最高人民法院办公厅关于人民法院陪审员是否需要选举问题的函

上一篇: 中国农业银行关于印发《中国农业银行海外代表处财务管理试行办法》的通知
下一篇: 最高人民法院关于判处徒刑缓刑的罪犯，因故收监执行徒刑的，其刑期如何计算问题的复函

北京市物价局 北京市经济委员会


北京市人民政府纠正行业不正之风办公室关于清理整顿中介机构服务收费的通知
北京市物价局 北京市经济委员会

北京市物价局、北京市经济委员会、北京市财政局、北京市监察局、北京市审计局、北京市人民政府纠正行业不正之风办公室关于清理整顿中介机构服务收费的通知



市政府各委、办、局、总公司及有关部门：
为进一步贯彻中共中央、国务院《关于治理向企业乱收费、乱罚款和各种摊派等问题的决定》，减轻企业负担，根据国家发展计划委员会、国家经济贸易委员会、财政部、监察部、审计署、国务院纠风办《关于印发〈中介服务收费管理办法〉的通知》（计价格〔1999〕2255号
），决定清理整顿我市的中介机构服务收费。现将有关事项通知如下：
一、市各有关部门立即清理本部门、本系统的中介机构的机构设置、服务内容、收费标准、收费依据、收费办法、与本部门的关系等，以书面形式报市物价局。
对于与本部门没有行政隶属关系，属于规定实行业务代理和经过资格认定的中介机构，由规定实行代理和资格认定的部门清理上报。中介机构包括事业单位和经批准成立的企业。
各部门、各系统和其它组织要认真做好此项工作，于4月3日前报市物价局。
二、市物价局与市经委、市财政局、市监察局、市审计局、市纠风办对各部门、系统上报的情况进行分类清理，纠正违反规定的乱收费行为。对于按规定实行政府定价或政府指导价的，由市物价局制定收费标准，并采取一定形式向社会公开。
三、市、区县物价局将于10底前会同财政、监察、审计、纠风等部门对中介机构服务收费情况进行检查，对应报未报和乱收费的，将按有关规定进行查处。
特此通知。


计价格〔1999〕2255号 一九九九年十二月二十二日



国务院各部委、各直属机构，各省、自治区、直辖市物价局（委员会）、计经委、财
政厅（局）、监察厅（局）、审计厅（局）、纠风办：
根据《中华人民共和国价格法》的有关规定，特制定《中介服务收费管理办法》。经国务院减轻企业负担部际联席会议批准，现印发给你们，请贯彻执行。


第一章 总则
第一条 为适应建立和完善社会主义市场经济体制的要求，规范中介机构收费行为，维护中介机构和委托人的合法权益，促进中介服务业的健康发展，根据《中华人民共和国价格法》，制定本办法。
第二条 本办法适用于中华人民共和国境内独立执业、依法纳税、承担相应法律责任的中介机构提供中介服务的收费行为。
根据法律、法规规定代行政府职能强制实施具有垄断性质的仲裁、认证、检验、鉴定收费，不适用本办法。
第三条 本办法所称的中介机构是指依法通过专业知识和技术服务，向委托人提供公证性、代理性、信息技术服务性等中介服务的机构。
（一）公证性中介机构具体指提供土地、房产、物品、无形资产等价格评估和企业资信评估服务，以及提供仲裁、检验、鉴定、认证、公证服务等机构。
（二）代理性中介机构具体指提供律师、会计、收养服务，以及提供专利、商标、企业注册、税务、报关、签证代理服务等机构；
（三）信息技术服务性中介机构具体指提供咨询、招标、拍卖、职业介绍、婚姻介绍、广告设计服务等机构。
第四条 中介机构实施收费必须具备下列条件：
（一）经政府有关部门批准，办理注册登记，取得法人资格证书；
（二）在有关法律、法规和政府规章中规定，须经政府有关部门或行业协会实施执业资格认证，取得相关市场准入资格的，按规定办理；
（三）依法进行税务登记，取得税务登记证书；
（四）未进行企业注册登记的非企业法人需向价格主管部门申领《收费许可证》。
第五条 中介机构提供服务并实施收费应遵循公开、公正、诚实信用的原则和公平竞争、自愿有偿、委托人付费的原则，严格按照业务规程提供质量合格的服务。
按照法律、法规和政府规章规定实施的中介服务，任何部门、单位和个人都不得以任何方式指定中介机构为有关当事人服务。
第六条 中介服务收费实行在国家价格政策调控、引导下，主要由市场形成价格的制度。
（一）对咨询、拍卖、职业介绍、婚姻介绍、广告设计收费等具备市场充分竞争条件的中介服务收费实行市场调节价；
（二）对评估、代理、认证、招标服务收费等市场竞争不充分或服务双方达不到平等、公开服务条件的中介服务收费实行政府指导价；
（三）对检验、鉴定、公证、仲裁收费等少数具有行业和技术垄断的中介服务收费实行政府定价。
法律、法规另有规定的，从其规定。

