the file information applied for public disclosure belongs to confidential matters and should not be disclosed. The judgment rejected Xi Mingqiang's lawsuit request.

Xi Mingqiang was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court held that according to Article 2 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, government information refers to information produced or obtained by administrative agencies in the process of fulfilling their duties, recorded and preserved in a certain form. In this case, Xi Mingqiang applied to the Ministry of Public Security for the disclosure of three documents and their specific contents, which were information produced by the Ministry of Public Security as a criminal judicial organ in fulfilling its responsibility to investigate crimes. According to law, they do not belong to the government information stipulated in Article 2 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information. Therefore, after accepting Xi Mingqiang's application for government information disclosure, the Ministry of Public Security, after examination, issued a response not to be disclosed, which was not inappropriate. The judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of secret matters formed in the pursuit of criminal offenses. According to Article 14 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, administrative agencies shall not disclose government information involving state secrets. Article 9 of the Law on Guarding State Secrets stipulates that "secret matters in the maintenance of national security activities and the investigation of criminal offenses" shall be determined as state secrets. In this case, the first instance court determined that the document information applied for by the plaintiff to be disclosed is a confidential matter and should not be disclosed, in accordance with the aforementioned legal provisions. At the same time, public security organs have dual functions as administrative organs and criminal justice organs, and the information they produce during the performance of criminal justice functions does not belong to the government information specified in Article 2 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information. On the basis of distinguishing between these two functions of public security organs, the second instance court of this case found that the Ministry of Public Security's decision not to respond publicly was not inappropriate and had exemplary significance.

3、 Wang Zongli v. Tianjin Heping District Real Estate Management Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 10, 2011, Wang Zongli submitted an application to the Information Disclosure Office of the People's Government of Heping District, Tianjin (hereinafter referred to as the Heping District Information Disclosure Office), requesting the disclosure of information on the entrusted demolition agreement signed between the Heping District Financial Street Company and the Heping District Land Consolidation Center, as well as the relevant fees paid to the Land Consolidation Center. On October 11, 2011, the Peace Zone Information Disclosure Office forwarded Wang Zongli's application to the Peace Zone Real Estate Management Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Peace Zone Housing Management Bureau), which was responsible for responding to Wang Zongli. In October 2011, the Heping District Housing Management Bureau issued a "Third Party Consultation Letter" to the Financial Street Company, requesting a response from the Financial Street Company. On October 24, 2011, the Housing Management Bureau of Heping District issued a "Notice on the Involvement of Third Party Rights and Interests", informing Wang Zongli that the content of the application for inquiry involved trade secrets, and the rights holder did not respond within the specified time limit and would not be made public. Wang Zongli filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting the revocation of the notice, and ordered the defendant to provide the government information requested within 15 days in accordance with the law.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Heping District, Tianjin found that after reviewing Wang Zongli's application for government information disclosure, the Heping District Housing Management Bureau only sent a third-party opinion consultation letter to the Financial Street Company, and did not investigate and verify whether Wang Zongli's application for government information disclosure involved commercial secrets. In the lawsuit, the Heping District Housing Management Bureau also did not provide any evidence that Wang Zongli's application for government information involved trade secrets, making it impossible for the court to determine whether the government information Wang Zongli applied for disclosure involved trade secrets of third parties. Therefore, the evidence provided by the Housing Management Bureau of Heping District regarding the Notification of Third Party Rights and Interests is insufficient and clearly inappropriate. The judgment revokes the defendant's "Notice Concerning Third Party Rights and Interests" and requires the Heping District Housing Management Bureau to provide a new government information disclosure response within 30 days after the judgment takes effect.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of government information related to trade secrets and the application of the procedure for soliciting third-party opinions. In the practice of government information disclosure, administrative agencies often refuse to disclose the applied government information on the grounds that it involves trade secrets, but sometimes there is abuse. The concept of trade secrets has strict connotations. According to the Anti Unfair Competition Law, trade secrets refer to technical and business information that is not known to the public, can bring economic benefits to the rights holder, has practicality, and has been subject to confidentiality measures by the rights holder. Administrative agencies should conduct reviews based on this standard, rather than relying solely on whether third parties agree to make public decisions. In the legality review, the people's court shall make a judgment on whether it constitutes a trade secret based on the evidence provided by the administrative organ. In the administrative proceedings of this case, the Housing Management Bureau of Heping District directly and subjectively determined that the information applied for disclosure involved trade secrets without conducting investigation and verification. In the litigation proceedings, there was also no evidence and basis provided to the court for the relevant government information involving trade secrets, resulting in the court being unable to review the factual evidence of the defendant's determination of "involving trade secrets", and thus unable to make a judgment on whether the determination conclusion is correct. Based on this, the final judgment that the administrative agency lost the lawsuit is in line with the legislative intent. This case has typical exemplary significance for regulating how people's courts review and judge government information involving trade secrets in administrative cases of government information disclosure.

