目录

1.南京发尔士新能源有限公司诉南京市江宁区人民政府行政决定案

2.江西省盐业集团公司吉安公司诉吉安市工商行政管理局行政处罚案

3.丹阳市珥陵镇鸿润超市诉丹阳市市场监督管理局行政登记案

4.德清莫干山蛇类实业有限公司诉浙江省食品药品监督管理局行政监督案

5.上海辉慈医疗器械有限公司诉崇明县财政局行政决定案

6.青岛爱思梦食品有限公司诉青岛市工商行政管理局四方分局行政处罚案

7.萍乡市亚鹏房地产开发有限公司诉萍乡市国土资源局行政协议案

8.青岛遨广通机械施工有限公司诉即墨市工商行政管理局行政不作为案

9.福建新新房地产开发有限公司诉平和县工商行政管理局行政处罚案

10.周可添、魏达志、陈凤娇、何祥增诉中国证券监督委员会行政处罚案

一、南京发尔士新能源有限公司诉南京市江宁区人民政府行政决定案

（一）基本案情

江苏省南京市发展和改革委员会于2010年7月对10家企业作出废弃食用油脂定点回收加工单位备案，其中包括南京发尔士化工厂和南京立升废油脂回收处理中心。2012年11月，南京市江宁区人民政府（以下简称江宁区政府）作出江宁政发（2012）396号《关于印发江宁区餐厨废弃物管理工作方案的通知》（以下简称396号文），明确“目前指定南京立升再生资源开发有限公司（以下简称立升公司）实施全区餐厨废弃物收运处理。”该区城市管理局和区商务局于2014年3月发出公函，要求落实396号文的规定，各生猪屠宰场点必须和立升公司签订清运协议，否则将进行行政处罚。南京发尔士新能源有限公司（以下简称发尔士公司）对396号文不服，诉至法院，请求撤销该文对立升公司的指定，并赔偿损失。

（二）裁判结果

南京市中级人民法院一审认为，被告江宁区政府在396号文中的指定，实际上肯定了立升公司在江宁区开展餐厨废弃物业务的资格，构成实质上的行政许可。区城市管理局和区商务局作出的公函已经表明被告的指定行为事实上已经实施。根据行政许可法相关规定，行政机关受理、审查、作出行政许可应当履行相应的行政程序，被告在作出指定前，未履行任何行政程序，故被诉行政行为程序违法。被告采取直接指定的方式，未通过招标等公平竞争的方式，排除了其他可能的市场参与者，构成通过行政权力限制市场竞争，违反了《江苏省餐厨废弃物管理办法》第十九条和反垄断法第三十二条的规定。被告为了加强餐厨废弃物处理市场监管的需要，对该市场的正常运行作出必要的规范和限制，但不应在行政公文中采取明确指定某一公司的方式。原告发尔士公司对其赔偿请求未提交证据证实，法院对此不予支持。遂判决撤销被告在396号文中对立升公司指定的行政行为，驳回原告的其他诉讼请求。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案是涉及行政垄断的典型案件。行政垄断指行政机关滥用行政权力，违法提高市场准入门槛、违法指定特定企业从事特定业务、违法设置条件限制其他企业参与竞争等行为。它侵犯了市场主体的公平竞争权，对经济活动的正常运行、商品的自由流通乃至政府的内外形象都会造成较大破坏和不利影响，我国反垄断法和反不正当竞争法对此明令禁止。本案中，江宁区政府在行政公文中直接指定立升公司，未通过招标等公平竞争方式，排除了其他可能的市场参与者，构成通过行政权力限制市场竞争的违法情形。人民法院依法裁判，具有积极导向意义。新修改的行政诉讼法将“滥用行政权力侵犯公平竞争权”明确纳入受案范围，就是为突出行政审判对市场正常竞争秩序的有力维护。随着法治不断进步，公民、法人等各类市场主体在运用行政诉讼法律武器依法维权、监督和规制行政垄断方面，将发挥越来越大的作用。

二、江西省盐业集团公司吉安公司诉吉安市工商行政管理局行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

江西省吉安市盐务局是国务院授权的盐业主管机构，江西省盐业集团公司吉安公司（以下简称吉安盐业公司）是经工商部门注册登记并办理营业执照的企业（经营范围为食盐、各类用盐、场地出租、日用百货等），二者属一套人马两块牌子。因吉安盐业公司除专营食盐批发业务外，还经营日用百货，为提高企业效益，该公司部分业务员在批发、配送食盐过程中，强制搭配非盐商品（食用油、白酒等）或在食盐配送过程中搭配低钠盐、深井盐，否则就以无高钠盐（中盐）或无盐为由停止供应食盐。部分食用盐零售商不满，向吉安市工商行政管理局（以下简称市工商局）投诉，该局先后于2012、2013年两次向吉安盐业公司下达责令改正通知书。后经市工商局立案调查，告知该公司听证权利并听取陈述后，于2014年7月作出行政处罚决定：责令停止违法行为，处以罚款16万元。吉安盐业公司不服，申请行政复议后复议机关维持上述处罚决定。该公司诉至法院，请求撤销市工商局的行政处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

吉安市吉州区人民法院一审认为，原告吉安盐业公司作为国家食盐专营企业，具有法定的独占经营权，与其他普通经营者对食盐零售商具有不同支配地位，但其经营主体、地位应当平等。原告在开启多种经营活动中，利用自身专营食用盐的批发、配送过程中的独占优势地位，强制食用盐零售商搭售低钠盐及非盐商品食用油、洗涤系列产品、白酒等商品，其行为构成了限定他人购买其指定的经营者的商品，违反了反不正当竞争法第六条规定，遂判决维持被告吉安市工商局作出的行政处罚决定。该公司上诉后，吉安市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是行政机关依法查处不正当竞争行为的典型案件。不正当竞争行为的突出表现之一，是公用企业等依法具有独占地位的经营者，限定他人购买其指定的经营者的商品，或违背购买者意愿搭售商品或附加其他不合理的条件，上述行为严重侵害了其他经营者的公平竞争权，排挤、剥夺了他人公平获得财富的机会。要建立平等自由、竞争有序的市场秩序，离不开对于广大经营者公平竞争权的充分保护。这一权利是各类市场主体从事经营活动的基础性权利，是稳定市场秩序、激发创新活力的压舱石。本案中，吉安盐业公司利用独占经营权，强行搭售非盐商品，是一种典型的不正当竞争行为，工商机关根据举报对该公司强行搭售行为予以查处，是正确履行制止和处罚违法经营活动、保障市场秩序的职能行为。法院的裁判彰显了行政审判对公平竞争权益的有力维护，对行政机关严格执法的有力支持，对市场经济持续健康发展的有力推进。

三、丹阳市珥陵镇鸿润超市诉丹阳市市场监督管理局行政登记案

（一）基本案情

2015年2月，江苏省丹阳市珥陵镇鸿润超市（以下简称鸿润超市）向该市市场监督管理局（以下简称市市场监管局）提交个体工商户变更登记申请书，申请在原营业执照核准的经营范围内增加蔬菜零售项目。2015年2月，该局向鸿润超市出具个体工商户变更登记受理通知书，随后审查材料，赴实地调查核实，认定鸿润超市经营场所距丹阳市珥陵农贸市场不足200米，其申请不符合丹阳市人民政府丹政办发（2012）29号《关于转发市商务局<丹阳市菜市场建设规范>的通知》（以下简称29号文）中“菜市场周边200米范围内不得设置与菜市场经营类同的农副产品经销网点”的规定，遂作出了驳回通知书，决定对其变更申请不予登记。鸿润超市不服诉至法院，请求撤销该驳回通知书，判令对其申请事项进行变更登记。                                                                                                                                        

（二）裁判结果

丹阳市人民法院一审认为，《个体工商户条例》第四条规定国家对个体工商户实行市场平等准入、公平待遇的原则。申请办理个体工商户登记，申请登记的经营范围不属于法律、行政法规禁止进入的行业的，登记机关应当依法予以登记。本案中，原告鸿润超市申请变更登记增加的经营项目为蔬菜零售，并非法律、行政法规禁止进入的行业。被告市市场监管局适用29号文中“菜市场周边200米范围内不得设置与菜市场经营类同的农副产品经销网点”的规定，对原告的申请不予登记，但该规定与商务部《标准化菜市场设置与管理规范》不一致，与《商务部等13部门关于进一步加强农产品市场体系建设的指导意见》第（七）项“积极发展菜市场、便民菜店、平价商店、社区电商直通车等多种零售业态”不相符，也违反上述市场平等准入、公平待遇的原则，依法不能作为认定被诉登记行为合法的依据。遂判决撤销涉案驳回通知书、被告于判决生效后15个工作日内对原告的申请重新作出登记。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉，被告已为原告重新办理了变更核准登记。

