【标题】上海市卢湾区新家坡园景苑业主委员会不服上海市卢湾区物价局核准物业费案(附英文)
【裁判字专号】(2003)卢行初字9号
【审结日期】2003-06-25
【案例类型】行政
【审级】一审
【审结机关】
【全文】 |
| |
上海市卢湾区新家坡园景苑业主委员会不服上海市卢湾区物价局核准物业费案(附英文)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
(一)首部
1.判决书字号 : 上海市卢湾区人民法院(2003)卢行初字9号
2. 案由 : 不服核准物业费案
3.诉讼双方
原告 : 上海市卢湾区新家坡园景苑业主委员会。
法定代表人 : 伏春姊 , 上海市卢湾区新家坡园景苑业主委员会主任。
委托代理人 : 孙正杰 , 上海市中亚长城律师事务所律师。
被告 : 上海市卢湾区物价局。
法定代表人 : 陈永亮 , 上海市卢湾区物价局局长。
委托代理人 : 任龙 , 上海市卢湾区物价局工作人员。
第二人 : 高纬宏腾物业服务 ( 上海 ) 有限公司。
法定代表人 : ANTHONY. SEAH CHOON TONG, 高纬宏腾物业服务 ( 上海 ) 有限公司董事长。
委托代理人 : 单新宇 , 上海市汇业律师事务所律师。
4 、审级 : 一审。
5 、审判机关和审判组织
审判机关 : 上海市卢湾区人民法院。
合议庭组成人员 : 审判长 : 李平 : 代理审判员 : 洪伟、巢炯。
6 、审结时间 : 2003 年 6 月 25 日。 |
| |
(二)诉辩主张
被诉具体行政行为 : 被告上海市卢湾区物价局于 2001 年 1 月
1 日以后作出了核准第三人高纬宏腾物业服务 ( 上海 ) 有限公司以每 月每平方米人民币
2.45 元的标准 , 收取上海市卢湾区新家坡园景苑前期物业管理服务费的具体行政行为。
_
2.. 原告诉称 : 被告未按法定程序对第二人的核价
申请进行审核 , 故其核准第三人以每月每平方米人民币
2.45 元的价格 标准收取园景苑前期物业管理服务费的具体行政行为违法 , 请求法院依法予以撤销。
3.. 被告辩称 : 被告是根据第三人的申请 , 经审查 后确认 , 园景苑原由建展物业管理 ( 上海 ) 有限公司 ( 以下简称 " 建展公司 ") 负责前期物业管理 , 后建展公司更名为美怡物业管理 ( 上海 ) 有限公司 ( 以
F 简称 " 美怡公司”, 美怡公司义并入第三人高纬宏腾 物业服务 ( 上海 ) 有限公司 ( 以下简称 " 宏腾公司勺 , 故被告在以前 建展公司的物业服务收费申请审核表上加盖第二人公章 , 作为同意第 二人继续按原来核准价格进行收费的核价行为是正确的 , 请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。
4.第三人述称 : 同意被告的陈述理由 , 请求法院驳回原告的诉讼请求。 |
| |
(三)事实和证据
上海市卢湾区人民法院经公非理查明 : 建展公司、美怡公司
宏腾公司为三个分别独立注册的公司。上海市卢湾区新家坡园景苑住 宅小区 ( 以下简称 " 园景苑 ") 自 1999 年
5 月
1 日开始入住后 , 由开 发商上海新瑞房地产开发有限公司与建展公司签订园景苑前期物业管 理委托服务合同 , 期限从
1999 年 5 月 1 日起至 2000 年 5 月 1 日止。
建展公司为此向被告提出申请以每月每平方米人民币 2.78 元的价格收 取物业管理服务费 , 被告在建展公司填写提交的《上海市物业管理服 务收费备案、审核表》上盖章 , 同意建展公司收取前期物业管理服务费的价格标准为每月每平方米人民币
2.45 元。上述前期物业管理委托 服务合同期满后 , 园景苑开发商又于 2000 年 5 月
25 日 , 同美怡公司 签订了园景苑住宅物业管理委托协议 , 管理期限至 2000 年 12 月
31 日止 , 被告对美怡公司的前期物业管理服务费收费标准的审核只是在原 来建展公司的《土海市物业管理服务费备案、审核表》上加盖美怡公司的公章 , 作为对美怡公司的核价申请的确认及被告作出的核价行为。 后因景苑开发商在与美怡公司的协议期满后 , 再次与宏腾公司签订了园景苑住宅物业管理委托协议 , 管理期限自
2001 年 1 月 1 日起至 2002 年 12 月
31 日止。为此 , 被告在原先盖有建展公司、美↑台公司公章的《上海市物业管理服务收费备案、审核表》上 , 又允许第三人宏腾公 司加盖其公司公章 , 作为对第三人收取园景苑前期物业管理服务费价 格标准的核准 , 但该审核表中对第三人申请的时间、被告的审核情况以及核准的时间等情况无相应的具体记载反映。
上述事实有下列证据证明 :
上海市工商行政管理局有关宏腾公司工商登记材料。
2.. 上海市工商行政管理局有关建展公司工商登记材料。 几上海市工商行政管理局有关美怡公司工商登记材料。
4. 上海新瑞房地产开发有限公司与建展公司签订的园景苑住宅物业管理委托协议。
5., 上海新瑞房地产开发有限公司与美怡公司签订的园景苑住宅物
业管理委托协议。 l
队上海新瑞房地产开发有限公司与宏腾公司签订的园景苑住宅物业管理委托协议。
7 、《上海市物业管理服务收费备案、审核表》。
8 、宏腾公司营业执照。
