Vietnam: Lesson learned from cases of issuing decision to suspend the resolution of an administrative case without grounds

Case details: On November 26, 2013, the Chairman of the People's Committee of District G, N province, issued Decision No. 898/QD-CT (referred to as Decision 898) regarding the settlement of Ms. Pham Thi H's complaint. The content of the complaint was about not being compensated or supported when her land was acquired for the upgrading and expansion of National Highway 1A.

Ms. H disagreed with the decision and continued to send her complaint to the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of N province. The Chairman then issued Decision No. 399/QD-UBND on August 6, 2018 (referred to as Decision 399) to settle Ms. H's complaint, which stated that Decision No. 898 issued by the Chairman of the District People's Committee of G province, N province, should be maintained.

On June 6, 2019, Ms. H filed an administrative case, requesting the Provincial People's Court of N province to invalidate Decision No. 399 of the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of N province and to request compensation and support for the 155.15 m2 of land that the District People's Committee of G province had acquired for the implementation of the upgrading and expansion project of National Highway 1A. This land included the T and Ren houses with a total area of 155.15 m2, which used to be assets of the GV Mechanical Enterprise and had been transferred to Mr. Nguyen Xuan T, the former head of the GV district mechanical complex and the husband of Ms. Pham Thi H. At the time of the land acquisition, Mr. and Mrs. H were managing and using this land.

On October 8, 2019, the Provincial People's Court of N province issued Decision No. 10/2019/QDST-HC to suspend the settlement of the administrative case, stating: "After considering: The plaintiff, Ms. Pham Thi H, has no legal rights and interests related to the Ren and T houses and the construction area that her family complained about; this falls under the case where the plaintiff has no right to initiate a lawsuit as stipulated in point a, clause 1 of Article 123, and point h, clause 1 of Article 143 of the Law on Administrative Proceedings."

On October 21, 2019, Ms. H filed an appeal, requesting the appellate court to review and invalidate Decision No. 10/2019/QDST-HC of the Provincial People's Court of N province in order to settle the case again according to the provisions of the law.

On March 25, 2020, the Higher People's Court in Hanoi held a hearing for the appeal and accepted Ms. H's appeal, ruling to invalidate Decision No. 10/2019/QDST-HC of the Provincial People's Court of N province in order to settle the case again at the first-instance level.

Some lessons to be learned from the violations are:

Firstly, Decision No. 10/2019/QDST-HC of the Provincial People's Court of N province incorrectly determined that Ms. H had no right to initiate a lawsuit based on point a, clause 1 of Article 123, and point h, clause 1 of Article 143 of the Law on Administrative Procedures. This is because:

Decision No. 399 is a decision to review the initial complaint resolution decision (Decision 898) regarding Ms. Pham Thi H's complaint about compensation and support when the District People's Committee of G province acquired land for the upgrading and expansion project of National Highway 1A in GT commune, G district, N province.

According to the provisions of Article 42 of the Law on Complaints 2011, when the deadline for complaint resolution under Article 37 of the Law on Complaints has expired without resolution or if the complainant does not agree with the decision on the second complaint resolution, they have the right to file an administrative case. Ms. H is the subject of adjustment by Decision No. 399, so when she disagrees with this decision, she naturally has the right to file an administrative case. The Provincial People's Court of N province's decision to suspend the settlement of the case with the assertion that Ms. H does not have the right to file an administrative case is not in accordance with the legal provisions on the right to file a lawsuit in administrative cases.

Note: When conducting the inspection of the administrative case settlement, prosecutors need to accurately determine the plaintiff and the legal provisions regarding the rights and obligations of the plaintiff in order to detect, discuss, and promptly rectify any violations by the court in evaluating and determining legal relationships, avoiding similar violations from occurring.

Secondly, through the study of the case files, the High People's Procuracy in Hanoi found that in the resolution of Ms. Pham Thi H's complaint, the Chairman of the District People's Committee of G and the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of N seriously violated the provisions on the time limit for complaint resolution according to the 2011 Law on Complaints. Specifically:

According to the provisions of Article 28 of the Law on Complaints, the time limit for initial complaint resolution shall not exceed 30 days from the date of acceptance; for complex cases, the time limit for resolution may be extended but not exceeding 45 days from the date of acceptance; in remote and difficult-to-access areas, the time limit for complaint resolution shall not exceed 45 days from the date of acceptance; for complex cases, the time limit for resolution may be extended but not exceeding 60 days from the date of acceptance. In this specific case, Ms. H submitted her complaint to the Chairman of the District People's Committee of G on October 16, 2012, but it was not until November 26, 2013 that the Chairman of the District People's Committee of G issued Decision No. 898 to resolve the complaint, which exceeded the time limit for initial complaint resolution by over 10 months.

After receiving Decision No. 898, Ms. H immediately complained to the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of N, but it was not until August 6, 2018 (nearly 5 years later) that the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of N issued Decision No. 399 to resolve Ms. H's second complaint, violating the provisions of Article 37 of the Law on Complaints, which states that the time limit for second complaint resolution shall not exceed 45 days from the date of acceptance; for complex cases, the time limit for resolution may be extended but not exceeding 60 days from the date of acceptance; in remote and difficult-to-access areas, the time limit for complaint resolution shall not exceed 60 days from the date of acceptance; for complex cases, the time limit for resolution may be extended but not exceeding 70 days from the date of acceptance.

The delay in the complaint resolution (mentioned above) by the Chairman of the District People's Committee of G and the Chairman of the Provincial People's Committee of N was one of the factors that led to prolonged litigation, causing public dissatisfaction and affecting local security and order. Therefore, when conducting the inspection of administrative case settlement, if such violations are found, local prosecutors should actively propose to the competent authorities to rectify the violations, ensure strict compliance with the law on complaint resolution, and achieve consistency.

Source: “Tạp chí Tòa án” (Court Journal)

Please Login to be able to download