4、 Yang Regime v. Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau in Shandong Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

In March 2013, Yang regime applied for low rent housing to Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau and other units, but was unable to obtain approval due to the per capita living area of his family not meeting the conditions. Hou Yang's regime applied to disclose the distribution information of affordable housing and low rent housing and the review information of all households enjoying the housing (including registered residence, per capita income of families and per capita living area of families). On April 15, 2013, the Feicheng City Real Estate Management Bureau issued a written response to the Yang regime regarding the application for disclosure of information on the allocation of affordable housing and low-rent housing. It replied to the construction and distribution of affordable housing, low-rent housing, and public rental housing since 2008, and informed that the information of three batches of affordable housing owners has been publicly disclosed on the Feicheng Government Information Network and the Feicheng City Housing Management Bureau website. The Yang regime filed a lawsuit demanding that the review materials and information of all individuals who enjoy affordable housing be publicly disclosed.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tai'an High tech Industrial Development Zone held after hearing that the government information required by Yang regime to be disclosed includes the registered residence, per capita income, per capita housing area of the family and other contents of the people enjoying affordable housing. Such information involves the personal privacy of citizens and should not be disclosed. The court rejected Yang regime's lawsuit.

The Yang regime was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Tai'an City believes that both the "Measures for the Guarantee of Low Rent Housing" and the "Measures for the Administration of Affordable Housing" have established a public notice system for the distribution of affordable housing. The "Joint Announcement of the Feicheng Civil Affairs Bureau and the Real Estate Management Bureau on the Application of Affordable Housing, Low Rent Housing, and Public Rental Housing" also stipulates that:, The community (unit) shall investigate and verify the household income and actual living conditions of each applicant for affordable housing, and make a public announcement, and accept public supervision for no less than 5 days. The applicant applying for affordable housing based on this shall be deemed to have agreed to disclose their aforementioned personal information. The disclosure of government information related to this shall be subject to the provisions of Article 14 (4) of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, which states that government information related to personal privacy that is publicly disclosed with the consent of the rights holder may be made public. In addition, the registered residence, per capita family income, per capita housing area and other information declared by the applicant are the basic conditions for the applicant to enjoy the affordable housing, and he must provide the competent department with personal information that meets the corresponding conditions for review. When the right to information and supervision involving the public interest conflicts with the personal privacy of affordable housing applicants within a certain range, the public nature of affordable housing should be considered first, so that citizens who obtain this public resource can transfer some personal information, which not only conforms to the principle of proportionality, but also benefits the healthy development of social supervision and housing security system. The defendant's response did not meet the comprehensive and specific legal requirements. Therefore, the first instance judgment and the defendant's response were revoked, and the defendant was ordered to provide a new written response to Yang's application within 15 working days from the date of legal effect of this judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is whether the application materials and information of individuals who enjoy affordable housing belong to personal privacy and are exempt from disclosure according to law. This issue essentially involves the handling rules when there is a conflict between protecting the public's right to know and protecting citizens' privacy rights. The affordable housing system is a social welfare system implemented by the government using public resources to solve the housing problems of low-income families, which directly involves public resources and public interests. In the current situation of a significant gap in housing supply and demand, obtaining affordable housing for an applicant will directly reduce the number of available housing, which means a reduction in opportunity benefits for waiting applicants who wish to obtain affordable housing in the future. In order to exert the effectiveness of the system and ensure fairness in accordance with the law, the right to know and supervision of stakeholders should be fully respected, and their requests to disclose relevant government information should be supported. Therefore, in the allocation process of affordable housing, when the privacy rights of those who enjoy affordable housing directly conflict with the right to know and supervise those who have the right to compete, priority should be given to protecting the right to know and supervise those who have a greater interest by transferring some personal information to those who enjoy affordable housing according to the principle of proportionality. The disclosure of relevant government information should not and does not need to be based on the consent of the rights holders. The principle of handling conflicts between personal privacy and the right to information related to public interests established in the second instance of this case is in line with legal provisions and has benchmark significance.

