对网约车购置价设定12万元条件的准入条件，是否合法？12月22日，全国人民代表大会常务委员会法制 工作委员会关于2025年备案审查工作情况的报告提交十四届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十九次会议 审议，报告中一起对网约车经营车辆设置价格准入条件的纠错案例引发关注。 全国人大常委会法工委审查认为，规定对从事网约车经营的车辆设置价格准入条件，事实上排除了部分 价格低于这一准入条件但符合安全性能、服务品质的车辆车主平等参与市场活动、平等从事相关劳动的 权利，属于国务院《公平竞争审查条例》规定的设置不合理市场准入条件的情形。 有学者亦对此表示，对网约车经营车辆的准入门槛，设置歧视性的价格准入条件，属于不合理的限制， 违反了比例原则的要求。 对网约车设价格准入条件违背《公平竞争审查条例》 报告称，有的地方政府规范性文件规定，拟从事网约车经营的车辆，应当符合车辆初次注册登记时的实 际购置总价不低于12万元的条件。有公民对这一规定提出审查建议。 审查建议认为，上述规定超越权限减损公民法人权利增加其义务，网约车车辆价格限制与车辆安全性 能、服务品质之间缺乏充分关联，在具体适用过程中难以保证法律实效。 收到审查建议后，法工委向有 ...

据人民法院报12月11日报道，近期，有关"吸毒是否入刑"引发社会热议，成为 法治研究的新课 题，为此， 人民法院报 特邀中国政法大学刑事司法学院教授、博士生导师、刑法学研究所所长罗翔 撰写署名文章。全文如下： 中国政法大学刑事司法学院教授、博士生导师、刑法学研究所所长 罗翔 | 2015/11/2月11日 屋期日 评论张生态 责任编辑 昌 斯 关求编辑 刘凤丹 | 眼系电话:(64)(1) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 以四中全会精神为指引 | 城盘接 "当见身品,对在各元,利息干扰。"党的十八大时来,比马 | 与基层可法实践新篇 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 证平网志自输公的党中央高度安航票导工作,可能争总有比多出款学 | 中工作发客资资源:信息资金招标,开放利用时代高净工作团购工程 | 试文向,题体了根息通险, ...

Core Viewpoint - The European Union (EU) is planning to relax certain digital regulatory frameworks, including the AI Act, which was initially designed with strict regulations. This shift raises questions about the reasons behind the change and its implications for the AI industry in Europe and globally [3][4][5]. Group 1: Reasons for Initial Strict Regulation - The EU's strict regulatory stance was influenced by its economic structure, which is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In 2022, SMEs accounted for 99.8% of non-financial enterprises in the EU, employing 64.4% of the workforce and contributing 51.8% of economic value added. This demographic necessitated clear rules to protect against potential risks associated with emerging technologies [6]. - Politically, strict regulation was seen as a means to maintain digital sovereignty, as Europe has historically lagged behind the US and China in key technological domains. The EU aimed to use regulations as a tool to influence global competition and embed European values into the future AI governance framework [7][8]. - Culturally, the EU emphasizes ethics and rights, leading to a governance approach that prioritizes risk prevention. This is reflected in the long-standing "precautionary principle" that shapes its regulatory logic, particularly in technology that could impact labor rights and public resources [9][10]. - The EU's complex political structure, comprising 27 member states with diverse priorities, naturally leads to stricter regulations as a means of achieving political consensus [11]. Group 2: Reasons for Regulatory Relaxation - The emergence of tangible benefits from AI technology has shifted the risk-reward balance. As AI capabilities have advanced, the economic returns have become more apparent, prompting the EU to reconsider its initial cautious approach [13][14]. - AI technology has become more governable, with advancements in alignment, explainability, and controllability. This has led to a perception that AI can be managed within a regulatory framework, reducing the need for stringent oversight [15]. - The EU's regulatory logic has shifted from a strict "precautionary principle" to a more balanced "proportionality principle," allowing for regulatory measures only when risks are clearly identified [16]. - Geopolitical pressures have also influenced the EU's regulatory stance, as competition with the US and China has highlighted the risks of falling behind in technological innovation [17][18]. - Internal political dynamics within the EU have shifted, with a growing emphasis on industry competitiveness over strict ethical considerations, leading to a more lenient regulatory approach [19][20]. Group 3: Expected Adjustments to the AI Act - The implementation timeline for the AI Act is expected to be delayed, allowing more time for companies to adapt to the regulations. This includes extending grace periods for compliance with high-risk AI system obligations [21][22]. - Obligations for general AI models are likely to be weakened, with a shift from government-led regulation to industry self-regulation through non-binding codes of practice [23][24]. - Penalty provisions are anticipated to transition towards a "warning first" approach, significantly reducing the severity of fines for non-compliance [25][26]. - Discussions are underway to refine the definition of "high-risk systems" to focus regulatory efforts on genuinely high-risk applications, potentially alleviating unnecessary burdens on businesses [27]. - The concept of "regulatory sandboxes" is gaining traction, allowing for relaxed regulatory conditions to foster innovation while ensuring safety [28]. Group 4: Implications of Regulatory Changes - The adjustments to the AI Act are expected to reignite the AI innovation ecosystem in Europe, creating a more favorable environment for local AI development and reducing compliance burdens on startups [29]. - The global AI competitive landscape may shift, moving from a single regulatory paradigm to a multi-centered approach, with different regions adopting varied governance models [30][31]. - Multinational companies will benefit from increased flexibility in their AI strategies, accelerating the diffusion of AI technologies across different sectors [32][33]. - The EU's regulatory changes may foster a new paradigm of "gentle regulation," promoting a balance between oversight and innovation, which could influence global regulatory practices [34][35].

