目录

1.张恩琪诉天津市人力资源和社会保障局、天津市社会保险基金管理中心行政不作为案

2.张风竹诉濮阳市国土资源局行政不作为案

3.彭某诉深圳市南山区规划土地监察大队行政不作为案

4.钟华诉北京市工商行政管理局通州分局行政不作为案

5. 王顺升诉寿光市人民政府行政不作为案

6.沈某、蔡某诉南通市公安局开发区分局行政不作为案

7. 兰州宏光驾驶员培训服务有限公司诉兰州市城关区城市管理行政执法局行政不作为案

8. 赵永天诉凤阳县武店镇人民政府行政不作为案

9.艾立仁诉沈阳市卫生和计划生育委员会行政不作为案

10.张美华等五人诉天水市公安局麦积分局行政不作为赔偿案

一、张恩琪诉天津市人力资源和社会保障局、天津市社会保险基金管理中心行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

张恩琪于2013年3月13日、10月16日向天津市人力资源和社会保障局（以下简称市社保局），9月25日向天津市社会保险基金管理中心（以下简称市社保基金中心）邮寄信函，主要内容为要求履行法定职责，对其社会保险缴费基数偏低和少缴、漏缴问题进行强制征缴。市社保局于2013年10月26日收到信函后，认为其所述问题不属于该局职责，属于市社保基金中心职责，遂将信件转至该中心办理。该中心于2013年11月29日向张恩琪出具《关于张恩琪信访反映问题的答复》，主要内容为其已经办理退休手续，退休待遇均由其参保所在区的社保局审批确定，且在审批之前已经本人对缴费基数、缴费年限等事项进行了确认，该中心作为社保经办机构，负责依据区县社保局审批结果及有关政策规定按时足额发放退休待遇。张思琪先是针对市社保局、市社保基金中心分别提起诉讼，因各自答辩不具备相应职责而申请撤诉，后将两单位作为共同被告诉至法院，请求确认市社保局向市社保基金中心转交信件行为违法，撤销市社保基金中心上述答复，判令二被告履行法定职责，对其诉求予以答复。

（二）裁判结果

天津市和平区人民法院一审认为，根据《社会保险费征缴暂行条例》第五条规定，市社保局具有负责全市社会保险费征缴管理和监督检查工作的行政职能，其于2011年10月19日向与其存在隶属关系的市社保基金中心下达文件《关于社会保险举报投诉案件受理查处职责分工的通知》，第二项明确规定“对用人单位未按时足额缴纳社会保险费的举报、投诉，由社会保险经办机构受理查处，逾期仍不缴纳的，由社会保险经办机构提请有管辖权的劳动监察机构实施行政处罚，具体程序由市劳动监察机构与市社会保险经办机构制定”。故市社保局将信件转至市社保基金中心办理并无不当。市社保基金中心应对原告信函要求事宜作出明确处理，但其未在60天内作出答复，且在此前原告起诉该中心不履行法定职责一案中，隐瞒了市社保局下达上述文件的情况，在答辩状中否认其具备相应职责，导致原告认为起诉被告主体有误而申请撤诉，系未履行法定职责并进行推诿。其给原告出具的《关于张恩琪信访反映问题的答复》，在未对原告提出的请求作出明确处理的情况下，直接以信访形式答复显系不妥。遂判决：一、市社保基金中心于本判决生效之日起三十日内对原告请求作出处理并将结果书面告知原告，在规定期限内不履行的，从期满之日起按日处70元罚款；二、驳回原告其他诉讼请求。一审宣判后，各方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院以行政裁判方式明确了行政主体在社保管理方面的相关职责。基于行政管理复杂性和法律规定不明确，在职权界线不清晰的情况下，行政机关之间应当主动沟通联系，共同协调解决，不能互相推诿，甚至和老百姓“捉迷藏”。社会保险待遇涉及千家万户，关乎个人生老病死，无论是社保机关还是经办机构都必须积极履责，方为责任政府应有之义。人民法院对于行政主体在诉讼中隐瞒其与有关单位之间关于职权划分的相关文件的，应依法制裁，必要时可向纪检监察部门通报反映；在行政主体相互推诿，均否认具有相应法定职责的情况下，可依法将相关行政主体都列为被告，共同参加诉讼，通过庭审举证、质证和辩论，最终确定履责主体。同时，为保证履责判决的及时履行，可以在判决时一并明确不履行判决的法定后果，既督促行政主体尽快履责，也有利于保障生效裁判的迅速执行。本案裁判对类似案件的处理具有指导、示范意义。

二、张风竹诉濮阳市国土资源局行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

2013年10月16日，张风竹向河南省濮阳市国土资源局（以下简称市国土局）书面提出申请，请求该局依法查处其所在村的耕地被有关工程项目违法强行占用的行为，并向该局寄送了申请书。市国土局于2013年10月17日收到申请后，没有受理、立案、处理，也未告知张风竹，张风竹遂以市国土局不履行法定职责为由诉至法院，请求确认被告不履行法定职责的具体行政行为违法，并要求被告对土地违法行为进行查处。

（二）裁判结果

濮阳市华龙区人民法院一审认为，土地管理部门对上级交办、其他部门移送和群众举报的土地违法案件，应当受理。土地管理部门受理土地违法案件后，应当进行审查，凡符合立案条件的，应当及时立案查处；不符合立案条件的，应当告知交办、移送案件的单位或者举报人。本案原告张风竹向被告市国土局提出查处违法占地申请后，被告应当受理，被告既没有受理，也没有告知原告是否立案，故原告要求确认被告不履行法定职责违法，并限期履行法定职责的请求，有事实根据和法律依据，本院予以支持。遂判决：一、确认被告对原告要求查处违法占地申请未予受理的行为违法。二、限被告于本判决生效之日起按《土地违法案件查处办法》的规定履行法定职责。

市国土局不服，提出上诉，濮阳市中级人民法院二审认为，根据《土地违法案件查处办法》规定，县级以上地方人民政府土地行政主管部门对违反土地管理法律、法规的行为进行监督检查。上诉人市国土局上诉称2013年10月17日收到对土地违法行为监督的申请后，已进行了受理核查，但上诉人未及时将审查结果告知申请人，上诉人的行为未完全履行工作职责，违反了《土地违法案件查处办法》第十六条的规定。二审判决驳回上诉，维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：通过行政审判职能的发挥，督促土地管理部门及时处理群众举报，切实履行查处违法占地相关法定职责，以回应群众关切、保障土地资源的合法利用。土地资源稀缺、人多地少的现状决定了我国必须实行最严格的土地管理制度，但长期以来土地资源浪费严重，违法违规用地层出不穷，既有土地管理保护不力的原因，也有人民群众难以有效参与保护的因素。公众参与，是及时发现和纠正土地违法行为的重要渠道，也是确保最严格的土地管理制度得以实施的有效手段。依法受理并及时查处人民群众对违法用地行为的举报，是土地管理部门的权力更是义务。《土地违法案件查处办法》第十三条规定了“土地管理部门对上级交办、其他部门移送和群众举报的土地违法案件，应当受理。”第十六条又对受理后的立案查处等程序作出明确规定。经了解，市国土局不仅在本案中对张风竹的申请未依法履行职责，对另外九人的申请也存在同样问题而被法院判决败诉。本案的裁决对确保最严格的土地管理制度的正确实施和公众参与具有积极意义。

三、彭某诉深圳市南山区规划土地监察大队行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

彭某、陆某分别是深圳市南山区某小区A座902房和901房业主。2011年9月1日，南山区规划土地监察大队（以下简称区监察大队）接到群众来电反映901房住户存在违法加建行为，经调查取证，查明陆某在901房的开放式阳台上有违法搭建钢结构玻璃幕墙的行为，遂于2011年9月4日作出《责令停止(改正)违法行为通知书》，责令其立即停止违法行为并在2011年9月7日12时前清理并自行拆除。2011年10月25日，区监察大队又作出深南规土行罚字（2011）第07017号《行政处罚决定书》，认定陆某违法搭建玻璃幕墙行为违反《深圳市城市规划条例》有关规定，决定依法拆除玻璃幕墙，并书面告知其应自上述处罚决定书送达之日起十五日内自动履行该决定，逾期不履行的，将依法强制执行。该《行政处罚决定书》于当日送达陆某。2012年1月9日，区监察大队向深圳市房地产权登记中心建议对901房产实施产权暂缓登记。2013年1月28日，区监察大队作出《催告书》，要求陆某拆除阳台搭建玻璃幕墙，恢复阳台原状。针对涉案《责令停止(改正)违法行为通知书》和《行政处罚决定书》，陆某在法定期限内未提起行政诉讼，亦未申请行政复议。截至案件开庭审理之日，上述违法搭建的玻璃幕墙尚未拆除。902房业主彭某认为区监察大队在发出《责令停止(改正)违法行为通知书》后，对后续执行情况不管不问，是一种行政不作为，故以区监察大队为被告诉至法院，请求确认被告未履行强制拆除的行为违法，责令被告立即依法作为，强制拆除违建部分。