（三）典型意义

本案是行政机关违反市场平等准入、公平待遇原则的典型案例。该原则不仅《个体工商户条例》第四条作出了明确规定，在其他大量法律法规和国际条约中都有体现。现代经济运行很大程度上靠市场这一“无形之手”发挥资源配置的决定性作用。政府在实施管理过程中，要找准定位，正确引导、指导和调节市场，避免各种不当干预与限制。本案中，市市场监督管理局根据市政府29号文，未支持鸿润超市变更经营范围的申请，法院判决撤销被诉行政行为，不仅维护了经营者的合法权益，体现对不同市场主体的平等保护，同时也对当地合理设置菜市场、方便群众生产生活有着积极影响。值得一提的是，法院适用了新修改的行政诉讼法第六十四条规定，明确指出市政府29号文不仅与商务部有关规定不符，也违反国家对个体工商户实行的市场平等准入、公平待遇的原则，不能作为行政行为合法性依据，切实贯彻了行政诉讼法的修改精神，具有一并审查“红头文件”（规范性文件）的时代意义。

四、德清莫干山蛇类实业有限公司诉浙江省食品药品监督管理局行政监督案

（一）基本案情

浙江省湖州市食品药品监督管理局于2013年10月抽检德清莫干山蛇类实业有限公司（以下简称莫干山公司）生产的某批号三蛇粉胶囊。省食品药品检验研究院对送检样品出具的检验报告为汞含量0.5mg/kg，该公司申请复检后省疾病预防控制中心的复检结果为汞含量0.45mg/kg。省食品药品监督管理局（以下称省食药局）依据《保健（功能）食品通用标准》（GB16740-1997，规定胶囊产品中有害金属及有害物质限量应≤0.3mg/kg），认定被检样品汞超标，属不合格产品，并于2014年8月向各设区市、义乌市市场监督管理局下发《关于2013年度省级保健食品化妆品监督抽检结果的通报》（浙食药监稽[2014]15号文），对抽检不合格产品予以通报（含上述胶囊），并在该局网站上予以公布。莫干山公司认为，检测报告在认定标准上存在错误，抽检样品应适用经备案的企业标准，该局在网站上通报该公司产品不合格的行为严重影响其声誉。故诉至法院，要求撤销浙食药监稽（2014）15号文中对其上述产品监督抽检不合格的通报。

（二）裁判结果

杭州市西湖区人民法院经一审认为，诉争产品首次检测结果汞含量为0.5mg/kg，经复检后汞含量为0.45mg/kg，不符合国家强制性标准（GB16740-1997，应≤0.3mg/kg），属不合格产品。原告莫干山公司提出其制定了诉争产品的企业标准并经备案，其产品符合该标准。但企业标准中关于汞含量的限量指标要求不符合国家标准，不能对抗国家强制性标准的效力。被告省食药局具有进行食品安全监测和评估、检验、公布食品安全信息的法定职责，有权向社会公布检验信息，在其网站上公布的名单并未扩大原告实际抽检产品范围，符合法定程序。遂判决驳回原告诉讼请求。一审宣判后，双方当事人均未上诉。

（三）典型意义

本案是维护市场安全、公众健康的典型案例。繁荣的市场必须是安全的、以人为本的市场。特别是流通中的食品药品质量，直接关乎人民群众的生命健康，必须严格执行相关国家标准。即使是经过备案的企业标准，也必须服从于国家强制性标准。本案中，虽然莫干山公司强调抽检产品应适用经备案的企业标准，但食药监督部门严格执法，认定抽检产品不合格，主张该产品系食品安全法定义之食品，已公布实施强制性国家标准，生产企业必须执行。人民法院对此予以支持，在判决中明确指出企业标准中关于汞含量的限量指标要求不符合国家标准，不能对抗国家强制性标准的效力。可以说，通过行政审判职能的充分发挥，对于维护市场安全、保护公众健康，促进行政机关依法严格管控食品药品的生产、销售等各个环节具有积极的现实意义。

五、上海辉慈医疗器械有限公司诉崇明县财政局行政决定案

（一）基本案情

2012年6月1日，上海市崇明县政府采购中心受该县妇幼保健所委托，对高频X线摄片机设备政府采购项目组织招标。上海辉慈医疗器械有限公司（以下简称辉慈公司）、裕满公司等四家企业参与报名，招标文件中有“欧美一线品牌”等具体要求。辉慈公司经竞争性谈判中标后，裕满公司以辉慈公司投标设备为国产品牌，不属于招标文件所要求的“欧美一线品牌”为由提出质疑。后县政府采购中心组织专家复评，并给辉慈公司回函称：“我中心维持专家的复审意见，对你公司投标文件未作实质性响应，作废标处置。同时建议此次投标作流标处置”。辉慈公司向县财政局投诉。该局经审查后作出崇财库（2012）9号投诉处理决定，认定招标文件中设定产品为欧美品牌，且作为实质性条款加以限制，具有明显歧视性。根据《政府采购供应商投诉处理办法》第十八条之规定，决定责令重新开展采购活动。辉慈公司不服诉至法院，请求撤销县财政局上述处理决定。

（二）裁判结果

崇明县人民法院一审认为，被告县财政局对原告辉慈公司投诉所涉政府采购活动进行了全面审查，认定招标文件中设定产品为欧美品牌，且作实质性条款加以限制，具有明显歧视性，有违政府采购法第二十二条第二款规定，故依据《政府采购供应商投诉处理办法》有关规定作出被诉处理决定，程序合法，事实清楚，适用法律正确，判决驳回原告诉讼请求。辉慈公司上诉后，上海市第二中级人民法院二审认为，被上诉人县财政局认定招标文件条款存在歧视性，认定事实清楚；根据政府采购法第二十二条等规定作出被诉处理决定，适用法律并无不当。同时，根据《政府采购法》第十条的规定，政府采购应当优先采购本国货物、工程和服务。招标文件对采购产品的品牌限定为欧美品牌，亦不符合上述规定。遂判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是涉及政府采购的典型案例。政府采购通常指国家机关、事业单位等使用财政资金按法定要求和标准采购货物、工程和服务的行为，是受一定限制、底线清晰的市场交易活动，需要考虑公共资金的合理使用、采购产品或服务的质量及供应商的合理收益等多重因素，如果不依法规制、精打细算，会造成成本浪费、质次价高甚至滋生腐败，损害公共利益、破坏政府形象。政府采购法第二十二条规定了不得以不合理的条件对供应商实行差别待遇或者歧视待遇原则，第十条规定了除特定例外情形外，应当优先采购本国货物、工程和服务原则。本案中，涉案医序器械招标文件设定产品为“欧美一线品牌”，排斥了非欧美品牌产品供应商，未平等地给予所有潜在供应商公平竞争的机会，带有明显的倾向性，违反了上述原则。人民法院据此支持县财政局的被诉处理决定，判决驳回辉慈公司的诉讼请求，凸显了上述政府采购原则的实践价值，对今后类似案件的审理具有重要借鉴意义。

六、青岛爱思梦食品有限公司诉青岛市工商行政管理局四方分局行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

青岛爱思梦食品有限公司（以下简称爱思梦公司）于2012年6月从俄罗斯进口一批冰激凌，全部销售给青岛中恒易达公司（以下简称中恒公司），存放于中恒公司租赁的一处冷库中，该批冰淇淋销售时未加贴中文标签。2013年2月，青岛市工商行政管理局四方分局（以下简称工商四方分局）在冷库中查获中恒公司尚未销售的俄罗斯进口预包装冰淇淋283箱（均未加贴中文标签）。中恒公司承认该批冰激凌是2012年6月从爱思梦公司购买，进货时包括两种口味的冰淇淋共计1300箱（均未加贴中文标签）。工商四方分局于2013年3月对中恒公司作出相应行政处罚决定（另案处理）。随后，根据上述案件中查获的线索，于2013年5月17日对爱思梦公司作出行政处罚决定：认定该公司经营无中文标签进口预包装食品冰淇淋的行为违反食品安全法有关规定，责令其立即停止违法行为，并处罚款人民币30万元。爱思梦公司不服诉至法院，请求撤销对其的处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

青岛市市北区人民法院一审认为，被告工商四方分局所收集的证据能够证明原告爱思梦公司将从俄罗斯进口的两种口味的冰淇淋共计1300箱，卖给中恒公司且均未加贴中文标签的事实。根据食品安全法第六十六条和第八十六条第二项规定，进口的预包装食品应当有中文标签、中文说明书。原告将未加贴中文标签的进口预包装食品冰淇淋出售给中恒公司，显然违反上述规定。被告作出的行政处罚决定正确，遂判决驳回原告诉讼请求。爱思梦公司上诉后，青岛市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是有关进口商品强制性要求的典型案例。随着国际贸易快速发展，我国与其他国家之间的物资流通、人员往来日益频繁。对各种进口商品与货物的监管，不仅涉及质量、价格、税收，还会涉及使用安全、公众健康等一系列问题。进口食品就是一个需要高度关注、重视的领域。根据我国食品安全法第六十六条等规定，进口的预包装食品应当有中文标签、中文说明书，否则不得进口。生产经营无标签的预包装食品、食品添加剂进口食品必须贴中文标签才能上架。本案中，工商四方分局对违反上述规定的爱思梦公司依法作出行政处罚，法院对此予以支持，有利于确保进口食品安全和大众健康，有利于防范和消除市场上进口产品质量参差不齐、鱼龙混杂的现象。本案判决对涉外贸易经营者的市场引导和类似行政案件的处理具有参考、借鉴价值。

