12 News Service, 31 Artesyn Technologies has just Guangzhou Tianhe District People’s Court received on Gree “annulment case” ruling, the court considered the Guangzhou Tianhe, Guangzhou City Bureau of Finance is not the “annulment case” “the proper defendant” and therefore rejected the Guangzhou Geli
Air conditioning Related claims. Following Guangzhou Tianhe District People’s Court issued Tencent related text of this decision:
Guangzhou Gree Air Conditioning Sell Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to Gree Corporation) aggrieved by the Guangzhou Municipal Bureau of Finance Government of the administrative reconsideration decision to prosecute to the Tianhe District People’s Court, the hospital on November 2 had an open court hearing, now Court. The afternoon of December 31, Tianhe District People was sentenced.
2008 11 months, the plaintiff Gree companies to participate in the procurement by the Guangzhou Municipal Government, organized the “Central Hospital of Panyu District, air conditioning procurement” in bidding activity, were identified as successful candidates, but ultimately unsuccessful accident, successful enterprises offer more than 400 million of its high
Guangdong Province Oil Chemical industry Construction Corporation. The plaintiff then refused to accept the Finance Bureau, Panyu District
Complaints , It does not meet the tender conditions in its reply to the grounds of their complaints, the plaintiff to the defendant after the Financial Bureau, Guangzhou, administrative reconsideration, the defendants maintain Panyu District Financial Bureau of the complaint handling decisions. The plaintiff then sued the court.
Defendant Guangzhou City Finance Bureau in response that the reconsideration decision made by the council did not change the original complaint handling decisions based on findings of fact and law, so the case is not the proper defendant, the plaintiff Gree company refuses to accept the results should be prosecution of the original complaint handling decisions to authorities.
Plaintiff that the defendant’s reconsideration decision not to respond to the tender documents identified the substantive conditions of the tender documents and content, belong to the substance of the tender documents and conditions of the tender does not respond to invalid behavior, Panyu District Financial Bureau of the original complaint decided not to make this deal concluded, therefore, decided to change the defendant’s reconsideration decision of the original complaint handling identified the main facts, but also increase the number of invoked the law to change the original complaint handling decisions based on the applicable law.
Tianhe District Court hearing that the defendant is correct as listed in the present case the court decided whether the entity hearing the premise further, it must first resolve the procedural issues. According to “Administrative Procedure Law,” the provisions of Article 25 of the plaintiff to the court after the administrative review of the cases, the reconsideration organ to maintain the original specific administrative act, to make the original specific administrative act of the executive authority as a defendant; reconsideration authority to change the original specific administrative act , and to review authority as a defendant. According to the Supreme Court’s judicial interpretation, “the original specific administrative act” includes changing the original meaning of the final treatment results of administrative actions, identify the main facts and evidence and the applicable legal norms and qualitative impact.
That the reconsideration decision, the court did not change the original decision to identify the main facts and evidence, not many reference articles on the qualitative impact. Integrated “government procurement of goods and
Service Bidding Management Measures “section 56 and the center of the Guangzhou municipal government procurement provisions of the tender documents, tender documents in place with an asterisk must be substantive response to the terms of the bidder if the terms of an asterisk does not respond or does not satisfy, Tender will be invalid handle. Therefore, the Panyu District Finance Bureau in the original complaint handling decisions, found the plaintiff’s bid documents did not meet the requirements of articles with an asterisk, the actual bidding has been confirmed that the plaintiffs invalid. The defendant further clear in the reconsideration decision, only made the original decision of the specific facts discussed, the original specific administrative act has not identified the main facts and evidence. Increase in the reconsideration decision, citing the “Government Procurement of goods and services bidding management approach” simply stated that the 56th Finance to be part of Panyu District, which provides treated as invalid tender fourth case, the only other legal provisions financial sector activities in the government procurement requirements in respect of responsibilities and authority as well as on suppliers complaints handling procedures, rights and provisions, so the defendant did not change the original decision of the reconsideration decision, the normative basis, nor a material impact on the qualitative.
Accordingly, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City Bureau of Finance The court held that the case is not the proper defendant. The plaintiff in Guangzhou City Finance Bureau filed the case for the proper defendant in the proceedings on the ground does not hold, so the court rejected the plaintiff’s prosecution. SABUNG AYAM