（二）裁判结果

深圳市南山区人民法院一审认为，区监察大队作为区规划土地监察机构，具有对本行政区域内违法用地和违法建筑行为进行调查取证、认定，依法实施行政处罚以及强制执行的职责。在依法作出限期拆除违法建筑的行政决定后，当事人在法定期限内不申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼的，应当依照《中华人民共和国行政强制法》《深圳经济特区规划土地监察条例》等法律、法规规定的强制执行程序作出处理。至于有权机关须在何期限内作出强制执行的决定并依法实施强制拆除，法律法规并无明确规定，但应在合理期限内履行其法定职责。本案中，被告作出限期依法拆除的行政决定后,在行政相对人未申请行政复议亦未提起行政诉讼、且拒不履行的情况下，至开庭审理之日止，在长达一年多的时间里，其仅作出催告而未对案件作进一步处理，且未提供证据证明有相关合法、合理的事由，其行为显然不当，已构成怠于履行法定职责，应予纠正。鉴于作出强制执行决定和实施强制拆除属于行政机关的行政职权，且实施行政强制拆除具有严格的法定程序，故不宜直接责令区监察大队强制拆除违法建筑，遂判决区监察大队于判决生效之日起三个月内对南山区某小区A座901房的违法建设问题依法继续作出处理。彭某及区监察大队均不服一审判决，提起上诉。深圳市中级人民法院二审以相同理由判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院以裁判方式昭示了合法生效的行政决定必须得到执行。不以法律强制作为后盾的处罚决定，就象无焰的火，不亮的光，最终会损害公众对法治的信仰，甚至诱导群体性违法。对违法建筑的查处和拆除，始终是城市管理的难点，也是规划部门和土地管理、市容管理部门的执法重点。相关行政执法机关对违法建筑的查处，不能仅仅止于作出处罚决定，而应当依据《行政强制法》的规定，采取有效措施，确保处罚决定的执行，才是完全履行法定职责。拆违虽难，但不能成为行政机关怠于履行法定职责的借口。《城乡规划法》第六十八条规定，城乡规划主管部门作出责令停止建设或者限期拆除的决定后，当事人不停止建设或者逾期不拆除的，建设工程所在地县级以上地方人民政府可以责成有关部门采取查封施工现场、强制拆除等措施。当然，由于行政管理的多样性，法律法规一般不会规定作出处罚决定后行政机关强制拆除的期限，但仍需要在合理期限内履行。本案中，人民法院认定区监察大队在作出《行政处罚决定书》长达一年多的时间里一直未强制执行，已明显超过合理期限，属于怠于履行法定职责，在判决方式上责令其继续处理，既符合法律规定精神，也有利于尽可能通过教育说服而不是强制手段保证处罚决定的实施，具有一定示范意义。

四、钟华诉北京市工商行政管理局通州分局行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

2013年12月27日，北京市工商行政管理局通州分局（以下简称通州工商分局）接到钟华的申诉（举报）信，称其在通州家乐福购买的“北大荒富硒米”不符合《预包装食品营养标签通则》的规定，属不符合食品安全标准的违法产品，要求通州工商分局责令通州家乐福退还其货款并进行赔偿，依法作出行政处罚。同年12月30日，通州工商分局作出《答复》，称依据该局调查，钟华反映的食品安全问题目前不属于其职能范围。钟华于2014年1月8日向北京市工商行政管理局提出复议申请，该机关于同年4月2日作出复议决定书，维持《答复》。钟华不服，以通州工商分局为被告提起行政诉讼，请求确认通州工商局处理举报案件程序违法并责令其履行移送职责。

（二）裁判结果

北京市通州区人民法院一审认为，依据国务院食品安全办、国家工商总局、国家质检总局、国家食品药品监管总局的食安办（2013）13号《关于进一步做好机构改革期间食品和化妆品监管工作的通知》《北京市人民政府办公厅关于印发北京市食品药品监督管理局主要职责内设机构和人员编制规定的通知》等文件规定，目前北京市流通环节的食品安全监管职责由北京市食品药品监督管理局承担，故被告通州工商分局已无职责对流通环节的食品安全进行监管，且其在接到原告钟华举报时应能够确定该案件的主管机关。《工商行政管理机关行政处罚程序规定》第十五条规定，工商行政管理机关发现所查处的案件属于其他行政机关管辖的，应当依法移送其他有关机关。本案中当被告认为原告所举报事项不属其管辖时，应当移送至有关主管机关，故判决被告在十五个工作日内就原告举报事项履行移送职责，驳回原告其他诉讼请求。通州工商分局不服，提出上诉，北京市第三中级人民法院二审以相同理由判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：通过裁判方式明确了行政机关对不属于本机关办理职责事项，如果有关规范性文件规定应移送有权机关办理的，应当及时移送。在行政管理领域，行政机关的职责既有分工也有交叉，法定职责来源既可能是本行政领域的法律、法规、规章和规范性文件，也可能是其他行政管理领域的法律规范，甚至可能是行政管理需要和行政惯例。有关食品生产、流通环节的监督管理职责由工商机关改由食品药品监督管理部门承担，但职责调整的初始阶段，人民群众未必都很清楚，工商机关发现群众对于食品安全问题的举报事项属于其他行政机关管辖的，应当移送相关主管机关，不能一推了之。积极移送也是一种法定职责。

五、王顺升诉寿光市人民政府行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

2014年2月11日，寿光市人民政府（以下简称市政府）收到了王顺升提交的请求责令洛城街道褚庄村村民委员会（以下简称褚庄村村委会）公开村务的申请书，市政府在调查核实后于同年4月4日作出（2014）第009号《责令公布村务通知书》，主要内容为：“洛城街道褚庄村村民委员会，本机关于2014年2月11日受理了你村村民王顺升提出的《责令洛城街道褚庄村村公布村务申请书》。根据《村民委员会组织法》第三十一条和《山东省实施〈中华人民共和国村民委员会组织法〉办法》第三十八条规定，现责令你单位依法向王顺升公布有关村务信息。特此通知”，并于同日向褚庄村村委会进行了送达。市政府认为其已履行了法定职责。但至本案庭审时，褚庄村村委会并未就王顺升申请事项向其公开。王顺生遂以市政府为被告向法院提起行政诉讼,请求确认被告不履行责令褚庄村村委会公开村务职责的行为违法；判令被告及时履行责令褚庄村村委会公开村务的职责。

（二）裁判结果

潍坊市中级人民法院一审认为：依据《村民委员会组织法》第三十一条“村民委员会不及时公布应当公布的事项或者公布的事项不真实的，村民有权向乡、民族乡、镇的人民政府或者县级人民政府及其有关主管部门反映，有关人民政府或者主管部门应当负责调查核实，责令依法公布；经查证确有违法行为的，有关人员应当依法承担责任”之规定，被告市政府依法负有依原告王顺升的申请对其反映的事项进行调查核实以及责令褚庄村村委会公布相关村务的法定职责。被告在履行责令职责时，不应仅限于作出并送达责令通知，还应限定公开的合理期限并应跟进监督村委会对责令通知的执行情况，以实现公开的结果。本案中，被告虽已按法律规定向褚庄村村委会作出责令公开村务信息通知，但未限定公开的合理期限，亦未对褚庄村村委会执行通知情况进行核实，被告的所谓履责行为未达到法律规定的“责令”程度，缺乏约束力和执行力，从而导致褚庄村村委会至本案庭审时也未向原告公开相关村务。因此被告并未完全履行法定义务，其应继续履行责令之责。遂判决被告于本判决生效之日起60日内责令褚庄村村委会向原告限期公开相关村务信息。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：以裁判方式明确了行政机关不仅应当及时履责，还应当全面履责，并要依法实现履责的目的。本案中市政府从形式上已责令褚庄村村委会公布有关村委信息，似乎已经履行了法定职责；但是，由于该《责令公布村务通知书》既未明确具体内容，更未明确具体期限或者合理期限，实际上构成未全面履行法定职责，造成原告等村民对村务的知情权和监督权迟迟得不到落实。因此，人民法院判决其限期责令褚庄村村委会限期公开村务信息，能够更好地促进村务公开，切实维护广大村民知情的权利。

六、沈某、蔡某诉南通市公安局开发区分局行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

2013年9月20日下午13时5分左右，江苏省南通市开发区某小区内1号门面店主与2号门面店主因空油桶堆放问题引发纠纷，双方人员由争执进而引发殴打。南通市公安局开发区分局（以下简称开发区公局）接到报警后，指令民警出警并对涉案人员及证人调查取证。2013年9月22日，开发区分局将该纠纷正式作为治安案件立案，并多次组织双方调解。10月9日，沈某被传唤接受询问时明确表示不同意调解。12月2日，沈某、蔡某以开发区分局不履行治安管理行政处罚法定职责为由，向法院提起行政诉讼，要求确认被告未在法律规定期限内作出治安处罚决定行为违法。在诉讼期间，被告于12月9日根据《治安管理处罚法》的规定分别对涉案人员作出行政处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

南通市港闸区人民法院一审认为，被告开发区分局是否在法定期限内履行了法定职责，应当从法律、法规规定的办案期限及是否存在不计入办案期限的正当事由两个方面审查。根据《治安管理处罚法》第九十九条的规定，公安机关办理治安案件的期限，自受理之日起不得超过三十日；案情重大、复杂的治安案件，经上一级公安机关的批准，可以再延长三十日。这就意味着公安机关办理治安案件的一般期限为三十日，最长期限不得超过六十日。被告于2013年9月22日立案，至2013年12月9日作出行政处罚决定，办案期限明显超过了法律规定的一般办案期限，也超过了最长六十日的办案期限。调解亦应当坚持自愿原则，当事人明确表示不愿意调解的，则不应适用调解处理。即使存在调解的事实，那么从原告沈某10月9日拒绝调解之日起至被告于12月9日作出行政处罚决定，亦长达六十一天，仍然超过了最长六十日的办案期限。更何况被告未能在举证期限内提供经上一级公安机关批准延长办案期限的证据。据此，判决确认被告未在法律规定的期限内作出行政处罚决定行为违法。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：通过行政审判职能的发挥，对公安机关在治安管理领域的履责要求作出规范，有利于治安纠纷的及时化解。《治安管理处罚法》明确规定了公安机关办理治安案件的期限。根据公安部《公关机关办理行政案件程序规定》的相关规定，对于因民间纠纷引起的殴打他人等违反治安管理行为，情节较轻的，可以调解处理，调解案件的办案期限从调解未达成协议或者调解达成协议不履行之日起开始计算，但调解不能成为公安机关不及时履行职责的借口。本案中，在沈某已经明确表示不同意调解的情况下，公安机关就应在三十日内依法作出处罚决定。对超过三十日办案期限的，应提供证据证明经过上一级公安机关批准延长。而被告明显违反相关规定。当然，被告也认识到未及时履行职责的违法性，在原告起诉后一周内就作出处罚决定，体现了对法律的尊重和勇于纠错的诚意，并得到了原告谅解。在现代法治国家，一个明显违反法定期限的行政行为，即使实体内容完全合法，也会因为姗姗来迟而被贴上违法的标签。

