Zhengzhou Ji Cheng Lu was renamed the road safety people suing the government – Sohu news-400ai.com

Zhengzhou "sacrifice City Road" was renamed "safe road", citizens told the government – Sohu news map Zheng Meng, Henan Daily reporter Wang Qi last June, "Henan business daily" reported the first "sacrifice City Road" renamed "safe road" issue. In September of last year, five people, such as Zhu Guangyi of Zhengzhou, sued the people’s Government of Zhengzhou for the court and asked the court to change the name of the original road. Yesterday, the administrative litigation case was heard publicly in the intermediate people’s Court of Xinxiang. The court did not decide in court. [hearing] more than 5 hours without court sentencing, yesterday’s trial started at 9:30 a.m., until 2:45 p.m., the whole process lasted more than 5 hours. The plaintiff, Zhu Guangyi and other 4 people and entrusted agents, the defendant of the people’s Government of Zhengzhou city to appear in court to participate in litigation. During the trial, the two sides carried out the proof and cross examination about the scope of the administrative litigation, whether the four plaintiff had the qualification of the plaintiff, and whether the defendant had made the announcement legal or not, and fully expounded and debated. At the end of the trial, the court announced that the sentencing was scheduled. [Focus] does Zhu Guangyi and other four people have the plaintiff’s subject qualification? According to the provisions of the administrative procedure law, citizens, legal persons or other organizations think that administrative acts of administrative organs and administrative staff infringe their legitimate rights and interests, and have the right to bring a lawsuit to the people’s court. The Zhengzhou municipal government changed the ceremony of "sacrificing the city road" to "safe road", did it infringe the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff? Plaintiff: (to this), the four plaintiffs submitted their own household register to the court to explain their connection with the "sacrifice city" The plaintiff believes that the name change of the road will bring trouble to the nearby residents, which is the most direct impact on the nearby residents. The plaintiff Zhu Guangyi said that their ancestors lived in here, "the Festival City" is a part of their own and inseparable, renamed bring harm to themselves and residents in the vicinity of the spirit, "Ji Bo City site construction has yet to progress, offering city road has become a primary offering city residents want to read." The defendant’s agent: the name change has no legal interest with the plaintiff, and has not infringed upon the legitimate rights and interests of the four plaintiffs. Therefore, this case does not belong to the scope of the administrative litigation of the people’s court. [focus two] whether the defendant’s name change procedure of Zhengzhou municipal government is compliance? Before making the administrative act of renaming, the government departments collect opinions through the form of soliciting opinions form. Zhengzhou municipal government in the pleadings said: after seeking the road close to the masses, the views of the unit, most agree with the name, according to the relevant provisions of the "measures" management, Ninth places of Henan, according to legal procedures, decided to make more a behavior by the executive meeting of the Zhengzhou Municipal People’s government, in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations. The more than 100 opinion forms provided by the defendant can not represent the true opinions of the people along the line. Henan Agricultural University and other units fill in the questionnaire, only stamped with the official seal, without the name of the operator. 120 people fill in the questionnaire, only in the corresponding position.

郑州“祭城路”被改名为“平安大道” 市民告政府-搜狐新闻 制图 郑萌   河南商报记者 王琦   去年6月份,《河南商报》率先报道了“祭城路”更名为“平安大道”一事。去年9月份,郑州市民朱广义等五人将郑州市人民政府告上法庭,请求法院判决改回原路名。昨天,这起行政诉讼案件在新乡市中级人民法院公开开庭审理。法庭未当庭判决。   【开庭】   庭审5个多小时 未当庭宣判   昨天的庭审于上午9点30分开始,一直持续到下午2点45分,整个过程长达5个多小时。原告朱广义等4人及委托代理人,被告郑州市人民政府的委托代理人到庭参加诉讼。   庭审中,双方围绕被诉通告是否属于行政诉讼受案范围、四原告是否具有原告诉讼主体资格以及被告作出通告是否合法等焦点进行了举证、质证,充分地陈述和辩论。庭审结束时,法庭宣布将择期宣判。   【焦点一】   朱广义等四人   是否具有原告诉讼主体资格?   根据行政诉讼法的规定,公民、法人或者其他组织认为行政机关和行政机关工作人员的行政行为侵犯其合法权益,有权向人民法院提起诉讼。郑州市政府将“祭城路”更名为“平安大道”这一行为,有没有侵犯原告的合法权益?   原告:   (对此,四位原告向法庭提交了自己的户口簿,说明自己与“祭城”的关联。)   原告认为,道路更名会给附近居民带来证照变更上的麻烦,这是对附近居民最直接的影响。原告朱广义说,自己祖祖辈辈生活在这里,“祭城”是与自己密不可分的一部分,更名对自己以及附近居民的精神带来损害,“祭伯城遗址建设迟迟没有进展,祭城路成为原祭城居民的一个念想。”   被告委托代理人:   此次更名与原告无法律上的利害关系,并未侵犯四位原告的合法权益。因此,此案件不属于人民法院行政诉讼的受案范围。   【焦点二】   被告郑州市政府   道路更名程序是否合规?   在做出更名这一行政行为之前,政府相关部门通过发放征求意见表的形式来收集意见。   郑州市政府在答辩状中说:   经征求道路附近群众、单位的意见,大部分同意更名,根据《河南省地名管理办法》第九条等有关规定,依法定程序,经郑州市人民政府常务会议研究决定作出更名行为,符合相关法律法规。   被告提供的100多份征求意见表,并不能代表沿线群众的真实意见。河南农业大学等单位填写的征求意见表上只加盖了公章,没有经办人姓名。120份群众填写的征求意见表上,只是在相应位置打了一个“钩”,没有姓名等个人信息。   对此,被告委托代理人解释说,在对道路更名征求意见时,没有必须填写个人详细信息的规定。   【焦点三】   当初改名征求意见   所选择对象是否有问题?   几位原告生活在祭城,没有人比我们更有资格发表意见了,却没有征求我们的意见。   “祭城”是主地名,而“祭城路”则是派生地名,对“祭城路”的更名,没必要非得征求祭城社区居民的同意。   【焦点四】   使用“祭城路”的名称   到底有什么利和弊?   祭城地名古书记载历史有3500多年,一直沿用至今;2003年祭城村整体迁移出老祭伯城,所修路正好经过祭伯城遗址;2005年12月该路被郑州市人民政府正式公告命名为“祭城路”,该路名具有深远历史文化意义,附近居民对该路名具有深厚感情。   原告对于“祭城”的深厚感情可以理解,但“祭城路”这一名字给附近居民的生活带来了不便,对于政府的招商引资也带来不利影响,改名有利于城市的长远规划,贯彻“一路一名”的原则。改名后,方便道路沿线单位、群众使用,而且改名有效避免了对祭字读音的争议。   在回答审判员发问时,被告委托代理人说,“祭城路”在当时已经到了必须要更名的程度。   【焦点五】   祭城路的“祭”字   到底是不是生僻字?   地名管理条例规定,地名应避免使用生僻字。“祭(zha)”是生僻字吗?   根据一份调查,郑州市有八成居民不能准确读出“祭城路”这一名字,“祭(zha)”字读音生僻,与标准读音(ji或zhai)相差甚远。   “祭”本身不是生僻字,而是其读音(zha)较为生僻,相关部门可以向国家语言文字工作委员会反映情况。相关的主题文章: