If you want to write a defense, you should write it according to your own actual situation. Look at the following model essay on the defense of the third party in an administrative case!

Third party defense in administrative cases 1

Respondent: XXX, female, Han nationality, born on August 22nd, 2008, 1947, with a native place of XXXX.

Tel: XXXX-XXXXXXXX

Respondent: XXX, male, Han nationality,1born on February 27th, 923, with a native place of XXXX.

The respondent v. XXX Municipal People's Government for revoking Article. 1988-011XXX The former suburban people's government issued the certificate of homestead use right to the respondent, and the respondent has been added as a third party to participate in the lawsuit. Now the defense is as follows:

1. No home. 1988-0 1 1 and above are the legal property of the respondent, and what the respondent said is not true.

The respondent was originally a villager in XXX village. After taking part in the work, he moved from XXX village to Hohhot on 1950, and changed agricultural registered permanent residence into an urban hukou. Since then, he has been a resident of Hohhot.

1975, XXX, the son of the respondent, returned to XXX village from Inner Mongolia Production and Construction Corps and married the respondent that year. At that time, there were four adobe houses on the disputed homestead, but they were almost uninhabitable because of disrepair. In order to settle down, he had to rebuild them.

The respondent made it clear to his son XXX:? If you have money, you can build it early, but if you have no money, you can build it a few years later. Economically, we can find a way to take it slow. Anyway, we're not going back. This home will be yours in the future, and we don't care how you build it. ? From 1976 to 1982, the respondents and their husbands worked hard for several years to prepare materials. With the consent of the elderly, they demolished the dilapidated Westinghouse and built six north houses in the spring and summer of 1983. In the next few years, they simply built the East Room and the gate.

1988, the former people's government in the suburb of XXX re-registered the land. Because the Respondent and his son are neither villagers of XXX village nor agricultural registered permanent residence, and the Respondent owns a house in Hohhot, according to the laws, regulations and relevant policies at that time, the Respondent and his son no longer meet the conditions for collectively owning a homestead in the village.

As the respondent has always been a villager in XXX village and also in agricultural registered permanent residence, the certificate number of homestead use right issued by the former people's government in the suburb of XXX is. 1988 1 1 delivered to the respondent on1October 30th, confirming that the homestead is in the respondent's name.

According to Article 34 of the Regulations on Land Management in Hebei Province (1987), if rural residents need homestead, they should apply by themselves. After discussion by the villagers, if the villagers' committee agrees to use the original homestead and Chigo land in the village, it shall be approved by the township (town) people's government; ? . ? ; Paragraph 2 of Article 38: Homestead vacated by rural five-guarantee households and relocated households shall be recovered by villagers' committees. ? And article 40: Urban non-agricultural registered permanent residence residents have no houses and need to use collective land to build houses? . ? The provisions of the.

The respondent believes that when the land 1988 is re-registered, the respondent and his son do not meet the conditions of collective ownership of the village homestead. The villagers' committee of XXX took back the homestead and redistributed it to the eligible respondent according to the laws, regulations and relevant policies at that time. The former people's government of suburb of XXX issued the homestead use right certificate with the number 1988-0 1 to the respondent, which fully met the requirements.

At the same time, because the house on the homestead was rebuilt by the respondent and his wife, the respondent has the legal right to use and own the homestead and real estate.

2. The time limit for filing an administrative lawsuit by the respondent does not comply with the law.

The respondent's son 1 got married with 20XX, and the respondent came back from Hohhot to attend the wedding. During this period, the respondent's husband XXX and the respondent often talked about buying a house in the village.

XXX explained to the respondent that it was precisely because the homestead right certificate had been confirmed in the respondent's name that the respondent was eligible to use the homestead right certificate to buy the house in Building 90 where he now lives, and then the homestead right certificate was owned by the collective.

Later, when the respondent came back during the Spring Festival in 20XX, the respondent's husband XXX mentioned this matter to him again.

According to the first paragraph of Article 41 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if an administrative organ fails to inform a citizen, a legal person or any other organization of the right to appeal or the time limit for prosecution when it takes a specific administrative act, the time limit for prosecution shall be counted from the date when the citizen takes the specific administrative act, and the legal person or any other organization knows or should know the right to appeal or the time limit for prosecution, but the longest time limit shall not be from the date when the citizen, legal person or any other organization knows or should know the content of the specific administrative act. ? And article 42: If a citizen, a legal person or any other organization does not know the contents of a specific administrative act made by an administrative organ, the time limit for prosecution shall be counted from the day when he knows or should know the contents of the specific administrative act.

