重庆市人民政府办公厅


重庆市人民政府办公厅关于印发重庆市行政复议工作基本规范的通知


各区县（自治县）人民政府，市政府各部门：
《重庆市行政复议工作基本规范》已经市人民政府同意，现印发给你们，请认真贯彻执行。



二○一一年十二月八日




重庆市行政复议工作基本规范

第一章 总 则
第一条 为规范行政复议工作，进一步发挥行政复议制度依法化解行政争议的主渠道作用，保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益，根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》和《中华人民共和国行政复议法实施条例》，结合本市实际，制定本规范。
第二条 市和区县（自治县）人民政府及其负有行政复议职责的工作部门（以下统称为行政复议机关）的行政复议工作，适用本规范。
第三条 行政复议机关的主要负责人是本机关行政复议工作的第一责任人，应当加强对行政复议工作的领导，认真研究解决行政复议工作中的问题。对重要行政复议案件亲自审理和签署行政复议决定书。
行政复议机关应当建立健全行政复议工作责任制，将履行行政复议职责的情况列入法治政府建设考核体系。

第二章 行政复议机构
第四条 行政复议机关负责法制工作的机构（以下统称为行政复议机构），履行下列职责：
（一）受理行政复议申请；
（二）向有关组织和人员调查取证，查阅文件和资料；
（三）审查被申请人的具体行政行为是否合法与适当，拟定行政复议决定；
（四）按照职责权限，督促行政复议申请的受理和行政复议决定的履行；
（五）办理行政复议、行政应诉案件统计和重大行政复议决定备案事项；
（六）研究行政复议工作中发现的问题，及时向有关机关提出改进建议，重大问题及时向行政复议机关报告；
（七）其他法定职责。
第五条 区县（自治县）人民政府应当加强政府法制工作机构的行政复议能力建设，使其能够全面履行立案审查、案件审理、宣传指导和监督管理等行政复议职责。行政复议人员的配备应当与其承担的行政复议工作任务相适应，保证一般行政复议案件至少有２名行政复议人员承办，重大行政复议案件至少有3名行政复议人员承办。市政府工作部门应当配备与行政复议工作任务相适应的专（兼）职行政复议人员。
第六条 行政复议机关应当设置行政复议接待场所和案件公开审理场所，配置办公、交通、取证等设备，保证行政复议工作顺利开展。
第七条 行政复议机关应当建立适应行政复议工作需要的经费保障机制，将行政复议工作经费列入本机关行政经费预算，由同级财政予以保障。行政复议工作经费包括案件调查费、咨询论证费、典型案例研究费、宣传指导费和其他与行政复议职责相关的业务经费。
第八条 区县（自治县）人民政府应当逐步建立政府行政复议委员会，集中行政复议审理工作，提高行政复议的公信力。行政复议委员会原则上由政府分管领导、有关部门负责人和相关法律专家组成。行政复议委员会是本级政府行政复议工作的议决机构。
第九条 行政复议机关应当建立健全责任追究制度，对行政复议工作中的徇私舞弊、失职、渎职等行为，依法追究责任。

