天津站地区综合管理规定
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-07-09 13:21:05 浏览:9597
来源:法律资料网
下载地址: 点击此处下载
天津站地区综合管理规定
天津站地区综合管理规定
(天津市人民政府令第7号)
《天津站地区综合管理规定》已于2008年6月30日经市人民政府第10次常务会议通过，现予公布，自2008年8月1日起施行。
市长 黄兴国
二○○八年六月三十日
天津站地区综合管理规定
第一条 为加强天津站地区综合管理，维护公共秩序，根据有关法律、法规、规章的规定，制定本规定。
第二条 天津站地区的相关管理活动适用本规定。
第三条 市人民政府天津站地区综合管理领导小组,负责协调、决定天津站地区综合管理的重大事项。
第四条 河东区人民政府负责统一组织实施天津站地区的综合管理和监督工作。
第五条 河东区人民政府设立天津站地区综合管理办公室（以下简称站区办），履行下列职责：
（一）具体负责天津站地区的日常综合管理、协调工作；
（二）行使《天津市城市管理相对集中行政处罚权规定》（2007年市人民政府令第111号）第四条规定的行政处罚权；
（三）行使与天津站地区管理相关的道路运输、公共交通、环境保护、文化、卫生、新闻出版方面的行政处罚权；
（四）拟定并具体实施天津站地区应急预案；
（五）市人民政府天津站地区综合管理领导小组确定的其他职责。
第六条 本市公安机关天津站地区派出机构依法对天津站地区的社会治安、消防、公交治安、交通秩序实施管理，并接受站区办的统一协调，支持和配合站区办做好管理工作。
第七条 铁路管理机构依照有关法律、法规规定，做好天津站铁路辖区内的管理工作。
第八条 天津城投枢纽运营管理有限公司负责天津站城际广场换乘中心、海河广场地下结构、地面广场等的养护、维护、运营和管理，并接受站区办的监督。
第九条 天津站地区内其他资产所有人对其所有设施的养护、维修和管理应当符合天津站地区的统一要求，并接受站区办的监督。
第十条 站区办应当坚持以人为本、精简高效，创新管理方式，提高管理水平，提供优质服务。站区管理机构不得收取或变相收取任何费用。
第十一条 行政许可机关办理涉及市容环境、市政园林、道路交通等行政许可事项，可能影响天津站地区管理秩序的，应当在审核批准前征求站区办的意见。
第十二条 天津站地区市容市貌、环境卫生、园林绿化、市政设施、道路交通、路灯照明的综合管理工作，应当符合《天津市城市管理规定》（2008年市人民政府令第2号）、《天津市城市管理分类标准》的规定。
第十三条 天津站地区的公共服务设施设置应当科学合理,方便群众；各种指示标志应当清晰明确，整洁美观；损坏的设施、设备应当及时更换、维修，保障正常使用。
天津站地区对外经营的场所应当设置卫生间，并免费对公众开放。
第十四条 天津站地区的出租汽车、公共汽车、长途客车等车辆应当无拒载、无抢行、无强行揽客，规范有序运营。
第十五条 天津站地区禁止下列影响市容环境、园林绿化和市政设施管理的行为:
（一）占用广场和道路摆摊设点、从事各种经营性活动或采用流动方式兜售物品；
（二）设置经营性户外广告、标语；
（三）法律、法规、规章禁止的其他违反市容环境、园林绿化和市政设施管理的行为。
第十六条 天津站地区禁止下列违反交通、客运管理的行为:
（一）机动车、非机动车不在规定地点停放的;
（二）出租汽车违反规定在非运营区域、道路上停车候客、揽客的；
（三）出租汽车拒载、扰乱站点秩序的；
（四）长途客车在站外停靠上、下乘客的;
（五）法律、法规、规章禁止的其他违反道路交通和客运管理的行为。
第十七条 天津站地区禁止下列妨碍公共管理秩序的行为:
（一）销售、传播非法出版物;
（二）强行为旅客介绍食宿;
（三）为营运车辆揽客、倒客;
（四）流动散发广告宣传制品；
（五）三轮车、人力车载客经营;
（六）使用高音广播喇叭或者采取其他发出高噪声的方法从事商业经营招揽顾客；
（七）其他妨碍公共管理秩序的行为。
第十八条 违反本规定第十七条第（三）、（四）、（五）项规定的，由站区办责令予以改正。拒不改正的，对个人处50元以上500元以下罚款；对单位处1000元以上5000元以下罚款。
违反本规定的其他行为，法律、法规、规章另有规定的，从其规定。
第十九条 站区办行使行政处罚权应坚持处罚与教育相结合、以教育为主的原则，对违法行为人应当先进行教育，并责令立即改正或限期改正；对违法行为轻微、危害不大，经教育即时改正的，不再给予行政处罚；违法行为人不予改正的，依法给予行政处罚。
站区办对超出管辖范围的违法行为，有权予以制止，并及时通知有关部门依法处理。
