[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative review dispute over the disclosure of government information by an enterprise. In March 2025, Yangzhou A Plastic Daily Chemical Co., Ltd. applied to Shuguang Subdistrict Office for the disclosure of the demolition scope map of the environmental comprehensive improvement project, the expropriation announcement, the compensation plan, and the investigation form and evaluation report of its own land plot. The subdistrict office refused on the grounds that "it did not have access to non-expropriation projects" and "it lacked the authority to disclose information involving privacy". A Company then entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on its behalf.文品良On April 29, the lawyer filed an administrative review. The review organ found that the street office had the duty to respond, but its response lacked evidence to support it. The review organ revoked the reply letter No. 2 issued by the street office in 2025 and ordered it to provide a new response. The core disputes include whether the information falls within the scope of public disclosure, whether the privacy defense is valid, and whether the procedure is illegal. Applicable laws and regulations: Article 27 and Article 14 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information; Articles 48, 54, and 64 of the Administrative Review Law.

I. Review of the case

Companies being expropriated often ask, "Can the street office refuse to disclose information just because they say they don't have it?" and "Is it legal to refuse disclosure on the grounds of privacy?" In March 2025, Yangzhou A Plastic Daily Chemical Co., Ltd. applied to the Shuguang Street Office of XX District in Yangzhou City for the disclosure of two key pieces of information: first, the house demolition scope map, expropriation announcement, and compensation plan for the environmental comprehensive improvement project of XX Industrial Park; second, the demolition household survey form, evaluation report, compensation agreement, and rights source materials involving A Company's own house plots.

On March 25th, the Sub-district Office issued a response (No. *2 of Jieyi Fu (2025)), stating in the first item that the project was led by the district government for "comprehensive environmental improvement" and did not involve demolition, and the Sub-district Office only provided assistance and claimed to have no relevant information. In the second item, it generally identified the issue as involving "privacy" and stated that it had no authority to disclose the information privately. Company A disagreed with this response.文品良On April 29, 2025, the lawyer filed an administrative review with the People's Government of XX District of Yangzhou City, requesting the revocation of the original reply and ordering the re-disclosure of the information.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Whether the application information falls within the scope of statutory disclosure.The comprehensive environmental remediation involves the demolition and relocation of houses. Can the implementation scope and compensation plan be refused to be disclosed on the grounds that it is a "non-acquisition and relocation project"?
  • Focus II: Whether the "privacy protection" defense is valid.The applicant's own factory building was self-funded and built, and is a legitimate subject of compensation. Please clarify whether it infringes on the rights and interests of third parties.
  • Focus 3: Whether the procedures of the sub-district office are illegal.Even if it involves privacy, is it a violation of regulations to directly reject the request without seeking the opinion of a third party?

III. Professional intervention by Hengluo Lawyers

The applicant (Company A) claims that:The reply does not conform to reality or legal provisions. We request that it be revoked and that the authorities be ordered to disclose the information again in accordance with the law.

The respondent (the sub-district office) argued that:The project involves comprehensive environmental remediation without demolition. The street office only cooperates with the project and does not have access to the first piece of information. The second piece of information involves personal privacy and the office does not have the authority to disclose it. As a cooperating unit, the street office does not have the authority to disclose the core documents of the project.

Legal opinion of Hengluo Law Firm:Wen Pinliang is a talented writer with excellent literary works.The lawyer strictly adheres to the legislative spirit of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information":

  • First item: The comprehensive environmental improvement involves the demolition of houses and the reclamation of land. The applicant requests that the implementation scope and compensation plan be made public, which is not limited to the demolition project. The respondent should provide a response to this request.
  • Item 2: The applicant's factory, office buildings, and land are located within the project area. The sub-district office has negotiated with the applicant about the relocation compensation and produced an evaluation report. The applicant is a relevant party, and his/her right to know takes precedence over so-called privacy. Moreover, the houses were built by the applicant with his/her own funds and are not third-party assets. Making the information public will not harm third parties.
  • The procedure is illegal: even if it involves privacy, it's not always necessary to keep it secret. The applicant should seek the opinion of a third party before making a decision. If the respondent directly refuses without providing evidence of seeking the opinion of a third party, it is not in accordance with the procedure.

IV. Outcome of the case

The People's Government of XX District of Yangzhou City held that: As an administrative organ, the Street Office has the statutory responsibility to handle applications for government information disclosure in accordance with the law (Article 27 of the Regulations); the Street Office failed to submit evidence, basis, or other materials to prove the legality of its reply in the review process (Articles 48 and 54 of the Administrative Review Law), and the reply was legally deemed to lack evidence and basis. Ruling: Revoke the reply letter No. 2 issued by the Street Office in 2025, and order the Street Office to make a new reply within the statutory time limit in accordance with the law.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Reminder

Information disclosure is the "first line of defense" for protecting rights in expropriation cases. This case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.文品良Attorney (Practice Certificate No.: 11101201910111365, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. Attorney's Reminder: The "reason" for the administrative organ's refusal to disclose information must be supported by evidence; if the information is defended on the grounds of privacy, it shall be proved that the information involves the legitimate rights and interests of third parties and that the consultation procedure has been carried out. Otherwise, the decision may be revoked through reconsideration; and the expropriated persons have the right to compel the administrative organ to perform its duties through reconsideration and litigation.

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

  1. Q:The street office said that the project is not a demolition, and they don't have the information. Can they refuse to disclose it?
    A:It's not allowed to reject the request outright. As long as it involves the demolition and relocation of houses, if the applicant requests the disclosure of the implementation scope and compensation plan, the administrative organ shall still respond to the request; if it evades the responsibility by saying "I don't have the information" and there is no evidence of disagreement, the decision can be revoked through administrative reconsideration.
  2. Q:Is it legal for the government to refuse to disclose information on the grounds that it involves personal privacy?
    A:If the information points to the applicant's own assets, rather than the privacy of a third party, and its disclosure does not harm the third party's rights, the privacy defense does not hold water; even if it involves privacy, the third party's opinion should be sought first, otherwise the procedure will be illegal.
  3. Q:How can a company obtain its own household survey and evaluation report?
    A:As a project stakeholder, an enterprise may apply for publicly available investigation forms, evaluation reports, compensation agreements, etc. related to its own land plots; if the application is rejected, it may request a review or file a lawsuit to enforce the performance of duties.
  4. Q:What will happen if the administrative organ cannot provide evidence during the reconsideration?
    A:According to the Administrative Review Law, if the respondent fails to submit evidence, the administrative act taken by them shall be deemed to lack evidence and basis. The review organ may revoke the original reply and order the respondent to make a new one.
  5. Q:Can the houses involved in the comprehensive environmental improvement be protected according to the compensation standards for expropriation?
    A:Whether it is an expropriation or not does not affect the disclosure of information and the right to compensation; the key is whether the actual demolition and eviction have taken place and whether the applicant's property has been affected. The applicant may apply for disclosure of information and claim compensation in accordance with the law.