七、兰州宏光驾驶员培训服务有限公司诉兰州市城关区城市管理行政执法局行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

兰州宏光驾驶员培训服务有限公司（以下简称宏光公司）以甘肃永隆文化用品有限公司（以下简称永隆公司）进行违法建设， 对其练车场的正常使用造成影响为由，向其所在街道社区和甘肃省兰州市城关区城市管理行政执法局（以下简称区行政执法局）等多个机关进行举报。但以上机关对其所反映事项均无任何处理。2012年10月，宏光公司将永隆公司违法建设的问题举报至兰州市委信访办，兰州市委信访办将举报材料转至兰州市行政执法局，后兰州市行政执法局又将举报材料转至区行政执法局，但直至宏光公司起诉时止，区行政执法局仍未对该公司的举报作出任何答复，故宏光公司以区行政执法局为被告，向法院提起行政诉讼，要求判令被告履行法定职责。

（二）裁判结果

兰州市城关区人民法院在本案一审过程中，被告区行政执法局意识到其不履行职责可能存在败诉风险，遂与原告宏光公司经协调达成一致意见，同意受理原告的举报事项并在其职权范围内进行调查，即依照原告的申请，履行了相应的法定职责。故原告于2013年6月7日向一审法院提交了书面撤诉申请。法院依照《行政诉讼法》第五十一条、《最高人民法院关于行政诉讼撤诉若干问题的规定》第五条、《最高人民法院关于执行<中华人民共和国行政诉讼法>若干问题的解释》第六十三条第一款第（十）项之规定，裁定准许原告撤回起诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：行政诉讼的目的在于化解行政纠纷，在当事人提起诉讼后，有时通过法院审理，行政机关在诉讼期间意识到自身问题而主动纠正，在不损害国家利益和社会公共利益的前提下，当事人主动申请撤诉并经过法院准许，同样可以达到案结事了人和的审判效果。行政不作为案件往往是因行政机关及其工作人员存在“懒政”“惰政”等主观因素或某些客观原因而引发，相比其他类型的行政案件，法律关系较为明确，案件审理难度相对较低，只要行政机关依法履责，当事人之间的症结往往易于化解。实践中，不少案件是原告在向行政机关多次反映、投诉无果后，才选择通过诉讼方式寻求救济，一旦起诉，常常在诉讼期间就使纠纷得以快速解决。这从一个侧面凸显了行政审判这一外部监督机制的重大影响力。法院在查清事实、分清是非的基础上，通过向被告释明法律规定和法律后果，以和解方式化解纠纷，可以使原告诉求在短时间内实现，既解决问题，又不伤“和气”。

八、赵永天诉凤阳县武店镇人民政府行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

安徽省凤阳县人民政府依照国家发改委、住建部、财政部和滁州市有关文件精神，制定了《凤阳县2012年农村危房改造工作实施方案》（以下简称《方案》），在全县推广实施农村危房改造的惠民工程。赵永天依照上述文件精神，于2012年4月22日向凤阳县武店镇赵拐村村民委员会提交了危房改造补贴申请。该村村民委员会经评议后同意赵永天的申请意见，并将申请材料上报凤阳县武店镇人民政府（以下简称镇政府）审核。但直至赵永天提起诉讼时止，镇政府未按照上述文件的规定，依法履行其危房改造申请的审核职责。赵永天遂于2013年4月17日以镇政府为被告向法院提起行政诉讼，主张被告未依照《方案》作出审核决定，要求判决被告履行危房改造申请审核职责。

（二）裁判结果

凤阳县人民法院一审认为：凤阳县人民政府制定的《方案》，对农村危房改造的申报程序及审核方法等都作出了明确规定。乡镇人民政府在接到村民委员会的申报材料后，应当组织人员上门进行现场核查，经核查符合条件的由乡镇人民政府签署审核意见，报县农村危房改造领导小组审批；不符合条件的，将材料退回所在村民委员会并说明原因，且审查结果在村务公开栏公示七天。该方案同时规定，凤阳县危房改造确定的检查验收时间为2012年12月11日至12月31日。原告赵永天依照规定提交了危房改造申请，但被告镇政府在接到其申请材料后未能按照《方案》规定的程序和方式履行其审核职责，其行为构成行政不作为。本案审理期间，被告对原告危房改造申请进行了补充核查，认为其不符合危房改造补贴条件，并将不符合条件的理由书面告知了赵拐村村民委员会及一审法院。法院已将核查结果告知原告，但原告不愿意撤回起诉。故一审法院判决确认被告不履行危房改造申请审核职责行为违法。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：人民法院通过裁判强调了乡镇政府在农村危房改造中的职责，对督促其切实依法履责、保障农民基本生活权益具有积极作用。农村危房改造是中央政府确定的一项重要民生工程，也是一项民心工程。各级地方人民政府应当坚决执行，确保中央政令的统一和畅通，确保居住在危房中的农村分散供养五保户、低保户、贫困残疾人家庭和其他贫困户实现居者有其屋。在地方政府合理确定补助对象过程中，村、乡镇和县分别负有相应的评议、审核和审批职责，任何一个环节怠于履行职责，都会形成“肠梗阻”。本案被告镇政府在长达一年时间里未依法核查原告赵永天的申请，忽视其权益保障，严重影响了补助对象的确定工作，构成不依法履责。因被告诉讼期间作了审核，法院判决其继续履行已无实际意义，但仍然判决确认其不履责行为违法，符合行政诉讼的规定，彰显了司法审查的价值。

九、艾立仁诉沈阳市卫生和计划生育委员会行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

2013年3月2日，艾立仁因右小腿闭合骨折就诊于沈阳中大骨科医院（以下简称中大骨科），术后不仅骨折未予治愈，其闭合骨折还引发成骨外露、骨感染，后经十次手术未能治愈，现腿部残疾。艾立仁认为治疗中存在医疗损害，参加第一次手术的医师吴某存在越级手术这一违法事实。自2013年5月至12月间，艾立仁多次向辽宁省沈阳市卫生局（现更名为沈阳市卫生和计划生育委员会，以下简称市卫计委）就中大骨科越级手术等多项问题提出举报与投诉，市卫计委未给予回复。2013年12月24日中央电视台新闻频道将此事报导后，艾立仁得到市卫计委医政处的接待，并承诺调查处理。2014年2月19日下午，市卫计委医政工作人员张某通过电话回复说“吴某不是越级手术”。艾立仁对该答复不服，以市卫计委为被告提出行政诉讼，请求判令被告对手术医院及手术医生进行行政处罚。

（二）裁判结果

沈阳市和平区人民法院一审认为，原告艾立仁未提供证据证明其曾向被告市卫计委提出过对手术医院及医生进行行政处罚的申请，故原告认为被告不履行法定职责的观点不存在事实根据，对原告的诉讼请求不予支持，应予驳回。遂判决驳回原告的诉讼请求。艾立仁上诉后，市卫计委辩称，中大骨科是一个二级专科医院，具有为艾立仁手术的医疗资质，手术医生吴某系高年资住院医，该医院授权其从事一、二级手术，并且在上级医师指导下可组织部分三级手术；《医疗技术临床应用管理办法》规定手术分级是由医疗机构自行组织实施，中大骨科现在没有相关的分级，故吴某不存在越级手术问题。

沈阳市中级人民法院二审认为，根据相关证据及市卫计委的庭审陈述，可以认定艾立仁提出过举报且市卫计委已口头答复，故原审认定艾立仁没有提出过申请系认定事实不清。根据《医疗机构管理条例》第五条第二款、《外科手术分级制度管理》第五条第二款的规定，艾立仁申请的事项属于市卫计委的职权范围。市卫计委对艾立仁举报事项已进行了调查，并作出了相关事实的认定，但针对该部分事实没有向法院提交相应的证据，应认定其证据不足；且根据其现有的调查事实，市卫计委亦应当按照相关法律规定予以处理，而不需要艾立仁针对如何处理违法行为再次提出申请，故市卫计委存在不履行职责的情形，判决撤销一审判决，责令市卫计委对艾立仁的举报申请重新作出具体行政行为。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：通过对卫生行政主管部门处理医患纠纷的法定职责进行司法审查，对依法保障患者权益有积极作用。医患纠纷已日益成为社会热点，卫生行政主管部门应强化对医疗机构的监管，对患者提出的医疗机构违法违规情况，积极调查，依法履责，既要保护患者合法权益，又要尽快明晰责任，促进医患之间的信任。由于医疗手术的高度专业性和高风险性，加之患者医疗知识的局限性，卫生行政主管部门作为医患关系的桥梁，在调查处理医患纠纷时，必须坚持公开、公平与公正，依法中立地履行职责，而不应偏袒任何一方。本案中，市卫计委经过调查发现涉案的医院没有建立分级制度，就应当责令涉案医院改正，并采取相应的补救措施，但却对当事人的申请作出涉案医院未建立分级制度故不存在违规越级手术问题的答复，明显违反相关法律规范的规定，人民法院因此判决其重新作出具体行政行为，于法有据。本案二审判决对法院处理类似案件有示范作用。