9.. 宏腾公司的上海市物业管理企业资质等级证书。
10 噜园景苑 2001 年 12 月份收支情况报告。
11 、宏腾公司说明。
12. 被告的工作人员胡卫 2001 年 8 月 13 日陈述记录。
13 .上海市居住物业管理条例》第二十三条。
14 、沪价房 (1997) 第 342 号文《关于做好
1998 年度调整普通内销商品住宅物业管理服务收费基准价及浮动幅度的通知》第二条。
15 、《上海市商品住宅物业管理服务收费暂行办法》第三条、第五条。
|
| |
(四) 判案理由
上海市卢湾区人民法院根据上述事实和证据认为 : 被告作为法律、法规授权具有对商品住宅前期物业管理服务费进行审核批准的物价主管部门 , 应根据有关法律、陆规规定的程序履行其法定的核价职责。
本案经庭审质证确认的事实告明 , 被告仅在给其他公司的价格审核表 上加盖第三人的公章 , 作为被告对第三人申报价格的审核批准。但又 无法提供第三人确切的申请时间、被告审核的过程及核准的时间等依 据 , 同时由于被告缺少完备的作出核准价格具体行政行为的裁体 , 因 此被告也无法明确其作出核价行为所适用的法律、法规。综上所述 ,被告对第三人作出的核准收取前期物业管理服务费价格标准的具体行政行为不符合法定程序 , 原告要求撤销之诉请 , 依法应予支持。
|
| |
(五) 定案结论
上海市卢湾区人民法院依照《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五 十四条第二项第三目和最高人民法院《关于执行 < 中华人民共和国行政 诉讼法 > 若干问题的解释》第五十九条第一项之规定 , 作出如下判决 :
1 、撤销被告上海市卢湾区物价局核准第三人以每月每平方米人民 币
2.45 元的价格标准收取园景苑商品住宅前期物业管理服务费的具体 行政行为。
2 、被告上海市卢湾区物价局应当在本判决生效后二个月内重新作 出核运第二人收取园景苑商品住宅前期物业管理服务费价格标准的具 体行政行为。
案件受理费人民币 100 元 , 由被告上海市卢湾区物价局负担。 |
| |
(六)解说
对于住宅小区的物业管理公司依法提起的要求核定收取前期物业管理费价格标准的申请 , 有关物价行政管理机关应当在其法定的职权范围内 , 妥善地履行其应尽的行政职责。这种行政职能的运用 , 不仅 应当以客观的事实认定、准确的法律应用和规范的程序适行为内容基 础 , 以设定的行政目的为宗旨 , 兼具合理性的考量 , 更应该具有合理的显性表现 , 即行政行为以一定载体为体现的公示形式 , 这也就是本案中具体行政行为引起纷争的基点。
以规范的形式作为具体行政行为的载体要求 , 既符合行政机关应 有的执法形象 , 体现行政执法的公开性和严肃性 , 同时又是对具体行 政行为的一种固定和确认 , 避免可能出现的行政执法随意性问题 , 并以此承担司法审查的证据来源。本案被告在默许申请随意的同时 , 以 其对行政行为形式的忽略 , 昭显出其行政作为本身的任意和草率。行政机关在传统的行政本位思想下作出内部样式的执法行为 , 在依法行 政的政策理念和全面审查的司法监督之前 , 难以维护其应有的行政效 率和权威。
|
|
|
【Title】Owners’ Committee of Singapore Landscape
Court of Luwan District, Shanghai City (Plaintiff)
AND Price Control Bureau of Luwan District, Shanghai
City (Defendant)
【Judgement No.】Administrative No 9 of 2003
【Date of Conclusion of Hearing】2003-06-25
【Catalog】Administrative Cases
【Level】Original Jurisdiction
|
|
|
Owners’ Committee of Singapore
Landscape Court of Luwan District,
Shanghai City (Plaintiff) AND Price
Control Bureau of Luwan District,
Shanghai City (Defendant)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
PART I HEADNOTE
(1) Written Judgment No: Administrative No 9 (2003)
of the People's Court of Luwan District, Shanghai
City
(2) Cause of Action: Dispute Over The Decision To
Approve The Charging Of Management Fees Of A
Property
(3) Parties:
Plaintiff: Owners’ Committee of Singapore Landscape
Court of Luwan District, Shanghai City
Agent ad Litem: Fu Chunzi, Chairwoman of the Owners’
