Yesterday morning, the â€œfirst case of domestic special vehiclesâ€, which has received much attention, was opened in the Peopleâ€™s Court of the Central District of Jinan City, Shandong Province. This is also the first case in the country that received administrative punishment for providing special car services.
In the context of the taxi market being stirred by the special car, the "first case of the car" touched the nerves of all parties. For taxi drivers, they want to recapture the cake that was taken away by the car; the car driver hopes to stop working. At the scene of the trial yesterday, the taxi driver organized a group to listen.
In view of the fact that both parties have applied the relevant facts and laws of this case, the dispute is quite controversial and it is not suitable for judgment in court. The collegiate bench will conduct conscientious collegiation after the court and issue the judgment on an elective basis. The time and place of the judgment will be announced separately.
Review the law enforcement site -
On the spot, the two parties on the spot agreed to use the taxi software about the special car. On the morning of January 7 this year, Chen Chao, who used the Didi car software to send passengers to Jinan West Railway Station, was taken by Jinan City Public Passenger Transport Management Service Center (hereinafter referred to as Jinan Passenger Management Center). The law enforcement officers investigated and the vehicles were temporarily detained on the spot. The previous day, the Jinan City Passenger Management Office issued a notice saying that all the operating vehicles that were not called by the Jinan City Passenger Management Office will be regarded as â€œblack carsâ€.
After the vehicle was detained, Chen Chao requested a hearing, and the Jinan Passenger Management Center also agreed to his request and held it as scheduled. However, in the end, Chen Chao was found to constitute an illegal operation and was fined 20,000 yuan.
Although he paid the fine and also returned the vehicle, Chen Chao submitted a complaint to the Jinzhong City Central District People's Court, requesting the Jinan Passenger Transport Management Center to revoke the penalty.
This case was later called the national "first car case."
Before the court session yesterday, Chen Chao told reporters that he was a part-time car driver and took the road after training. At the time of the incident, there were two passengers on the bus. However, due to the interception by law enforcement officers, there was no transaction at the time. The system only transferred the payment to Chen Chaoâ€™s account two days later. Therefore, he believed that there was no transaction at the time of the incident and it did not constitute Illegal operation.
In addition, Chen Chao and his attorney, Beijing Lishuo Law Firm Li Wenqian, believe that the punishment of the Jinan City Passenger Management Center did not clearly state which regulations Chen Chao violated, and the 20,000 yuan fine also lacked relevant evidence, so they also The qualification of the punishment subject of the Jinan City Passenger Management Center was questioned.
In response to the above problems, the Jinan City Passenger Management Center pleaded that the unit, as the road transport management agency responsible for the specific pipelines of the city's passenger taxis, has the right to make a penalty decision for unauthorized use of the passenger transport business; and Chen Chao was then It is indeed operating, the evidence of punishment is conclusive, the applicable law is correct, and the procedure is legal.
The four focus of the trial -
How to define whether the car is an illegal operation behavior Become the focus of attention of both parties In the court, the focus of the debate between the plaintiff car driver Chen Chao and the defendant Jinan Passenger Control Center basically has the following four points:
Focus 1: Whether the defendant is eligible for administrative punishment (Jinan City Passenger Management Center) agent: "Regulations on Taxi Management Services", "Shandong Province Road Traffic Regulations", "Jinan City Passenger Transport Taxi Regulations", In the "Notice of the General Office of the People's Government of Jinan Municipality on Printing and Distributing the Establishment of Internal Organizations and Personnel of the Municipal Public Utilities Bureau of Jinan City", the relevant contents confirmed that the defendant has the qualifications and administrative authority for administrative punishment.
Plaintiff (Chen Chao) Agent: The main body of administrative punishment is only enjoyed by the Jinan Municipal Transportation Bureau. The responsibility of the Transportation Management Office belongs to the internal organization, and the defendant does not belong to the relevant internal organization of the Transportation Bureau or Other internal establishments. There is no legal basis for the institution to exercise the power of administrative punishment. It is a serious illegal act to exercise administrative punishment as a public institution without explicit legal authority.
