Core Points - A cultural communication company signed an agreement with the transportation management bureau of Dingxi City to invest in the construction of bus shelters and signs, which later faced forced demolition due to non-compliance with regulations [2][3][4] Group 1 - The company invested 5,523,100 yuan to build 50 bus shelters and signs in Dingxi City, obtaining exclusive operating rights for 25 years [2] - The company successfully constructed 39 bus shelters and 124 signs by 2018, which were put into operation [2] - In July 2022, the housing and urban-rural development bureau issued a notice to the company, citing non-compliance and aesthetic concerns, demanding the removal of the bus shelters and signs [3] Group 2 - The bureau forcibly demolished 39 bus shelters and 124 signs after the company failed to comply with the removal order [3] - The local court ruled in favor of the company, stating that the bureau's actions lacked legal basis and did not follow due process [3][4] - The Supreme Court emphasized the protection of reliance interests, stating that administrative agencies should not arbitrarily change beneficial administrative actions without proper legal justification [4]

Group 1 - The Supreme People's Court has released a second batch of five typical cases related to administrative enforcement involving enterprises, aiming to protect the property rights and legitimate interests of market entities and prevent similar administrative violations [1][2] - The cases highlight the court's efforts to resolve administrative disputes effectively and ensure the implementation of the Central Committee's decisions on the development of the private economy [1][3] Group 2 - In the case of a traditional Chinese medicine company against the Xiangtan Market Supervision Administration, the court ruled that the prolonged seizure of goods exceeded the legal time limit, confirming the administrative action as illegal [2][3] - The court emphasized the importance of strict regulatory standards and the need for administrative agencies to act within their legal authority, thereby protecting public health and safety [3] Group 3 - A plastic products factory challenged the fire safety authority's order to cease operations due to safety violations, leading to a ruling that the authority lacked the legal basis to enforce such measures [4][6] - The court's decision reinforced the need for administrative bodies to adhere to legal procedures and protect the rights of businesses [7] Group 4 - A media company contested the forced demolition of its rooftop advertisement by the local enforcement agency, which was deemed illegal due to the lack of proper legal procedures [8][9] - The ruling highlighted the necessity for administrative bodies to respect existing licenses and provide compensation when revoking permits [10][11] Group 5 - A cultural dissemination company faced forced demolition of its bus stop facilities, which the court ruled as illegal due to the absence of legal grounds and failure to follow due process [12][13] - The case underscored the principle of protecting the trust interests of enterprises and the requirement for administrative agencies to consider prior agreements and investments [14] Group 6 - A small lubricant technology company was subjected to a fine for false advertising, but the court recommended against enforcement due to the company's status and lack of revenue [15][17] - The case illustrates the balance between punishment and education in administrative enforcement, particularly for small enterprises, promoting their healthy development [18]