5、 Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui v. Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County, Fujian Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 20, 2013, Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui requested the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County, Fujian Province to publicly disclose in writing the "one book and four plans" for the proposed construction project in the area where the second applicant's house is located, including the construction land project submission manual, agricultural land conversion plan, supplementary farmland plan, expropriation plan, and land supply plan. On May 28, 2013, the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County issued a response regarding Liu Tianshui and Yao Xinjin's application for information disclosure, stating: "The third item you applied for disclosure (the" one book, four plans "for the proposed construction project) does not fall within the scope of disclosure And mail the 'Reply' to the applicant according to the communication address determined in the application form. On July 8, 2013, Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui filed an administrative lawsuit on the grounds that the Yongtai County Land and Resources Bureau did not respond to the government's public application. The Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County defended that the "One Book, Four Plans" are internal management information produced by the defendant, which is under review and does not belong to the government information that should be disclosed under the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure". The defendant has no obligation to disclose it.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Yongtai County held that the "One Book, Four Plans" were materials submitted by the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County to the relevant higher-level departments for approval, and were not within the scope of information disclosure. Although the Reply does not provide a reason for not disclosing it and has certain flaws, it is not sufficient to deny the legality of specific administrative actions. Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui demanded that the defendant disclose the "One Book, Four Plans" without legal basis, and the judgment rejected their lawsuit request.

Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui were dissatisfied and appealed. After trial, the Intermediate People's Court of Fuzhou City held that according to Article 23, Paragraph 1 (2) of the Implementation Regulations of the Land Management Law, the Land and Resources Bureau of Yongtai County is the production agency of the "One Book, Four Plans". After the Fujian Provincial People's Government issued an approval for land acquisition, the "One Book, Four Plans" have been approved and implemented, and are no longer procedural information or internal materials. The appellant's refusal to disclose them has no legal basis. The judgment revoked the first instance judgment and ordered Yongtai County to disclose the "One Book, Four Plans" to Yao Xinjin and Liu Tianshui during the limited period of land and resources.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on how to disclose procedural information. The exceptions for disclosure determined by the Government Information Disclosure Regulations are limited to state secrets, trade secrets, and personal privacy. The second paragraph of Article 2 of the "Opinions of the General Office of the State Council on Doing a Good Job in the Disclosure of Government Information According to Applications" also stipulates: "... The internal management information produced or obtained by administrative organs in their daily work, as well as the process information under discussion, research or review, generally do not belong to the government information that should be disclosed within the scope of the" Regulations " Procedural information generally refers to research, discussions, requests, reports, and other information formed within or between administrative agencies prior to the making of administrative decisions. Such information may be made public or prematurely disclosed, which may hinder the integrity of the decision-making process and the effective handling of administrative affairs. However, procedural information should not be an absolute exception. After the decision is made, information that was previously under investigation, discussion, or processing is no longer procedural information. If the need for disclosure outweighs the need for non disclosure, it should be made public. After the Fujian Provincial People's Government issued an approval for land acquisition in this case, the "one document, four plans" applied for by the parties were already in the determined implementation stage. The administrative authorities refused to disclose the information on the grounds that it belonged to process information and internal materials, which constituted an improper obstruction to the parties' exercise of their right to know. The second instance court ordered the defendant to make the deadline public, setting a model for the people's court to handle the issue of process information disclosure.

6、 Zhang Hongjun v. Price Bureau of Rugao City, Jiangsu Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On May 26, 2009, the Price Bureau of Rugao City issued the Notice of the Price Bureau on Issuing the "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power" (Gaojingfa [2009] No. 28). This document contains the attachment "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Price Bureau". Article 10 of the implementation measures reads "The discretionary punishment range for the Administrative Penalty Provisions on Price Violations is detailed in Attachment 1 (2)".