十、张美华等五人诉天水市公安局麦积分局行政不作为赔偿案

（一）基本案情

2006年3月3日凌晨3时许，被害人刘伟洲路过甘肃省天水市麦积区桥南伯阳路农行储蓄所门前时，遭到罪犯苏福堂、吴利强、佟彬的拦路抢劫。刘伟洲被刺伤后喊叫求救，个体司机胡某、美容中心经理梁某听到呼救后，先后用手机于4时02分、4时13分、4时20分三次拨打“110” 电话报警，“110”值班人员让给“120”打电话，“120”让给“110”打电话。梁某于4时24分20秒（时长79秒）再次给“110”打电话报警后，“110”值班接警人员于6时23分35秒电话指令桥南派出所出警。此时被害人刘伟洲因失血过多已经死亡。经法医鉴定：被害人刘伟洲系被他人持锐器刺破股动脉，致失血性休克死亡。天水市麦积区人民法院于2007年3月23日作出（2007）麦刑初字第4号刑事判决，认定麦积分局“110”值班民警高某犯玩忽职守罪，免予刑事处罚。高某上诉后，二审维持原判。

天水市中级人民法院作出（2006）天刑一初字第24号刑事附带民事判决，判决被告人苏福堂、吴得强、佟彬赔偿刘伟洲相应的死亡赔偿金等。在民事判决执行中，因被告人苏福堂已被执行死刑，无财产可供执行；被告人吴利强、佟彬服刑前靠父母养活，暂无财产可供执行，天水市中级人民法院于2008年6月3日以（2008）天执字第29号民事裁定终结执行。被害人刘伟洲的近亲属张美华、刘宇、刘沛、刘忠议、张凤仙五人于2009年1月16日以公安机关行政不作为为由向天水市公安局麦积分局提出行政赔偿申请，该局作出不予行政赔偿的决定。张美华等五人遂以该局为被告，向法院提起行政赔偿诉讼，请求判令被告赔偿刘伟洲死亡赔偿金和丧葬费498640元，被扶养人生活费26959.95元。

（二）裁判结果

天水市麦积区人民法院一审认为，《国家赔偿法》第三十四条第一款第（三）项规定，侵犯公民生命健康权的，赔偿金按照下列规定计算：（三）造成死亡的，应当支付死亡赔偿金、丧葬费，总额为国家上年度职工年平均工资的二十倍。对死者生前扶养的无劳动能力的人，还应当支付生活费。本案天水市公安局麦积分局应当按国家规定支付死亡赔偿金、丧葬费总额的20%份额。故判决：一、由该局按照2008年全国在岗职工年平均工资29229元×20倍×20%的标准，在判决生效之日起十日内给张美华等五人赔偿刘伟洲死亡赔偿金和丧葬费116916元；二、驳回张美华等五人关于要求赔偿被扶养人生活费的诉讼请求。

一审宣判后，张美华等五人认为判决以20%承担赔偿责任太少、被告天水市公安局麦积分局则认为不应予以赔偿，双方均不服提出上诉。在天水市中级人民法院二审期间，经该院主持调解，双方当事人于2014年4月25日达成调解协议：一、天水市公安局麦积分局在2014年6月10前一次性给张美华、刘宇、刘沛、刘忠议、张凤仙支付刘伟洲死亡赔偿金20万元。二、张美华、刘宇、刘沛、刘忠议、张凤仙放弃要求天水市公安局麦积分局支付被扶养人生活费及刘伟洲丧葬费的诉讼请求。

（三）典型意义

本案典型意义在于：明确了公安机关因未及时出警而应承担的相应责任，并通过调解方式妥善化解争议。有权必有责,用权受监督,失职要问责,侵权要赔偿,是把权力关进制度笼子的基本要求。《人民警察法》明确规定，人民警察的任务是维护国家安全，维护社会治安秩序，保护公民人身安全、人身自由和合法财产，保护公共财产，预防、制止和惩治违法犯罪活动。因此，不仅违法实施行政处罚、行政强制等侵权行为可能承担赔偿责任，因不依法履行职责、不及时救助群众，造成人身、财产损害的，同样可能承担赔偿责任。本案中，被害人刘伟洲的不幸死亡系因他人犯罪所导致，但公安机关也存在违法拖延出警、未及时履行保护公民人身安全的义务，应当承担相应的赔偿责任。同时，行政诉讼法规定了行政赔偿案件可以调解，本案二审法院在查明事实、分清责任的基础上，主持达成调解协议并制作了行政赔偿调解书，既维护了法律的权威，也有利于切实保障当事人的合法权益。

catalogue

1. Zhang Enqi v. Tianjin Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and Tianjin Social Insurance Fund Management Center for Administrative Negligence

2. Zhang Fengzhu v. Puyang Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources for Administrative Inaction

3. Peng v. Shenzhen Nanshan District Planning and Land Supervision Brigade for Administrative Omission

4. Zhong Hua v. Tongzhou Branch of Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Inaction

5. Wang Shunsheng v. Shouguang City People's Government for Administrative Inaction

6. Shen and Cai v. Nantong Public Security Bureau Development Zone Branch Administrative Inaction Case

7. Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. v. Lanzhou Chengguan District Urban Management Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau for Administrative Omission Case

8. Zhao Yongtian v. Wudian Town People's Government of Fengyang County for Administrative Inaction

9. Ai Liren v. Shenyang Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission for Administrative Inaction

10. Zhang Meihua and Five Others v. Maiji Branch of Tianshui Public Security Bureau for Compensation for Administrative Negligence

1、 Zhang Enqi v. Tianjin Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and Tianjin Social Insurance Fund Management Center for Administrative Negligence

（1） Basic facts of the case

Zhang Enqi sent a letter to the Tianjin Human Resources and Social Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Social Security Bureau) on March 13 and October 16, 2013, and to the Tianjin Social Insurance Fund Management Center (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Social Security Fund Center) on September 25, 2013. The main content of the letter was to demand the fulfillment of legal responsibilities and mandatory collection of social insurance contributions due to low base, underpayment, and omission. After receiving the letter on October 26, 2013, the Municipal Social Security Bureau believed that the issues mentioned did not belong to the responsibility of the bureau, but rather to the responsibility of the Municipal Social Security Fund Center. Therefore, the letter was transferred to the center for processing. On November 29, 2013, the center issued a "Reply to Zhang Enqi's Complaints" to Zhang Enqi. The main content was that he had completed retirement procedures, and his retirement benefits were determined and approved by the social security bureau in the area where he participated in the insurance. Prior to the approval, the center had already confirmed the payment base, payment period, and other matters. As a social security agency, the center acted as a social security agency, Responsible for timely and fully distributing retirement benefits in accordance with the approval results of the district and county social security bureaus and relevant policies and regulations. Zhang Siqi first filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Social Security Bureau and the Municipal Social Security Fund Center, and applied to withdraw the lawsuit because their respective defense did not have corresponding responsibilities. Later, they were jointly informed to the court, requesting confirmation that the transfer of letters by the Municipal Social Security Bureau to the Municipal Social Security Fund Center was illegal, revoking the aforementioned response from the Municipal Social Security Fund Center, and ordering the two defendants to fulfill their legal responsibilities and respond to their demands.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Heping District, Tianjin held in the first instance that, according to Article 5 of the Provisional Regulations on the Collection and Payment of Social Insurance Premiums, the Municipal Social Security Bureau has administrative functions responsible for the management, supervision and inspection of the collection and payment of social insurance premiums throughout the city. On October 19, 2011, it issued a document to the Municipal Social Security Fund Center, which has a subordinate relationship with it, titled "Notice on the Division of Responsibilities for the Acceptance, Investigation and Handling of Social Insurance Reporting and Complaint Cases", The second item clearly stipulates that "for reports and complaints of employers who fail to pay social insurance premiums in full and on time, the social insurance agency shall accept and investigate them. If they still fail to pay within the time limit, the social insurance agency shall request the labor supervision agency with jurisdiction to impose administrative penalties. The specific procedures shall be formulated by the municipal labor supervision agency and the municipal social insurance agency. Therefore, it is not improper for the Municipal Social Security Bureau to transfer the letter to the Municipal Social Security Fund Center for processing. The Municipal Social Security Fund Center should clearly handle the matters requested by the plaintiff's letter, but it did not respond within 60 days. In the previous case where the plaintiff sued the center for not fulfilling its statutory duties, it concealed the issuance of the above-mentioned documents by the Municipal Social Security Bureau. In the defense, it denied that it had corresponding responsibilities, resulting in the plaintiff believing that the subject of the lawsuit against the defendant was incorrect and applying for withdrawal, which was a failure to fulfill its statutory duties and shirking responsibility. It is obviously inappropriate for the plaintiff to directly respond in the form of a petition without clearly addressing the plaintiff's request in the response to Zhang Enqi's complaint. Judgment: 1. The Municipal Social Security Fund Center shall handle the plaintiff's request within 30 days from the effective date of this judgment and notify the plaintiff in writing of the results. If the plaintiff fails to comply within the specified time limit, a fine of 70 yuan shall be imposed on each day from the expiration date; 2、 Reject the plaintiff's other claims. After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, none of the parties appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court has clarified the relevant responsibilities of the administrative subject in social security management through administrative adjudication. Due to the complexity of administrative management and unclear legal provisions, in cases where the boundaries of authority are not clear, administrative agencies should actively communicate and contact each other, coordinate and solve problems together, and cannot shift blame or even play hide and seek with the people. Social insurance benefits involve thousands of households and are related to personal life, aging, illness, and death. Both social security agencies and handling agencies must actively fulfill their responsibilities in order to fulfill the responsibilities of a responsible government. The people's court shall impose legal sanctions on administrative subjects who conceal relevant documents regarding the division of powers between them and relevant units in litigation, and may report to the disciplinary inspection and supervision department if necessary; In the case of administrative entities evading each other and denying corresponding legal responsibilities, relevant administrative entities can be listed as defendants in accordance with the law, jointly participating in the litigation, and ultimately determining the responsible party through trial evidence, cross examination, and debate. At the same time, in order to ensure the timely performance of the judgment, the legal consequences of not fulfilling the judgment can be clearly defined at the time of the judgment, which not only urges the administrative subject to fulfill their responsibilities as soon as possible, but also helps to ensure the rapid execution of the effective judgment. The judgment in this case has guiding and exemplary significance for the handling of similar cases.