Focus 2: Whether the defendant's procedure for making administrative punishment is legal. The plaintiff agent: There is no objection to the authenticity of the decision on the administrative enforcement measures submitted by the defendant. Judging from the law enforcement of this decision, the name of the passenger is traced. The content of the decision in the main illegal facts is unfounded, and the legal basis for its decision is not legally prescribed. There is also objection to the authenticity of the document in the Case Dispute Submission submitted by the defendant.
Defendant's agent: The Code of Conduct of the Ministry of Communications. The investigation report on violations of law is presented in the case handling opinion, and it is reflected and recorded in the investigation conclusions and handling opinions and the review opinions of the legal work institutions. There is no evidence that the plaintiff said that we are a post-violation.
Focus 3: Whether the factual evidence on which the administrative punishment is based is indeed sufficient. Defendant's agent: During the law enforcement process, the defendant found that the plaintiff engaged in the operation of the taxi passenger without permission, and the vehicle he was driving did not have the vehicle vehicle operation permit and the passenger qualification certificate. According to the "Regulations on Road Traffic Transportation of Shandong Province", it is necessary to obtain a vehicle operation permit for road transportation operations, and not to engage in taxi operation activities without obtaining a vehicle operation certificate, in violation of the provisions of the State Council Order No. 412.
The evidence is the day's law enforcement video, transcripts and later news reports.
Plaintiff agent: There is objection to the authenticity of the video. Judging from the entire information, it does not prove the relationship between the two passengers and the plaintiff identified by the defendant. The video information is not reflected. Moreover, the defendant was a preconceived question to the plaintiff and the passengers, with a forced tone.
Focus 4: Is the law applicable to administrative punishment correct? The defendant's agent: "Order No. 412 of the State Council of the People's Republic of China" and related laws and regulations, the State Council has set administrative licenses for administrative examination and approval items that need to be retained, a total of 500 items, of which 112 are for rent. The vehicle business qualification certificate, the vehicle operation certificate and the driver's passenger qualification certificate are issued, and the implementing agency is the taxi administrative department at or above the county level.
Plaintiff agent: The relevant laws on which we are subject to administrative penalties are not recognized. A fine of 20,000 yuan was imposed on the plaintiff, which was inconsistent with the traffic behavior penalty rules.
Defendant's agent: If you follow Chen Chao's statement, it is a friend relationship, then the driver and passengers are not connected at all. In this way, the profit-making purpose is very clear. As the law enforcement agency, the defendantâ€™s punishment for illegally engaging in taxi passenger transportation activities is not necessary for the charging of taxis. .
Plaintiff agent: The defendant stated that the noun was used many times, and the â€œspecial carâ€ defendant in the video material explained the concept of the taxi software. According to the provisions of Article 69, paragraph 2 of the Shandong Provincial Road Traffic Regulations, in addition to questioning 5000 to In addition to the 30,000 fine, the illegal gains were confiscated, and whether the defendant had confiscated Chen Chaoâ€™s illegal proceeds.
Didi Company responds -
I can't comment on the case itself. I hope that there is a fair and reasonable ruling. After the court hearing yesterday, our reporter also contacted Didi Company for the first time.
"We can't make any comment on the case itself, and hope that the law can give a fair and reasonable ruling." The relevant person in charge of the company said that the first case of the car started from a special car, but the case was simple but it was widely concerned because the case has exceeded the general Judicial litigation in the sense of law, and become the legal supervision of innovative things, law enforcement should adhere to the law enforcement boundary, the old law can not adapt to the new situation and other complex issues.
Didi also said that the special car as a progressive and innovative thing has greatly improved the travel of the people and promoted the transformation and upgrading of urban transportation in China, which will benefit the people, industry and government.
Locking Hitch Pin,Tumbler Lock,Solid Rivets,Ball Lock Pin
Kunshan Zhonggu Precision Hardware Co., Ltd. , https://www.zgfastener.com