On January 9, 2013, Zhang Hongjun reported to the Price Bureau of Rugao City that the People's Government of Dingyan Town in Rugao City had engaged in illegal charges in information disclosure matters. After receiving the report, the bureau replied that the Dingyan Town government has decided to voluntarily refund the total information retrieval and copying fees of 480.5 yuan collected by 31 farmers. In accordance with Article 9 (3) of the "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Price Bureau", they will not be subject to administrative punishment in accordance with the law.

On March 8, 2013, Zhang Hongjun submitted an application for government information disclosure to the Price Bureau of Rugao City, requesting it to disclose the "Gao Jia Fa [2009] No. 28" document. The Rugao Municipal Price Bureau replied that the document is internal information and does not fall within the scope of government information that should be disclosed. The plaintiff was provided with the main text of the document and the attachment "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Municipal Price Bureau", but Annex 1 (2) of the document was not provided. Zhang Hongjun refused and filed a lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Rudong County believes that the focus of controversy in this case is whether the information involved in the lawsuit should be made public. Firstly, the information produced and obtained by administrative agencies in their administrative management activities belongs to government information. The information generated by administrative agencies solely performing their internal management responsibilities belongs to internal management information. The Price Bureau of Rugao City stated that the basis for its decision not to impose punishment on the Dingyan Town government is the "Gaojianfa [2009] No. 28" document. When the punishment range for certain specific price violations is relatively wide in relevant laws and regulations, this document serves as a reference for the bureau's quantitative punishment. It can be seen that litigation related information will have an impact on the rights and obligations of the administrative counterpart. It is information produced by the defendant in the process of exercising administrative management responsibilities and is not internal management information. Secondly, the litigation related information is the specific quantitative punishment provisions made by the Price Bureau of Rugao City for different price violations based on the specific situation of the city. According to Article 18 of the "Decision of the State Council on Strengthening the Administration of City and County Governments in accordance with the Law" (Guo Fa [2008] No. 17), the refinement and quantification standards for administrative discretion should be disclosed, so the litigation related information belongs to the category of government information that should be disclosed. Once again, the Rugao Municipal Price Bureau only disclosed the main text and attachment of the litigation document to Zhang Hongjun, including the "Implementation Measures for Administrative Penalty Discretionary Power of the Rugao Municipal Price Bureau", without disclosing Annex 1 (2) of the document, which lacked legal basis for selectively disclosing some of the litigation information. The Price Bureau of Rugao City should comprehensively, accurately, and completely fulfill the responsibility of government information disclosure. According to this judgment, the defendant shall disclose Annex 1 (2) of the "Gao Jia Fa [2009] No. 28" document to the plaintiff within 15 working days from the effective date of this judgment.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The case involves the issue of defining internal information. The so-called internal information refers to a general policy statement or non ultimate opinion on a case that does not have direct binding force on the outside. The reason for exempting internal information from disclosure is to protect communication within institutions or between different institutions, so that officials can express their true thoughts freely and without hesitation. In this case, the People's Court of Rudong County confirmed through three aspects of analysis that the government information involved in the lawsuit is information produced by the defendant during the exercise of administrative management responsibilities, and is the basis for quantitative punishment of price violations. It will have an impact on the rights and obligations of the administrative counterpart, and therefore should not be classified as internal information. At the same time, the judgment conducted a strict review of the standards for administrative agencies to disclose government information, clearly requiring administrative agencies to accurately, completely, and comprehensively fulfill their responsibilities for government information disclosure, and not to selectively disclose it at will. These all have significant reference value.