七、萍乡市亚鹏房地产开发有限公司诉萍乡市国土资源局行政协议案

（一）基本案情

2004年2月，江西省萍乡市亚鹏房地产开发有限公司（以下简称亚鹏公司）通过投标竞拍竞得涉案地块（原为该市肉类联合加工厂用地）土地使用权，其后与萍乡市国土资源局（以下简称市国土局）签订了国有土地使用权出让合同，约定“开发用地为商住综合用地，冷藏车间维持现状”。市国土局给该公司颁发了两本国有土地使用证，其中一证地类登记为“工业”。亚鹏公司认为约定的“冷藏车间维持现状”是维持冷藏库的使用功能，并非维持地类性质，要求将该证地类由“工业”更正为“商住综合”；但市国土局认为维持现状是指冷藏车间保留工业用地性质出让，且该公司也是按照冷藏车间为工业出让地缴纳的土地使用权出让金，故不同意更正土地用途。后市规划局向市土地收购储备中心复函明确涉案地块用地性质为商住综合用地（含冷藏车间约7300平方米），并指出“冷藏车间维持现状”指暂时维持其使用功能。市国土局于2013年2月向亚鹏公司作出书面答复：1.同意涉案地块中冷藏车间用地的土地用途由工业用地变更为商住用地；2.冷藏车间用地的土地用途由工业用地变更为商住用地，应补交土地出让金208.36万元；3.冷藏车间用地的土地用途调整后，其使用功能未经市政府批准不得改变。亚鹏公司不服诉至法院，请求判令市国土局履行出让合同约定，更正相关土地证上地类用途，撤销答复第二项内容。

（二）裁判结果

萍乡市安源区人民法院一审认为，涉案宗地最初市肉类联合加工厂的权属来源是划拨，市土地收购储备中心依法收购经报市人民政府批准后，公开挂牌出让，土地用地性质是商住综合用地，冷藏车间维持现状，并无冷藏车间用地是工业用地性质。市规划局的复函中均佐证含冷藏车间的用地性质是商住综合用地。亚鹏公司要求更正土地登记用途，不存在还要补缴的情形，遂判决市国土局在生效之日起90内对相关证载土地用途予以更正；撤销上述答复第二项，即应补交土地出让金208.36万元的决定。市国土局上诉后，萍乡市中级人民法院二审认为，由于双方当事人对土地出让合同中土地用途之表述存在不同理解，市规划局就此作出专门答复，亚鹏公司要求市国土局更正具有正当理由。该公司作为土地受让方按约支付了全部价款，市国土局认为若变更土地用途则应补交土地出让金缺乏事实和法律依据,且有违诚实信用原则，遂判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是涉及行政协议的典型案例。行政协议是行政机关为实现公共利益或者行政管理目标，在法定职责范围内与公民、法人或者其他组织协商订立的具有行政法上权利义务内容的协议，本案行政协议即是市国土局代表国家与亚鹏公司签订的国有土地使用权出让合同。在现代市场经济条件下，政府无论扮演经济活动的管理者、服务者，还是直接作为市场主体参与其中，都越来越多地采用签订行政协议方式，实现政府职能转型与管理手段的转变。行政协议强调诚实信用、平等自愿，一经签订，各方当事人必须严格遵守，行政机关无正当理由不得在约定之外附加另一方当事人义务或单方变更解除。当出现争议时，如本案中双方当事人对合同中有关“冷藏车间维持现状”条款产生不同理解时，行政机关不得随意作出不利于行政相对人的解释。法院不仅判决市国土局履行合同义务，还撤销该局作出的补交土地出让金的单方决定，直接回应了当事人的诉求，实质性地解决了双方争议。值得注意的是，行政协议过去受理渠道不一，新修改的行政诉讼法统一纳入行政诉讼受案范围，随着经济社会不断发展和行政协议日渐增多，行政审判在该领域也必将发挥越来越大的作用。

八、青岛遨广通机械施工有限公司诉即墨市工商行政管理局行政不作为案

（一）基本案情

2014年3月9日，青岛遨广通机械施工有限公司（以下简称遨广通公司）向山东省即墨市工商行政管理局（以下简称市工商局）举报王某、姚某伪造营业执照等证件，冒用该公司名义贷款，请求市工商局对两人伪造公章及营业执照的行为进行查处。2014年3月19日，市工商局调查了青岛农商银行股份有限公司三里庄分理处，证明王某曾以遨广通公司名义在该分理处贷款。2014年3月21日，市工商局作出不予立案通知书，认为遨广通公司举报事项不属于该局管辖范围，主要理由是：该公司未能提供被举报人以其名义对外经营的情况，经多方联系未能找到被举报人，被举报人与银行是借贷关系，应由银监会管辖。2014年6月30日，中国银行业监督管理委员会青岛监管局在有关函件中提及，加盖市工商局公章的《私营企业登记信息查询结果》（打印日期为2013年7月12日）等信贷材料中企业法人信息与市工商局登记的情况不符。敖广通公司将市工商局诉至法院，请求撤销该局的不予立案通知书，判令该局对姚某、王某伪造营业执照、私刻公章、非法经营的违法事实依法查处，撤销该局2013年7月12日违法出具的《私营企业登记信息查询结果》。诉讼期间，市工商局自行撤销了上述不予立案通知书。

（二）裁判结果

即墨市人民法院一审认为，本案争议焦点是查处伪造企业法人营业执照的行为是否是被告市工商局的法定职责。依照公司登记管理条例及其施行细则有关规定，工商机关对于伪造、涂改、出租、转让营业执照等行为具有查处的法定职责。被告在接到举报后，应当予以立案，进行调查取证，根据调查结果作出相应处理。对原告遨广通公司诉请撤销《私营企业登记信息查询结果》问题，现有证据不能证明该查询结果是被告出具，且该查询结果不是具体行政行为，法院不予支持。鉴于本案审理过程中，被告自行撤销了不予立案通知书。遂判决被告作出的不予立案通知书违法，驳回原告撤销《私营企业登记信息查询结果》的诉讼请求。该公司上诉后，青岛市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是工商机关未依法履行查处扰乱市场违法活动职责的典型案例。营业执照是工商行政管理机关代表国家向从事经营活动的企业依法核发的经营凭证，是企业取得经营资格的证明文件。对于明确企业的市场地位，稳定以企业为核心的市场关系起着非常重要的作用。与公司登记有关的法律、法规明确规定了伪造营业执照的行为是违法行为，应受到相应处罚。现实中不乏钻营者通过伪造营业执照等手段，实施不法行为，扰乱社会经济管理秩序。本案中法院以裁判形式进一步明确了工商机关对此类行为负有查处职责，对于怠于履责、查处不力情形应承担败诉后果，案件裁判具有积极的社会导向作用。

九、福建新新房地产开发有限公司诉平和县工商行政管理局行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

福建新新房地产开发有限公司（以下简称新新公司）出售其开发的某项目商品房时，除与购房者签订商品房买卖合同示范文本外，还补充约定“水电开户费及计量仪表均由买受人自理”的内容，作为合同的有效组成部分。该公司委托物业公司交房时未向当地自来水、供电公司缴纳水、电安装相关费用，也没有为购房者所购商品房配套安装水、电计量仪表，致使一、二期商品房购房者自己交纳自来水安装材料费、电安装工料费后，才通水、通电到户；三期商品房由该公司统一办理水、电报装手续，向购房者收取了水安装材料费、电安装工料费。以上三期商品房购房者共计缴纳上述费用421480元。2013年9月，平和县工商行政管理局（以下简称县工商局）根据消费者投诉，依法作出行政处罚决定：责令新新公司改正，按规定承担购房者房价之外缴纳的水安装材料费、电安装工料费；对该公司罚款人民币147.518万元。新新公司不服，申请复议后复议机关维持上述处罚决定。该公司诉至法院，请求撤销县工商局的上述处罚决定。