第三章 行政复议受理
第十条 行政复议机关应当安排行政复议人员在行政复议接待场所负责接待工作。行政复议人员在接待工作中应当认真负责、态度热情。行政复议接待场所应当设置明显标志，并公示行政复议申请条件、申请文书格式、审理程序等事项。
第十一条 各级行政机关作出具体行政行为，应当按照《中华人民共和国行政复议法实施条例》第十七条的规定，在行政决定文书中载明管理相对人申请行政复议的权利、行政复议机关和行政复议申请期限。
第十二条 行政机关作出具体行政行为，未告知当事人申请行政复议的权利，致使当事人逾期申请行政复议的，其申请期限自当事人知道或者应当知道申请行政复议的权利之日起计算。但从知道或者应当知道具体行政行为内容之日起最长不得超过2年。
第十三条 行政复议机关要求申请人补正申请材料的，补正的期限最长不得超过30日。
第十四条 各级政府法制工作机构与信访工作机构应当建立化解行政争议的联动工作机制。在信访接待场所公示行政复议法律、法规、规章，为当事人申请行政复议提供便利。行政复议机关可以在信访接待场所设置行政复议接待窗口，安排行政复议人员，依法及时受理行政复议申请。
第十五条 对依法应当通过行政复议解决的行政争议，信访机构应当以书面形式告知当事人申请行政复议或者将行政复议申请书转送行政复议机构，并同时书面告知当事人。
第十六条 同一案件的申请人超过5人的，行政复议机构应当告知申请人于案件受理之日起5日内推选1―5名代表参加行政复议。代表人的行为对申请人发生法律效力。
第十七条 申请人以传真、电子邮件方式递交行政复议申请书、证明材料的，行政复议机构收到后，应当在5日内核实有关申请材料。
第十八条 有下列情形之一的，上级行政机关应当直接受理下级机关管辖的行政复议案件：
（一）已经责令下级机关受理，下级机关仍不受理的；
（二）下级机关与被申请人的具体行政行为有利害关系，可能影响案件公正审理的；
（三）上级行政机关认为有必要直接受理的。

第四章 行政复议案件审理
第十九条 行政复议人员有下列情形之一的，应当自行回避，当事人也有权申请其回避：
（一）是本案的当事人或其近亲属的；
（二）与本案有其他利害关系，可能影响公正审理的。
当事人申请回避，应当在案件审理终结前提出；实行听证审理的，应当在听证程序终结前提出。
第二十条 一般案件，原则上采取书面审查的办法，由1名行政复议人员主审，1名行政复议人员协助审理。
第二十一条 重大案件由3名以上单数的行政复议人员以合议方式审理。
（一）行政复议机构负责人指定一名行政复议人员主审，具体负责案件审理。
（二）行政复议人员应当根据案件证据及相关法律依据，对认定案件事实和适用法律分别提出书面意见。
（三）行政复议人员意见不一致的，应当按照少数服从多数的原则，依据多数人意见确定合议意见，由主审行政复议人员拟定行政复议决定书，报请行政复议机构负责人或行政复议机关负责人签发。
实行（相对）集中行政复议审理工作试点的，由主审行政复议人员拟定行政复议案件调查处理意见，经行政复议机构负责人审定后提交行政复议委员会议决。
第二十二条 重大案件，申请人提出要求或者案件主审行政复议人员认为必要时，经行政复议机构负责人同意，可以以听证方式审理案件。行政复议机关以听证方式审理案件时，被申请人的主要负责人或分管负责人应当出席听证会。
第二十三条 重大案件存在事实不清、证据相互矛盾、争议较大等其他需要调查取证情形的，经行政复议机构负责人同意，可以实地调查取证，核实证据；专业性较强的案件，可以邀请有关专家、技术人员参与调查。
第二十四条 行政复议人员应当自受理申请之日起40日内报告案件审理情况，经处（科）室负责人审核后报送行政复议机构负责人；情况复杂，需要延长行政复议期限的，一并报送审定。
第二十五条 行政复议机关在案件审理过程中，发现被申请人或其工作人员作出具体行政行为时，存在严重职务违法行为或涉嫌职务犯罪的，应将相关材料移送纪检、监察或司法机关处理。
第二十六条 行政复议期间，行政复议机关发现申请人不适格，但申请复议的具体行政行为违法或不当，在决定驳回申请的同时，应当根据《重庆市行政执法监督条例》的规定作出处理。
第二十七条 根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法实施条例》第五十条的规定，经行政复议机关主持调解，当事人达成协议的，行政复议机关应当制作《行政复议调解书》。《行政复议调解书》加盖行政复议机关印章，经申请人、被申请人签字或者盖章，即具有法律效力。
第二十八条 行政复议机关可以在作出行政复议决定前，以建议、协调、调解等方式促使被申请人改变具体行政行为或与申请人达成和解。被申请人改变具体行政行为或者与申请人达成和解，应在行政复议法定审理期限届满前完成。
第二十九条 被申请人改变被申请的具体行政行为或者与申请人达成和解，申请人撤回行政复议申请，符合下列条件的，行政复议机关应当准许并终止行政复议：
（一）撤回申请是申请人的真实意思表示；
（二）被申请人改变具体行政行为或者与申请人达成和解，不得违反或规避法律、法规的禁止性规定，不得超越或者放弃法定职责，不得损害公共利益和他人合法权益；
（三）第三人无异议，或者虽有异议但理由明显不成立。
第三十条 经行政复议机关准许和解并且终止行政复议的，应当在《行政复议终止决定书》中载明和解的内容。申请人以同一事实和理由再次申请行政复议的，不予受理。但是，被申请人不履行和解协议或者申请人提出证据证明和解违反自愿原则或和解内容违反法律、法规、规章的强制性规定的除外。