2、 Zhang Fengzhu v. Puyang Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On October 16, 2013, Zhang Fengzhu submitted a written application to the Land and Resources Bureau of Puyang City, Henan Province (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau), requesting the bureau to investigate and punish the illegal and forced occupation of farmland in his village by relevant engineering projects in accordance with the law, and sent the application to the bureau. After receiving the application on October 17, 2013, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau did not accept, file a case, handle it, or inform Zhang Fengzhu. Zhang Fengzhu then sued the court on the grounds that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau did not fulfill its statutory duties, requesting confirmation that the defendant's specific administrative act of not fulfilling its statutory duties was illegal, and requiring the defendant to investigate and punish the land illegal act.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Hualong District, Puyang City held in the first instance that the land management department should accept land illegal cases assigned by superiors, transferred by other departments, and reported by the public. After accepting land illegal cases, the land management department shall conduct an examination, and any cases that meet the conditions for filing shall be promptly filed and investigated; If the conditions for filing a case are not met, the unit or informant responsible for handling or transferring the case shall be notified. After the plaintiff Zhang Fengzhu submitted an application to the defendant's Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources to investigate and punish illegal land occupation, the defendant should accept it. The defendant neither accepted it nor informed the plaintiff whether to file the case. Therefore, the plaintiff's request to confirm that the defendant did not perform legal duties and violated the law, and to fulfill legal duties within a specified time limit has factual and legal basis, and this court supports it. Judgment: Firstly, it is confirmed that the defendant's failure to accept the plaintiff's request for investigation and punishment of illegal land occupation is illegal. 2、 The defendant is limited to fulfilling legal responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the "Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Illegal Cases" from the effective date of this judgment.

The Municipal Land and Resources Bureau is dissatisfied and has filed an appeal. The Puyang Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that according to the "Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Illegal Cases", the land administrative departments of local people's governments at or above the county level shall supervise and inspect violations of land management laws and regulations. The appellant, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau, appealed that after receiving the application for supervision of land illegal activities on October 17, 2013, it had undergone acceptance and verification. However, the appellant did not promptly inform the applicant of the examination results, and the appellant's actions did not fully fulfill their work responsibilities, violating the provisions of Article 16 of the "Measures for the Investigation and Punishment of Land Illegal Cases". The second instance decision rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in: through the exercise of administrative trial functions, urging the land management department to promptly handle public reports, effectively fulfilling the legal responsibilities related to investigating and punishing illegal land occupation, in order to respond to public concerns and ensure the legitimate use of land resources. The current situation of scarce land resources and a shortage of people and land determines that China must implement the strictest land management system. However, for a long time, there has been serious waste of land resources, and illegal and irregular land use has emerged one after another. This is due to inadequate land management and protection, as well as factors that make it difficult for the people to effectively participate in protection. Public participation is an important channel for timely detection and correction of land violations, as well as an effective means to ensure the implementation of the strictest land management system. It is the power and obligation of the land management department to accept and promptly investigate reports of illegal land use by the people in accordance with the law. Article 13 of the Measures for the Investigation and Handling of Land Illegal Cases stipulates that "land management departments shall accept land illegal cases assigned by superiors, transferred by other departments, and reported by the public." Article 16 also specifies the procedures for filing and handling cases after acceptance. It is understood that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau not only failed to fulfill its duties in accordance with the law regarding Zhang Fengzhu's application in this case, but also had the same problem with the application of nine other people and was ruled against by the court. The ruling in this case has positive significance in ensuring the correct implementation of the strictest land management system and public participation.

3、 Peng v. Shenzhen Nanshan District Planning and Land Supervision Brigade for Administrative Omission

（1） Basic facts of the case

Peng and Lu are the owners of Room 902 and Room 901, Block A, a residential area in Nanshan District, Shenzhen. On September 1, 2011, the Nanshan District Planning and Land Supervision Brigade (hereinafter referred to as the District Supervision Brigade) received a call from the public to report that the residents of Room 901 had engaged in illegal construction. After investigation and evidence collection, it was found that Lu had illegally built a steel structure glass curtain wall on the open balcony of Room 901. Therefore, on September 4, 2011, a notice was issued ordering the cessation (correction) of illegal activities, Order them to immediately cease their illegal activities and clean up and dismantle them on their own before 12:00 pm on September 7, 2011. On October 25, 2011, the district supervision team issued the "Administrative Penalty Decision Letter (2011) No. 07017", which determined that Lu's illegal construction of glass curtain walls violated the relevant provisions of the Shenzhen Urban Planning Regulations. They decided to demolish the glass curtain walls in accordance with the law and informed him in writing that he should automatically fulfill the decision within 15 days from the date of delivery of the above-mentioned penalty decision letter. If he fails to fulfill the decision within the time limit, he will be enforced in accordance with the law. The Administrative Penalty Decision was delivered to Lu on the same day. On January 9, 2012, the district supervision team proposed to the Shenzhen Real Estate Property Rights Registration Center to temporarily suspend the registration of property rights for 901 properties. On January 28, 2013, the district supervision team issued a "reminder letter" requesting Lu to demolish the balcony and build a glass curtain wall, and restore the balcony to its original state. Regarding the Notice of Ordering to Stop (Correct) Illegal Acts and the Administrative Penalty Decision in the case, Lu did not file an administrative lawsuit or apply for administrative reconsideration within the statutory deadline. As of the date of the trial of the case, the illegally constructed glass curtain wall mentioned above has not been removed. Peng, the owner of Room 902, believes that the district supervision team, after issuing the "Notice of Ordering to Stop (Correct) Illegal Behaviors", disregarded the subsequent execution and was deemed an administrative inaction. Therefore, the district supervision team was informed to the court and requested confirmation that the defendant's failure to perform compulsory demolition was illegal. The defendant was ordered to immediately act in accordance with the law and forcibly demolish the illegal part.

（2） Judgment results

The Nanshan District People's Court of Shenzhen held in the first instance that the District Supervision Brigade, as a district planning and land supervision institution, has the responsibility to investigate, collect evidence, identify illegal land use and illegal construction activities within its administrative area, implement administrative penalties in accordance with the law, and enforce enforcement. After making an administrative decision to demolish illegal buildings within a prescribed time limit in accordance with the law, if the party concerned does not apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit within the prescribed time limit, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the compulsory execution procedures stipulated in laws and regulations such as the Administrative Compulsory Law of the People's Republic of China and the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Planning and Land Supervision Regulations. As for the deadline within which the competent authority must make a mandatory decision and implement mandatory demolition in accordance with the law, there is no clear provision in laws and regulations, but it should fulfill its legal responsibilities within a reasonable period of time. In this case, after the defendant made an administrative decision to demolish the case within a specified period of time and in accordance with the law, and the administrative counterpart did not apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit, and refused to comply, for more than a year until the date of the trial, they only made reminders without further processing the case, and did not provide evidence to prove that there were relevant legal and reasonable reasons. Their behavior was clearly improper, which has constituted a negligence in fulfilling their legal responsibilities, It should be corrected. Considering that the decision to make compulsory execution and the implementation of compulsory demolition belong to the administrative authority of administrative organs, and the implementation of administrative compulsory demolition has strict legal procedures, it is not appropriate to directly order the district supervision team to forcibly demolish illegal buildings. Therefore, it is decided that the district supervision team will continue to handle the illegal construction issue of Room 901, Building A, in a certain community in Nanshan District within three months from the effective date of the judgment. Peng and the district supervision team both appealed against the first instance verdict. The Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the same grounds in the second instance.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the people's court has declared through judgment that a legally effective administrative decision must be executed. Penalty decisions that are not backed by legal coercion are like flameless flames or dim lights, ultimately damaging the public's belief in the rule of law and even inducing group violations. The investigation and demolition of illegal buildings has always been a difficulty in urban management, and is also a key law enforcement focus for planning departments, land management, and urban appearance management departments. The investigation and punishment of illegal buildings by relevant administrative law enforcement agencies should not only end in making punishment decisions, but should take effective measures in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Compulsory Law to ensure the execution of punishment decisions, in order to fully fulfill legal responsibilities. Although it is difficult to remove violations, it cannot be an excuse for administrative agencies to neglect their statutory duties. Article 68 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law stipulates that if the competent department in charge of urban and rural planning makes a decision to order the cessation of construction or the demolition within a specified time limit, and the party concerned fails to stop construction or the demolition within the specified time limit, the local people's government at or above the county level in the place where the construction project is located may order the relevant departments to take measures such as sealing up the construction site or compulsory demolition. Of course, due to the diversity of administrative management, laws and regulations generally do not specify a deadline for administrative agencies to forcibly demolish after making a penalty decision, but it still needs to be fulfilled within a reasonable period of time. In this case, the People's Court found that the district supervision team has not been forced to execute the "Administrative Penalty Decision" for more than a year, which has clearly exceeded a reasonable deadline, and is considered to be negligent in fulfilling legal responsibilities. In terms of the judgment method, the court ordered it to continue processing, which is not only in line with the spirit of legal regulations, but also conducive to ensuring the implementation of the punishment decision through education and persuasion rather than coercive means as much as possible, and has certain exemplary significance.