Committee of Singapore Landscape Court of Luwan
District, Shanghai City (“the Chairwoman”)
Entrusted Agent: Sun Zhengjie, Lawyer of the Zhongya
Zhangcheng Law Office of Shanghai City
Defendant: Price Control Bureau of Luwan District,
Shanghai City
Agent ad Litem: Chen Yongliang, Director of the
Price Control Bureau of Luwan District, Shanghai
City
Entrusted Agent: Ren Long, Staff of the Price
Control Bureau of Luwan District, Shanghai City
Third Party: Gaowei Hongteng Property
Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd
Agent ad Litem: Anthony Seah Choon-Tong, Director of
Gaowei Hongteng Property Services (Shanghai) Co.,
Ltd
Entrusted Agent: Shan Xinyu, Lawyer of the Huiye Law
Office of Shanghai City
(4) Level of Trial: First Instance
(5) Trial Authority and Composition:
Court of First Instance: People's Court of Luwan
District, Shanghai City (“the Court”)
Collegial Panel: Li Ping (Chief Judge), Hongwei and
Chaojiong (Acting Judges)
(6) Date of Conclusion of Hearing:
25 June 2003 |
| |
PART II CLAIMS
1. Concrete Administrative Acts Being Sued
Since 1 January 2001, the Price Control Bureau of
Luwan District, Shanghai City (“the Defendant”)
approved Gaowei Hongteng Property
Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (“the Third Party”) the
specific administrative acts of charging the
property management fees at 2.45 Rmb per square
meter per month from the Singapore Landscape Court
of Luwan District, Shanghai City (“the Landscape
Court”).
2. The Plaintiff's Requests
The Defendant failed to comply with the
legally-prescribed examination process after the
Defendant had received the Third Party’s application
for the charging of the said management fees. The
Plaintiff submitted that the approval decision
subsequently made by the Defendant over the charging
of management fees by the Third Party was unlawful.
The plaintiff therefore requested the Court to
revoke the Defendant's decision.
3. The Defence
After receiving the application by the Third Party
and going through the examination process, the
Defendant revealed that, at the very beginning, the
Landscape Court was managed by the Jianzhan
Properties Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (“Jianzhan”).