第二十条 站区办及其工作人员滥用职权、玩忽职守、徇私舞弊、索贿受贿等违法违纪行为,由有关部门依法处理;构成犯罪的,依法追究刑事责任。
第二十一条 本规定所称天津站地区是指：东至：李公楼立交桥西；西至：三经路D地块东侧建筑红线，至进步道口南侧建筑线，沿进步道东口西侧建筑线至自由道路口向南至海河东路口，垂直至海河堤岸；南至：海河堤岸；北至：惠森花园南侧围墙向西至综合配套楼东侧道路东边缘，再向北至新兆路北侧建筑。再向西沿建筑向北至华兴街与新环路交口，沿城市之光住宅小区围墙至1号风亭用地界，沿华碧道西侧地界线向南顺延至新兆（西）路地界线至华龙道止。
第二十二条 本规定自2008年8月1日起施行。市人民政府1997年12月31日修订发布的《天津站地区管理暂行规定》（津政发〔1997〕118号）同时废止。
下载地址: 点击此处下载
Chapter VI
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence
OUTLINE
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.
天津市政府
批转市建委拟订的《关于加强天津市建筑施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法》、《天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法》
天津市政府
通知
各区、县人民政府，各委、局，各直属单位：
市人民政府同意市建委拟订的《关于加强天津市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法》、《天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法》，现转发给你们，望照此执行。
关于加强天津市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法
为认真贯彻党的十三届五中全会和市委五届五次扩大会议精神，积极推进我市建设市场的治理整顿和深化改革，切实加强建筑、安装施工任务和施工队伍的归口管理，以强化宏观调控工作，特拟订如下办法：
一、切实加强我市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理。
根据中央《关于进一步治理整顿和深化改革的决定》精神，按照计划经济与市场调节相结合的原则，为达到控制固定资产投资规模，保证重点建设，提高投资效益的目的，必须完善施工任务、队伍等方面的改革措施，加强建设市场的宏观调控工作，将全市建筑施工任务、队伍集中到市
建委归口管理。
二、全市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理的范围。
全市各项建设的施工计划，由市建委根据投资计划主管部门下达的年度投资计划，统筹安排下达计划或办理开工报告。施工计划包括以下范围：
（一）中央在津的基建、技改计划所下达的建设项目。
（二）我市计划主管部委（市计委、农委、经委等）下达的固定资产投资年度计划规模内的各项建设工程。
（三）各区、县、局管理的大修项目，按现行管理体制虽未列入固定资产投资计划规模，但需占用一定施工力量。各单位维修队伍承担不了，需使用成建制施工力量承担的大修任务。未下达施工计划或未办开工报告手续的项目，不得施工。
三、做好施工任务与施工队伍的综合平衡工作。
严格计划指导下的招标、投标管理，严格控制外地施工队伍，凡未经市建委批准的外地施工队伍，一律不得进市施工。本市施工企业（包括市政府批准的中央在津单位）要在切实加强管理、改进经营作风、提高竞争力的同时，实行施工能力核定，规定任务承接量限额管理的办法。并严
格控制本市施工企业使用民工配合的数额，增强企业自有队伍的施工能力。
四、进一步加强前期计划管理工作，做好后续任务的储备。
为适应建设任务的宏观管理工作，各计划主管部门应进一步加强各类建设项目的前期准备工作，并加强信息传递，以便建委组织各设计、施工、设备、材料供应部门为建设后续任务提供服务，同时也有利于任务的衔接，保证建设任务的完成。
天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法
第一条 凡在本市范围内，建筑面积在三百平方米（含三百平方米）或投资在十万元以上（含十万元）的新建、改建、扩建、翻建、装饰等各类工程，包括外资、中外合资、合作及开发区工程的施工任务，按均本办法执行。