4、 Zhong Hua v. Tongzhou Branch of Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On December 27, 2013, Tongzhou Branch of Beijing Municipal Administration of Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as Tongzhou Branch of Industry and Commerce) received a letter of complaint (report) from Zhong Hua, claiming that the "Beida Rice Shortage and Selenium Enrichment" purchased in Carrefour did not comply with the provisions of the General Principles on Nutrition Labeling of Prepackaged Food, and was an illegal product that did not meet the food safety standards, and asked Tongzhou Branch of Industry and Commerce to order Carrefour to return its payment and make compensation, Administrative penalties shall be imposed in accordance with the law. On December 30 of the same year, the Tongzhou Administration for Industry and Commerce issued a response stating that according to the bureau's investigation, the food safety issues reported by Zhong Hua are currently not within its functional scope. Zhong Hua submitted a reconsideration application to the Beijing Administration for Industry and Commerce on January 8, 2014. The machine made a reconsideration decision on April 2 of the same year and maintained the "Reply". Zhong Hua was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit against the Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Bureau as the defendant, requesting confirmation that the procedures for handling reported cases by the Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Bureau were illegal and ordering them to fulfill their transfer responsibilities.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Tongzhou District, Beijing held in the first instance that according to the Food Safety Office of the State Council, the State Administration for Industry and Commerce, the State Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine According to the Food Safety Office (2013) No. 13 of the State Food and Drug Administration, the Notice on Further Improving the Supervision of Food and Cosmetics during the Institutional Reform Period, and the Notice of the General Office of the Beijing Municipal People's Government on Printing and Distributing the Regulations on the Main Responsibilities of the Internal Institutions and Personnel Staffing of the Beijing Food and Drug Administration, the food safety supervision responsibilities in the circulation process of Beijing are currently undertaken by the Beijing Food and Drug Administration, Therefore, the defendant Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Branch no longer has the responsibility to supervise the food safety in the circulation process, and upon receiving a report from the plaintiff Zhong Hua, it should be able to determine the competent authority for the case. Article 15 of the Regulations on Administrative Penalty Procedures for Industrial and Commercial Administrative Organs stipulates that if the industrial and commercial administrative organ discovers that the case being investigated and dealt with belongs to the jurisdiction of other administrative organs, it shall be transferred to other relevant organs in accordance with the law. In this case, when the defendant believes that the matter reported by the plaintiff does not fall under its jurisdiction, it should be transferred to the relevant competent authority. Therefore, the defendant is judged to fulfill the transfer responsibility for the plaintiff's reported matter within fifteen working days, and other litigation requests of the plaintiff are rejected. The Tongzhou Industrial and Commercial Branch was dissatisfied and filed an appeal. The Beijing Third Intermediate People's Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment on the same grounds.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that it has been clarified through adjudication that administrative agencies should promptly transfer matters that do not fall within their responsibilities. If relevant normative documents stipulate that they should be transferred to competent authorities for handling, they should be promptly transferred. In the field of administrative management, the responsibilities of administrative agencies have both division of labor and overlap. The sources of statutory responsibilities may be laws, regulations, rules, and normative documents in the administrative field, legal norms in other administrative management fields, or even administrative needs and practices. The supervision and management responsibilities related to food production and circulation are transferred from the industrial and commercial authorities to the food and drug supervision and management departments. However, in the initial stage of responsibility adjustment, the people may not be very clear. If the industrial and commercial authorities find that the reporting matters of food safety issues by the people belong to the jurisdiction of other administrative organs, they should transfer them to the relevant competent authorities and cannot be pushed forward. Actively transferring is also a legal responsibility.

5、 Wang Shunsheng v. Shouguang City People's Government for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On February 11, 2014, the People's Government of Shouguang City (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Government) received a request from Wang Shunsheng to order the Chuzhuang Village Village Committee of Luocheng Street (hereinafter referred to as the Chuzhuang Village Committee) to publicly disclose village affairs. After investigation and verification, the Municipal Government issued (2014) No. 009 Notice on Ordering the Publication of Village Affairs on April 4 of the same year, The main content is: "On February 11, 2014, the village committee of Chuzhuang Village in Luocheng Street accepted the application from Wang Shunsheng, a villager of your village, for ordering Chuzhuang Village in Luocheng Street to publish village affairs." According to Article 31 of the Organization Law of the Village Committee and the Measures for the Implementation of the Organization Law of the People's Republic of China on Village Committees in Shandong Province Article 38 stipulates that your unit is hereby ordered to disclose relevant village affairs information to Wang Shunsheng in accordance with the law. This notice is hereby issued and delivered to the Chuzhuang Village Committee on the same day. The municipal government believes that it has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities. However, at the time of the trial in this case, the village committee of Chuzhuang Village did not disclose the matter of Wang Shunsheng's application to him. Wang Shunsheng filed an administrative lawsuit with the municipal government as the defendant, requesting confirmation that the defendant's failure to fulfill the duty of ordering the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose village affairs was illegal; Order the defendant to promptly fulfill the duty of ordering the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose village affairs.

（2） Judgment results

The Intermediate People's Court of Weifang City held in the first instance that, in accordance with Article 31 of the Organizational Law of the Villagers' Committee If the village committee fails to timely announce the matters that should be announced or the announced matters are not true, the villagers have the right to report to the people's government of the township, ethnic township, town or the county-level people's government and its relevant competent departments. The relevant people's government or competent departments shall be responsible for investigating and verifying the truth, and order the announcement to be made in accordance with the law. If it is found that there is indeed an illegal act, the relevant personnel shall bear the responsibility in accordance with the law, The defendant city government is legally responsible for investigating and verifying the matters reflected by the plaintiff Wang Shunsheng according to the application, and ordering the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose relevant village affairs. When fulfilling the duty of ordering, the defendant should not be limited to making and delivering the order notice, but should also limit the reasonable period of disclosure and follow up and supervise the implementation of the order notice by the village committee to achieve a public result. In this case, although the defendant has issued a notice to the Chuzhuang Village Committee ordering the disclosure of village affairs information in accordance with legal provisions, there is no reasonable time limit for disclosure, nor has there been any verification of the implementation of the notice by the Chuzhuang Village Committee. The defendant's so-called performance of duty did not reach the level of "ordering" required by law, lacking binding force and enforcement force, resulting in the Chuzhuang Village Committee not disclosing relevant village affairs to the plaintiff until the trial of this case. Therefore, the defendant has not fully fulfilled its statutory obligations and should continue to fulfill its obligation to order. Therefore, the defendant was ordered to order the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose relevant village affairs information to the plaintiff within 60 days from the effective date of this judgment. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the clarification through adjudication that administrative agencies should not only fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner, but also comprehensively fulfill their responsibilities, and achieve the purpose of fulfilling their responsibilities in accordance with the law. In this case, the municipal government has formally ordered the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose relevant village committee information, which seems to have fulfilled its statutory responsibilities; However, due to the fact that the "Notice of Ordering the Announcement of Village Affairs" does not specify the specific content, nor does it specify the specific or reasonable deadline, it actually constitutes a failure to fully fulfill legal responsibilities, resulting in the plaintiff and other villagers' right to know and supervise village affairs being delayed in implementation. Therefore, the people's court has ordered the Chuzhuang Village Committee to disclose village affairs information within a specified time limit, which can better promote the disclosure of village affairs and effectively safeguard the right of the majority of villagers to know.