The Jianzhan later changed its name to Meiyi
Properties Management (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (“Meiyi”)
and Meiyi subsequently merged with Gaowei Hongteng
Property Services (Shanghai) Co., Ltd (“the Third
Party”). The Defendant therefore inserted the Third
Party’s name with an official seal onto the
management fees approval form of the former property
management services companies. The acts of the
Defendant thus signified consent to the Third Party
to charge management fees in accordance with the
originally approved fee schedules as shown on the
approval form. The Defendant regarded its approval
acts as correct and therefore requested the Court to
reject the Plaintiff’s requests.
4. The Third Party:
The Third Party consented to the Defendant’s
submissions and requested the Court to reject the
Plaintiff’s requests. |
| |
PART III FACTS AND
EVIDENCE
After an open trial and the investigation by the
Court, the facts were clarified as follows:
Jianzhan, Meiyi and the Third Party were three
distinct, separately registered companies.
Occupations of the Landscape Court were commenced
since 1 May 1999, an initial-stage Property
Management Entrusted Services Contract (“the
Contract”) was then entered into between Xinrui Real
Estate Development Co., Ltd (“the Developer”) and
Jianzhan. The Contract was valid from 1 May 1999
until 1 May 2000.
Pursuant to the Contract, Jianzhan submitted an
application to the Defendant for charging of
management fees at 2.78 Rmb per square meter per
month from the house owners of Landscape Court.
The Defendant gave permission to Jianzhan to charge
the initial-stage property management fees at 2.45
Rmb per square meter per month from the Landscape
Court by affixing a seal onto the “Approval Form and
Register for Record of Charges of Property
Management Services in Shanghai City” (“the Approval
Form”) submitted by Jianzhan.
After the expiration of the Contract, the Developer
and Meiyi entered into an “Entrusted Agreement on
the Management of Properties in Landscape
Court” (the First Agreement”) on 25 May 2000. The
First Agreement provided that the management period
was until 31 December 2000. The Defendant approved
the fee schedules by Meiyi by merely affixing
Meiyi’s company seal onto Jianzhan’s Approval Form,
which confirmed that Meiyi had submitted an
application for approving the fee schedules and
signified the Defendant’s acts of approval.
Soon after the expiration of the First Agreement,
the Developer and the Third Party entered into
another “Entrusted Agreement on the Management of
Properties in Landscape Court” (the Second
Agreement”). The Second Agreement provided that the
management period was between 1 January 2001 and 31
December 2002.
For this, the Defendant again affixed the Third
Party’s company seal onto the Approval Form which
had previously been affixed with the company seals
of Jianzhan and Meiji. The seal of the Third Party
signified the Defendant’s approval on the Third
Party to charge the initial-stage management fees
from the Landscape Court. Nevertheless, the Approval
Form did not reflect the time of application
submitted by the Third Party, the approving
circumstances of the Defendant and the time of
approval, etc.
The above-mentioned facts were evidenced by the
following:
1. The Third Party’s company registration
records provided by the Shanghai Administration of
Industry and Commerce;
2. Jianzhan’s company registration records
provided by the Shanghai Administration of Industry
and Commerce;
3. Meiyi’s company registration records
provided by the Shanghai Administration of Industry
and Commerce;
4. The Contract entered into between the
Developer and Jianzhan;
5. The First Agreement entered into between
the Developer and Meiyi;
6. The Second Agreement entered into
between the Developer and the Third Party;
7. The Approval Form and Register for
Record of Charges of Property Management Services in
Shanghai City (“the Approval Form”);
8. The Business License of the Third Party;
9. The Grading Certificate on the Quality
of Properties Management in Shanghai issued to the
Third Party;
10. The Balance Sheet of Landscape Court for
the month of December 2001;
11. Elaborations by the Third Party;
12. The Representations given by Hu Wei, one of
the staff of the Defendant, on 13 August 2001;
13. Article 23 of the Regulations of Shanghai
Municipality on Residential Property Management;
14. Article 2 of the Notice on doing well the
adjustments on the charging standards of common
domestic-sale commodity residential properties
management fees and the range of its fluctuation in
the Year 1998, Document No. 342 (1997) of Hu Jia
Fang; &
15. Articles 3 & 5 of the Tentative Measures of
Shanghai Municipality on the charging of commodity
Residential Property Management Services.