If a specific administrative act involving real estate has been made for more than 20 years, or other specific administrative acts have been made for more than 5 years, the people's court will not accept it. ? The provisions of the.

The respondent believes that the respondent knew at least in 2000 that the former people's government of XXX suburb of 1988-0 1 1 owned the right to use the homestead under the respondent's name, and the respondent only filed an administrative lawsuit 20XX years ago, which obviously did not comply with the above two legal provisions and exceeded the prosecution period.

2. To take a step back, the respondent didn't know that the No.011homestead use right certificate was in the respondent's name until 20XX, and the administrative lawsuit filed by the respondent did not meet the conditions for prosecution. The retrospective effect of Article 42 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China cannot reach before the implementation of the administrative procedure law.

The Supreme People's Court's reply to the request for instructions on how to implement Article 42 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China is as follows: After the implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, that is, 1990 10 10/0, if the parties do not know the content of the specific administrative act, the Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China shall apply to the calculation of the time limit for prosecution. ? According to the above provisions, the Supreme Court, while recognizing the retroactivity of Article 42, has also imposed strict restrictions on the time of retroactivity, that is, only the specific administrative acts implemented by administrative organs after 1990 10 1 are actionable objects.

However, the original XXX suburban people's government issued the homestead use right certificate number. 1988-0 1 to the respondent in 1988, Administrative Procedure LawNo. 1990+00+ 1.

In addition, according to the Supreme People's Court's Reply on How to Deal with Cases Not Accepted by the Court before the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law, the reply is as follows: The administrative infringement occurred before the implementation of the administrative litigation, and the law at that time did not stipulate that the court should accept such cases, so the people's court could not accept them. ?

The respondent believes that the administrative lawsuit filed by the respondent does not meet the conditions for prosecution. Even if the respondent thinks that his legal rights have been violated, he can only claim his rights through the laws and regulations at that time, and should not bring an administrative lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's prosecution should be dismissed according to law.

Three, the respondent has no plaintiff litigation qualification.

The respondent moved from XXX village to Hohhot on 1950, and changed agricultural registered permanent residence into a town hukou, and has been a resident of Hohhot ever since.

Therefore, the respondent is no longer a member of the collective organization of XXX village and owns a house in Hohhot.

The respondent's request to cancel the certificate of homestead use right. 1988-0 1 1 and confirmed that the homestead under its name violated the law.

The respondent believes that the respondent has no right to the disputed real estate and land, has no legal interest in the specific administrative act, and is not qualified as the plaintiff's litigation subject.

According to Article 44 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, if one of the following circumstances occurs, the ruling will not be accepted; If it has been accepted, it shall be ruled to dismiss the prosecution: (2) The plaintiff is not qualified as the plaintiff's litigation subject. ? The provisions of the respondent's prosecution shall be rejected.

To sum up, the respondent, as a villager in the village, raised funds to rebuild the house, and then received the homestead use right certificate issued by the government in accordance with the conditions and procedures prescribed by law, and his rights should be recognized and protected by law.

However, in the case that the respondent has no membership in the village collective and already owns a house, in view of the current rapid rise in house prices, driven by interests, regardless of the feelings of father and son and legal authority, making up lies at will has seriously violated the legitimate rights and interests of the respondent.

Moreover, the respondent does not have the qualification of the subject of litigation in land and real estate disputes at all. The fact that the former people's government in the suburb of XXX issued the land use right certificate for the respondent is clear and the procedure is legal, which should be maintained according to law.

I am here to convey

Qiaoxi district people's court

Defendant: XXX

28 July 2007 *

The defense of the third party in administrative cases II.

Respondent: Fu Dongmei, female, born on129 October, 1953, retired teacher of Nanchang No.1 Railway Middle School, living in Room 60 16, Unit 3, Yu He Mingzhu Community, No.68 Jinggangshan Avenue, qingyunpu district, Nanchang, with ID number 360.

Fu Dongmei, the respondent, made the following reply to the appeal of Nanchang Railway Bureau (the third person in the original trial):

First, the original judgment found the facts clear.

1. The facts ascertained by the court fully prove that during the hospitalization of Zhou Dongan, the husband of the defendant Fu Dongmei, the Nanchang Railway Depot, the competent authority, did not arrange others to take over his work. Although he was in hospital, he still kept working despite illness, kept in touch with company customers, coordinated company business in time, discussed company business matters with company subordinates and assigned tasks.

During the period, the advertising company's business work has not stopped, and the company's business account 1.6 million yuan has been recovered.

20xx65438+February 10 At 9 o'clock in the morning, Fang Xiping, a salesman of the advertising company, visited Zhou Dongan in the Ninth Hospital and talked for more than two hours. He left on 1 1.