第二章 收费管理权限的划分
第七条 国务院价格主管部门负责研究制定中介服务收费管理的方针政策、收费标准核定的原则，以及制定和调整重要的政府定价或政府指导价的中介服务收费标准。
国务院其他有关业务主管部门或全国性行业协会等社会团体应根据各自职责，协助国务院价格主管部门做好中介服务收费监督和管理工作。
第八条 省、自治区、直辖市人民政府价格主管部门负责国家有关中介服务收费管理的方针政策的贯彻落实，制定分工管理的政府定价或政府指导价的中介服务收费标准。
省级以下其他有关业务部门或同级行业协会等社会团体应根据各自职责，协助本级价格主管部门做好中介服务收费管理工作。
第九条 实行政府定价、政府指导价的分工权限和适用范围，按中央和省级价格主管部门颁布的定价管理目录执行。定价目录以外的中介服务项目，实行市场调节价。
第十条 对实行市场调节价的中介服务收费，政府价格主管部门应进行价格政策指导，帮助中介机构做好价格管理工作。

第三章 收费标准的制定
第十一条 制定中介服务收费标准应以中介机构服务人员的平均工时成本费用为基础，加法定税金和合理利润，并考虑市场供求情况制定。
法律、法规和政府规章指定承担特定中介服务的机构，其收费标准应按照补偿成本、促进发展的非营利的原则制定。
中介服务收费标准应体现中介机构的资质等级、社会信誉，以及服务的复杂程度，保持合理的差价。
第十二条 实行市场调节价的中介服务收费标准，由中介机构自主确定。实施服务收费时，中介机构可依据已确定的标准，与委托人商定具体收费标准。
第十三条 价格主管部门制定或调整政府定价、政府指导价的中介服务收费标准，应认真测算、严格核定服务的成本费用，充分听取社会各方面的意见，并及时向社会公布。

第四章 收费行为的规范
第十四条 应委托人的要求，中介机构实施收费应与委托人签订委托协议书。委托协议书应包括委托的事项、签约双方的义务和责任、收费的方式、收费金额和付款时间等内容。
第十五条 中介机构向委托人收取中介服务费，可在确定委托关系后预收全部或部分费用，也可与委托人协商约定在提供服务期间分期收取或在完成委托事项后一次性收取。
第十六条 中介机构应在收费场所显著的位置公布服务程序或业务规程、服务项目和收费标准等，实行明码标价，自觉接受委托人及社会各方面的监督，不得对委托人进行价格欺诈和价格歧视。
第十七条 中介机构的行业协会等社会团体以及中介机构之间不得以任何理由相互串通，垄断或操纵服务市场，损害委托人的利益。
第十八条 中介机构要严格执行国家有关收费管理的法规和政策，不得违反规定设立收费项目、扩大收费范围、提高收费标准。
第十九条 中介机构不得以排挤竞争对手或者独占市场为目的，低于本单位服务成本收费，搞不正当竞争。
第二十条 委托人可自主选择中介机构提供服务，中介机构不得强制或变相强制当事人接受服务并收费。