（二）裁判结果

福建省平和县人民法院一审认为，《福建省实施<中华人民共和国消费者权益保护法>办法》规定了经营者向消费者提供商品或者服务所使用的格式条款，不得“免除或者部分免除经营者应当承担的合同义务”。本案中，原告新新公司与购房者签订商品房买卖合同时，增订了附件及补充协议约定“水电开户费及计量仪表均由买受人自理”的内容，与建设部《商品房销售管理办法》《房屋接管验收标准》及《福建省人民政府办公厅转发省建设厅等部门关于进一步完善住房供应体系规范和促进房地产市场持续健康发展若干意见的通知》等规定不符，把依法依规属于自己应承担的水、电建设安装成本支出以格式条款的形式转嫁给购房者承担，增加了购房者额外负担，属于违法行为。被告县工商局认定事实清楚、处罚程序合法。遂判决驳回原告诉讼请求。新新公司上诉后，漳州市中级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是涉及消费者权益保护的典型案例。经济生活中，与老百姓生活密切相关的水电气暖供应、交通、金融借贷、房屋买卖租赁等领域，经常会遇到合同中大量出现的格式条款。经营者向消费者提供商品或者服务时，可以使用格式条款，但格式条款不得有违法免除经营者责任、加重消费者责任或者排除消费者主要权利的内容。经营者与消费者之间签订的合同虽属民事法律关系，但其中的格式条款如果明显侵犯消费者权益，工商机关有权依据消费者权益保护法、行政处罚法等规定履行查处职责，人民法院行政审判对此应给予以有力支持。本案中，人民法院以裁判方式肯定了工商机关依法查处新新公司利用格式条款加重购房者水、电建设安装成本支出负担之正确举措，切实保护消费者合法权益，维护了健康有序的市场经济秩序。

十、周可添、魏达志、陈凤娇、何祥增诉中国证券监督委员会行政处罚案

（一）基本案情

1993年开始，宝安鸿基地产集团股份有限公司（以下简称鸿基公司）通过其他公司代持“皖能电力”“鄂武商A”和“昆百大A”等股票。2007年3月，深圳证券交易所发出《监管关注函》，要求鸿基公司董事局核实并回复有关股价异动事项，同时针对媒体有关该公司法人股股票投资收益惊人的评述等事项报道，要求该公司刊登《澄清公告》并明确说明有关情况。时任鸿基公司董事局秘书在核查公司以前年度报告时发现，该公司年度报告中披露的法人股持股数量少于其他上市公司股改公告中提到的该公司持股数量，其随即向董事长报告了有关情况。2007年3月19日鸿基公司发布《澄清公告》，称该公司代其他公司持有“皖能电力”“鄂武商A”“昆百大A”等股票，其他公司是上述股票的实际所有人，代持股份不属于公司资产。发布2006年、2007年、2008年及2009年度报告时，鸿基公司存在未将上述三种股票收益计入报表、未披露上述股票虚假代持法人股出售和资金划转情况等问题。该公司董事局在审议2006年、2007年、2008年年度报告时，参会董事周可添、魏达志、陈凤娇、何祥增未对法人股事项提出异议；在审议2009年年度报告时，参会董事陈凤娇、何祥增未对法人股事项提出异议。2011年3月19日，鸿基公司发布2010年年度报告，披露了对“代持股”的清查情况和资金清收情况，称根据专项审计报告，该公司代其他公司持有的上述三种股票，权益属于该公司。中国证券监督管理委员会（以下简称中国证监会）于2010年11月对鸿基公司进行立案调查，并于2012年12月作出行政处罚决定：认定鸿基公司2007年3月19日《澄清公告》及2006年至2009年年度报告未如实披露其“代持股”问题，依据证券法有关规定，在对上市公司及董事长等责任人员作出处罚的同时，决定对周可添、魏达志、陈凤娇、何祥增给予警告，并分别处以3万元罚款。四人不服诉至法院，请求判决撤销对其的处罚。

（二）裁判结果

北京市第一中级人民法院一审认为，周可添等四名原告认可鸿基公司在2006年至2009年的年度报告中未如实披露“代持股”问题。根据证券法有关规定，上市公司董事、监事、高级管理人员应当保证上市公司所披露的信息真实、准确、完整。四名原告作为鸿基公司的独立董事，应当勤勉尽责，实施必要、有效的监督。在案证据能够证明四人在审议相关年度报告时未对上述问题提出异议。且深圳证券交易所于2007年3月15日向鸿基公司发出《监管关注函》，要求该公司刊登澄清公告并明确说明有关公司股票持续异常波动情况。之后四人对涉案的“代持股”问题并未实施必要、有效的监督，故被告中国证监会认定其未尽监督义务，未勤勉尽责，应当对鸿基公司信息披露违法行为承担责任，并无不当。遂判决驳回四名原告的全部诉讼请求。周可添等四人上诉后，北京市高级人民法院判决驳回上诉、维持原判。

（三）典型意义

本案是涉及证券市场监管的典型案例。证券市场在经济活动中重要性日益凸显，针对实践中不断出现的违法信息披露、内幕交易、操纵市场等违法行为，证券监督管理机构需要不断加大查处力度，以促进证券市场的稳定和健康发展，由此引发的行政纠纷也会增多。信息披露直接涉及股票市场价格和广大股东知情权保障、是证券监管的核心领域。上市公司的董事、监事和高级管理人员对披露信息的真实性、准确性和完整性负有法定责任，不可在其位不谋其政、不司其责甚至刻意参与、策划造假。本案中，中国证监会针对鸿基公司及其有关人员在未如实披露信息过程中的责任大小，区分不同情况加以处罚，周可添等四名独立董事因未能提供其已尽到忠实、勤勉义务等免责证据，被视为证券法规定的“其他直接责任人员”一并受到处罚，处罚于法有据，人民法院给予充分支持，本案判决对于上市公司的独立董事和其他高管明确责任意识，切实勤勉履责是一种警示和借鉴，对维护广大投资者利益具有积极意义。

catalogue

1. Nanjing Faershi New Energy Co., Ltd. v. Administrative Decision of Jiangning District People's Government of Nanjing City

2. Administrative Penalty Case of Jiangxi Salt Industry Group Company Ji'an Company v. Ji'an Administration for Industry and Commerce

3. Hongrun Supermarket in Erling Town, Danyang City v. Administrative Registration Case of Danyang Market Supervision and Administration Bureau

4. Administrative Supervision Case of Deqing Moganshan Snake Industry Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Food and Drug Administration

5. Shanghai Huici Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Chongming County Finance Bureau Administrative Decision Case

6. Administrative Penalty Case of Qingdao Aisimeng Food Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Administration for Industry and Commerce Sifang Branch

7. Administrative Agreement Case of Pingxiang Yapeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pingxiang Land and Resources Bureau

8. Qingdao Aoguangtong Machinery Construction Co., Ltd. v. Jimo Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Omission

9. Fujian Xinxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pinghe County Administration for Industry and Commerce Administrative Penalty Case

10. Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, He Xiangzeng v. China Securities Regulatory Commission for Administrative Penalty Case

1、 Nanjing Falshi New Energy Co., Ltd. v. Administrative Decision of Jiangning District People's Government of Nanjing City

（1） Basic facts of the case

In July 2010, the Development and Reform Commission of Nanjing City, Jiangsu Province registered 10 enterprises as designated units for the recycling and processing of waste edible oils, including Nanjing Falshi Chemical Factory and Nanjing Lisheng Waste Oil Recycling and Treatment Center. In November 2012, the People's Government of Jiangning District, Nanjing City (hereinafter referred to as the Jiangning District Government) issued Notice No. 396 (2012) on the Issuance of the Jiangning District Food and Kitchen Waste Management Work Plan (hereinafter referred to as Document No. 396), It is clear that "Nanjing Lisheng Renewable Resources Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Lisheng Company) is currently designated to carry out the collection and transportation of kitchen waste in the entire district." The urban management bureau and district commerce bureau of the district issued an official letter in March 2014, requesting the implementation of the provisions of Document No. 396. Each pig slaughterhouse must sign a clearance agreement with Lisheng Company, otherwise administrative penalties will be imposed. Nanjing Falshi New Energy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Falshi Company) is not satisfied with Document No. 396 and has filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the revocation of the designation of Lisheng Company in the document and compensation for losses.

（2） Judgment results

The Nanjing Intermediate People's Court held in the first instance that the defendant Jiangning District Government's designation in Document No. 396 actually affirmed the qualification of Lisheng Company to carry out food and kitchen waste business in Jiangning District, constituting a substantive administrative license. The official letters issued by the District Urban Management Bureau and the District Commerce Bureau have indicated that the defendant's designated behavior has actually been implemented. According to the relevant provisions of the Administrative Licensing Law, administrative organs shall perform corresponding administrative procedures when accepting, reviewing, and making administrative licenses. The defendant did not perform any administrative procedures before making the appointment, so the accused administrative action procedure is illegal. The defendant adopted a direct designated method without fair competition such as bidding, which excluded other potential market participants and constituted a restriction of market competition through administrative power, in violation of Article 19 of the Jiangsu Province Food and Kitchen Waste Management Measures and Article 32 of the Anti Monopoly Law. The defendant has made necessary regulations and restrictions on the normal operation of the food and kitchen waste disposal market in order to strengthen its supervision, but should not explicitly designate a certain company in administrative documents. The plaintiff, Falsi Company, did not submit evidence to prove its claim for compensation, and the court did not support it. Therefore, the judgment revokes the defendant's designated administrative action against Lisheng Company in Document No. 396, and rejects the plaintiff's other litigation claims. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving administrative monopoly. Administrative monopoly refers to the abuse of administrative power by administrative agencies, illegal raising of market access thresholds, illegal designation of specific enterprises to engage in specific businesses, and illegal setting of conditions to restrict other enterprises from participating in competition. It infringes on the fair competition rights of market entities, causing significant damage and adverse effects on the normal operation of economic activities, the free circulation of goods, and even the internal and external image of the government. China's Anti Monopoly Law and Anti Unfair Competition Law explicitly prohibit this. In this case, the Jiangning District Government directly designated a company for promotion in administrative documents, without fair competition methods such as bidding, excluding other potential market participants, which constitutes an illegal situation of restricting market competition through administrative power. The people's courts make judgments in accordance with the law, which has a positive guiding significance. The newly revised Administrative Litigation Law explicitly includes "abusing administrative power to infringe on the right to fair competition" within the scope of cases, in order to highlight the strong maintenance of normal market competition order by administrative trials. With the continuous progress of the rule of law, various market entities such as citizens and legal persons will play an increasingly important role in using administrative litigation legal weapons to safeguard their rights, supervise and regulate administrative monopolies in accordance with the law.

