appointed director of the Public

Description

Tang of 2641.15 yuan. Hui Tang ask for an apology in writing to the demands of the court were not supported.Written apology is not supportedHui Tang’s appeal also ask for a written apology. During the second instance court, Yongzhou City deputy mayor, appointed director of the Public Security Bureau and Chairman of detention in the final statement Jianxiang apologize for TANG Hui, Hui Tang said the daughter of one’s own for the special case of ill-considered, humane care enough.Final judgment that the Commission did not Yongzhou Detention Hui Tang considering the special circumstances of their families, on the implementation of the detention nike air max 1 cheap Hui Tang, obviously improper handling, to their spirit caused some damage. Therefore, Hui Tang requested an apology and pay moral damages solatium claim, as appropriate, can be supported. But is an apology must be in writing, the law does not expressly provide. Second instance trial, Yongzhou City Detention appointed legal representative of the Hui Tang apology, so the Hui Tang this lawsuit can be deemed to have been fulfilled.Yesterday, Jianxiang clear to reporters that obey one’s own judgment. Hui Tang said, for judgment “can accept”, but did not get a written apology for “some regret.”□ FocusHui Tang lawyer thinks logically unreasonable verdictFinal judgment on the one hand identity Detention behavior is “obviously improper specific

administrative act” rather than illegal, on the other hand, also known as detention decisions have no legal effect. Expressed so ambiguous, many lawyers and experts also raised questions. Both the original defendant lawyers agree that the legal aspects of the case there is still much controversy and discussion space.Yesterday morning, Yongzhou, Hunan Provincial High Court on Hui Tang v. Commission case open verdict detention, revocation of First Instance ruled that the judgment Yongzhou Detention Commission to pay compensation and moral damages solatium Hui Tang of 2641.15 yuan. Hui Tang ask for an apology in writing to the demands of the court were not supported.Judgment >>Nothing about whether illegal detentionIn the second instance trial, both the original defendant debate focused on air jordan spizike shoes uk “Hui Tang Yongzhou Detention Committee on the implementation of detention is illegal” on. Hui Tang’s counsel, Hunan Detention Commission “undo” the Commission’s Detention Detention Yongzhou decision, which is a direct Hui Tang illegality under detention. Yongzhou City Detention Commission insisted that the decision was revoked detention was due to “specific administrative misconduct,” and her daughter out of the Hui Tang humane care, is not illegal, there was no need for compensation.Yesterday’s final verdict, Hui Tang repeatedly seriously disrupt the normal order of state organs and society, according to the law should bear the corresponding legal responsibility. The judge appointed defense Yongzhou detention be supported, namely Hunan Detention Commission’s decision to withdraw the statutory grounds belong to the “Administrative Reconsideration Law” Article 28, paragraph 5 apply the third of the “apparent improper specific administrative act .

 ”According Yongzhou Detention Commission’s pleadings, the specific administrative act as illegal is a prerequisite for executive compensation, “I appointed the behavior is not illegal, of course, without compensation.”However, the final judgment subsequently referred to administrative enforcement action has been rescinded, according to the “Hunan Provincial Administrative Procedure provides that” one hundred and sixtieth 22 (3) provides that the revocation retroactive effect to the date of the administrative law enforcement acts. Therefore Hunan Yongzhou Detention Detention Commission revoked Commission decision on the Hui Tang effectiveness of correctional labor back to the date of the decision. As a result, Commission on Hui Tang Yongzhou detention correctional labor from the date of the decision made not from the force of law, have been implemented on the Hui Tang nine days Detention lost a legal basis. Hui Tang’s claim, according to the law should be supported.Yesterday morning, Yongzhou, Hunan Provincial High Court on Hui Tang v. Commission case open verdict detention, revocation of First Instance ruled that the judgment Yongzhou Detention Commission to pay air jordan 13 uk sale compensation and moral damages solatium Hui Tang of 2641.15 yuan. Hui Tang ask for an apology in writing to the demands of the court were not supported.Lawyers say >>Detention assigned lawyer: Do not break the law should not compensateFrom the above point of view the contents of the judgment, the judge hand identity Detention behavior is “obviously improper specific administrative act” rather than illegal, on the other hand, also known as detention decision has no legal effect. Expressed so ambiguous, many lawyers and experts also raised questions. Yesterday, both the original defendant lawyers agree that the legal aspects of the case there is still much room for debate and discussion.Yongzhou City Detention appointed attorney Xiao