第五章 法律责任
第二十一条 因中介机构过错或其无正当理由要求终止委托关系的，或因委托人过错或其无正当理由要求终止委托关系的，有关费用的退补和赔偿事宜依据《合同法》办理。
第二十二条 中介机构与委托人之间发生收费纠纷，由所在地业务主管部门或行业协会协调处理，委托人对业务主管部门或行业协会的处理有异议的，可申请所在地价格主管部门协调处理，当事双方或其中一方对行政机关或行业协会协调处理仍有异议的，可协议申请仲裁或依法向人民
法院起诉。
第二十三条 中介机构违反本办法规定，有下列行为之一的，由价格主管部门依据《价格法》和《价格违法行为行政处罚规定》予以查处：
（一）不符合本办法规定的收费条件，实施收费的；
（二）违反收费管理权限，自立收费项目，自定收费标准收费的；
（三）擅自提高收费标准、扩大收费范围、增加收费频次、超越收费时限收费的；
（四）违反已签定的协议（合同）实施收费的；
（五）违反自愿原则，与行政机关或行使行政职能的事业单位、行业组织联合下发文件或协议，强制或变相强制委托人购买指定产品或接受指定服务并收费的；
（六）公证性的中介机构提供虚假服务成果收费的；
（七）未按规定实行明码标价或对委托人进行价格欺诈、价格歧视的；
（八）违反规定相互串通，垄断或操纵服务市场，损害委托人利益的；
（九）违反规定搞不正当价格竞争，以低于本单位服务成本收费的；
（十）其它违反本规定的收费行为。

第六章 附则
第二十四条 省、自治区、直辖市人民政府价格主管部门可依据本办法结合本地实际制定实施细则。
第二十五条 本办法由国家计委负责解释。
第二十六条 本办法自发布之日起实施。



