规范涉企行政强制 优化法治化营商环境 最高法发布涉企行政强制典型案例

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court emphasizes that the rule of law is the best business environment, highlighting the release of typical administrative enforcement cases to protect the rights and interests of market entities and promote high-quality development of the private economy [1] Group 1: Administrative Enforcement Cases - The Supreme People's Court selected 10 typical administrative enforcement cases involving various types of administrative enforcement measures, including property seizure and administrative execution [1] - The cases cover diverse industries such as greening, telecommunications, tourism, energy, pharmaceuticals, decoration, and cultural dissemination, reflecting the broad scope of administrative management [1] - The cases illustrate significant legal issues, including the exploration and improvement of legal application standards regarding administrative subject qualifications, statutory powers, enforcement basis, enforcement procedures, and protection of legitimate interests [1] Group 2: Case Summaries - Case 1: A rafting company sued the local tourism bureau for unlawfully seizing its property without proper legal basis, resulting in a court ruling that confirmed the seizure was illegal and ordered compensation for losses incurred [3][4][6] - Case 2: A new energy company and its owner contested the local market supervision bureau's seizure of a ship and oil products, with the court ruling that the bureau failed to follow due process, leading to compensation for losses [7][8][9] - Case 3: A greening company challenged the local government’s forced demolition of its property, with the court confirming the demolition was illegal due to lack of proper legal procedures [10][11][12] - Case 4: A telecommunications company contested the unlawful demolition of its facilities by a local street office, resulting in a court ruling that the demolition violated legal procedures [13][14][15] - Case 5: A decoration company faced an administrative penalty for wage arrears but successfully contested the enforcement of the penalty due to the company's timely payment of owed wages, leading to a court ruling against the enforcement [17][18]