您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律论文 »

江西省人民政府


江西省人民政府办公厅关于印发《江西省土地使用权和矿业权统一网上交易监督办法（试行）》的通知



各市、县（区）人民政府，省政府各部门：
　
　 《江西省土地使用权和矿业权统一网上交易监督办法（试行）》已经省政府同意，现印发给你们，请认真遵照执行。（此件主动公开）
　
　

江西省土地使用权和矿业权统一网上交易监督办法（试行）


　　
　　　 第一章 总 则
　 第一条 为规范土地使用权和矿业权网上交易活动，加强对土地使用权和矿业权网上交易监督管理，根据《中华人民共和国土地管理法》、《中华人民共和国矿产资源法》和《中华人民共和国行政监察法》等有关规定，结合本省实际，制定本办法。
　 第二条 本办法适用于本省行政区域内土地使用权和矿业权网上交易（以下简称网上交易）的监督。
　 第三条 本办法所称网上交易监督，是指县级以上政府（含县级，下同）及其国土资源、监察、工信、规划、财政、审计、公安等部门和人民银行依据各自职责，对网上交易及其相关活动依法依规进行监督。
　 第四条 监督部门履行下列主要职责：
　 （一）拟订或者参与拟订有关土地使用权和矿业权网上交易监督的配套制度；
　 （二）按照本办法规定的方式和程序进行监督，并对存在的问题提出整改建议，督促整改落实到位；
　 （三）对违法违规行为和涉及的有关责任单位、人员，依职权作出相应处理，或者向有关机关提出处理建议；
　 （四）法律、法规、规章规定应当履行的其他监督职责。
　 第五条 县级以上政府及其有关部门应本着依法依规、及时快捷、全面深入的原则，加强对网上交易及其相关活动的监督。
　
　　　 第二章 监督的主要内容及分工
　 第六条 国土资源行政主管部门对下列内容进行监督：
　 （一）出让的地块和矿业权是否合法；
　 （二）出让的地块是否净地出让，是否完成了出让方案的编制及审批等工作；
　 （三）出让方案是否合规；
　 （四）出让公告、出让结果是否及时、合规发布；
　 （五）是否及时办理了成交地块的交付工作；
　 （六）出让的矿业权是否按审批权限经国土资源行政主管部门批准；
　 （七）网上交易程序是否符合相关法律法规等规定；
　 （八）网上交易机构及相关工作人员是否依法依规履行职责；
　 （九）参与交易活动的中介机构及其工作人员是否依法依规履行职责；
　 （十）土地出让金、矿业权交易价款是否依法缴付；
　 （十一）其他需要监督的内容。
　 第七条 监察机关对下列内容进行监督：
　 （一）接受和办理网上交易项目的告知；
　 （二）对交易机构、有关行政主管部门及其工作人员履行职责和受理、处理涉及网上交易活动的举报投诉等情况实行监督;查处国家行政机关及其公务员和国家行政机关任命的其他人员在网上交易活动中的违纪违法行为；
　 （三）依托电子监察系统等对网上交易活动进行预警和纠错；
　 （四）法律、法规、规章规定应当监督的其他内容。

　 第八条 设区市、县（区）规划部门应当对网上交易出让公告所列规划条件是否符合规定进行监督。
　 第九条 财政部门对网上交易保证金账户的设立和管理、保证金的退付和缴库以及土地出让收入和矿业权交易价款缴库等进行监督。
　 省财政厅会同省工业和信息化委员会对网上交易系统的经费使用情况进行监督。
　 第十条 工业和信息化主管部门对下列内容进行监督：
　 （一）对网上交易系统的应用设计、系统构建、运行维护、技术保障、技术培训进行监督；
　 （二）负责对网上交易系统的系统安全、数字认证和系统运行效果进行监督及安全风险测评。
　 第十一条 审计部门对土地出让金和矿业权交易价款缴库、使用及管理情况进行审计监督。
　 第十二条 公安机关负责交易网络的安全监管，监督、检查、指导网上交易系统的安全等级保护工作，查处利用网上交易系统进行的和危害网上交易系统的违法犯罪案件。
　 第十三条 人民银行对网上交易保证金账户的开立、变更、撤销依法进行监督管理。第三章监督的方法与法律责任
　 第十四条 网上交易发生争议时，由国土资源行政主管部门组织交易机构按照下列规定进行协调处理：
　 （一）在交易机构和交易网上分别设立投诉信箱，接受投诉；
　 （二）受理网上交易过程中发生的属市场监管范围的争议，对不属于市场监管范围的争议，不予受理；
　 （三）对受理的反映网上交易中的违纪违规行为投诉，组织进行调查取证，必要时可聘请与争议各方无利害关系的专家和组织参加调查取证；
　 （四）对受理的有争议的市场违纪违规投诉，在调查核实后，应及时作出处理，并将结果及时告知争议方；
　 （五）协调和处理其他争议事项。
　 第十五条 对网上交易过程中出现的下列行为，由国土资源行政主管部门单独或者会同有关部门及时纠正，并依法进行调查处理：
　 （一）交易过程中发生违反操作程序和相关制度的；
　 （二）违反土地使用权和矿业权交易程序，造成重大损失和影响的；
　 （三）参与土地使用权和矿业权交易活动的公证人员、拍卖机构工作人员及竞买（投标）人违反交易活动纪律和人员行为守则的；
　 （四）其他违反有关网上交易监督管理规定的。
　 第十六条 交易机构和有关行政主管部门有下列情形之一的，由监察机关督促改正，并依照有关规定追究其责任：
　 （一）对其管理职责范围内的网上交易活动不认真履行监督管理职责的；
　 （二）对其管理职责范围内的违法违规行为不及时组织调查处理的；
　 （三）对交易机构提出的有关违法违规行为不及时组织调查处理的；
　 （四）其他违反有关网上交易监督管理规定的。
　 第十七条 负有网上交易监督管理职责的人员在工作中玩忽职守、滥用职权、泄露秘密、徇私舞弊、索贿受贿，尚不构成犯罪的，依法予以处分；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
　 第十八条 参与网上交易的工作人员（含银行业金融机构工作人员）应自觉接受交易各方及社会监督，并承担相应的责任。
　
　　　 第四章 附 则
　 第十九条 本办法自发布之日起施行。


Chapter VI
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence


OUTLINE

I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks

I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.