2000年3月8日
Reviews on the principle of effective nationality

孙倩
I. Introduction
In a world of ever-increasing transnational interaction, the importance of individual protection during the processes concurrently increases. Nationality is the principal link between individuals and states but also is the bridge connecting individuals with international law. It is just through the linkage of nationality can a person enjoy diplomatic protection by his parent state. But due to double nationality, there are lots of difficulties to effective diplomatic protection of individuals. The principle of effective nationality was formed through the judicial practice of international court of justice. What is the meaning of the principle of effective nationality? Is it a perfect theory in the face of diplomatic protection of dual national? In this article, the author will introduce the concept of this principle and give her opinions on it.
II: The concept of principle of effective nationality
Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state. Nationality is of critical importance to individuals, especially with regard to individuals abroad or their property. Firstly, it is the main link between individual and a state. It is evidence that one can be protected by his parent state.
Secondly, to some extent, individuals are not the subjects of international law, so they cannot directly enjoy the rights and undertake responsibilities coming from international law. It is through the medium of their nationality that individuals can normally enjoy benefits from international law.
In principle, nationality as a term of local or municipal law is usually determined by the law of particular state. Each state has discretion of determining who is and who is not, to be considered its nationals. However, there is no generally binding rules concerning acquisition and loss of nationality, and as the laws of different states differ in many points relating to this matter, so it is beyond surprising that an individual may process more than one nationality as easily as none at all. But whether each granted nationality owned by these dual nationals has international effects is in doubt. In another word, the determination by each state of the grant of its own nationality is not necessarily to be accepted internationally without question. Especially, when a dual national seeks diplomatic protection in some third state, that state is not answerable to both of states of his nationality but only one of them. In this situation, the third state is entitled to judge which nationality should be recognized.
As stated in Art1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality laws, while it is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals, such law must be recognized by other states only “in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom, and the principle of law generally recognized with regard to nationality”. In the “Nottebohm” case, the International Court of Justice regard nationality as: ‘a legal bond having as its basis a social fact of attachment, a genuine connection of existence and sentiments, together with the existence of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be upon whom it is conferred, either directly by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is in fact more closely connected with the population of the state conferring nationality than with that of any other state’ That is what is called the real and effective nationality. Deriving from the court’s opinion, the principle of effective nationality came into being. The essential parts of effective and real nationality are that which accorded with the facts, which based on stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of the states whose nationality is involved. Different factors are taken into consideration, and their importance will vary from one case to the next: the habitual residence of the individual concerned is an important factor, but there are other factors such as the centre of his interests, his families, his participation in public life, attachment shown by him for a given country and inculcated in his children, etc. According to this principle, no state is under obligation to recognize a nationality granted not meeting the requirements of it. In the Nottebohm case, International Court of Justice first enunciated this principle and denied Liechtenstein the right to protect Nottebohm.
III． Nottebohm case and reviews on the principle of effective nationality
In the Nottebohm case, involving Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the former sought restitution and compensation on behalf of Nottebohm for the latter’s actions allegedly in violation of international law.
Nottebohm, a German national resident in Guatemala, had large business interest there and in Germany. He also had a brother in Liechtenstein, whom he occasionally visited. While still a German national, Nottebohm applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein on October 9, 1939, shortly after the German invasion of Poland. Relieved of the three-year residence requirements, Nottebohm paid his fees and taxes to Liechtenstein and became a naturalized citizen of Liechtenstein by taking an oath of allegiance on October 20,1939, thereby forfeiting his German nationality under the nationality law of Liechtenstein. He returned to Liechtenstein early in 1949 on a Liechtenstein passport to resume his business activities. At his request, the Guatemalan ministry of External Affairs changed the Nottebohm entry in its Register of Aliens from “German” to “Liechtenstein” national. Shortly afterward a state of war came into existence between the USA and Germany and between Guatemala and Germany. Arrested in Guatemala in 1943, Nottebohm has deported to the USA, where he was interned as an enemy alien until 1946. Upon his release, Nottebohm applied for readmission to Guatemala but was refused; therefore, he took up residence in Liechtenstein. Meanwhile, the Guatemalan government, after classifying him as an enemy alien, expropriated his extensive properties without compensation.
Liechtenstein instituted proceedings against Guatemala in International Court of Justice, asking the court to declare that Guatemala had violated international law “in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property”. The court rejected the Liechtenstein claim by a vote of 11 to 3, declaring that Nottebohm’s naturalization could not be accorded international recognition because there was no sufficient “bond of attachment” between Nottebohm and Liechtenstein.
The Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen and the loss of Nottebohm could not be remedied. The application of the “genuine link” theory, borrowed from the very different context of dual nationality problems, has the unfortunate effect of depriving an individual of a hearing on the merits and the protection by a state willing to espouse his claim in the transnational arena. The net effect is an immense loss of protection of human rights for individuals. Such a decision runs counter to contemporary community expectations emphasizing the increased protection of human rights for individuals. If the right of protection is abolished, it becomes impossible to consider the merits of certain claims alleging a violation of the rules of international law. If no other state is in a position to exercise diplomatic protection, as in the present case, claims put forward on behalf of an individual, whose nationality is disputed or held to be inoperative on the international level and who enjoys no other nationality, would have to be abandoned. The protection of the individual which is so precarious under the international law would be weakened even further and the author consider that this would be contrary to the basic principle embodied in Article15 (2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Right. As a matter of human rights, every person should be free to change his nationality. Thus the Universal Declaration of Human Right states that ‘everyone has the right to a nationality’ (Art.15 (1)).The right to a nationality can be interpreted as a positive formulation of the duty to avoid statelessness. The duty to avoid statelessness is laid down in various international instruments, in particular in the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The term statelessness refers to the “de iure stateless persons” rather than “de-facto stateless persons”. If it is a free choice and if this nationality is to be a benefit rather than a burden to the individual, it should follow that he has the right to renounce one nationality on acquiring a new one. Furthermore, refusal to exercise protection is not accordance with the frequent attempts made at the present time to prevent the increase in the number of cases of stateless persons and provide protection against acts violating the fundamental human rights recognized by international law as a minimum standard, without distinction as to nationality, religion or race. It is unfortunately not the case. While the Nottebohm decision denied the competence of Liechtenstein to protect a naturalized citizen, the Flegenheimer case involved the denial of protection to a national by birth, when and where will the principle of effective nationality be used? This is a question that needs to be thought over. From the standpoint of human rights protection, the application of this principle should be strictly limited.
VI. Conclusion
Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the State, which settles, by its own legislation, the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality. It is sometimes asserted that there must be a genuine and effective link between an individual and a state in order to establish a nationality which must be accepted by other states. It is doubtful, however, whether the genuine and effective link requirement, used by the International Court of Justice in the Nottebohm-Case in order to deny Liechtenstein’s claim to exercise protection, can be considered as a relevant element for international recognition of nationality or as a requirement of a valid naturalization under public international law. It is frequently argued that in the absence of any recognized criteria the attribution of nationality must be considered as arbitrary and that there must be some kind of a personal and territorial link. The rule, however, although maintained in state practice, has been gradually diminished in its importance due to one exception, which concerning the raising of claims in case of human rights protection, especially to dual nationals who suffers injury in the third state and cannot be protected by his origin nationality state.

References
1, Bauer, O. (2001, first published in 1907). The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
2, ICJRep , 1995, P4, atP23
3, SIR ROBERT JENNINGS & SIR ARTHUR WATTS Oppenheim’s International Law, Longman Group UK LIMITED AND Mrs.Tomokohudso, 1992