吉林市城市车辆清洗管理办法

作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-05-20 02:17:15   浏览:8596   来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载

吉林市城市车辆清洗管理办法

吉林省吉林市人民政府


吉林市人民政府令
(第99号)


  《吉林市城市车辆清洗管理办法》,已经1997年9月28日吉林市人民政府第83次常务会议讨论通过,现予发布施行。


市长 战月昌
1997年9月29日



吉林市城市车辆清洗管理办法




  第一条 为清洁城市,规范机动车辆清洗保洁活动,根据国家、省有关规定,结合本市实际,制定本办法。


  第二条 本办法所称车辆是指客车、货车、特种车等机动车辆。


  第三条 本办法适用于本市城市建成区范围内车辆清洗的管理。


  第四条 市市政建设行政管理部门是车辆清洗工作的行政主管部门,市环境卫生管理处是车辆清洗工作的日常管理部门。


  第五条 车辆清洗坚持节约用水、自愿清洗、有偿服务的原则。


  第六条 市容环卫监察人员有权对车辆的清洗、车容车貌进行监督管理。


  第七条 市环境卫生管理部门应在城市各主要出入口处设置“脏车不得进入城区”和在城区内车流量集中的地方设置“脏车不得在城区内行驶”的标志。


  第八条 在城区行驶的车辆,必须保持车体整洁。凡车体不洁影响城市环境卫生和市容观瞻的,应当清洗后,方可以城区内行驶。


  第九条 车辆清洗必须在车辆清洗站(场)内进行。自行清洗车辆的,必须在本单位(家庭)院内进行。
  在车辆清洗过程中,必须保持周围环境卫生和市政设施完好。
  禁止在街路、广场、绿地、居民小区、市区江河等地清洗车辆。
  禁止强行拦截车辆进行清洗。


  第十条 车辆清洗站(场)的布局由市市政建设行政主管部门会同市城建行政主管部门、公安行政主管部门、工商行政主管部门共同确定。


  第十一条 车辆清洗站(场)的建立,必须先经环境卫生管理部门审查同意后,再到有关部门办理手续。


  第十二条 申请建立车辆清洗站(场)的单位和个人,应向审批部门提供下列文件、资料:
  (一)建设工程规划许可证或经营场所使用证明;
  (二)清洗服务的方式;
  (三)与经营规模相适应的工艺方案和主要设备;
  (四)污水和污泥处理方案和其它环境保护措施;
  (五)审批部门要求的其它文件、资料。


  第十三条 经验收合格的车辆清洗站(场),由市环境卫生管理部门核发《车辆清洗站(场)许可证》,并到工商行政管理部门申领《营业执照》后,方可营业。《车辆清洗站(场)许可证》每年年检一次。


  第十四条 车辆清洗站(场)应根据审批核定的业务范围、经营位置,文明、卫生、有序地开展洗车服务。


  第十五条 车辆清洗站(场)应标明清洗站(场)名称,公开收费标准、服务标准。
  车辆清洗站(场)必须执行市物价部门统一制定的收费标准,不得乱收费或只收费不洗车。


  第十六条 经清洗后的车辆应当符合下列要求:
  (一)车身可触及部位无污迹;
  (二)玻璃明亮;
  (三)车底、车轮等可刷洗部门无泥沙。


  第十七条 违反本办法的,由市政建设行政管理部门或会同有关部门按下列规定予以处罚。构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任。
  (一)违反第八条规定,不洁车辆在市区内行驶的,责令其立即清洗干净,并处每车次100元的罚款;
  (二)违反第九条规定,在车辆清洗站(场)外从事经营性洗车的,责令其立即停止,并对洗车者处500元至1000元的罚款;在街路、广场、绿地、居民小区、市区江河等地清洗车辆的,对洗车者处100元至200元的罚款;强行拦截车辆洗车的,责令其立即改正,并处100元至300元的罚款;
  (三)违反第十一条规定,未经环境卫生管理部门同意建立洗车站(场)的,责令其补办手续,并处1000元至2000元的罚款;
  (四)违反第十三条规定,未领取《车辆清洗站(场)许可证》从事车辆清洗的,责令其改正,并处2000元至5000元的罚款;
  (五)违反第十五条规定,未标明清洗站(场)名称,未公开收费标准、服务标准,乱收费或只收费不洗车的,责令其立即改正,并处500元至1000元的罚款;
  (六)违反第十六条规定,清洗后的车辆达不到清洗要求的,责令其返还洗车费或重新清洗,并处200元以下的罚款。