2、 Administrative Penalty Case of Jiangxi Salt Industry Group Company Ji'an Company v. Ji'an Administration for Industry and Commerce

（1） Basic facts of the case

The Salt Bureau of Ji'an City, Jiangxi Province is an authorized salt industry regulatory agency by the State Council. Ji'an Company (hereinafter referred to as Ji'an Salt Company), a Jiangxi Salt Industry Group, is an enterprise registered with the industrial and commercial department and has obtained a business license (with a business scope of table salt, various types of salt, site leasing, daily necessities, etc.). The two belong to one set of people and two brands. As Ji'an Salt Company is not only specialized in the wholesale business of salt, but also operates general merchandise. In order to improve enterprise efficiency, some of its salesmen force to match non salt commodities (edible oil, Baijiu, etc.) or low sodium salt and deep well salt in the process of salt distribution, or stop supplying salt on the ground of no high sodium salt (medium salt) or no salt. Some edible salt retailers are dissatisfied and have complained to the Ji'an Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce). The bureau has issued two notices to Ji'an Salt Industry Company in 2012 and 2013 ordering correction. After being investigated by the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce and informed of the company's hearing rights and statements, an administrative penalty decision was made in July 2014: ordering the cessation of illegal activities and imposing a fine of 160000 yuan. Ji'an Salt Industry Company is not satisfied and applies for administrative reconsideration. The reconsideration authority maintains the above punishment decision. The company filed a lawsuit to the court requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision of the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Jizhou District, Ji'an City held in the first instance that the plaintiff, Ji'an Salt Industry Company, as a national salt monopoly enterprise, has statutory exclusive management rights and has a different dominant position over salt retailers compared to other ordinary operators, but its business subjects and status should be equal. In opening a variety of business activities, the plaintiff, taking advantage of its exclusive position in the wholesale and distribution of food salt, forced food salt retailers to tie in low sodium salt, non salt commodities, edible oil, washing products, Baijiu and other commodities, which constituted restricting others to buy the goods of its designated operator, and violated Article 6 of the Anti unfair Competition Law, Therefore, the judgment upheld the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant Ji'an City Administration for Industry and Commerce. After the company appealed, the Intermediate People's Court of Ji'an City ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of administrative authorities investigating and punishing unfair competition behavior in accordance with the law. One of the prominent manifestations of unfair competition behavior is that operators such as public enterprises, who have a monopoly position in accordance with the law, restrict others to purchase the goods of their designated operators, or tie up goods against the wishes of buyers or attach other unreasonable conditions. These behaviors seriously violate the fair competition rights of other operators, exclude or deprive others of fair opportunities to obtain wealth. To establish an equal, free, and orderly market order, it is necessary to fully protect the fair competition rights of the majority of operators. This right is the fundamental right for various market entities to engage in business activities, and is a ballast for stabilizing market order and stimulating innovation vitality. In this case, Ji'an Salt Industry Company used its exclusive operating rights to forcibly tie up non salt commodities, which is a typical unfair competition behavior. The industrial and commercial authorities investigated and punished the company's forced tying behavior based on reports, which is a correct function of stopping and punishing illegal business activities and ensuring market order. The court's ruling demonstrates the strong protection of fair competition rights by administrative trials, the strong support for strict law enforcement by administrative agencies, and the strong promotion of the sustained and healthy development of the market economy.

3、 Hongrun Supermarket in Erling Town, Danyang City v. Administrative Registration Case of Danyang Market Supervision and Administration Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

In February 2015, Hongrun Supermarket (hereinafter referred to as Hongrun Supermarket) in Erling Town, Danyang City, Jiangsu Province submitted an application for the change of registration of individual industrial and commercial households to the Municipal Market Supervision Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Market Supervision Bureau), applying to add vegetable retail projects within the business scope approved by the original business license. In February 2015, the bureau issued a notice of acceptance for the change of registration of individual businesses to Hongrun Supermarket. Subsequently, the materials were reviewed and on-site investigations were conducted to verify that the business premises of Hongrun Supermarket were less than 200 meters away from Erling Farmers' Market in Danyang City, Its application does not comply with the provisions of the "Notice on Forwarding the Construction Norms of Danyang Vegetable Market" issued by the Danzheng Office of the People's Government of Danyang City (2012) No. 29 (hereinafter referred to as the "Notice No. 29"), which states that "no agricultural and sideline product sales outlets similar to the operation of the vegetable market shall be established within a range of 200 meters around the vegetable market". Therefore, a rejection notice was issued, and it was decided not to register its change application. Hongrun Supermarket filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of the rejection notice and ordering the registration of changes to its application.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Danyang City held in the first instance that Article 4 of the "Regulations on Individual Industrial and Commercial Households" stipulates that the state implements the principles of equal market access and fair treatment for individual industrial and commercial households. If an application is made for the registration of individual industrial and commercial households, and the business scope of the application does not belong to industries prohibited by laws and administrative regulations, the registration authority shall register it in accordance with the law. In this case, the plaintiff, Hongrun Supermarket, applied for a change in registration to increase the business project of vegetable retail, which is not an industry prohibited by laws and administrative regulations. The defendant's Market Supervision Bureau applies the provision in Document No. 29 that "no agricultural and sideline product distribution network similar to the operation of the vegetable market shall be established within a range of 200 meters around the vegetable market", and does not register the plaintiff's application. However, this provision is inconsistent with the "Standardized Vegetable Market Setting and Management Standards" issued by the Ministry of Commerce, It is inconsistent with the "Guiding Opinions of 13 Departments including the Ministry of Commerce on Further Strengthening the Construction of the Agricultural Product Market System" (7), which states "actively developing various retail formats such as vegetable markets, convenience stores, affordable stores, and community e-commerce direct trains", and also violates the principles of equal market access and fair treatment mentioned above. It cannot be used as a basis for determining the legality of the sued registration behavior in accordance with the law. The judgment revokes the notice of rejection related to the case, and the defendant makes a new registration of the plaintiff's application within 15 working days after the judgment takes effect. After the first instance judgment was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the defendant has re processed the change approval registration for the plaintiff.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of administrative agencies violating the principles of equal market access and fair treatment. This principle is not only clearly stipulated in Article 4 of the Individual Business Regulations, but also reflected in numerous other laws, regulations, and international treaties. The operation of modern economy largely relies on the "invisible hand" of the market to play a decisive role in resource allocation. In the process of implementing management, the government should identify its positioning, correctly guide, guide, and regulate the market, and avoid various improper interventions and restrictions. In this case, the Municipal Market Supervision and Administration Bureau did not support the application of Hongrun Supermarket to change its business scope according to the Municipal Government Document No. 29. The court ruled to revoke the sued administrative action, which not only protected the legitimate rights and interests of operators, but also reflected equal protection for different market entities. At the same time, it also had a positive impact on the reasonable establishment of local vegetable markets and the convenience of people's production and life. It is worth mentioning that the court has applied Article 64 of the newly revised Administrative Litigation Law, which clearly states that the Municipal Government's Document No. 29 is not only inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the Ministry of Commerce, but also violates the principles of equal market access and fair treatment implemented by the state for individual businesses, and cannot be used as a basis for the legality of administrative actions. It effectively implements the spirit of the amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law, It has the epochal significance of reviewing the "red headed documents" (normative documents) together.

4、 Deqing Moganshan Snake Industry Co., Ltd. v. Zhejiang Provincial Food and Drug Administration for Administrative Supervision

（1） Basic facts of the case

In October 2013, the Food and Drug Administration of Huzhou City, Zhejiang Province randomly inspected a batch of San She Powder capsules produced by Deqing Moganshan Snake Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Moganshan Company). The inspection report issued by the Provincial Institute for Food and Drug Inspection and Research on the submitted samples showed a mercury content of 0.5mg/kg. After the company applied for retesting, the retest result from the Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention showed a mercury content of 0.45mg/kg. The Provincial Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Provincial Food and Drug Administration), in accordance with the "General Standard for Health (Functional) Food" (GB16740-1997, which stipulates that the limit of harmful metals and substances in capsule products should be ≤ 0.3mg/kg), determined that the mercury in the tested sample exceeded the standard and was classified as an unqualified product. In August 2014, it reported to each district and city The Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of Yiwu City issued the "Notice on the Results of Provincial Health Food and Cosmetics Supervision and Inspection in 2013" (Zhe Shi Yao Jian Ji [2014] No. 15), notifying unqualified products (including the aforementioned capsules) in the inspection and publishing them on the bureau's website. Moganshan Company believes that there are errors in the identification standards in the testing report, and the sampled samples should be subject to the registered enterprise standards. The bureau has reported on its website that the company's product non-compliance seriously affects its reputation. Therefore, the lawsuit is filed with the court, requesting the revocation of the notification in Zhejiang Food and Drug Administration (2014) No. 15 that the above-mentioned products were found to have failed the supervision and sampling inspection.

（2） Judgment results

After first instance, the People's Court of Xihu District, Hangzhou City found that the first test result of the disputed product showed a mercury content of 0.5mg/kg, and after retesting, the mercury content was 0.45mg/kg, which does not comply with the national mandatory standard (GB16740-1997, should be ≤ 0.3mg/kg) and is considered an unqualified product. The plaintiff, Moganshan Company, has proposed that it has established enterprise standards for the disputed products and has filed them for record, indicating that their products comply with these standards. However, the limit indicator requirements for mercury content in enterprise standards do not comply with national standards and cannot counter the effectiveness of mandatory national standards. The defendant's Provincial Food and Drug Administration has the legal responsibility to monitor and evaluate food safety, inspect, and publish food safety information, and has the right to disclose inspection information to the society. The list published on its website does not expand the plaintiff's actual range of sampled products, which complies with legal procedures. The original lawsuit request was rejected in the judgment. After the first instance verdict, neither party appealed.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of maintaining market safety and public health. A prosperous market must be a safe and people-oriented market. Especially the quality of food and drugs in circulation is directly related to the lives and health of the people, and relevant national standards must be strictly implemented. Even registered enterprise standards must comply with national mandatory standards. In this case, although Moganshan Company emphasized that the sampled products should be subject to registered enterprise standards, the food and drug supervision department strictly enforced the law, determined that the sampled products were not qualified, and claimed that the products were food as defined by the Food Safety Law. Mandatory national standards have been announced and implemented, and production enterprises must comply. The people's court supported this and clearly stated in the judgment that the limit indicator requirements for mercury content in enterprise standards do not comply with national standards and cannot counter the effectiveness of mandatory national standards. It can be said that the full play of administrative trial functions has positive practical significance for maintaining market safety, protecting public health, and promoting administrative agencies to strictly control the production, sales, and other aspects of food and drugs in accordance with the law.

5、 Shanghai Huici Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. v. Chongming County Finance Bureau Administrative Decision Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

On June 1, 2012, the Shanghai Chongming County Government Procurement Center was entrusted by the County Maternal and Child Health Center to organize a bidding for the government procurement project of high-frequency X-ray camera equipment. Four companies, including Shanghai Huici Medical Equipment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Huici Company) and Yuman Company, participated in the registration process. The bidding documents contain specific requirements such as "European and American first tier brands". After winning the bid through competitive negotiations, Yuman Company raised doubts on the grounds that Huici's bidding equipment is a domestic brand and does not belong to the "first tier European and American brands" required by the bidding documents. The procurement center of the Houxian County Government organized an expert review and wrote back to Huici Company, stating: "Our center maintains the expert's review opinion and has not made a substantive response to your company's bidding documents, which will result in the rejection of the bid. At the same time, we suggest that this bid be disposed of as a rejected bid. Huici Company filed a complaint with the County Finance Bureau. After review, the bureau issued the Complaint Handling Decision No. 9 (2012) of Chongcaiku, which determined that the products set in the bidding documents were European and American brands and were restricted as substantive clauses, which were clearly discriminatory. According to Article 18 of the Measures for Handling Complaints from Government Procurement Suppliers, it is decided to order the resumption of procurement activities. Huici Company filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of the county finance bureau's aforementioned handling decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Chongming County held in the first instance that the defendant's County Finance Bureau conducted a comprehensive review of the government procurement activities related to the plaintiff Huici Company's complaint, and found that the product set in the bidding documents was a European and American brand, with substantive provisions restricting it, which was clearly discriminatory and violated the provisions of Article 22 (2) of the Government Procurement Law. Therefore, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the "Measures for Handling Complaints from Government Procurement Suppliers", the defendant made a decision to handle the complaint, and the procedure was legal, The facts are clear, the applicable law is correct, and the judgment rejects the plaintiff's lawsuit request. After the appeal by Huici Company, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People's Court held in the second instance that the respondent's county finance bureau determined that the terms of the bidding documents were discriminatory and the facts were clear; According to Article 22 of the Government Procurement Law and other provisions, there is no improper application of law in making the decision to handle the lawsuit. Meanwhile, according to Article 10 of the Government Procurement Law, government procurement should prioritize the procurement of domestic goods, engineering, and services. The bidding documents limit the brand of purchased products to European and American brands, and do not comply with the above regulations. The appeal was dismissed and the original judgment upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving government procurement. Government procurement usually refers to the behavior of government agencies, public institutions, and others using financial funds to purchase goods, projects, and services according to legal requirements and standards. It is a market transaction activity that is subject to certain restrictions and has a clear bottom line. It needs to consider multiple factors such as the reasonable use of public funds, the quality of purchased products or services, and the reasonable returns of suppliers. If not regulated by law and calculated carefully, it will result in cost waste High quality and price can even breed corruption, damage public interests, and undermine the government's image. Article 22 of the Government Procurement Law stipulates that suppliers shall not be subjected to differential or discriminatory treatment under unreasonable conditions, and Article 10 stipulates that, except for specific exceptions, priority shall be given to the procurement of domestic goods, engineering, and services. In this case, the bidding documents for the medical equipment involved set the product as a "first tier European and American brand", excluding non European and American brand product suppliers, and failing to give all potential suppliers equal opportunities for fair competition, which has a clear tendency and violates the above principles. The People's Court hereby supports the county finance bureau's decision to handle the lawsuit and rejects the lawsuit request of Huici Company, highlighting the practical value of the aforementioned government procurement principles, which has important reference significance for similar cases in the future.

6、 Qingdao Aisimeng Food Co., Ltd. v. Qingdao Administration for Industry and Commerce Sifang Branch Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Qingdao Aisimeng Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aisimeng Company) imported a batch of ice cream from Russia in June 2012 and sold it all to Qingdao Zhongheng Yida Company (hereinafter referred to as Zhongheng Company). It was stored in a cold storage rented by Zhongheng Company, and the batch of ice cream was sold without Chinese labels. In February 2013, the Sifang Branch of the Qingdao Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the Sifang Branch) seized 283 boxes of Russian imported pre packaged ice cream (all without Chinese labels) that had not been sold by Zhongheng Company in the cold storage. Zhongheng Company acknowledges that the batch of ice cream was purchased from Aisimong Company in June 2012, and included a total of 1300 boxes of two flavors of ice cream at the time of purchase (none of which were labeled in Chinese). The Industrial and Commercial Sifang Branch made a corresponding administrative penalty decision against Zhongheng Company in March 2013 (to be dealt with separately). Subsequently, based on the clues found in the above-mentioned case, an administrative penalty decision was made on May 17, 2013 against Aisimong Company: it was found that the company's operation of imported pre packaged food ice cream without Chinese labels violated the relevant provisions of the Food Safety Law, and it was ordered to immediately stop the illegal act and fined RMB 300000. Aisimeng Company filed a lawsuit to the court, requesting the revocation of its punishment decision.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Shibei District, Qingdao City held in the first instance that the evidence collected by the defendant's Industrial and Commercial Sifang Branch can prove the fact that the plaintiff, Aisimong Company, sold a total of 1300 boxes of two flavors of ice cream imported from Russia to Zhongheng Company without any Chinese labels. According to Article 66 and Article 86 (2) of the Food Safety Law, imported pre packaged food shall have Chinese labels and instructions. The plaintiff sold imported pre packaged food ice cream without Chinese labels to Zhongheng Company, which clearly violated the above regulations. The defendant's administrative penalty decision was correct, and the original lawsuit request was rejected. After the appeal of Aisimeng Company, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case of mandatory requirements for imported goods. With the rapid development of international trade, the flow of goods and personnel between China and other countries is becoming increasingly frequent. The supervision of various imported commodities and goods not only involves quality, price, taxation, but also a series of issues such as usage safety and public health. Imported food is an area that requires high attention and attention. According to Article 66 of China's Food Safety Law and other regulations, imported pre packaged food should have Chinese labels and instructions, otherwise it cannot be imported. Production and operation of unlabeled pre packaged food and imported food additives must be labeled in Chinese before they can be put on the shelves. In this case, the Sifang Branch of Industry and Commerce imposed administrative penalties on Aisimeng Company for violating the above regulations in accordance with the law. The court supported this, which is conducive to ensuring the safety of imported food and public health, and preventing and eliminating the phenomenon of uneven and mixed quality imported products in the market. The judgment in this case has reference and reference value for the market guidance of foreign trade operators and the handling of similar administrative cases.

7、 Administrative Agreement Case of Pingxiang Yapeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pingxiang Land and Resources Bureau

（1） Basic facts of the case

In February 2004, Yapeng Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yapeng Company) in Pingxiang City, Jiangxi Province, obtained the land use right of the involved plot (originally used as the land for the city's meat joint processing plant) through bidding and bidding. Subsequently, a state-owned land use right transfer contract was signed with the Pingxiang Municipal Land and Resources Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau), stipulating that "the development land is a comprehensive commercial and residential land, and the refrigeration workshop maintains its current status". The Municipal Land and Resources Bureau has issued two state-owned land use certificates to the company, one of which is registered as "industrial". Yapeng Company believes that the agreed "maintenance of the status quo of the refrigeration workshop" is to maintain the use function of the refrigeration warehouse, not to maintain the nature of the land type, and requests that the land type of the certificate be corrected from "industrial" to "comprehensive commercial and residential"; However, the Municipal Bureau of Land and Resources believes that maintaining the status quo refers to the preservation of the nature of industrial land transfer in the refrigeration workshop, and the company also pays land use rights transfer fees for industrial land transfer in accordance with the refrigeration workshop, so it does not agree to correct the land use. The Houshi Planning Bureau replied to the Municipal Land Acquisition and Reserve Center, clarifying that the land use nature of the involved plot is commercial and residential comprehensive land (including approximately 7300 square meters of refrigeration workshop), and pointed out that "maintaining the current status of refrigeration workshop" refers to temporarily maintaining its use function. In February 2013, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau provided a written response to Yapeng Company: 1. Agreed to change the land use of the refrigeration workshop in the involved plot from industrial land to commercial and residential land; 2. If the land use for the refrigeration workshop is changed from industrial land to commercial and residential land, a land transfer fee of 2.0836 million yuan should be paid; 3. After the land use adjustment of the refrigeration workshop, its use function cannot be changed without the approval of the municipal government. Yapeng Company filed a lawsuit against it and requested that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau fulfill the terms of the transfer contract, correct the land use on the relevant land certificate, and revoke the second item of the response.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Anyuan District, Pingxiang City held in the first instance that the ownership of the land involved in the case was originally transferred from the city's meat joint processing factory. The city's land acquisition and reserve center, after obtaining approval from the city's government in accordance with the law, publicly listed and transferred the land. The nature of the land is commercial and residential comprehensive land, and the refrigeration workshop remains the current state. There is no refrigeration workshop land that is industrial land. The reply from the Municipal Planning Bureau confirms that the land used for the refrigeration workshop is a comprehensive commercial and residential land. Yapeng Company requested to correct the registered land use, but there was no need to make a supplementary payment. Therefore, the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau was ordered to correct the land use recorded in the relevant certificate within 90 days from the effective date; Revoke the decision to pay a supplementary land transfer fee of 2.0836 million yuan in response to the second item mentioned above. After the appeal by the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau, the Intermediate People's Court of Pingxiang City held in the second instance that due to different understandings between the two parties regarding the expression of land use in the land transfer contract, the Municipal Planning Bureau made a special response, and Yapeng Company requested the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau to correct it with legitimate reasons. The company, as the land transferee, paid the full price as agreed. The Municipal Land and Resources Bureau believed that if the land use was changed, the additional land transfer fee should be paid, which lacked factual and legal basis and violated the principle of good faith. Therefore, the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving administrative agreements. Administrative agreement is an agreement signed by administrative organs within the scope of their statutory responsibilities, in consultation with citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, in order to achieve public interests or administrative management goals, with rights and obligations under administrative law. In this case, the administrative agreement is the contract for the transfer of state-owned land use rights signed by the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau on behalf of the state and Yapeng Company. Under the conditions of modern market economy, whether the government plays the role of manager and server of economic activities, or directly participates as a market entity, it is increasingly adopting the method of signing administrative agreements to achieve the transformation of government functions and management methods. Administrative agreements emphasize honesty, trustworthiness, equality, and voluntariness. Once signed, all parties must strictly abide by them. Without justifiable reasons, administrative agencies may not add obligations of the other party or unilaterally modify or terminate the agreement. When there is a dispute, if the parties in this case have different understandings of the clause related to "maintaining the status quo of the refrigeration workshop" in the contract, the administrative authority shall not arbitrarily make explanations that are unfavorable to the administrative counterpart. The court not only ruled that the Municipal Land and Resources Bureau fulfilled its contractual obligations, but also revoked the unilateral decision made by the bureau to pay the land transfer fee, directly responding to the demands of the parties and substantially resolving the dispute between the two parties. It is worth noting that in the past, the channels for accepting administrative agreements were different, and the newly revised Administrative Litigation Law was uniformly included in the scope of accepting administrative litigation cases. With the continuous development of the economy and society and the increasing number of administrative agreements, administrative trials will also play an increasingly important role in this field.

8、 Qingdao Aoguangtong Machinery Construction Co., Ltd. v. Jimo Administration for Industry and Commerce for Administrative Omission

（1） Basic facts of the case

On March 9, 2014, Qingdao Aoguangtong Machinery Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Aoguangtong Company) reported to the Administration for Industry and Commerce of Jimo City, Shandong Province (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce) that Wang and Yao had forged business licenses and other documents, falsely using the company's name for loans, and requested the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce to investigate and deal with the forgery of their official seals and business licenses. On March 19, 2014, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce investigated the Sanlizhuang Branch of Qingdao Rural Commercial Bank Co., Ltd., proving that Wang had borrowed money from the branch under the name of Aoguangtong Company. On March 21, 2014, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce issued a notice of refusal to file a case, believing that the reported matters of Aoguangtong Company were not within the jurisdiction of the bureau. The main reason was that the company failed to provide information on the external operations of the reported person under its name, and after multiple contacts, the reported person could not be found. The reported person had a lending relationship with the bank and should be under the jurisdiction of the China Banking Regulatory Commission. On June 30, 2014, the Qingdao Regulatory Bureau of the China Banking Regulatory Commission mentioned in relevant letters that the enterprise legal person information in credit materials such as the "Query Results of Private Enterprise Registration Information" stamped with the official seal of the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce (printed on July 12, 2013) did not match the registration situation of the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce. Aoguangtong Company filed a lawsuit against the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce in court, requesting the revocation of the bureau's notice of refusal to file a case, ordering the bureau to investigate and deal with the illegal facts of Yao and Wang forging business licenses, engraving official seals, and engaging in illegal business operations in accordance with the law, and revoking the "Private Enterprise Registration Information Query Results" illegally issued by the bureau on July 12, 2013. During the litigation period, the Municipal Administration for Industry and Commerce revoked the aforementioned notice of non filing.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the People's Court of Jimo City held that the focus of controversy in this case is whether investigating and punishing the act of forging the business license of the enterprise legal person is the legal responsibility of the defendant city's Industrial and Commercial Bureau. According to the relevant provisions of the Regulations on the Administration of Company Registration and its implementation rules, the industrial and commercial authorities have the legal responsibility to investigate and punish acts such as forging, altering, renting, and transferring business licenses. After receiving the report, the defendant shall file the case, conduct investigation and evidence collection, and make corresponding measures based on the investigation results. The court does not support the plaintiff's application for revocation of the "Private Enterprise Registration Information Query Result", as the existing evidence cannot prove that the query result was issued by the defendant and is not a specific administrative act. Given that during the trial of this case, the defendant voluntarily revoked the notice of non filing. Thus, it was ruled that the defendant's notice of not filing the case was illegal, and the plaintiff's request to revoke the "Private Enterprise Registration Information Query Results" was rejected. After the company appealed, the Qingdao Intermediate People's Court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case where the industrial and commercial authorities failed to fulfill their duty of investigating and punishing illegal activities that disrupt the market in accordance with the law. A business license is a business certificate issued by the administrative authority for industry and commerce on behalf of the state to enterprises engaged in business activities in accordance with the law, and is a proof document that an enterprise has obtained business qualifications. It plays a very important role in clarifying the market position of enterprises and stabilizing market relations with enterprises as the core. The laws and regulations related to company registration clearly stipulate that the act of forging a business license is illegal and should be punished accordingly. In reality, there are many drilling operators who engage in illegal activities by forging business licenses and other means, disrupting the order of social and economic management. In this case, the court further clarified in the form of a judgment that the industrial and commercial authorities have the responsibility to investigate and punish such behavior, and should bear the consequences of losing the case in case of negligence or ineffective investigation. The judgment in the case has a positive social guiding role.