第五章 行政复议决定
第三十一条 行政复议机关应当坚持以事实为依据，以法律为准绳，妥善平衡利益，公正作出决定。对涉及到的重大法律问题，应当多方听取意见，认真开展法律论证，确保法律适用正确。行政复议决定书应当增强说理性，以法明理，以理服人。
第三十二条 有下列情形之一的，行政复议机关应当作出确认具体行政行为违法的决定：
（一）被申请人未履行法定职责，责令履行已无实际意义的；
（二）具体行政行为违法，但不具有可撤销的内容，或者撤销已无实际意义的；
（三）具体行政行为违法，但撤销会对公共利益造成损害的；
（四）被申请人在法定期限内拒不提出书面答复和作出具体行政行为的证据、依据和其他相关材料，但不适合撤销的。
第三十三条 被申请人应当及时、全面履行行政复议决定。被申请人对行政复议决定有异议的，可以向行政复议机关提出，但不影响行政复议决定的执行。申请人、第三人不服行政复议决定提起行政诉讼后，被申请人不得在行政诉讼中与行政复议机关抗辩。
第三十四条 被申请人不履行行政复议决定的，行政复议机关应当依职权检查、督促或者责令其限期履行。对前款规定情形，申请人、第三人向行政复议机关申诉的，行政复议机关应当在受理申诉后7日内责令被申请人限期履行。被申请人自收到《责令履行通知书》之日起15日内必须履行行政复议决定书，并将结果报告发出责令的机关。

第六章 行政复议监督
第三十五条 行政复议机关通过制发行政复议意见书或建议书，及时纠正行政机关的违法行政行为和解决行政管理中带有普遍性的问题，督促做好行政复议案件相关的善后工作。对不按照行政复议意见书或建议书要求反馈落实情况的，应当予以通报。
第三十六条 行政复议机关应当建立健全行政复议案件质量评查制度。市和区县（自治县）人民政府法制机构应当定期对本级政府工作部门及下级政府办理的行政复议案件进行评查，监督、指导、促进行政复议工作。
第三十七条 区县（自治县）人民政府和市政府工作部门在作出涉及人数众多、矛盾纠纷突出、社会影响较大的重大行政复议决定后，应当在7日内报市政府法制机构备案。市政府法制机构应当加大备案审查力度，发现存在问题的，应当责令其纠正。
第三十八条 行政复议机关应当及时总结行政复议办案经验，整理、评析并推广典型案例，统一行政复议办案尺度，确保同类案件裁决结果基本一致和对同一法律法规适用基本一致。
第三十九条 行政复议机关应当将办理行政复议案件和行政应诉案件，包括行政机关负责人出席行政复议听证审理和行政诉讼出庭应诉的情况，按照国务院法制机构关于行政复议和行政应诉案件统计报告制度的规定，指定专人如实填写并及时报送案件统计报表。

第七章 附 则
第四十条 本规范中“5日”、“7日”、“15日”的规定是指工作日，不含节假日。
第四十一条 本规范自印发之日起施行。




Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992