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the articles revolves around the development and significance of public interest litigation by the People's Procuratorate in China, highlighting its role in protecting social and public interests through legal means [2][3][6] - The public interest litigation system has evolved over the past decade, with over 1.224 million cases handled by procuratorial agencies, indicating a significant expansion in the scope of public interest protection [2][3] - The draft of the "Procuratorial Public Interest Litigation Law" has been introduced, aiming to clarify the jurisdiction and procedural aspects of public interest litigation, which has garnered substantial public attention with over 15,000 comments received [3][4] Group 2 - The draft law emphasizes the investigatory powers of procuratorial agencies, allowing them to collect evidence while ensuring that they do not impose coercive measures, reflecting a cautious legislative approach [4][5] - There is ongoing discussion regarding the expansion of the scope of public interest litigation to include areas such as food security and online space, indicating a potential for further legislative development [4][5] - The current legal framework allows only procuratorial agencies to initiate administrative public interest litigation, positioning them as the primary force in this area, with a significant disparity in case numbers compared to social organizations [6]

Core Insights - The evolution of payment methods reflects societal technological changes, with facial recognition payment emerging as a key infrastructure in the digital economy, raising concerns beyond mere technical security and privacy issues [1][2] Group 1: Governance Principles - Establish a risk-based governance principle focusing on three core aspects: 1. Preventive principle: Regulatory measures should be proactive and adaptable to unknown risks associated with biometric data [3] 2. Proportionality principle: Regulatory intensity must correspond to the risk level of specific applications, avoiding a one-size-fits-all approach [3] 3. Collaborative governance principle: Involvement of multiple stakeholders, including government, industry, and the public, to create a cooperative governance framework [3] Group 2: Regulatory Tools and Mechanisms - Innovate key regulatory tools and mechanisms by: 1. Upgrading the "regulatory sandbox" to test data governance rules and algorithmic ethics comprehensively [4] 2. Establishing mandatory algorithm audits and certifications by independent third parties to ensure fairness and robustness [4] 3. Implementing risk-based tiered management according to transaction amounts and application scenarios, requiring multi-factor authentication for high-risk situations [4] Group 3: Legal and Standard Foundations - Strengthen the legal and standard foundations for governance by: 1. Clarifying legal responsibilities and consumer protection measures, including the principle of "reversed burden of proof" in fraud cases [5] 2. Promoting industry self-regulation and the establishment of high-standard processing norms for biometric information [5] Group 4: External Environment for Governance - Create a favorable external environment for scientific governance by: 1. Enhancing public digital literacy and awareness of risks associated with facial recognition payments [6] 2. Expanding social participation and oversight channels in the formulation of technical standards and regulations [6] - The challenges posed by facial recognition payments necessitate a comprehensive regulatory framework to guide its healthy development, ultimately supporting inclusive finance and social equity [7]

Group 1 - The Chengdu Intermediate People's Court held a meeting focused on addressing administrative legal challenges faced by enterprises, with participation from 13 key companies across various sectors including culture, technology, commerce, and sports [1][3] - A significant administrative penalty case was discussed, where a small mushroom cultivation company faced a fine totaling nearly 5 million yuan for operating without a license. The court later deemed the penalty excessive and revoked it, citing the principle of proportionality [3][4] - The meeting established a closed-loop mechanism for addressing enterprise concerns, allowing for immediate responses to simple issues and a commitment to timely feedback for more complex problems [3][4] Group 2 - Representatives from over ten companies voiced concerns regarding high frequencies of administrative inspections, historical approval obstacles, and difficulties in credit restoration [4] - Suggestions included involving insurance companies as co-defendants in traffic accident disputes and balancing labor rights with corporate autonomy in labor disputes [4] - The meeting aimed to provide stable administrative guidance and government services for private enterprises through legal review of administrative actions [4]

