In April last year, Cai, an online ride-hailing driver, was discovered on the spot by the Guangzhou Transportation Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Guangzhou Transportation Commission") while carrying passengers and was fined 30,000 yuan. The court of first instance ruled to revoke the "Administrative Penalty Decision" issued by the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission. The Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission was dissatisfied with the verdict and appealed to the Guangzhou Railway Transport Intermediate Court.

Recently, the Guangzhou Railway Transport Intermediate Court made a final judgment, rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment. The administrative penalty decision made by the defendant Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission and the administrative review decision made by the defendant Guangzhou Municipal Government are revoked. This judgment is final.

Cause an online ride-hailing driver was fined RMB 30,000 for carrying passengers

On April 17, 2016, a passenger contacted Cai through a ride-hailing app and agreed that Cai would drive (a vehicle The use is non-operational) and will be sent to Tangxia Village, Tianhe District, Guangzhou City, and the fare will be paid by the passenger. However, when Cai drove the passenger to the agreed location, he was discovered on the spot by law enforcement officers from the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission.

After investigation, the taxi app platform showed that the fare for the trip was 16.7 yuan. Since Cai was unable to show the vehicle road transport business license to the law enforcement officers, the latter produced an "On-site Record" and "Inquiry Record" on the spot, and made an "Administrative Enforcement Measures Decision". Cai refused to sign the above-mentioned document.

On May 16 of the same year, the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission issued an "Administrative Penalty Decision" and decided to impose an administrative penalty on Cai, ordering him to stop operating and imposing a fine of 30,000 yuan. Cai was dissatisfied and applied to the Guangzhou Municipal Government for reconsideration on May 24 of the same year. The Guangzhou Municipal Government decided to uphold the administrative penalty decision made by the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission on May 16, 2016.

Cai was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit with the Guangzhou Railway Transportation No. 1 Court, requesting that the administrative penalty decisions and administrative review decisions made by the defendants Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission and Guangzhou Municipal Government respectively be revoked in accordance with the law.

The first-instance court held that the administrative penalty imposed by the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission on the plaintiff Cai was unclear, the characterization was wrong, the law was wrongly applied, and the punishment was obviously inappropriate, and should be revoked. The defendant Guangzhou Municipal Government's administrative review decision to uphold the original administrative penalty was wrong and should be revoked. Therefore, the judgment was made to revoke the administrative penalty decision made by the defendant Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission and to revoke the administrative review decision made by the defendant Guangzhou Municipal Government.

At trial, the car owner claimed that "passenger fees were not charged"

After the first trial, the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission was dissatisfied and appealed to the Guangzhou Railway Transport Intermediate Court, claiming that the original judgment cited subsequent documents and regulations. The appellant applied the law incorrectly and acted inappropriately. Request the court of second instance to revoke the original judgment and uphold the appellant’s administrative penalty decision made in accordance with the law.

The appellee Cai did not submit a written reply to the court. He responded orally during the trial that he did not operate illegally, but was carrying others along the way for non-profit purposes and did not collect passengers. cost. The administrative penalty decision made by the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission has no basis. The original judgment to revoke the penalty decision was correct and should be upheld.

The Guangzhou Municipal People’s Government, the defendant in the original trial, also did not submit a written reply to the court. He stated during the court hearing that his opinion was consistent with the appeal opinion of the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission. During the trial, Cai claimed that he downloaded the online car-hailing platform APP and was assigned by the platform to carry passengers in his own car. The Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission did not deny this.

In addition, the parties had no objection to other facts discovered and determined by the court of first instance, and the court of second instance confirmed them.

The final judgment dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment

The court of second instance held that the Guangzhou Municipal Transportation Commission, as the administrative agency responsible for the management of the urban automobile passenger transport market, has no regard for the online taxi booking The court has unreserved support and encouragement for new things to be managed strictly in accordance with the law. However, for the following two reasons, it cannot support the appellant’s administrative actions involved in the case.

The court held that, on the one hand, for the public, the basic principle of the rule of law is "do whatever is not prohibited by law". In the face of new things that have no laws, regulations or rules or documents, as a Appellants from administrative agencies can guide citizens, legal persons or other organizations to operate in an orderly manner from the perspective of providing services or guidance. The appellant directly characterized the new thing of online taxi booking, which had just appeared and whose legal nature was unclear, as "illegal operation" and applied relevant regulations to confuse the operation behavior of the appellee with general illegal passenger transport operations. Penalty for behavior is not in line with the basic principles and principles of the rule of law.

In addition, the court also held that the online platform operator, driver and passenger are the three parties participating in the new shared economic model of online taxi booking, and the first two are mutually exclusive. The divided entity provides a scheduled transportation service to a third party, namely passengers. According to the content of the appeal, the appellant should be very clear about the fact that Cai is engaged in online taxi booking services. However, it only punishes the driver who provides the service and has not punished the online platform operator so far. There is a choice. Sexual law enforcement and other issues.

To sum up, the court of second instance dismissed the appeal and upheld the original judgment.

I just like to bully the people. I didn’t catch those who made toy guns and sold them, and the Didi platform didn’t punish them, but fined the car owners. But this time I really praise the court, there is no need for trolls