  第十八条 本办法自发布之日起施行。

下载地址: 点击此处下载
  2012年元旦起,全国所有旅客列车实行车票实名制,但实践中对于被盗的实名制火车票票面金额是否计入盗窃数额产生了分歧。有观点认为,火车票实名制后,使用火车票时必须同时出示身份证,犯罪嫌疑人即便取得火车票也无任何价值,因此火车票票面金额不应计入盗窃数额。笔者认为,在目前的规章制度下,实名制火车票的票面金额不宜计入盗窃数额,但理由与上述观点不同。

一、实名火车票应属于记名的有价票证。火车票作为一种票证其本身具有一定的价值,乘客必须支付与票面金额相等的对价才能取得车票的所有权。1998年3月最高人民法院《关于审理盗窃案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》(以下简称《解释》)第5条对被盗物品的数额如何计算进行了规定,其中包括了有价支付凭证、有价证券、有价票证的数额计算方法。从事物的客观特征可以看出,实名制火车票显示有“票面金额”及所有权人个人信息,完全符合记名有价票证的客观特征,应当认定为“记名的有价票证”。

二、实名制火车票被盗后可以进行挂失补办,能避免实际损失的票面金额不应计入犯罪数额。《解释》第5条第2款第2项规定:“不能即时兑现的记名有价支付凭证、有价证券、有价票证或者能即时兑现的有价支付凭证、有价证券、有价票证已被销毁、丢弃,而失主可以通过挂失、补领、补办手续等方式避免实际损失的,票面数额不作为定罪量刑的标准,但可作为定罪量刑的情节。”据此,实名制火车票被盗后如果能够通过挂失补办避免失主实际损失的,不宜作为定罪量刑的标准,即不应计入盗窃数额。2012年5月10日,铁路部门出台新的规定,如果实名制车票丢失,可以通过挂失补办途径来挽回实际损失。因此,按照《解释》规定,实名制火车票被盗后失主予以补办的,票面金额不应计入盗窃数额。

三、可以挂失补办规定之前盗窃实名制火车票的处理。2012年5月10日之前,一张身份证只能购买一张实名制车票,车票售出后不能补办,被盗乘客无法通过挂失补办途径来避免损失。对于5月10日以前盗窃火车票的行为,票面金额能否计入犯罪数额也存在争议。有观点认为,根据《解释》规定,不能即时兑现的记名有价支付凭证、有价证券、有价票证,票面数额不作为定罪量刑的标准。因为即使乘客的财产权受到侵犯,但对于盗窃者来说,其拿到这些票证无法使用,并没有实际占有,因而不定盗窃罪是正确的。但也有观点认为,虽然嫌疑人取得车票没有实际意义,但乘客的财产权受到侵犯,因此车票票面金额仍应计入犯罪数额。

笔者认为,要在遵循客观事实的基础上,结合犯罪心理、社会危害性及法律规定综合作出判定。就实名制火车票而言,偷窃人虽然通过盗窃手段占有了火车票,但并不可能取得该车票的所有权,对其来说并不能获利,如果把该部分数额按照票面金额计入盗窃数额,不符合罪责刑相适应原则。因此,对于这段时间内被盗的火车票票面金额也不宜计入盗窃数额,但在构罪的情况下可以作为量刑的情节予以考虑。
(作者单位:郑州市金水区人民检察院)
Partnership - New option for foreign investment in China

Zhiguo Li


 A new door to partnership is opened by the Chinese government to the foreign investors under this post-financial turmoil era in order to attract more foreign investment and provide more employment. On November 25, 2009, the State Council of the PRC promulgated the Measures for the Administration on the Establishment of Partnership Business by Foreign Enterprises or Individuals in China adopted at the 77th executive meeting of the State Council on August 19, 2009, which shall come into effect as of March 1, 2010 (“the Foreign Partnership Measures”). The Foreign Partnership Measures is regarded as supplementary to the Partnership Business Law of the People's Republic of China (“the Partnership Law”), article 108 of which provides that the measures for the administration on the establishment of partnership business by foreign enterprises or individuals shall be formulated by the State Council. Therefore the Partnership Law is the basic law for foreign enterprises or individuals (collectively “foreign partners”) to establish the partnership business in China (“foreign partnership”).