7、 Peng Zhilin v. Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau, Hunan Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 6, 2012, Peng Zhilin submitted an application for government information disclosure to the Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau, requesting approval information for the construction land of Gao Xigui, a villager in this group. On November 28th, the Land and Resources Bureau of Changsha County replied that according to Article 25 of the Implementation Measures of the Archives Law, collective and individual archives stored in archives and other units are not allowed to be disclosed by any unit or individual without authorization. If disclosure is required, the consent of the archive owner must be obtained. Therefore, when querying the approval documents for the construction of high precision and expensive housing land, it is necessary to go to the archives of this bureau in accordance with the above legal provisions. At the same time, it is suggested that if there is a problem with the construction of one household and two certificates for high-end and high-end housing, it can be directly reported to the Bureau's Letters and Calls Office and the Law Enforcement and Supervision Brigade, which will be handled by the science department and department in accordance with the law. Peng Zhilin was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit, requesting the court to revoke the defendant's response and ordering the defendant to disclose relevant information.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Changsha County believes that according to Article 7 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Government Information Disclosure", the government information applied for by the plaintiff is kept in the defendant's archives and has not been transferred to a specialized archive. The defendant Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau should respond to the plaintiff's application for public information in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulations on Government Information Disclosure" in accordance with the law, However, the defendant applied the relevant provisions of the Implementation Measures of the Archives Law in their response, which is an error in the application of laws and regulations and should be revoked in accordance with the law. Whether the information requested by the plaintiff for public disclosure should be provided still requires investigation and discretion by the defendant, so the plaintiff's request for litigation is not supported. The judgment revokes the respondent's response and orders the defendant to provide a new response within 30 working days. The Changsha County Land and Resources Bureau was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Changsha Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of archival information. There is a certain evolutionary relationship between government information and archives. There is a competing issue of legal application regarding whether administrative information that has been transferred to national archives at all levels or stored in administrative institutions should be subject to the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", or to regulations, administrative regulations, and relevant national regulations on archive management. Article 7 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Cases Concerning Government Information Disclosure" distinguishes and processes information that has been transferred to the national archives from information stored in the archives of administrative organs, which is conducive to preventing administrative organs from using the application of archives management laws and regulations as an excuse to evade the disclosure of government information. This rule was well applied in this case, and it was found that the defendant's application of the "Measures for the Implementation of the Archives Law" in their response did not disclose government information, which was an error in the application of laws and regulations. At the same time, the court considered whether the government information involved in the case should be provided, which still requires investigation and discretion by the defendant. Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant should respond again, which also respects the administrative authority's right to make the first judgment.

8、 Qian Qunwei v. People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, Zhejiang Province

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 17, 2013, Qian Qunwei mailed a government information disclosure application to the People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, requesting the publication of the review of the use of residential land by villagers in Chaijia Village since 2000, the actual list of village residential land allocation, the area and location of the residential land, the full list and individual area of the demolition households of the large bridge in Chaijia Village, and the full list and individual area of the monetary resettlement households among the demolition households of the large bridge in Chaijia Village, A complete list of people from other villages who have built houses in Chaijia Village, as well as a list of actual residents, indicating the background of their homestead construction. On April 10, 2013, the People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City issued a "Letter of Opinion on Letters and Visits", which stated that the information disclosure was: "The demolition of the Chaijia Village Bridge involves a total of 367 demolished buildings, including 317 households for demolition and resettlement, and 16 households for monetary resettlement. The relevant matters related to the above information have been handled through relevant procedures and have been disclosed in a certain form, and have been known to the relevant public." Qian Qunwei was dissatisfied with this response, Bring a lawsuit. Believing that the response is "general and cannot explain any issues with the information, which is fundamentally inconsistent with the information requested by the plaintiff to be disclosed, essentially equivalent to refusing to disclose it".

