Employee Benefits: Can "People Tell Officials" Centralized Jurisdiction Go Far?

Xinhui District People's Court of Jiangmen, Guangdong recently opened a court hearing on a hardware manufacturing company limited to Xinhui District People's Bureau and district government administrative case. The hammer struck was Gong Zhanze, a judge of the people's Court of Jianghai district.

It has become a new normal for the court of Jianghai district to open the court in different places.

According to the Legal Daily report, since December 2014, the first instance of the "people's accuser" in 5 districts outside the Jianghai District in Jiangmen has been centralized by the Jianghai district court. The case of "people's charge" in the first instance of Jianghai district has been promoted to the Jiangmen intermediate people's court for trial.

"

Since the promulgation and Implementation for more than 20 years, the administrative jurisdiction system has been using the relevant provisions of the civil procedure law in many aspects, and the disadvantages of administrative jurisdiction have become increasingly apparent.

At present, the court system is corresponding to the administrative division, and the personnel appointment and removal power and the financial supply of the court are controlled by the same level organs and administrative organs. The judicial power attaches great importance to the administrative power, and the color of the judicial power is serious, and the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart is still limited.

Centralized administration of administrative cases as a new system should start with the reform of judicial system and establish it as a new jurisdiction system at the legislative level.

On the one hand, whether centralized jurisdiction, administrative courts or judicial mode of maintaining the status quo must be based on the premise that the people, property and property of the court are independent from the administrative organs, only in this way can we truly realize the independent and impartial exercise of the administrative jurisdiction. On the other hand, by modifying the administrative litigation law, we can realize the relative separation between the jurisdiction of the case and the administrative area in a wider range, in order to solve the administrative interference problem more effectively, and give full play to the judicial review function of the administrative trial.

The centralized jurisdiction of administrative litigation is to assign cases previously dispersed by different courts to certain specific courts for centralized jurisdiction and trial.

Centralized jurisdiction is the new attempt of the Supreme People's court in the context of the upgrading of jurisdiction and the decline of cross jurisdictional reform.

The establishment of centralized administrative jurisdiction mode has cut off administrative intervention and local protection to a certain extent, creating a more relaxed trial environment for judges' independence and fair trial.

However, administrative cases are governed by

The relative separation within a limited range is not only a lack of support at the legal level, but also is difficult to completely exclude administrative intervention.

On the one hand, the legal basis for centralized administration of administrative cases needs to be improved.

At present, the implementation of the centralized jurisdiction of administrative cases is based on the notification of the Supreme Court and the implementation plan everywhere. There is no formal legal basis.

It is difficult to give a convincing explanation when the accused administrative organ raises objection to the jurisdiction. On the other hand, the majority of the centralized jurisdiction administrative cases currently heard by the court are the cases of the local administrative organs as defendants. Under the current judicial system, administrative intervention is difficult to eradicate. The centralized jurisdiction system reform is only limited to the administrative area of the municipality, and the leaders of the government departments in the municipal districts are frequently engaged in frequent exchanges, and the administrative intervention in other cases is difficult to completely exclude.

From the perspective of judicial practice, the interference of civil and criminal cases leads to unfair judicature, such as "relationship cases, human rights cases, money cases" and so on. Most of them arise in the form of individual concealment, and administrative cases are more openly intervened in the form of departmental organizations.