Government-enterprise disputes

[Key points of this case]

This case is a typical case of administrative law enforcement supervision correcting "unclear fact determination" and implementing "excessive punishment is commensurate". The core dispute is that the company has paid backSoil and water conservation compensation feeLater, the Enforcement Bureau still planned to impose penalties on the grounds of "refusal to pay."

Lawyer Ying Ting pointed out that the County Comprehensive Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau ignored the key fact that the company had completed rectifications within the reminder period, and mechanical law enforcement led to characterization errors. According to Article 33 of the Administrative Punishment Law andShandong Province Discretionary Standards, the enterprise's behavior is "a minor illegal act that is corrected in a timely manner and has no harmful consequences", and the legal situation should be such that no administrative penalty will be imposed.

county governmentAdministrative Law Enforcement Supervision BureauPerform duties in accordance with the law, urge the Law Enforcement Bureau to correct deviations, and ultimately make a decision not to impose penalties. This case highlights the key role of administrative law enforcement supervision in preventing the abuse of power and safeguarding corporate rights and interests. Lawyer Ying Ting believes that this case has established the orientation of "timely remedy means exemption from punishment" and warned that administrative agencies must dynamically verify facts, accurately apply the law, avoid excessive enforcement, and provide a strong guarantee for creating a legalized business environment that "combines leniency with severity."