9、 Fujian Xinxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. v. Pinghe County Administration for Industry and Commerce Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

When Fujian Xinxin Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Xinxin Company) sells a certain project of commercial housing developed by it, in addition to signing a demonstration text of the commercial housing sales contract with the buyer, it also supplements the agreement that "the water and electricity account fees and measuring instruments shall be borne by the buyer" as an effective component of the contract. When the company entrusted the property management company to deliver the house, they did not pay the local water and power supply companies for the installation of water and electricity, nor did they install water and electricity measuring instruments for the purchased commodity house. As a result, buyers of Phase I and Phase II commodity houses paid for the installation materials and electricity installation materials themselves before water and electricity were connected to the house; The company handles the water and telegraph installation procedures for the third phase commercial housing uniformly, and charges the buyer for water installation materials and electricity installation materials. Buyers of the above three phases of commercial housing have paid a total of 421480 yuan in the above-mentioned fees. In September 2013, the Pinghe County Administration for Industry and Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the County Administration for Industry and Commerce), based on consumer complaints, made an administrative penalty decision in accordance with the law: ordering Xinxin Company to make corrections and bear the water installation material fees and electricity installation material fees paid by homebuyers in addition to their housing prices in accordance with regulations; A fine of RMB 1.47518 million was imposed on the company. The new company is not satisfied and after applying for reconsideration, the reconsideration authority maintains the above punishment decision. The company filed a lawsuit to the court requesting the revocation of the above penalty decision by the County Administration for Industry and Commerce.

（2） Judgment results

The People's Court of Pinghe County, Fujian Province, in its first instance, held that the Measures for the Implementation of the Consumer Rights Protection Law of the People's Republic of China in Fujian Province stipulate that the standard terms used by operators to provide goods or services to consumers shall not "exempt or partially exempt operators from their contractual obligations". In this case, when the plaintiff Xinxin Company signed a commercial housing sales contract with the buyer, an attachment and supplementary agreement were added, which stipulated that "the water and electricity account fees and measuring instruments shall be borne by the buyer", Not in line with the regulations of the Ministry of Construction's "Measures for the Administration of Commercial Housing Sales", "Acceptance Standards for Housing Takeover", and "Notice of the General Office of the Fujian Provincial People's Government on Further Improving the Standardization of the Housing Supply System and Promoting the Sustainable and Healthy Development of the Real Estate Market", etc., the cost of water and electricity construction and installation that should be borne by oneself in accordance with the law is transferred to the homebuyer in the form of standard terms, It is illegal to increase the additional burden on homebuyers. The defendant's county industrial and commercial bureau has determined that the facts are clear and the punishment procedure is legal. The original lawsuit request was rejected in the judgment. After the appeal of Xinxin Company, the Intermediate People's Court of Zhangzhou City ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving consumer rights protection. In economic life, in areas closely related to the lives of the people, such as water, electricity, heating supply, transportation, financial lending, and housing sales and leasing, a large number of standard terms often appear in contracts. When a business operator provides goods or services to consumers, they may use standard terms, but standard terms shall not contain any content that illegally exempt the business operator from liability, aggravate consumer liability, or exclude the main rights of consumers. Although the contract signed between the operator and the consumer belongs to a civil legal relationship, if the standard terms clearly infringe on the rights and interests of consumers, the industrial and commercial authorities have the right to fulfill their investigation and punishment responsibilities in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Rights Protection Law, Administrative Penalty Law, etc. The administrative trial of the people's court should provide strong support for this. In this case, the People's Court affirmed the correct measures taken by the industrial and commercial authorities to lawfully investigate and punish the use of standard clauses by new and new companies to increase the burden of water and electricity construction and installation costs on homebuyers, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of consumers, and maintaining a healthy and orderly market economic order.

10、 Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, He Xiangzeng v. China Securities Regulatory Commission Administrative Penalty Case

（1） Basic facts of the case

Since 1993, Bao'an Hongji Real Estate Group Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Hongji Company) has been holding stocks such as "Wanneng Power", "Ewushang A", and "Kunbaida A" through other companies. In March 2007, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a "Regulatory Attention Letter", requesting the board of directors of Hongji Company to verify and respond to matters related to stock price fluctuations. At the same time, in response to media reports on the astonishing investment returns of the company's corporate stocks, the company was required to publish a "Clarification Announcement" and clearly explain the relevant situation. When the Secretary of the Board of Directors of Hongji Company checked the company's previous annual reports, he found that the number of corporate shares disclosed in the company's annual report was less than the number of shares held by the company mentioned in other listed companies' share reform announcements. He immediately reported the relevant situation to the Chairman. On March 19, 2007, Hongji Company issued a "Clarification Announcement", stating that the company holds stocks such as "Wanneng Electric Power", "Ewushang A", and "Kunbaida A" on behalf of other companies. Other companies are the actual owners of the aforementioned stocks, and the shares held on behalf of the company do not belong to the company's assets. When releasing its annual reports for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, Hung Kai Company had issues such as not including the earnings from the aforementioned three types of stocks in its financial statements, and not disclosing the false sale and transfer of corporate shares held by the aforementioned stocks. When the board of directors of the company reviewed the annual reports for 2006, 2007, and 2008, the attending directors Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, and He Xiangzeng did not raise any objections to the issue of corporate shares; During the review of the 2009 annual report, the attending directors Chen Fengjiao and He Xiangzeng did not raise any objections to the issue of corporate shares. On March 19, 2011, Hung Kai Company released its 2010 annual report, which disclosed the investigation and fund collection of "proxy holdings". According to the special audit report, the company held the above-mentioned three stocks on behalf of other companies, and the equity belongs to the company. The China Securities Regulatory Commission (hereinafter referred to as the China Securities Regulatory Commission) conducted an investigation into Hung Kai Company in November 2010 and made an administrative penalty decision in December 2012: it was determined that Hung Kai Company did not truthfully disclose its "proxy shareholding" issue in its "Clarification Announcement" on March 19, 2007 and its annual reports from 2006 to 2009. In accordance with relevant provisions of the Securities Law, while punishing the listed company and its chairman and other responsible personnel, It has been decided to issue warnings to Zhou Ketian, Wei Dazhi, Chen Fengjiao, and He Xiangzeng, and impose a fine of 30000 yuan each. The four people appealed to the court and requested a judgment to revoke their punishment.

（2） Judgment results

The first instance of the Beijing First Intermediate People's Court held that Zhou Ketian and four other plaintiffs acknowledged that Hongji Company did not truthfully disclose the issue of "proxy shareholding" in its annual reports from 2006 to 2009. According to the relevant provisions of the Securities Law, directors, supervisors, and senior management personnel of listed companies shall ensure that the information disclosed by the listed company is true, accurate, and complete. The four plaintiffs, as independent directors of Hongji Company, should be diligent and responsible, and implement necessary and effective supervision. The evidence in the case can prove that the four individuals did not raise objections to the above issues during the review of the relevant annual report. And on March 15, 2007, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange issued a "Regulatory Attention Letter" to Hongji Company, requesting the company to publish a clarification notice and clearly explain the continuous abnormal fluctuations of the company's stock. Afterwards, the four individuals did not implement necessary and effective supervision on the issue of "proxy shareholding" involved in the case. Therefore, the defendant, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, determined that they had not fulfilled their supervisory obligations and were not diligent and responsible, and should be held responsible for the illegal disclosure of information by Hongji Company, without any improper behavior. Thus, the judgment rejected all the claims of the four plaintiffs. After Zhou Ketian and four others appealed, the Beijing Higher People's Court ruled to reject the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

（3） Typical significance

This case is a typical case involving securities market regulation. The importance of the securities market in economic activities is increasingly prominent. In response to the continuous occurrence of illegal information disclosure, insider trading, market manipulation and other illegal behaviors in practice, securities regulatory agencies need to continuously increase their investigation and punishment efforts to promote the stability and healthy development of the securities market, and the resulting administrative disputes will also increase. Information disclosure directly involves stock market prices and the protection of shareholders' right to know, which is the core field of securities regulation. The directors, supervisors, and senior management personnel of a listed company bear legal responsibility for the authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of the disclosed information, and may not act recklessly, neglect their responsibilities, or even intentionally participate in, plan, or fabricate in their positions. In this case, the China Securities Regulatory Commission punished Hung Kai Company and its related personnel for their responsibilities in the process of not truthfully disclosing information, distinguishing different situations. Four independent directors, including Zhou Ketian, were punished as "other directly responsible persons" under the Securities Law for failing to provide evidence of their loyalty and diligence obligations. The punishment was based on legal evidence, and the people's court provided full support, The judgment in this case provides a clear sense of responsibility for independent directors and other executives of listed companies, and serves as a warning and reference for them to fulfill their duties diligently. It has positive significance for safeguarding the interests of investors.