According to the plaintiff, the court’s suspension of the case is to deprive her of her right to sue…
Recently, the People’s Court of Cao Lanh City (Dong Thap) has suspended the case of Ms. Dang Thi Bich Ngoc and her husband suing the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City for compensation for damage because the lawsuit claim has been resolved by the court judgment. Have legal efficiency.
Court separates claim from administrative case vụ In 2015, Mr. Tien (Mrs. Ngoc’s husband) won the auction of two stalls in Cao Lanh City’s cage and signed a contract with the management board of the market to sell sports equipment. After that, he asked to switch to selling cosmetics and was approved by the Finance – Planning Department, so he bought more than 500 million dong of goods for sale. More than a month later, he had his license to sell cosmetics revoked. 
The market management board of Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province seized the goods of Mrs. Dang Thi Bich Ngoc and her husband. Photo: YC In July 2016, Chairman of the City People’s Committee Cao Lanh fined Ms. Ngoc 2.5 million dong for doing business as a household business without a business household registration license in accordance with the law. Ms. Ngoc complained but was denied. Because she still sells cosmetics, the chairman of the City People’s Committee again fined her 3 million dong. Ms. Ngoc sued all three of the above decisions. Then she closed the counter, waiting for the trial, the market management board unlocked the stall by itself, seizing all the cosmetics. In 2018 and 2019, the People’s Court of Dong Thap province and the High People’s Court in Ho Chi Minh City both accepted the petition of Ms. Ngoc and her husband, declaring to cancel all three decisions. The claim was separated by the court into another case. Accepted for nearly two years, brought to trial three times and then suspended According to the instructions of the two judgments above, Ms. Ngoc and her husband went to sue the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City for compensation. Specifically, regarding the compensation claim, the first instance court said that it was not related to administrative decisions but to civil business and commercial relations, so it should be separated into another case. As for the appellate court, it clearly states that “the fact that the market management board officers counted, counted and sealed the goods Ms. Ngoc was selling, if causing damage to Ms. Ngoc, she has the right to sue these people to demand compensation for the damage. by another case”. Since then, she has sued the president and Cao Lanh City People’s Committee for compensation as instructed by the two courts. However, the Cao Lanh City People’s Court, after accepting this case for nearly two years and bringing it to trial three times, suspended it on the grounds that the lawsuit claim had been settled by a legally effective judgment. Previously, at the trial on March 25, 2021, the trial panel paused the trial and transferred the file to the police agency to see if there were signs of criminal offense when losing her box… As soon as she received the decision, Ms. Ngoc appealed the request to cancel the suspension decision and asked the court to continue the settlement. According to Ms. Ngoc, the court’s suspension is to deprive her of her right to sue, which is an illegal act. At the same time, Ms. Ngoc also filed a complaint against the judge who was handling the case because she thought that the judge was not objective, lacked transparency, and issued an illegal suspension decision. Court accepted the reason there was “misunderstanding” Talking to PV, the judge dealing with the case said that Ms. Ngoc must sue the market management board about a contract dispute or a civil dispute for compensation for damage from the contract. The judge analyzed: Ms. Ngoc asked the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City to pay compensation due to the administrative decision, the appellate judgment of the High People’s Court was resolved (rejecting the request because the above decisions were not the original reason). directly causing damage to Ms. Ngoc). Reporter asked: “If so, why is the court still accepting, after nearly two years and three times of trial, it has been suspended?”. The judge admitted the court also had a “misunderstanding”. After a period of research, she realized that the court stopped her and allowed her to sue again with another case. Court suspension: Wrong or right? Commenting on this issue, Dr. Nguyen Van Tien, Deputy Dean of the Civil Faculty of Ho Chi Minh City University of Law, said that: According to the notice not to prosecute the case of Cao Lanh City Police and the decision to settle the complaint of the Procuracy. It was found that due to the direction of the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City, the market management board came to seize the goods. Therefore, the fact that Ms. Ngoc sued the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City is grounded. However, even if the market management board follows the instructions, they are still the ones who directly seize the goods leading to damage, so the market management board must be responsible. The Finance – Planning Department (with written consent for Ms. Ngoc to convert the counter into a cosmetic business) together with the Market Management Board to seize the goods, should also be jointly responsible. According to Dr. Tien, the general rule is that whoever causes damage must compensate. Therefore, Ms. Ngoc can sue the Chairman of the People’s Committee, the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City, the Market Management Board and the Finance – Planning Department to jointly compensate for damage caused by the illegal seizure of goods. Dr. Tien said that the court’s suspension on the grounds that Ms. Ngoc’s request was resolved was not convincing. In this case, the court needs to clarify the cause-and-effect relationship between the decision-making and direction of the City People’s Committee and the seizure of goods by the market management board. It can be seen that the cause of the incident was partly from the direction of the City People’s Committee, but the market management board did not voluntarily implement it. Therefore, Ms. Ngoc’s lawsuit to request the defendants to jointly compensate must be considered an unresolved claim as determined by the first-instance and appellate judgments in the previous administrative case. Sued additional market management board, why still suspend? Before filing the lawsuit, I reported the seizure of goods to the police to investigate the crime of openly appropriating property. However, the police and the People’s Procuracy of Cao Lanh city said that the market management board performed the tasks assigned by the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City, with no signs of crime. Therefore, my wife and I sued the Chairman of the People’s Committee and the People’s Committee of Cao Lanh City. My third additional claim is that the Chairman of the People’s Committee, Cao Lanh City People’s Committee, Market Management Board, Finance – Planning Department (under Cao Lanh City People’s Committee, participating as a related person) must jointly compensate usually the amount of goods illegally seized (nearly 500 million dong), not a claim for compensation caused by an administrative decision. Mrs DANG THI BICH NGOC
You must log in to post a comment.