Later, he suddenly became ill at around 20 o'clock that night and died at 23: 55 that night.

According to the rescue records, death records and certificates of Nanchang Ninth Hospital, Zhou Dongan's liver disease condition has tended to be stable and improved, which is due to hemiplegia and sharp rise of blood pressure after overwork that day, leading to intracranial hemorrhage, and he died after being rescued.

These facts fully prove that Zhou Dongan died of intracranial hemorrhage due to overwork during working hours and in his post, and died after being rescued.

2. The appellant Nanchang Railway Bureau, as an employer, shall bear the burden of proof in case of industrial injury dispute according to the Regulations on Industrial Injury Insurance.

In other words, it was proved that Zhou Dongan's death was not a work-related injury, but the appellant did not provide sufficient and effective evidence to prove that Zhou Dongan did not die during working hours, because of sudden illness at work or within 48 hours after rescue.

(1) When the defendant Jiangxi Provincial Department of Personnel, Labor and Social Security made a work-related injury determination, the appellant Nanchang Railway Bureau did not provide any valid evidence to prove that he suddenly fell ill during non-working hours, work post and work reasons, and died after being rescued within 48 hours, which proved that Zhou Dongan's sick leave work arrangement was illegal and objective, which was contrary to the facts determined by the court.

(2) The appellant Nanchang Railway Bureau did not provide evidence to prove that Zhou Dongan complied with the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance and was not a work-related injury.

(3) The appellant Nanchang Railway Bureau has no evidence to prove that Zhou Dong An's death on June 5438+February 65438 +00, 2006 has nothing to do with the intracranial hemorrhage caused by overwork in the negotiation with the company's business personnel that day.

Second, the administrative act made by the Department of Personnel, Labor and Social Security of Jiangxi Province, the defendant in the original trial, was exactly the same as the No.1 industrial injury determination decision. Nanchang Intermediate People's Court and Jiangxi Higher People's Court revoked the administrative reconsideration decision (2007)a007, which obviously violated the provisions of Article 55 of the Administrative Procedure Law.

On August 20, 2007, the defendant in the original trial issued the Notice of Work Injury Identification (Gan Lao She Shang Zi No. A007, 2007), and rejected the applicant's application for work-related injury identification on the grounds that Zhou Dongan died of hepatitis and cirrhosis in the hospital, which did not belong to working hours and jobs, died of sudden illness or died after being rescued within 48 hours.

The defendant brought a lawsuit to Nanchang Intermediate People's Court. After the final judgment of Jiangxi Higher People's Court, on the grounds of unclear facts and insufficient main evidence, the specific administrative act ofNo. A007 industrial injury identification notice made by the defendant in the original trial on August 20, 2007 was revoked according to law, and the respondent was ordered to re-identify the industrial injury within 60 days.

However, the defendant in the original trial made a specific administrative act with the same facts and reasons as the original specific administrative act without new facts and reasons, re-investigation and evidence collection, or even the plaintiff's statement and defense-Gan Renshe Zi [2007]No. 137.

The reason is: 1, and the main reason is the same as the fact.

Article 54 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that if the people's court decides the defendant to make a new specific administrative act, the result of the new specific administrative act is the same as that of the original specific administrative act, but the main facts or reasons change, it does not belong to the situation stipulated in Article 55 of the Administrative Procedure Law.

If the people's court decides to revoke a specific administrative act on the grounds of violating legal procedures, the administrative organ shall not be restricted by the provisions of Article 55 of the Administrative Procedure Law.

If an administrative organ makes a specific administrative act that is basically the same as the original specific administrative act with the same facts and reasons, the people's court shall, in accordance with the provisions of Article 54, paragraph 2, and Article 55 of the Administrative Procedure Law, make a ruling to revoke or partially revoke it, and handle it in accordance with the provisions of Article 65, paragraph 3, of the Administrative Procedure Law. ? The same facts and reasons mentioned here? The truth? , refers to the legal fact that the administrative organ has made a specific administrative act; ? Why? Refers to the evidence and normative documents on which the administrative organ makes a specific administrative act.

The two judgments of the defendant in the original trial did not recognize Zhou Dongan's death as a work-related injury, but the basic fact that Zhou Dongan died after hospitalization for hepatitis and cirrhosis belonged to the same basic fact; The reason for identifying the specific administrative acts of two work-related injuries is that the hospitalization period does not belong to working hours and the hospital does not belong to the post, so it does not belong to the situation stipulated in the first paragraph of the Regulations on Work-related Injury Insurance, and the basic reasons are the same.