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the company unlawfully terminated the employment relationship with the employee, ordering the company to pay 120,000 yuan in compensation due to the employee's excessive workload and refusal to take on additional responsibilities [1][3][4]. Group 1: Case Background - The employee, Ms. Gao, had been working at the company for over two years and was responsible for order entry for offline retail and some major clients [1]. - Following personnel adjustments, Ms. Gao's workload increased significantly, with the number of sales personnel she needed to coordinate rising from 18 to 52 [1]. - After another colleague's departure, the company requested Ms. Gao to take over the e-commerce order responsibilities, which she felt was unmanageable given her current workload [1][2]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The company claimed that Ms. Gao's refusal to take on the additional work constituted a serious violation of company policy, leading to her dismissal without compensation [2]. - The court found that Ms. Gao was already handling a full workload and her refusal to take on more work was justified, thus not qualifying as a "refusal of normal work handover" [2][3]. - The court emphasized that unilateral termination of the employment contract is a severe measure and should only be applied when the employee's actions are significantly serious [3][4]. Group 3: Court's Ruling - The court determined that the company's actions lacked legality and reasonableness, as Ms. Gao had already taken on additional responsibilities prior to her dismissal [3]. - The ruling reinforced that employees have the right to refuse additional work based on genuine workload concerns, and companies cannot simply terminate employment based on such refusals [4].

Core Viewpoint - Harvard University has won a preliminary injunction allowing it to continue accepting international students during the ongoing legal proceedings against the Trump administration's actions to block such admissions [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - Federal Judge Allison Burroughs issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration's efforts to prevent Harvard from accepting international students, allowing the university to maintain its admissions during the case [1][3]. - Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security after it revoked the university's certification to accept foreign students and process their visa applications, which affected approximately 7,000 international students [3][4]. - The judge noted that the federal government retains the right to review Harvard's eligibility to accept international students through normal legal procedures [3][4]. Group 2: Government Actions and Responses - The Trump administration attempted to block foreign students from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard through a new announcement, which Harvard challenged in court [4][6]. - Harvard's legal team argued that the Trump administration's policies violated the university's rights to due process and academic freedom, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act [6][7]. - The university expressed that the government's actions created an atmosphere of "profound fear, anxiety, and confusion" among international students [6][7]. Group 3: Future Implications - Harvard anticipates a more binding ruling from the judge in the coming days, while continuing to develop contingency plans for international students [4][5]. - If the Trump administration persists with its actions, the case may escalate to the Supreme Court, where Harvard is expected to have a strong chance of success based on constitutional grounds [7]. - Harvard is also pursuing a separate lawsuit regarding the suspension of federal funding by the Trump administration, with the first hearing scheduled for July 21 [7].

Group 1 - Nintendo has updated its user agreement, warning that users who install pirated or modified devices may face severe consequences, including the potential for their Switch devices to become unusable, a condition referred to as "bricking" [1][3] - The bricking clause appears to be specific to U.S. users, as other regions, such as Japan and Germany, have less stringent penalties for similar violations [2][6] - The legal framework in the U.S. allows for some exemptions regarding the legality of jailbreaking devices for legitimate purposes, which contrasts with the more stringent measures Nintendo has implemented in its U.S. user agreement [3][5] Group 2 - The penalties outlined in Nintendo's user agreements vary significantly by region, influenced by local laws regarding consumer rights and contract freedom [6][7] - In jurisdictions with a focus on consumer protection, such as Germany and China, penalties for violations may be subject to a proportionality principle, which could challenge the severity of Nintendo's measures [6][9] - Nintendo's ultimate goal in enforcing these measures is to protect its commercial interests, and overly harsh penalties could alienate users and drive them towards competitors like Steam, Microsoft, and Sony [9][10]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the escalating conflict between the Trump administration and Harvard University, focusing on the implications for international students and the broader academic landscape in the U.S. [2][15] Group 1: Trump's Actions Against Harvard - The Trump administration has initiated a series of actions against Harvard, including freezing over $2.2 billion in federal funding and threatening to revoke the university's tax-exempt status [6][7]. - On May 22, the Trump administration announced the cancellation of Harvard's eligibility for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SVEP), effectively banning the university from enrolling international students [7][15]. - Harvard has responded by filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration, claiming that the government's actions violate the First Amendment and other federal laws, and have a "direct and devastating impact" on over 7,000 visa holders [7][8]. Group 2: Legal Implications and Harvard's Position - Legal experts suggest that Harvard has a strong chance of winning the case, as the Trump administration's actions may conflict with constitutional rights related to freedom of speech and academic freedom [9][15]. - The article highlights that the government's administrative measures must adhere to due process and proportionality principles, which may not be met in this case [8][9]. - The temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge indicates that the court may prioritize the protection of students' interests while reviewing the legality of the Trump administration's actions [8][9]. Group 3: Broader Implications for Higher Education - The conflict raises concerns about the future of international students in U.S. higher education, as they represent a significant source of tuition revenue and talent [15][16]. - The article notes that international students make up over 27% of Harvard's student body and contribute to the academic and financial vitality of U.S. universities [15]. - Experts warn that aggressive policies against international students could harm the U.S.'s global standing in higher education and its economic interests [15][16].