|
| |
PART IV GROUNDS OF
JUDGMENT
In accordance with the above-mentioned facts and
evidence, the People's Court of Luwan District,
Shanghai City considered that,
The Defendant was the principal administration
authorised by the laws and regulations to examine
and approve the charging of commodity residential
initial-stage property management fees. The
Defendant should have fulfilled its statutory duties
of approving management fees in accordance with the
stipulations under relevant laws and regulations.
After going through the trial and the process of
contesting the evidence, the confirmed facts proved
that the Defendant gave approval on the Third Party
to charge the initial-stage management fees from the
Landscape Court by merely affixing the Third Party’s
company seal onto the Approval Form which had been
previously given to other companies. The Defendant
was also unable to provide the bases such as the
exact time of application submitted by the Third
Party, the approving circumstances of the Defendant
and the time of approval, etc. At the same time, the
Defendant was unable to make clear the applicable
laws and regulations relied upon in its acts of
approval since the Defendant lacked the
comprehensive components that produced the concrete
administrative act of approving charges. Hence, the
Defendant was also unable to make clear the
applicable laws and regulations relied upon in its
acts of approval. To sum up, the Defendant’s
concrete administrative act of approving the Third
Party to charge the initial-stage management fees
from the Landscape Court was not in compliance with
the statutory procedures. The court should support
the Plaintiff’s claims to revoke the relevant
decision of the Defendant. |
| |
PART V CONCLUDING
JUDGMENT
Pursuant to stipulations under Article 54(2)(3) of
the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's
Republic of China (“the Administrative Procedure
Law”) and Article 59(1) of the Interpretation of the
Supreme People's Court on the Execution of the
Administrative Procedure Law of the People's
Republic of China (“the Interpretation”), the
People's Court of Luwan District, Shanghai City held
that:
(1) The concrete administrative act of the Price
Control Bureau of Luwan District of Shanghai City to
approve the charging of the initial-stage management
fees at 2.45 Rmb per square meter per month from
Landscape Court were revoked; and
(2) The Defendant should, within two months after
this Judgment had become effective, make another
concrete administrative act of approving the
charging of the initial-stage management fees from
Landscape Court by the Third Party.
The Court cost of 100 Rmb was to be borne by the
Defendant. |
| |
PART VI EXPLANATION
In regard the small-district properties management
companies’ applications to request the Court to
approve the charging of the initial-stage property
management fees, the relevant Price Control
Administration should, within the scope of its
statutory authority, fulfill well its administrative
duties. The execution of these kinds of
administrative functions by the relevant
administrative body ought to be based on the
confirmed objective facts, the application of
appropriate laws and the regulated procedures. The
relevant administrative body should use the pre-set
administrative purposes as the objective, with
reasonable assessment and consideration, and with
reasonable dominant demonstration.
To use the regulated forms as the carrier’s
requirements of specific administrative acts are in
compliance with the law enforcement image of the
administrative bodies, reflecting the openness and
seriousness of administrative enforcements, and at
the same time fixing and confirming the concrete
administrative acts of the administrative bodies.
They can effectively avoid the possibly-emerging
issues of arbitrary administrative enforcements, and
form the sources of evidence in facing judicial
supervision. In this case, the Defendant acquiesced
the application to be made arbitrarily, and at the
same time, neglected the forms of administrative
acts. The outcome reflected the arbitrariness and
hastiness on the part of the acts of the Defendant.
Under the traditional administration-oriented
thoughts, the administrative bodies stuck to the
internal precedents in enforcing the laws. It is
difficult to uphold the administrative efficiency
and authority by the administrative bodies in front
of the policy and concept of administration
according to laws and the comprehensive scrutiny by
means of judicial supervision. |
|
|