 The initial effort to formulate this kind of measures with the authorization of the Partnership Law can be tracked to January 2007 when the Ministry of Commerce of the People’s Republic of China (MOC), as requested by the Legislative Affair Office of the State Council, promulgated a draft of the Measures for the Administration on the Foreign Funded Partnership Business (“the Draft”) for public consultation. The Draft mostly reflect the intention of the MOC to remain the approval authority for the foreign partnerships as it does in the setup of the other three types of FIEs, such as equity joint venture, contractual joint venture and wholly foreign owned enterprise (i.e., EJV, CJV and WFOE, collectively FIEs). But the final Foreign Partnership Measures kick the MOC and its local branches (“the MOC local branches”) out from the charging authority with the replacement by the local authorized branch of the State Administration of Industry and Commerce (SAIC local branch), which is unexpected to but welcome by the professionals and entrepreneurs. This article will do analysis on the Foreign Partnership Measures from four perspectives: foreign partnership models, foreign partners’ qualification, thresholds and registration of the foreign partnership, in aiming to describe a clear foreign partnership roadmap for foreign partners.


Foreign Partnership Models

 Foreign partners can set up the foreign partnership in China in three models: a. with the other foreign partners; b. with the Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations registered and located in Mainland China; c. through participating the existing domestic partnership.

 In the models above, the foreign partners have the option to take the form of general partnership, limited liability partnership or limited partnership stipulated by the Partnership Law, among which the limited liability partnership is only for the professional institutions such as law firms and accounting firms. Comparing with model a and b, model c seems more feasible and time-and-cost saving for the foreign partners. A complete due diligence will be conducted in order to minimize the risk from the operation of the domestic partnership before the participation date of the foreign partners. In consideration of the current administration and nature of the partnerships, lack of credibility and the other elements in China, it will be difficult to get a complete due diligence report satisfied with the foreign partners. Therefore, models a and b are highly recommended. Which model of a or b take needs the consideration and balance of the foreign partners based on their business plan, legal structuring, such as whether foreign partners themselves intend to do the business competing with the foreign partnership and how to exit by transferring the contribution in the partnership, ect., and the thresholds discussed below.

Foreign Partners’ Qualification

 The difference in the expression on the partners from overseas and China should be noted. Foreign partners only include foreign enterprises and individuals. The Chinese partners include Chinese individuals, legal persons and the other organizations. There is no unified legal interpretation on the “enterprise”, though mostly it refers to the profitable organizations. This uncertainty may come from the prudency of the legislator of China on the qualifications of foreign partners. Under article 184 of the Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China for Trial (“the Opinions”), this expression of “enterprise” on the foreign partners allow the SAIC local branch more discretion to judge whether the foreign partner is a qualified “enterprise” or not in accordance with the relevant Chinese laws. In this scenario, the foreign partners need to note that they should not fall into the types of entities prescribed in article 3 of the Partnership Law if they aim to be a general partner, which says that wholly state-funded company, state-owned company, listed company, public-welfare-oriented institution or social organization may not become a general partner.

 Regarding the foreign individuals, they must have full capacity for civil conduct in accordance with article 14 of the Partnership Law. The international private law problem will also be involved here. Pursuant to article 180 of the Opinions, the foreign individuals who conduct civil activities in the territory of China, shall be regarded as having full capacity for civil conduct if they have that in accordance with China laws, no matter what their national laws requires for their capacity for civil conduct. Foreign individuals at or above the age of 18 years old are qualified to be the foreign partners if they are not mentally ill.

Thresholds for Foreign Partnership

 Some thresholds, such as the approval by the MOC, imposed on the FIEs are lifted for foreign partnership. This means that the foreign partnership and the domestic partnership will be treated with unified threshold in the aspect of approval, which will definitely reduce the criticism from the international community, but may cause more from the domestic public (including those FIEs). But it does not mean that there will be no thresholds review on foreign partnership.

 Article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures lists the general thresholds for the foreign partnerships. The establishment of foreign partnership shall abide by the Partnership Law and the other relevant laws, regulations and rules, and comply with the industrial policies for foreign investment. These general thresholds need to be analyzed together with the reference to the other relevant laws, regulations, rules and policies.

 First, the threshold provided by the Partnership Law is the pre-approval on the business scope. Where the business cope of a foreign partnership contains any item, for example oil distribution, that is subject to approval prior to registration according to laws or regulations, such approval shall be sought in advance and submitted at the time of registration with SAIC local branch. These pre-approvals involve , but not limited to, the Ministry of Land, the Ministry of Transport, the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission, etc., which depends on the business of the foreign partnership.

