(1) basic facts of the case
Lin Jianguo, a retired worker in Jinan, is severely disabled and has a serious obstacle to walking. In September 2007, it applied for the allocation of low-rent housing to the Jinan Housing Security and Real Estate Administration (hereinafter referred to as the Municipal Housing Administration). Through lottery, it obtained a set of low-rent housing in Century China City, Huaiyin District, the city, and signed a lease contract. In May 2010, after receiving real-name reports from others, the Municipal Housing Administration investigated and determined that they did not actually live for six months after obtaining low-rent housing. Lin Jianguo advocated that because of his second-class physical disability, the house was located in a remote location, located on a hillside and inconvenient in transportation, so he moved out soon after. On July 13 of the same year, the Municipal Housing Administration repossessed the house and gave it a rent subsidy for low-rent housing in September of the same year. Lin Jianguo re-applied in 2011 and obtained the qualification for the allocation of low-rent housing in kind, and then gave up lottery housing on the grounds that the housing supply was not suitable for his own habitation. In April 2011, Lin Jianguo sued the Municipal Housing Administration to the court, requesting to confirm in accordance with the law that the bureau's administrative act of canceling its qualification for in-kind rental was illegal, and ordered the bureau to compensate him for the corresponding rent loss from the day after his withdrawal to the date of re-obtaining the physical rental.
(2) result of the referee
The people's Court of the Central District of Jinan City held that according to the relevant provisions of the "measures for the Administration of low-rent Housing for Urban low-income families in Jinan City", the real estate administrative department should take back the house only if it makes a written decision to disqualify the parties from allocating rent in kind. In this case, the Municipal Housing Administration took it back directly without making a written decision, resulting in Lin Jianguo's disqualification for the physical allocation of low-rent housing, affecting his relevant rights. As a result, the judgment confirmed that the Municipal Housing Administration had repossessed the house and cancelled Lin Jianguo's qualification for in-kind rent allocation, and the bureau should compensate Lin Jianguo for the rental loss from July 13, 2010 to August 31, 2010 according to the rent standard of low-rent housing. Lin Jianguo's other claims are rejected. Both parties filed an appeal.
The second trial of the Jinan Intermediate people's Court held that Lin Jianguo had not actually lived for more than six months and signed the check-out certificate, and it was not improper for the Municipal Housing Administration to cancel its qualification for in-kind rent allocation and recover low-rent housing in accordance with the relevant regulations. At the same time, urban low-income families can only enjoy one of the security methods such as rent subsidy and in-kind rent allocation. Lin Jianguo has already obtained rent subsidy security treatment in September of that year, and the Municipal Housing Administration has correctly cancelled its qualification for in-kind rent allocation. Failure to make a written decision is a procedural flaw. The judgment of first instance was rescinded and Lin Jianguo's claim was rejected.
After the Supreme people's Court tried the case, President he Xiaorong personally served as the presiding judge and went to the local court in April 2016 to preside over the mediation, and the director of the Municipal Housing Administration attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. The two parties reached an agreement in accordance with the principle of mutual understanding and accommodation, and Lin Jianguo received 70,000 yuan in public rental housing and relief funds in accordance with the new policy. The case was finally closed by means of administrative mediation.
(3) typical significance
The typical significance of this case is that providing fair, efficient and convenient judicial services for the disabled is not only the inherent requirement of the people's court to practice justice for the people, but also the solemn commitment of our country after China's accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Secretary has repeatedly stressed the need to constantly improve the system to protect the rights and interests of the disabled. This case is the first time that the Supreme people's Court has gone to the grass-roots court to hear the case of the rights and interests of the disabled, and it is also the first time that the case has been settled by administrative mediation statement in accordance with the law after the implementation of the new Administrative procedure Law. Not only fully take into account the ways of exercising and realizing the rights of the disabled, but also through measures such as administrative responsible persons actively appear in court to respond to litigation and cooperate with mediation, highlighting the importance of administration according to law, which is a vivid practice of jointly implementing the new spirit of legislation. People from all walks of life, including the media, unanimously praised the case. Deputies to the National people's Congress, members of the CPPCC National Committee, and representatives of the disabled Persons' Federation spoke highly of the trial activities, and the China disabled Persons' Federation also sent a letter of thanks to the Supreme people's Court for this. This case has important exemplary significance for improving the judicial protection system of the rights and interests of the disabled and promoting the healthy development of the cause of the disabled.
