[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative review dispute over the disclosure of government information involving a group of 20 people. Around 2014, Jiang * and other 20 parties in Sichuan signed a shop investment cooperation agreement with WJD Company in A City. Later, the project was renamed Jiahao International Trade City and went into bankruptcy liquidation, resulting in the 20 people losing their investments. In July 2024, the 20 people entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case for them.文品良The lawyer applied to the B District Government of A City for the disclosure of three pieces of information, including the minutes of the project meeting. The Commerce Bureau refused on the grounds of internal affairs, procedural information, and the absence of the requested information. On October 26 of the same year, an administrative review was initiated. The municipal government found that the Commerce Bureau's response was unlawful, the main facts were unclear, and the evidence was insufficient. The review resulted in the revocation of the bureau's response and the order for the district government to provide a new response. The core disputes are whether procedural information should be disclosed and whether the response regarding the absence of information is valid. Applicable laws and regulations include the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information" and the "Administrative Review Law".

I. Review of the Case Facts

Group investors often ask, "If the project is left unfinished, can the government make the information public?" and "Are government meeting minutes considered internal information that is not public?" Around 2014, Jiang * and 20 other parties from Sichuan Province signed the "A City B District XX Plaza Shop Investment Cooperation Agreement" with A City WJD Company, and some of them also signed "Loan Contracts", expecting stable returns. Later, due to government policy adjustments, the project was changed to Jiahao International Trade City (a Belt and Road Initiative project), but WJD Company breached the contract and entered bankruptcy liquidation, leaving the 20 investors' investments in vain.

In order to clarify the truth about the project changes, in July 2024, 20 parties involved commissioned文品良The lawyer mailed the "Government Information Disclosure Application Form" to the People's Government of B District, City A, applying for the disclosure of key information about the Jiahao International Trade City project, including the minutes of previous meetings of the government and its subordinate departments, the contract and agreement memorandums signed with WJD, and the cooperation documents with external investors. The Commerce Bureau of B District replied: The first item belongs to internal affairs and procedural information and will not be disclosed; the second and third items do not exist. On October 26, 2024, 20 people, including Jiang, filed an administrative reconsideration with the People's Government of City A with the assistance of a lawyer.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Is the minutes of the project meeting considered procedural information that does not need to be disclosed?The memorandum has been used by subordinate agencies as the basis for administrative actions and by WJD as a promotional tool. Does it actually have an impact on the rights of the parties involved?
  • Focus 2: Whether the response that the second and third pieces of information "do not exist" is valid.The Commerce Bureau merely replied that the search did not yield any results. Is there sufficient factual basis for this response?
  • Focus 3: Whether the subject and procedures of the response are legal.Is the Commerce Bureau an appropriate agency to respond to this inquiry, and is the response provided by the bureau based on clear facts and sufficient evidence?

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The applicants (Jiang * and other 20 people) claimed that:The Commerce Bureau of District B replied that the reply violates legal provisions and does not conform to objective facts. We request that the reply be revoked and that the bureau be ordered to provide a new reply.

The position of the respondent (B District Government):The minutes of the meeting are internal affairs, and the procedural information does not need to be disclosed. The second and third items were not found on the official website and in the system, so the information does not exist. The Commerce Bureau replied in accordance with its duties and followed the correct procedures.

Hengluo Lawyer's Representation Opinion:文品良The lawyer argued that:

  • The meeting minutes are not ordinary discussion records. They have been used by subordinate organs as the basis for implementing specific administrative acts, and by WJD Company as a tool for inducing investment and promoting propaganda. They have a real impact on the rights and obligations of administrative counterparts and are generally binding. They should be regarded as normative documents and be made public in accordance with the law. The "option" of not disclosing procedural information is a discretionary right rather than a mandatory prohibition.
  • In response to the claim that the information does not exist, the lawyer submitted a large number of news reports as evidence, proving that the government has repeatedly supported the project and signed contracts worth hundreds of millions of yuan. It is inevitable that there must be relevant contract agreements and memorandums. However, the Commerce Bureau simply replied that the search did not find any relevant information, which is not in line with the objective facts.
  • In summary, we request that the reviewing authority revoke the reply and order a new reply, so as to safeguard the applicant's right to information.

IV. Outcome of the case

After a rigorous review, the municipal people's government supported the legal viewpoints of Attorney Wen Pinliang, concluding that the B District Commerce Bureau, as the respondent, did not comply with legal provisions, and its response contained unclear main facts and insufficient evidence. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People's Republic of China, the reconsideration organ decided to revoke the "Reply to the Application for Government Information Disclosure" issued by the B District Commerce Bureau and ordered the B District People's Government of A City to make a new response in accordance with the law to ensure that the applicant's legitimate rights and interests are protected.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Advice

Process-related information is not necessarily kept confidential. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.文品良The attorney (practice license number: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent. Attorney's reminder: If the procedural information has actually affected the rights and obligations of the administrative counterpart, it cannot be simply refused to disclose on the grounds of internal information; if a citizen believes that the reply is unlawful, he/she has the right to apply for reconsideration in accordance with the "Administrative Reconsideration Law" and safeguard his/her rights through legal channels.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about Cases Involving the Disclosure of Land Acquisition Information

  1. Q:The government said that it's legal to keep the minutes of the meeting confidential and not disclose them to the public, right?
    A:If the minutes have been used as the basis for administrative actions and have had a real impact on the rights and obligations of the parties concerned, they should not be refused to be disclosed solely on the grounds of being internal information. The fact that "procedural information" may not be disclosed is a discretionary power rather than a mandatory requirement.
  2. Q:The application for information disclosure says "the information does not exist". Can I refute this?
    A:Yes. If you have evidence to prove that the relevant information should exist (such as news reports or contractual facts), you can claim that the response lacks clarity and sufficient evidence, and request a review to have the case handled again.
  3. Q:When multiple people jointly invest in a failed real estate project, how can they collectively protect their rights and interests?
    A:We can jointly entrust lawyers to apply for information disclosure to clarify the truth of the project, and collectively review or litigate against illegal responses, using the right to information as a breakthrough to promote subsequent rights protection.
  4. Q:After the revocation of the improper reply in the reconsideration, does the government need to provide a new reply?
    A:Yes. The review organ may order the original organ to provide a new response to the original application within the statutory time limit, so as to safeguard the applicant's right to obtain information.
  5. Q:If the subject of the government information response is not legal, will it affect the outcome?
    A:Yes. If the subject of the reply is not qualified, the facts are unclear, or the evidence is insufficient, the reconsideration organ may revoke the reply and order the responsible organ to handle it again.