 Second, the Provisions on Guiding the Orientation of Foreign Investment (2002) and the Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries (revised in 2007) (collectively “foreign investment industrial policies”) set up the industrial threshold for the foreign partnerships, which are the industrial policy basis for the SAIC local branch to review registration application to establish foreign partnership in China. This will obviously increase the working load of the SAIC local branches since they are lack of the experience in this kind of foreign investment industrial policies review. We may also anticipate that there might be different explanation and implementations on the above two documents, which will be the problem faced by those foreign partners who submit the application in the first half year after the Foreign Partnership Measures comes into force on March 1, 2010.

 The third threshold is that the verification is required if the project invested by the foreign partners falls into the scope described in the Provisional Measures Governing Verification of Foreign Invested Projects. The charging authority is the National Development and Reform Commission and its local branches, which depending on the amount of the total investment and the nature of the project.

 It is necessary to note the forth threshold hidden in the important expression in article 3 of the Foreign Partnership Measures, which put the “rules” as the legal basis for the establishment of foreign partnerships. In the legal system of China, it indicates that the State Council authorizes the ministries or departments under the State Council (“the Ministries”) to issue necessary “rules” applicable to foreign partnerships. It also reflects that the existing valid “rules” issued by the Ministries, including those applicable to the representative offices opened by foreign law firms in China, are still the barrier for the foreign partners to access the local market in China.

 The final threshold comes from the commitment of China in its WTO accession. Although the State Council encourages those foreign partners who have advanced technology and management experience to establish foreign partnership in China with the purpose to facilitate the development of the modern service industry, at this stage, the services industries may only limited to those listed in the Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services (Annex 9 of the Protocol on the Accession of the People’s Republic of China) and the openness will not be wider than the commitments therein.

Registration of the Foreign Partnership

 In the FIEs regime, all investments by foreign investors need the pre-approvals of the MOC or MOC local branches. In the approval process, the MOC or MOC local branches will review, but not limited to, the content of the application, the article of associations of FIEs and contracts signed by the parties if any. Generally, this approval procedure will take 5 working days to 90 working days depending on the nature and total investment of the project. In this regard, the cancel of this approval for the foreign partnership will significantly escalate the speed of the establishment in the procedural stage and to a great extent reduce the uncertainty from the MOC or MOC local branches.

 The Foreign Partnership Measures stipulates that the representative or agent of all the partners shall submit the establishment application only to the SAIC local branch and not the SAIC. The submission shall include, besides the documents required by the Regulations on the Administration of Registration of Partnership Business (revised in 2007, “Partnership Registration Regulation”), the explanation on compliance of the foreign partnership with the foreign investment industrial policies, which will ease the review by the SAIC local branch. In this regard, the review may not be limited to the formality as provided in article 16 of Partnership Registration Regulation. It seems impossible for the SAIC local branch to issue the license to the foreign partnership on the spot. In this scenario, the SAIC local branch shall make a decision on whether to issue the license to the foreign partnership within 20 working days after the date it accepts the complete application.

 The Foreign Partnership Measures is the second case for MOC and MOC local branches to lose approval authority in the recent years. The first case is for the representative office opened by most of foreign enterprises in China since 2004. Although the loss of approval authority, the MOC local branches at the same level with the SAIC local branches accepting the application for establishment of foreign partnership shall be advised the registration information (including the establishment, alteration and cancel) of the foreign partnerships by the latter.

Conclusion

 For those foreign partners not interested in establishing professional foreign partnerships such as law firms in China, they are now can access the Chinese market with a presence in the option of partnership. The approval procedures involved with the MOC or its local branches as set up for FIEs has been removed. The minimum investment (registered capital) requirement for FIEs has been reduced to RMB30,000 (RMB100,000 for one-person limited liability company) by the Company Law of the People's Republic of China (revised in 2005), the Foreign Partnership Measures leave the minimum investment open to the partners. The foreign partners can contribute with the currency (freely exchanged foreign currency or legally earned RMB), in kind, IPR, land use right, the other properties or labor service (limited to general partners) to the foreign partnerships. All these will minimize the cost for foreign partners to achieve their goal of profit maximization in China. But those enterprises focusing on the investment business, such as the foreign-funded venture capital investment enterprises and foreign-funded investment companies, are excluded from the Foreign Partnership Measures due to lack of experience in administrating this kind of enterprises by the government.