金普新区综合执法局相关人员表示，终审判决责令行政部门重 新作出处罚决定，在未重新作出决定前，暂不便介绍相关情 况。 作者： 田国宝 封图：本报资料室 在大连市金普新区和平村附近，一栋两层框架楼伫立在山脚下，四周被黑色院墙环绕，院内荒草丛生。从发黑的水泥墙体、生锈的钢筋、被枯草覆盖的 灰砖看，这栋框架楼已停工许久。 王文利从小和父母及两个弟弟在和平村的老房子中生活。2017年，王文利的父亲王德玉去世后，老房只剩下母亲由淑华一人居住。老房年久失修且位 于山脚，几个孩子担心暴雨时房子有坍塌风险，想帮助母亲翻建老宅。 2018年至2019年，王文利和弟弟多次拿着集体土地建设用地使用证、农村土地承包经营权证、房屋所有权证等手续，前往村委会、街道办和大连金普 新区城市管理综合执法局（下称"金普新区综合执法局"）咨询申请翻建房子的相关事宜。 彼时，负责农村宅基地审批的金州区农镇办在金州区和大连开发区合并为金普新区的过程中被撤销，宅基地审批职能尚未明确。 王文利说："当时街道办让我们先建房子，等有了职能部门再补办手续。" 2019年10月，新房子还未建成，金普新区综合执法局对由淑华下发《责令限期拆除决定书》，责令其于2019 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice have selected and published 10 typical cases of administrative review and litigation to promote the implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law and enhance the protection of private enterprises' rights and interests [1][2][3] Group 1: Administrative Review Cases - Case 1: 103 companies challenged the withdrawal of construction qualifications by a housing and urban-rural development department in Jiangsu Province, arguing that their rights to be informed and to defend themselves were not adequately protected [5][6] - Case 2: A development company contested the collection of a penalty by a natural resources and planning bureau in Zhejiang Province, emphasizing that supervision should be conducted on a per-lot basis [9][10] - Case 3: A traditional Chinese medicine clinic disputed an administrative penalty imposed by a market supervision bureau in Shanghai, claiming the punishment was excessive compared to the violations [13][14] - Case 4: A real estate company filed a review against a housing and urban-rural development bureau in Heilongjiang Province for failing to perform statutory duties regarding project completion verification [17][18] - Case 5: A construction company opposed an administrative penalty from a city management bureau in Sichuan Province, arguing that the determination of collusion in bidding should be based on comprehensive judgment [20][21] Group 2: Administrative Agreements and Compensation - Case 6: A real estate company sought compensation from a municipal government for unfulfilled promises regarding land compensation, resulting in a court ruling that mandated the government to pay over 8.41 million yuan [24][26] - Case 7: A passenger transport group sued a municipal government for not fulfilling an administrative agreement related to the transformation of intercity bus services, leading to a court ruling that required the government to comply with the agreement [28][30] - Case 8: An investment company challenged a police bureau's refusal to issue a special industry license, arguing that the bureau's regulations violated higher laws [33][34] - Case 9: A machinery company sought to enforce a meeting record regarding capacity replacement, resulting in a court ruling that emphasized the protection of trust interests in administrative actions [36][39] - Case 10: A mining company requested compensation from a county government due to the overlap of its mining rights with a newly designated water source protection area, leading to a court ruling for compensation of over 5.83 million yuan [40][42]

Group 1 - The Guangzhou Railway Transport Intermediate Court reported a total of 20,665 new administrative cases in 2024, marking a continuous decline since 2021 [1] - The first-instance judgment rate of administrative agencies losing cases was 8.55%, also showing a continuous decline [1] - The court actively resolved various administrative disputes related to business registration, tax collection, and market regulation, promoting fair competition and healthy development of the private economy [1] Group 2 - The court established four municipal mediation workstations and achieved full coverage in 11 administrative districts, resulting in over 10,000 cases being resolved through mediation or judicial confirmation, with a success rate of 58.55% [1] - A total of 522 cases saw administrative agencies lose in first-instance judgments, with the loss rate decreasing by 2.41 percentage points year-on-year [1] - The court issued 13 judicial recommendations following judgments to correct administrative enforcement errors [1] Group 3 - The white paper highlighted the need for enhanced awareness of lawful performance, balancing legal and reasonable administration, and clarifying responsibilities in overlapping management areas [2] - Recommendations included improving the mediation exemption mechanism to increase administrative agencies' willingness to mediate and strengthening legal construction in key areas like urban renewal [2] - The emphasis was placed on modernizing grassroots governance systems and capabilities, moving away from punitive enforcement approaches [2]