第二条 凡本市施工企业（含市政府批准的中央驻津单位）能够承担的建设任务，应由本市施工企业承担。任何部门、任何单位不准自行使用外地施工队伍承建工程。个别专业性、技术性强的市重点项目需使用外地施工队伍的，按市建委1990年建计32号文执行。
第三条 本市各施工企业、建设承包公司要严格按核准的营业范围承包工程，不准擅自扩大承包工程范围或越级承包工程。市重点工程由本市一、二级施工企业承担。设计施工一体化的联合建设公司只能承揽设计施工一体化的任务。四级以下（含四级）施工企业不能单独承包建筑面积
在三百平方米以上或工程造价在十万元以上的工程。
第四条 郊县乡镇企业建筑队，以承揽本区、县非市重点工程的小型建筑和农田水利工程为主。在市内只能承揽小型及维修工程，其中，三级乡镇企业建筑队中承揽建筑面积一千平方米以下或工程造价三十万元以下的工程或分包工程；四级乡镇企业建筑队可承揽建筑面积三百平方米以
下或工程造价在十万元以下的工程或分包工程。
第五条 对允许按资质等级范围独立承包各类工程的国营与大集体三级以上（含三级）施工企业，实行“施工任务承包登记证”制度。由市建委按施工企业类别和等级核定年度施工任务量，控制施工企业承包量。登记证由施工企业申领，由市建委签章生效。施工企业新接任务，必须持
证办理登记手续。达到核定任务量后，不得再承接新工程。
建工局、房管局、中建六局在全局总核定任务量不变的情况下，局可在局属企业间调剂任务量。
第六条 对建筑面积在一千平方米以上（含一千平方米）或工程造价在三十万元以上（含三十万元）的建设项目，实行计划指导下的招、投标。对参加投标的企业，由市建委核发“施工企业投标许可证”，实行验证投标制度。
第七条 对个别不具备招、投标条件的市重点工程，经建设单位主管局批准，由建设单位填报“建设工程定向议标申请表”，报市建委审批。
第八条 市区内建筑面积在一千平方米以下、三百平方米以上和工程造价在三十万元以下、十万元以上，按规定不需招、投标的建设项目，建设单位委托施工企业承包前，由建设单位填报“建设工程委托承包审批表”，报市建委审批后再办理合同签证手续。塘沽、汉沽、大港区、开发
区及各县，由区、县招标站办理审批登记手续。
第九条 各施工企业承揽的工程应自行完成，不得转包。当独立完成有困难时，可联合承包。本市一、二级施工企业承建的部分市重点工程需使用分包队伍时，填报“使用分包队伍申请表”，由主管局签署意见后报市建委审批。分包队伍以使用市内三级以下（含三级）施工企业为主。
三级施工企业不准使用分包队伍。
设计施工一体化的联合建设公司及其他联合体，均不能向联合体以外的施工企业转包工程。
建设承包公司不准向四级以下（含四级）施工企业分包工程。
第十条 建设单位、施工单位都要自觉接受各专业银行和招标管理站、外地施工队伍管理站、郊县建筑管理总站及市建委指定部门的监督。对违反上述规定的单位，各专业银行停拨工程款，有关部门按照市政府关于加强建设市场管理的有关规定进行处罚。
第十一条 本办法自公布之日起执行。
1990年6月16日
General Rules of Evidence
under the WTO Jurisprudence
OUTLINE
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
(ⅰ) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
(ⅱ) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
(ⅲ) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
(ⅳ) Summary and Conclusions
II Admissibility of Certain Evidences
(ⅰ) Evidence Obtained from Prior Consultations
(a) Procedural Concern: Confidentiality of Consultations
(b) Substantial Concern: Necessity or Relevance of Evidence
(ⅱ) Arguments before Domestic Investigative Authorities
(ⅲ) Arguments Submitted after the First Substantive Meeting
(a) There is a significant difference between the claims and the arguments supporting those claims.
(b)There is no provision establishing precise deadlines for the presentation of evidence.
III Panel’s Right to Seek Information
(ⅰ) A Grant of Discretionary Authority
(ⅱ) The Admissibility of Non-requested Information
(ⅲ) Summary and Conclusions
IV Adverse Inferences from Party’s Refusal to Provide Information Requested
(ⅰ) The Authority of a Panel to Request Information from a Party to the Dispute
(ⅱ) The Duty of a Member to Comply with the Request of a Panel to Provide Information
(ⅲ) The Drawing of Adverse Inferences from the Refusal of a Party to Provide Information Requested by the Panel
V Concluding Remarks
I Burden of Proof under the WTO Jurisprudence
Generally, the question of whether a member acted in accordance with the agreement hinges frequently on whether and to what extent that member must demonstrate compliance or the complaint must demonstrate a lack of compliance. It is demonstrated that the burden of proof is a procedural concept which speaks to the fair and orderly management and disposition of a dispute. This is the issue of “the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”. In this respect, the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160) states, “[w]hile a duty rests on all parties to produce evidence and to cooperate in presenting evidence to the Panel, this is an issue that has to be distinguished from the question of who bears the ultimate burden of proof for establishing a claim or a defence”.1
(i) General Rules Well Established in Violation Complaints
Art. 3.8 of the DSU provides that in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement -- that is, in cases where a violation is established -- there is a presumption of nullification or impairment. However, the issue of burden of proof here is not what happens after a violation is established; the issue is which party must first show that there is, or is not, a violation. In this respect, a number of GATT 1947 panel reports contain language supporting the proposition that the burden of establishing a violation under Article XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1947 was on the complaining party, i.e., it was for the complaining party to present a prima facie case of violation before a panel. This rule is taken on by the DSB.
With regard to the issue of burden of proof, the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33) rules that: “In addressing this issue, we find it difficult, indeed, to see how any system of judicial settlement could work if it incorporated the proposition that the mere assertion of a claim might amount to proof. It is, thus, hardly surprising that various international tribunals, including the International Court of Justice, have generally and consistently accepted and applied the rule that the party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. Also, it is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption.” 2And this ruling is demonstrated to be well established in subsequent cases as a general rule concerning burden of proof.
For example, in Argentina-Leather (DS155), the Panel states: “The relevant rules concerning burden of proof, while not expressly provided for in the DSU, are well established in WTO jurisprudence. The general rule is set out in the Appellate Body report on United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, wherein it is stated that: ‘It is a generally-accepted canon of evidence in civil law, common law and, in fact, most jurisdictions, that the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. If that party adduces evidence sufficient to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden then shifts to the other party, who will fail unless it adduces sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption’.” 3
And in US-Cotton Yarn (DS192), the Panel rules in pertinent part: “The Appellate Body and subsequent panels endorsed this principle that a complainant bears the burden of proof. For example, the Appellate Body, in EC - Hormones, states as follows: ‘… The initial burden lies on the complaining party, which must establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its SPS measure or measures complained about. When that prima facie case is made, the burden of proof moves to the defending party, which must in turn counter or refute the claimed inconsistency. This seems straightforward enough and is in conformity with our ruling in United States - Shirts and Blouses, which the Panel invokes and which embodies a rule applicable in any adversarial proceedings.’” 4
As a whole, on the one hand, as ruled by the Panel in Argentina-Ceramic Floor Tiles (DS189), “[w]e recall that the burden of proof in WTO dispute settlement proceedings rests with the party that asserts the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. It implies that the complaining party will be required to make a prima facie case of violation of the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, which is for the defendant…to refute. In this regard, the Appellate Body has stated that ‘... a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case’…”; 5 on the other hand, as noted in the Panel Report on US-Copyright Act (DS160), “[t]he same rules apply where the existence of a specific fact is alleged. We note that a party who asserts a fact, whether the claimant or the respondent, is responsible for providing proof thereof. It is for the party alleging the fact to prove its existence. It is then for the other party to submit evidence to the contrary if it challenges the existence of that fact”. 6