6、 Shen and Cai v. Nantong Public Security Bureau Development Zone Branch Administrative Inaction Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

At around 13:5 pm on September 20, 2013, a dispute arose between the owner of Store 1 and Store 2 in a residential area of Nantong Development Zone, Jiangsu Province, due to the stacking of empty oil drums. Personnel from both sides were involved in a dispute, which led to beatings. After receiving the alarm, the Development Zone Branch of Nantong Public Security Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Development Zone Public Security Bureau) instructed the police to call the police and investigate and collect evidence from the personnel and witnesses involved in the case. On September 22, 2013, the Development Zone Branch officially filed the dispute as a public security case and organized multiple mediation efforts between the two parties. On October 9th, when summoned for questioning, Shen clearly expressed his disagreement with mediation. On December 2nd, Shen and Cai filed an administrative lawsuit with the court on the grounds that the Development Zone Branch did not fulfill its statutory responsibility for administrative penalties for public security management, requesting confirmation that the defendant's failure to make a decision on public security penalties within the legally prescribed time limit was illegal. During the litigation period, the defendant made administrative penalty decisions on the individuals involved on December 9th in accordance with the provisions of the Public Security Management Penalty Law.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the People's Court of Gangzha District, Nantong City believes that whether the defendant's Development Zone Branch has fulfilled its statutory responsibilities within the statutory time limit should be examined from two aspects: the legal and regulatory deadline for handling cases, and whether there are legitimate reasons not included in the deadline for handling cases. According to Article 99 of the Public Security Management Penalty Law, the time limit for public security organs to handle public security cases shall not exceed 30 days from the date of acceptance; A major and complex public security case may be extended for an additional 30 days with the approval of the higher-level public security organ. This means that the general deadline for public security organs to handle public security cases is 30 days, and the maximum deadline cannot exceed 60 days. The defendant filed a case on September 22, 2013, and made an administrative penalty decision on December 9, 2013. The deadline for handling the case clearly exceeded the general legal deadline and also exceeded the maximum 60 day deadline. Mediation should also adhere to the principle of voluntariness. If the parties clearly express their unwillingness to mediate, mediation should not be applied. Even if there is a fact of mediation, the period from the date of the plaintiff Shen's refusal to mediate on October 9th to the defendant's administrative penalty decision on December 9th is still 61 days, still exceeding the maximum 60 day deadline for handling the case. Moreover, the defendant failed to provide evidence within the time limit for providing evidence, which was approved by the higher-level public security organ to extend the case handling period. Based on this, the judgment confirms that the defendant's failure to make an administrative penalty decision within the prescribed time limit is illegal. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is to standardize the performance requirements of public security organs in the field of public security management through the exercise of administrative trial functions, which is conducive to the timely resolution of public security disputes. The Public Security Management Penalty Law clearly stipulates the deadline for public security organs to handle public security cases. According to the relevant provisions of the "Regulations on the Procedure for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Relations Organs" of the Ministry of Public Security, for violations of public security management such as beating others caused by civil disputes, if the circumstances are relatively minor, mediation can be carried out. The deadline for handling mediation cases starts from the date when the mediation agreement is not reached or the mediation agreement is not fulfilled. However, mediation cannot be an excuse for the public security organs to not fulfill their responsibilities in a timely manner. In this case, if Shen has clearly expressed his disagreement with mediation, the public security organs should make a punishment decision within 30 days in accordance with the law. If the deadline for handling cases exceeds 30 days, evidence should be provided to prove that the extension has been approved by the higher-level public security organ. The defendant clearly violated relevant regulations. Of course, the defendant also recognized the illegality of failing to fulfill their duties in a timely manner and made a punishment decision within one week after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit, demonstrating respect for the law and the sincerity of correcting mistakes, and obtaining the plaintiff's understanding. In modern rule of law countries, an administrative act that clearly violates the legal deadline, even if the physical content is completely legal, will be labeled as illegal due to its late arrival.

7、 Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. v. Urban Management and Law Enforcement Bureau of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City

（1） Basic facts of the case

Lanzhou Hongguang Driver Training Service Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongguang Company) has reported to multiple agencies such as the street community where it is located and the Urban Management Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau) of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City, Gansu Province, on the grounds that Gansu Yonglong Cultural Products Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yonglong Company) has engaged in illegal construction and has affected the normal use of its training ground. However, the above authorities have not dealt with any of the matters they have reported. In October 2012, Hongguang Company reported the issue of Yonglong Company's illegal construction to the Lanzhou Municipal Party Committee Letters and Calls Office. The Lanzhou Municipal Party Committee Letters and Calls Office forwarded the report materials to the Lanzhou Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau, which then forwarded the report materials to the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau. However, until Hongguang Company filed a lawsuit, the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau had not yet provided any response to the company's report. Therefore, Hongguang Company took the District Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau as the defendant, Bring an administrative lawsuit to the court, requesting that the defendant be ordered to fulfill their statutory duties.

（2） Judgment results

During the first instance of this case, the People's Court of Chengguan District, Lanzhou City realized that there was a risk of losing the case if the defendant's administrative law enforcement bureau did not perform its duties. Therefore, after consultation with the plaintiff Hongguang Company, they reached a consensus and agreed to accept the plaintiff's report and conduct investigations within their authority, that is, according to the plaintiff's application, they fulfilled their corresponding legal responsibilities. Therefore, the plaintiff submitted a written withdrawal application to the first instance court on June 7, 2013. The court, in accordance with Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law, Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Withdrawal of Administrative Litigation, and Article 63, Paragraph 1 (10) of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China, has ruled to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the lawsuit.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is that the purpose of administrative litigation is to resolve administrative disputes. After the parties file the lawsuit, sometimes it is tried by the court. During the litigation period, the administrative organ becomes aware of its own problems and actively corrects them. On the premise of not harming national interests and social public interests, the parties actively apply for withdrawal of the lawsuit and obtain the permission of the court, which can also achieve the trial effect of the case being concluded. Administrative inaction cases are often caused by subjective factors such as "laziness" and "laziness" among administrative agencies and their staff, or some objective reasons. Compared to other types of administrative cases, the legal relationship is clearer and the difficulty of case trial is relatively low. As long as administrative agencies fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the law, the crux between the parties is often easy to resolve. In practice, in many cases, the plaintiff chooses to seek relief through litigation after repeatedly reporting to the administrative authorities and complaining fruitlessly. Once the lawsuit is filed, the dispute is often quickly resolved during the litigation period. This highlights the significant influence of administrative trials as an external supervision mechanism from one side. On the basis of clarifying facts and distinguishing right from wrong, the court can resolve disputes through reconciliation by explaining legal provisions and consequences to the defendant, which can achieve the original request in a short period of time, solving the problem without harming the "harmony".

8、 Zhao Yongtian v. Wudian Town People's Government of Fengyang County for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

The People's Government of Fengyang County, Anhui Province, in accordance with the relevant documents of the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Rural Development, the Ministry of Finance, and Chuzhou City, has formulated the "Implementation Plan for the 2012 Rural Dangerous Housing Renovation Work in Fengyang County" (hereinafter referred to as the "Plan"), promoting the implementation of the rural dangerous housing renovation project for the benefit of the people throughout the county. Zhao Yongtian submitted an application for a subsidy for the renovation of dilapidated houses to the Zhao Guai Village Village Committee in Wudian Town, Fengyang County on April 22, 2012, in accordance with the spirit of the above-mentioned documents. After evaluation, the village committee agreed with Zhao Yongtian's application opinions and submitted the application materials to the People's Government of Wudian Town, Fengyang County (hereinafter referred to as the town government) for review. But until Zhao Yongtian filed a lawsuit, the town government did not fulfill its duty of reviewing the application for renovation of dilapidated buildings in accordance with the provisions of the above-mentioned documents. On April 17, 2013, Zhao Yongtian filed an administrative lawsuit with the town government as the defendant, claiming that the defendant did not make a review decision in accordance with the "Plan" and requesting the defendant to fulfill the responsibility of reviewing the application for renovation of dangerous buildings.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Fengyang County People's Court held that the "Plan" formulated by the Fengyang County People's Government clearly stipulates the application procedures and review methods for the renovation of rural dilapidated houses. After receiving the application materials from the village committee, the township people's government shall organize personnel to conduct on-site inspections. If the inspection meets the conditions, the township people's government shall sign the review opinions and submit them to the county's rural dangerous house renovation leading group for approval; If the conditions are not met, the materials will be returned to the local village committee and the reasons explained, and the review results will be publicly displayed in the village affairs public column for seven days. The plan also stipulates that the inspection and acceptance period for the renovation of dilapidated buildings in Fengyang County is from December 11 to December 31, 2012. The plaintiff Zhao Yongtian submitted an application for the renovation of a dilapidated building in accordance with regulations, but the defendant town government failed to fulfill its review responsibilities in accordance with the procedures and methods specified in the "Plan" after receiving the application materials, and its behavior constitutes administrative inaction. During the trial of this case, the defendant conducted a supplementary verification of the plaintiff's application for renovation of dilapidated buildings and found that it did not meet the subsidy conditions for renovation of dilapidated buildings. The defendant also informed the Zhaoguai Village Villagers' Committee and the first instance court in writing of the reasons for the non-compliance. The court has informed the plaintiff of the verification results, but the plaintiff is unwilling to withdraw the lawsuit. Therefore, the first instance court ruled that the defendant's failure to fulfill the duty of reviewing the application for renovation of dangerous buildings was illegal. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the fact that the people's court emphasized the responsibility of the township government in the renovation of rural dilapidated houses through its judgment, which has a positive role in urging them to fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the law and ensuring the basic living rights and interests of farmers. The renovation of dilapidated rural houses is an important livelihood project determined by the central government and also a popular project. Local people's governments at all levels should resolutely implement and ensure the unity and smooth flow of central government orders, and ensure that rural households living in dilapidated houses provide scattered housing for the five guarantees, low guarantee households, impoverished families with disabilities, and other impoverished households have their own homes. In the process of determining the subsidy targets reasonably by local governments, villages, towns, and counties each have corresponding responsibilities for evaluation, review, and approval. Failure to fulfill their responsibilities at any stage can lead to "intestinal obstruction". The defendant town government in this case failed to verify the plaintiff Zhao Yongtian's application in accordance with the law for a period of up to a year, neglecting the protection of his rights and seriously affecting the determination of the subsidy target, which constitutes a failure to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the law. Due to the review conducted by the defendant during the litigation period, the court ruled that its continued performance was no longer of practical significance, but still confirmed that its non performance was illegal and in line with the provisions of administrative litigation, demonstrating the value of judicial review.

9、 Ai Liren v. Shenyang Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission for Administrative Inaction

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 2, 2013, Ai Liren sought medical attention at Shenyang Zhongda Orthopedics Hospital (hereinafter referred to as Zhongda Orthopedics) for a closed fracture of his right calf. Not only was the fracture not cured after surgery, but the closed fracture also caused exposure of bone formation and bone infection. After ten surgeries, he was unable to cure and now has a leg disability. Ai Liren believes that there is medical damage during the treatment, and the doctor Wu who participated in the first surgery has violated the law of performing a grade skipping surgery. From May to December 2013, Ai Liren repeatedly reported and complained to the Shenyang Municipal Health Bureau (now renamed as the Shenyang Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission) in Liaoning Province about multiple issues such as orthopedic surgery at CUHK, but the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission did not respond. On December 24, 2013, after the CCTV News Channel reported this matter, Ai Liren received a reception from the Medical Affairs Department of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission and promised to investigate and handle it. On the afternoon of February 19, 2014, Zhang, a medical staff member of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission, replied by phone that "Wu is not a skip level surgery". Ai Liren was dissatisfied with the response and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission as the defendant, requesting that the defendant impose administrative penalties on the surgical hospital and doctors.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Heping District, Shenyang City held in the first instance that the plaintiff Ai Liren did not provide evidence to prove that he had applied to the defendant Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission for administrative punishment of surgical hospitals and doctors. Therefore, the plaintiff believed that the defendant's viewpoint of not fulfilling legal responsibilities did not have factual basis and did not support the plaintiff's lawsuit request, which should be rejected. Therefore, the judgment rejected the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After Ai Liren appealed, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission argued that Zhongda Orthopedics is a second-level specialized hospital with medical qualifications for Ai Liren's surgery. The surgeon Wu is a senior resident physician, and the hospital authorizes him to engage in first and second level surgeries, and can organize partial third level surgeries under the guidance of higher-level doctors; The "Management Measures for Clinical Application of Medical Technology" stipulate that surgical grading is organized and implemented by medical institutions themselves. Currently, there is no relevant grading in the orthopedics department of CUHK, so there is no issue of bypassing the level of surgery in Wu.

The Shenyang Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that based on relevant evidence and the court statement of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission, it can be determined that Ai Liren has submitted a report and the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission has provided an oral response. Therefore, the original trial found that Ai Liren did not submit an application because the facts were unclear. According to Article 5 (2) of the Regulations on the Management of Medical Institutions and Article 5 (2) of the Management of Surgical Grading System, the matters applied for by Ai Liren belong to the scope of authority of the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission. The Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission has conducted an investigation into the matter reported by Ai Liren and made a determination of relevant facts. However, due to the lack of corresponding evidence submitted to the court regarding this part of the facts, it should be determined that the evidence is insufficient; And based on its existing investigation facts, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission should also handle it in accordance with relevant laws and regulations, without the need for Ai Liren to reapply for how to handle illegal acts. Therefore, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission has failed to fulfill its duties and has revoked the first instance judgment, ordering the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission to take specific administrative actions against Ai Liren's reporting application.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case lies in the judicial review of the legal responsibilities of the health administrative department in handling doctor-patient disputes, which has a positive effect on protecting the rights and interests of patients in accordance with the law. Medical disputes between doctors and patients have increasingly become a hot topic in society. The health administrative department should strengthen the supervision of medical institutions, actively investigate and fulfill their responsibilities in accordance with the law when patients raise violations of medical institutions. It is not only necessary to protect the legitimate rights and interests of patients, but also to clarify responsibilities as soon as possible, promoting trust between doctors and patients. Due to the high professionalism and high risk of medical surgery, as well as the limitations of patient medical knowledge, the health administrative department, as a bridge in the doctor-patient relationship, must adhere to openness, fairness, and impartiality when investigating and handling doctor-patient disputes, and fulfill its responsibilities in accordance with the law, without favoring any party. In this case, the Municipal Health and Family Planning Commission found through investigation that the hospital involved in the case did not establish a grading system, and should order the hospital involved to make corrections and take corresponding remedial measures. However, it responded to the application of the parties that the hospital involved did not establish a grading system and therefore did not have the problem of violating the rules and regulations of surgery. This clearly violates the provisions of relevant laws and regulations. Therefore, the people's court ruled that the hospital involved should take a specific administrative action again, which is legally valid. The second instance judgment of this case has a demonstrative effect on the court's handling of similar cases.

10、 Zhang Meihua and Five Others v. Maiji Branch of Tianshui Public Security Bureau for Compensation for Administrative Omission

（1） Basic facts of the case

At around 3am on March 3, 2006, when the victim Liu Weizhou passed by the Agricultural Bank of China Savings Office in Qiaonan Boyang Road, Maiji District, Tianshui City, Gansu Province, he was blocked and robbed by criminals Su Futang, Wu Lijiang, and Tong Bin. Liu Weizhou was stabbed and shouted for help. Upon hearing the call for help, individual driver Hu and beauty center manager Liang used their mobile phones to call the police three times at 4:02, 4:13, and 4:20. The "110" duty officer gave the call to "120" and "120" to "110". After Liang called "110" again at 4:24:20 (79 seconds in length), the "110" on duty police officer instructed the Qiaonan Police Station to call the police at 6:23:35. At this time, the victim Liu Weizhou had already died due to excessive blood loss. According to forensic identification, the victim Liu Weizhou was stabbed through the femoral artery with a sharp tool, resulting in hemorrhagic shock and death. On March 23, 2007, the People's Court of Maiji District, Tianshui City issued a criminal judgment (2007) Maixingchu Zi No. 4, which found that the "110" duty police officer of Maiji Branch, Gao, was guilty of dereliction of duty and was exempted from criminal punishment. After Gao appealed, the second instance upheld the original judgment.

The Intermediate People's Court of Tianshui City issued a criminal incidental civil judgment (2006) No. 24, which sentenced the defendants Su Futang, Wu Deqiang, and Tong Bin to compensate Liu Weizhou for the corresponding death compensation. In the execution of civil judgments, the defendant Su Futang had already been executed and had no property available for execution; The defendants Wu Liqiang and Tong Bin relied on their parents to support them before serving their sentences, and currently have no property available for execution. On June 3, 2008, the Tianshui Intermediate People's Court terminated the execution with (2008) Tianzhi Zi No. 29 civil ruling. On January 16, 2009, Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi, and Zhang Fengxian, the close relatives of the victim Liu Weizhou, filed an administrative compensation application with the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau on the grounds of administrative inaction by the public security organs. The bureau made a decision not to grant administrative compensation. Zhang Meihua and five others sued the bureau as defendants and filed an administrative compensation lawsuit with the court, requesting that the defendant compensate Liu Weizhou with 498640 yuan in death compensation and funeral expenses, and 26959.95 yuan in living expenses for the dependent.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Maiji District, Tianshui City held in the first instance that Article 34, Paragraph 1 (3) of the National Compensation Law stipulates that if a citizen's right to life and health is infringed upon, the compensation shall be calculated according to the following provisions: (3) If death is caused, death compensation and funeral expenses shall be paid, with a total amount of 20 times the average annual salary of employees in the previous year of the country. For those who were supported by the deceased before their death and were unable to work, living expenses should also be paid. The Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau in this case shall pay 20% of the total amount of death compensation and funeral expenses in accordance with national regulations. Therefore, judgment: 1. According to the national average annual salary of on-the-job employees in 2008, 29229 yuan × 20x × According to the 20% standard, within ten days from the effective date of the judgment, compensate Zhang Meihua and five others with Liu Weizhou's death compensation and funeral expenses of 116916 yuan; 2、 Reject the lawsuit filed by Zhang Meihua and five others requesting compensation for the living expenses of the dependent.

After the first instance judgment was pronounced, Zhang Meihua and five others believed that the 20% compensation liability in the judgment was too low, while the defendant, the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau, believed that compensation should not be given. Both parties were dissatisfied and appealed. During the second instance of the Intermediate People's Court of Tianshui City, after mediation led by the court, both parties reached a mediation agreement on April 25, 2014. Firstly, the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau paid a one-time compensation of 200000 yuan to Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi, and Zhang Fengxian for Liu Weizhou's death before June 10, 2014. 2、 Zhang Meihua, Liu Yu, Liu Pei, Liu Zhongyi, and Zhang Fengxian have waived their lawsuit to demand that the Maiji Branch of the Tianshui Public Security Bureau pay the living expenses of the dependent and Liu Weizhou's funeral expenses.

（3） Typical significance

The typical significance of this case is to clarify the corresponding responsibilities that the public security organs should bear due to their failure to call out the police in a timely manner, and to properly resolve disputes through mediation. Having power must have responsibility, exercising power under supervision, holding accountable for dereliction of duty, and compensating for infringement are the basic requirements for placing power in a institutional cage. The People's Police Law clearly stipulates that the tasks of the people's police are to maintain national security, maintain social security and order, protect the personal safety, freedom, and legitimate property of citizens, protect public property, and prevent, stop, and punish illegal and criminal activities. Therefore, not only may the illegal implementation of administrative penalties, administrative coercion, and other infringement behaviors bear compensation liability, but also those who cause personal and property damage due to failure to fulfill their duties in accordance with the law or timely assistance to the masses may also bear compensation liability. In this case, the unfortunate death of victim Liu Weizhou was caused by another person's crime. However, the public security organs also have illegal delays in calling the police and failed to fulfill their obligations to protect the personal safety of citizens in a timely manner, and should bear corresponding compensation responsibilities. At the same time, the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates that administrative compensation cases can be mediated. On the basis of identifying facts and distinguishing responsibilities, the second instance court of this case presided over the conclusion of a mediation agreement and produced an administrative compensation mediation agreement, which not only maintains the authority of the law but also helps to effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties involved.