（2） Judgment situation

After trial, the People's Court of Cixi City found that the defendant's response only responded to a small number of government information disclosure applications, and did not respond to other government information disclosure applications, nor did they inform the plaintiff of the ways and means to obtain the government information. Moreover, the defendant did not provide the corresponding evidence for its response to the court in the lawsuit, so it should be determined that the main evidence for the defendant's response is insufficient. The defendant argued that the Government Information Disclosure Regulations were only implemented on May 1, 2008, and prior government information could not be disclosed. The court believes that when the plaintiff applied for the disclosure of government information, the regulation had already been implemented. In response to the plaintiff's application, the defendant shall provide a response in accordance with the relevant provisions of the regulations. If the government information requested by the plaintiff for disclosure falls within the scope of non disclosure, the defendant shall inform the plaintiff and explain the reasons. Moreover, the defendant believes that government information prior to the implementation of this regulation cannot be made public and lacks legal basis. The defendant's above defense opinion is not valid and cannot be accepted. The judgment revokes the government information disclosure response made by the People's Government of Zhangqi Town, Cixi City, as the defendant; Order them to re process the government information disclosure application submitted by Qian Qunwei within 30 days from the effective date of the judgment.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of historical information. The so-called historical information refers to government information that had already been formed before the implementation of the Government Information Disclosure Regulations. Although some agencies and officials do hope to exclude historical information from the scope of application during the legislative process, the definition of government information in the Government Information Disclosure Regulations does not limit the formation time of information, nor does it exclude historical information from the scope of disclosure. The judgment in this case confirms that "the defendant believes that government information prior to the implementation of this regulation cannot be disclosed and lacks legal basis", which is in line with the original intention of the legislation. As for the principle of "non retroactivity of law", it refers to the fact that the provisions of legal documents only apply to events and actions after the legal documents take effect, and do not apply to events and actions before the legal documents take effect. In this case, the so-called events and actions refer to the plaintiff's application for the disclosure of government information in accordance with the regulations, and the administrative agency's response to the application. The judgment in this case points out that "when the plaintiff applied for the disclosure of government information, the regulation had already been implemented", which is a correct understanding of the principle of "non retroactivity of the law".

9、 Zhang Liang v. Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources Management

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 19, 2013, Zhang Liang applied to the Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Planning and Land Resources Management to obtain government information on the "Certificate of Payment for Land Transfer Fees for the 116 Plot Project in this City". The Shanghai Municipal Planning and Land Resources Management Bureau conducted a manual search at its archives center using the keyword "payment voucher", but did not find the government information of the 116 plot land transfer fee payment voucher named "payment voucher". Therefore, it was determined that it had not produced the government information requested by the plaintiff. According to Article 21 (3) of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", Zhang Liang replied that the government information requested for disclosure does not exist. Zhang Liang was dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit demanding the revocation of the government's public response to information disclosure.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the People's Court of Huangpu District, Shanghai believes that the relevant payment vouchers applied for by the plaintiff to be made public should generally refer to the written vouchers formed by the defendant after receiving the transfer fee for the state-owned land use rights of the 116 plots in this city from the transferee of the land use rights. In daily life, the name of this proof of payment voucher may be payment voucher, receipt, invoice, etc., and is not limited to the expression of payment voucher. As an ordinary citizen, the plaintiff believes that they are unable to know the standardized name of the relevant payment voucher, and the claim that they only use this payment voucher to describe the government information content they apply for is reasonable. Correspondingly, the defendant is the land administrative department of this city, and should be aware of the standardized name of the certificate issued to the transferee of the land use right after receiving the land use right transfer fee. However, without confirming with the plaintiff, the defendant arbitrarily believes that the plaintiff only requires relevant government information with the name of the payment voucher, and only uses the payment voucher as the keyword to search its archive center. Obviously, the search method is inappropriate, The conclusion that the relevant government information determined based on the failure to fulfill the search obligation does not exist is also considered unclear and insufficient evidence. The judgment revokes the respondent's government information disclosure response and orders the defendant to provide a new response.

After the first instance judgment is pronounced, if neither party has appealed, the first instance judgment shall have legal effect.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves two important systems of government information disclosure. Firstly, when submitting an application for information disclosure, the applicant should provide as detailed a description of the content of government information as possible to facilitate retrieval by administrative agencies. Secondly, administrative agencies do not provide government information that does not exist. The review standards adopted in handling these two issues in this case are worth learning from. That is to say, if an administrative agency refuses to provide government information on the grounds that the information does not exist, it should prove that it has fulfilled its reasonable retrieval obligation. The applicant cannot be strict in describing the content of the information and must state the standardized name or even specific document number of the government information. If the administrative agency only searches based on the plaintiff's description and simply replies that government information does not exist, it is also a failure to fulfill the search obligation.

10、 If Love Marriage Service Co., Ltd. sues the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China

（1） Basic facts of the case

On January 28, 2013, Shijiazhuang Ruoai Marriage Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Ruoai Company") requested the Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "the Ministry of Civil Affairs") to publicly disclose in writing the social organization registration information, annual inspection information, social organization legal person registration certificate of the China Marriage and Family Research Association, as well as the investigation and punishment results of suspected fraud by the China Marriage and Family Research Association. The Ministry of Civil Affairs did not respond within the statutory 15 day limit after receiving the application from RuoAi Company. During the administrative review period, the Ministry of Civil Affairs issued a "Government Information Notification" to the applicant on April 26, 2013. If Love Company is not satisfied, file an administrative lawsuit.

（2） Judgment results

After trial, the Beijing Second Intermediate People's Court held that the Ministry of Civil Affairs believed that if the government information applied for by Love Company was within the scope of public disclosure, it replied that if Love Company obtained the government information by logging in to the China Social Organization Network and attaching the website, it was not inappropriate. The Ministry of Civil Affairs did not cite relevant legal provisions in the "Government Information Notification", which resulted in an error in the application of law to the specific administrative act being sued and should be revoked. The issuance of the 'Government Information Notification' exceeds the statutory response deadline and does not extend the approval procedures for the response in accordance with the law, which is considered a procedural violation. In addition, when making a legally binding Government Information Notification, it should be made in the name of the Ministry of Civil Affairs and stamped with the official seal of the Ministry of Civil Affairs. In summary, the judgment revokes the "Government Information Notification Letter" made by the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and stipulates that the Ministry of Civil Affairs shall, within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment, make a new specific administrative action in response to the government information disclosure application of If Love Company.

If Love Company is not satisfied, file an appeal. After trial, the Beijing Higher People's Court found that the Ministry of Civil Affairs has determined that the registration status and annual inspection status of social organizations of the China Marriage and Family Research Association are public information, and informed the company to log in to the China Social Organization Network for inquiries. However, the content found through the aforementioned website clearly cannot cover the information corresponding to the social group registration and annual examination data of the China Marriage and Family Research Association that the company has applied for public disclosure. The Ministry of Civil Affairs did not provide a response or explain the reasons for the registration and annual inspection information of other social groups of the China Marriage and Family Research Association, except for the query results of the China Social Organization Network. Its handling constitutes the omission of government information disclosure application matters. Meanwhile, although the Ministry of Civil Affairs does not retain the original and copy of the registration certificate, as the registration authority for national social organizations, the Ministry of Civil Affairs should have access to the relevant information recorded on the registration certificate of the China Marriage and Family Research Association. The Ministry of Civil Affairs only informed the company that it would not retain the original and copy of the registration certificate without further clarifying the application matters, and did not fulfill its obligation to review and respond. The first instance court has made no improper determination errors regarding the content of the response from the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and this court has corrected them. The Ministry of Civil Affairs has issued a notice of complaint that clearly exceeds the statutory deadline and there is no approval procedure to extend the response deadline in accordance with the law. The Ministry of Civil Affairs has confirmed in the reconsideration process that the overdue response is illegal, and this court has confirmed it. In addition, if the defendant's notice has legal basis that can be cited but is not cited, it should be considered a mistake in the application of law. The Ministry of Civil Affairs, as the subject of government information disclosure obligations, should provide government information disclosure responses in its own name. In summary, the judgment rejected the appeal and upheld the first instance judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case involves the relationship between active disclosure and disclosure upon application, as well as the issue of administrative agencies fully fulfilling their obligation to disclose. The methods of government information disclosure include active disclosure and application based disclosure, which complement and complement each other. For government information that has already been voluntarily disclosed, administrative agencies may not repeat the disclosure, but should inform applicants of the ways and means of obtaining the government information. In this case, although the defendant informed the applicant during the reconsideration period of the website where information can be accessed, only a portion of the information can be found by logging on to the website. The second instance judgment found that the defendant missed relevant information that was not actively disclosed in the application, which constitutes a failure to fully fulfill the obligation of disclosure and is a correct understanding of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information", Thus, a relatively clear judicial review standard has been established for whether administrative agencies have fully fulfilled their disclosure obligations and thus fully fulfilled their public obligations. In addition, administrative agencies should cite specific legal provisions and provide reasons for not disclosing government information. The judgment in this case finds that the defendant has a legal basis that can be cited but has not been cited, which is a mistake in applying the law. It can urge administrative agencies to regulate the legal application of government information disclosure and enhance the reasoning of government information disclosure. The judgment also confirms issues such as overdue responses from administrative agencies and improper response subjects, which is also conducive to promoting the standardization of the form and procedure of government information disclosure responses.