What is the highest law 90 words in response to having the subtext-400ai.com

What is the highest law 90 words in response to having the subtext? What does the supreme law respond to? Cheng Xinwen, President of the Supreme People’s court. The highest lying gun, but also can not say that the supreme law is unprepared. The "opinion" and "property law" relationship ", and" public road, whether with the current "property law" interpretation is contrary ", a higher court Civil Tribunal Cheng Xinwen did not respond directly. Cheng Xinwen said, "closed residential area is the product of the farming age, we are now in the twenty-first Century industrialization, information technology and new urbanization in the new era, to promote the modernization of urban construction, we need to have new ideas and exploration." At present, the opinions put forward by the Party Central Committee and the State Council belong to the level of the party and the state policy, involving the rights and interests protection of the relevant subjects, including the owners, and there is a process of realizing the rule of law through legislation. As the people’s court, we will pay close attention to it and actively respond to it." "We as the judiciary, this will pay close attention to the relevant subjects, and may involve the interests of coordination and protection, strengthen the research, timely judgments, and to further strengthen the guiding efforts, and actively coordinating relevant parties to properly handle related disputes." This response is clearly prepared, not only to take care of the needs of the media, but also take into account the responsibilities of the court positioning, but also kicked the ball out. Since it is a conference for media questions should not set limits, the supreme law of course thought there must be the questions from the media conference, said No comment. cannot ask ah, but how to say it? Wall is the policy of the central government, as the judicial organs, for evaluation of the central policy is not, so Cheng Xinwen said "the CPC Central Committee and the State Council put forward the suggestion to the party and the national policy level", it does not mean that the Supreme Court judge. The key is this sentence, which involves the protection of the rights and interests of the relevant subjects, including the owners, as well as the process of realizing the rule of law through legislation." This avoids the wall is a violation of property law legislation, but the rule of law means that the relevant policies and regulations, to see what the legislature, the legislature court did not know what to do. Cheng Xiao, a professor at the Law School of Tsinghua University, thinks that the legal effect of the property law is higher, and the State Council’s opinion is only a document unless the real right law is amended in the future." "If the owners are opposed, saying that this is not a public road, is shared by the owners, how can rely on a document to negate the effectiveness of the law, and this is not consistent with the rule of law." As for the legislature how to legislate, this is not what the judiciary can answer. However, if a reporter can ask directly, in the absence of legislative rule of law, the local government according to the policy of the enclosed residential road publicity, to the court should be based on what to judge, believe that the public will get a more clear response. Unfortunately, not yet. (Sina’s "news geek", "Wang Hui" reports)

最高法90字回应拆墙的潜台词是什么? 最高法回应到底几个意思? 最高人民法院民一庭庭长程新文。   最高法躺枪,但也不能说最高法是毫无准备的。   对“《意见》与《物权法》的关系”,以及“道路公共化后,是否会与现行的《物权法》相关解释是相违背”的问题,高法民一庭庭长程新文没有直接回应。   程新文称,“封闭住宅小区是农耕时代的产物,我们现在已经处于21世纪工业化、信息化和新型城镇化的新时代,推进现代化城市建设需要我们有新的理念和探索。”   “目前,党中央、国务院提出的这一意见属于党和国家政策的层面,涉及包括业主在内的有关主体的权益保障问题,还有一个通过立法实现法治化的过程。作为人民法院,我们将密切关注,并积极应对。”   “我们作为司法机关,对此会密切的关注,对由此可能涉及到的相关主体的权益的影响、协调和保护,加强调研,及时研判,并进一步加强对下指导力度,积极协调有关方面妥善的处理好相关的纠纷。”   这个回应,显然是有准备的,既照顾了媒体的需要,也考虑到法院的职责定位,还把皮球踢了出去。   既然是发布会,对于媒体提问就不应设限,最高法当然想到了发布会上一定会有媒体提问这个问题,问了就不能说无可奉告啊,可是怎么说才好呢?   拆墙是中央的政策,作为司法机关,不宜评价中央政策是非,所以程新文说“党中央、国务院提出的这一意见属于党和国家政策的层面”,意思是,这事不该最高法院去评判。   关键的是这句话,“涉及包括业主在内的有关主体的权益保障问题,还有一个通过立法实现法治化的过程。”   这话回避了拆墙是否违反物权法,但立法法治化的意思就是有关政策规定,得看立法机关咋办,立法机关办了,法院才知道咋办。   清华大学法学院教授程啸认为,“《物权法》的法律效用更高,而国务院的《意见》只是个文件,除非将来修改物权法。”   “要是业主都反对,说这不是公共道路,是业主共有的,怎么能够凭借一个文件否定法律的效力,这个和依法治国也是不符合的。”   至于立法机关如何立法,这不是司法机关能回答的。   不过,如果有记者能直接问,在没有立法法治化时,地方政府根据政策把已经封闭的小区道路公共化了,告到法院应该依据什么来裁判,相信公众就能得到一个更明确的回应了。   可惜,并没有。   (新浪《新闻极客》 王辉 巴芮 报道)相关的主题文章: