法搜网--中国法律信息搜索网
娉曞緥淇℃伅 | 娉曞緥鏂伴椈 | 妗堜緥 | 绮惧搧鏂囩珷 | 鍒戜簨娉曞緥 | 姘戜簨娉曞緥 | 缁忔祹娉曞緥 | 琛屾斂娉曞緥 | 璇夎娉曞緥 | 鍚堛€€銆€鍚� | 妗堜緥绮鹃€� | 娉曞緥鏂囦功 | 鍚堝悓鑼冩湰 | 娉曞緥甯歌瘑 | 鍙歌€冮搴� | 
娉曞緥鍥句功 | 璇夎鎸囧崡 | 甯哥敤娉曡 | 娉曞緥瀹炲姟 | 娉曞緥閲婁箟 | 娉曞緥闂瓟 | 娉曡瑙h | 瑁佸垽鏂囦功 | 瀹硶绫� | 姘戝晢娉曠被 | 琛屾斂娉曠被 | 缁忔祹娉曠被 | 鍒戞硶绫� | 绀句細娉曠被 | 妗堜緥瓒嬪娍 | 銆€銆€銆€銆€
Public Participation and Its Limits

  
  The legislative efforts by various departments and local governments, while specifying hearing procedure in particular regulatory contexts, have also resulted in some serious problems, among which the most notable one is the lack of uniformity. Conflicts between central rules and local rules and conflicts among different local areas with respect to procedural requirements of public hearing have proved to be very a serious problem, increasing the situation of "fragmentation" of law enforcement.[3]
  
  B. Hearing in rate-setting/price-fixing process
  
  Although the Price Law of 1997 requires that in setting price or rates for public facilities or monopolized products or services, public hearing shall be conducted by relevant agency to solicit public opinions, it says nothing about how should a hearing be proceeded. In this sense, the system of public hearing remains inspirational rather than institutional. This has caused the consequence that most hearing experiments in price-fixing context were very frustrating. The hearing jointly organized by State Committee on Planning and Development and the Ministry of Information Industry to set rate for telecommunication is a good example. On September 15, 2000, the SCPD and Ministry of Information Industry held a "public hearing" to determine more “reasonable” rates for local and long distance calls, in which government officials, legal experts and economists, and representatives from China Telecom participated. This hearing was not made public, and there are no customer representative permitted to participate. Later interviews with participants and disclosure of the record of the hearing revealed that opinions and arguments of experts had not been considered at all in making final decision. And no reasons were given for rejection to such arguments. No wonder that hearing of this kind has been criticized as a “beautiful flower vase”, implying that the procedural requirement of hearing is basically symbolic and useless except for decoration.


第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] 页 共[8]页
上面法规内容为部分内容,如果要查看全文请点击此处:查看全文
【发表评论】 【互动社区】
 
相关文章




娉曞緥淇℃伅 | 娉曞緥鏂伴椈 | 妗堜緥 | 绮惧搧鏂囩珷 | 鍒戜簨娉曞緥 | 姘戜簨娉曞緥 | 缁忔祹娉曞緥 | 琛屾斂娉曞緥 | 璇夎娉曞緥 | 鍚堝悓 | 妗堜緥绮鹃€� | 娉曞緥鏂囦功 | 鍚堝悓鑼冩湰 | 娉曞緥甯歌瘑 | 
娉曞緥鍥句功 | 璇夎鎸囧崡 | 甯哥敤娉曡 | 娉曞緥瀹炲姟 | 娉曞緥閲婁箟 | 娉曞緥闂瓟 | 娉曡瑙h | 瑁佸垽鏂囦功 | 瀹硶绫� | 姘戝晢娉曠被 | 琛屾斂娉曠被 | 缁忔祹娉曠被 | 鍒戞硶绫� | 绀句細娉曠被 | 銆€銆€銆€銆€