In sum, with respect to the general rules of burden of proof in the context of violation complaints, as ruled by the Panel in Japan-Film (DS44): “[w]e note that as in all cases under the WTO/GATT dispute settlement system - and, indeed, as the Appellate Body recently stated, under most systems of jurisprudence - it is for the party asserting a fact, claim or defence to bear the burden of providing proof thereof. Once that party has put forward sufficient evidence to raise a presumption that what is claimed is true, the burden of producing evidence then shifts to the other party to rebut the presumption.…”. 7Certainly, as noted by the Appellate Body in US-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), “[i]n the context of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement precisely how much and precisely what kind of evidence will be required to establish such a presumption will necessarily vary from measure to measure, provision to provision and case to case”.8
(ii) Burden of Proof in case of Invoking an Exception
As discussed above, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party, whether complaining or defending, who asserts a fact or the affirmative of a particular claim or defence. As to be shown, this rule applies equally even in case of invoking an exception.
In this context, it is a general principle of law, well-established by panels in prior GATT/WTO practice, that the party (the defendant) which invokes an exception in order to justify its action carries the burden of proof that it has fulfilled the conditions for invoking the exception. However, in the author’s view, to understand the issue concerning burden of proof in case of invoking an exception, which is different from the relatively clear burden of establishing a prima facie case of violation on the complaining party, it’s helpful to stress some points here, among which the key point is to be cautious while determine which defence is “affirmative” and therefore burdens the defendant to provide sufficient evidence to rebut the challenged violation.
In United States-Shirts and Blouses (DS33), India argues that it was “customary GATT practice” that the party invoking a provision which had been identified as an exception must offer proof that the conditions set out in that provision were met. The Appellate Body acknowledges that several GATT 1947 and WTO panels have required such proof of a party invoking a defence, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i), to a claim of violation of a GATT obligation, such as those found in Arts. I:1, II:1, III or XI:1. Arts. XX and XI:(2)(c)(i) are limited exceptions from obligations under certain other provisions of the GATT 1994, not positive rules establishing obligations in themselves. They are in the nature of affirmative defences. It is only reasonable that the burden of establishing such a defence, i.e. invoking an exception in the nature of affirmative defences, should rest on the party asserting it. 9
However, as ruled by the Appellate Body in EC-Hormones (DS26/DS48), “[t]he general rule in a dispute settlement proceeding requiring a complaining party to establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a provision of …[the covered agreements] before the burden of showing consistency with that provision is taken on by the defending party, is not avoided by simply describing that same provision as an ‘exception’. In much the same way, merely characterizing a treaty provision as an ‘exception’ does not by itself justify a ‘stricter’ or ‘narrower’ interpretation of that provision than would be warranted by examination of the ordinary meaning of the actual treaty words, viewed in context and in the light of the treaty's object and purpose, or, in other words, by applying the normal rules of treaty interpretation. It is also well to remember that a prima facie case is one which, in the absence of effective refutation by the defending party, requires a panel, as a matter of law, to rule in favour of the complaining party presenting the prima facie case.” 10
In short, during the process of the establishment of a violation, it’s generally up to the complainant to provide evidence concerning inconsistency, and only in case of limited exceptions the burden of proof rests upon the defending party invoking a defence in the nature of affirmative defences, such as those found in Art. XX or Art. XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT 1994.
(iii) Special Rules Concerning Non-Violation Claims
As suggested by the corresponding provisions, the most significant difference between violation complaints under Art. XXIII:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and non-violation ones under Art. XXIII:1(b) is, while, when violation complaints are brought under Art. XXIII:1(a), the infringement of an obligation of the agreements is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment, from the fact of violation alone, by establishing a formal presumption, such a presumption does not exist in non-violation cases.
With the lack of such a presumption, and given the nature of the factually complex disputes and particular claims of non-violation nullification or impairment, the resolution of issues relating to the proper allocation of the burden of proof is of particular importance. In case of non-violation nullification or impairment, i.e., where the application of Art. XXIII:1(b) is concerned, Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU and panel practice in the context of the WTO Agreement and GATT jurisprudence confirm that this is an exceptional course of action for which the complaining party bears the burden of providing a detailed justification to back up its allegations.
This requirement has been recognized and applied by a number of GATT panels. For example, the panel on Uruguayan Recourse to Art. XXIII noted that in cases “where there is no infringement of GATT provisions, it would be ... incumbent on the country invoking Article XXIII to demonstrate the grounds and reasons for its invocation. Detailed submissions on the part of that contracting party on these points were therefore essential for a judgement to be made under this Article”. And the panel on US - Agricultural Waiver noted, in applying the 1979 codification of this rule: “The party bringing a complaint under [Article XXIII:1(b)] would normally be expected to explain in detail that benefits accruing to it under a tariff concession have been nullified or impaired”.
Art. 26.1(a) of the DSU codifies the prior GATT practice, which provides in relevant part: “the complaining party shall present a detailed justification in support of any complaint relating to a measure which does not conflict with the relevant covered agreement ...”.
批转市建委拟订的《关于加强天津市建筑施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法》、《天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法》
批转市建委拟订的《关于加强天津市建筑施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法》、《天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法》
天津市政府
通知
各区、县人民政府，各委、局，各直属单位：
市人民政府同意市建委拟订的《关于加强天津市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法》、《天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法》，现转发给你们，望照此执行。
关于加强天津市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理的暂行办法
为认真贯彻党的十三届五中全会和市委五届五次扩大会议精神，积极推进我市建设市场的治理整顿和深化改革，切实加强建筑、安装施工任务和施工队伍的归口管理，以强化宏观调控工作，特拟订如下办法：
一、切实加强我市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理。
根据中央《关于进一步治理整顿和深化改革的决定》精神，按照计划经济与市场调节相结合的原则，为达到控制固定资产投资规模，保证重点建设，提高投资效益的目的，必须完善施工任务、队伍等方面的改革措施，加强建设市场的宏观调控工作，将全市建筑施工任务、队伍集中到市
建委归口管理。
二、全市建筑安装施工任务、队伍归口管理的范围。
全市各项建设的施工计划，由市建委根据投资计划主管部门下达的年度投资计划，统筹安排下达计划或办理开工报告。施工计划包括以下范围：
（一）中央在津的基建、技改计划所下达的建设项目。
（二）我市计划主管部委（市计委、农委、经委等）下达的固定资产投资年度计划规模内的各项建设工程。
（三）各区、县、局管理的大修项目，按现行管理体制虽未列入固定资产投资计划规模，但需占用一定施工力量。各单位维修队伍承担不了，需使用成建制施工力量承担的大修任务。未下达施工计划或未办开工报告手续的项目，不得施工。
三、做好施工任务与施工队伍的综合平衡工作。
严格计划指导下的招标、投标管理，严格控制外地施工队伍，凡未经市建委批准的外地施工队伍，一律不得进市施工。本市施工企业（包括市政府批准的中央在津单位）要在切实加强管理、改进经营作风、提高竞争力的同时，实行施工能力核定，规定任务承接量限额管理的办法。并严
格控制本市施工企业使用民工配合的数额，增强企业自有队伍的施工能力。
四、进一步加强前期计划管理工作，做好后续任务的储备。
为适应建设任务的宏观管理工作，各计划主管部门应进一步加强各类建设项目的前期准备工作，并加强信息传递，以便建委组织各设计、施工、设备、材料供应部门为建设后续任务提供服务，同时也有利于任务的衔接，保证建设任务的完成。
天津市施工企业承揽施工任务管理试行办法
第一条 凡在本市范围内，建筑面积在三百平方米（含三百平方米）或投资在十万元以上（含十万元）的新建、改建、扩建、翻建、装饰等各类工程，包括外资、中外合资、合作及开发区工程的施工任务，按均本办法执行。
第二条 凡本市施工企业（含市政府批准的中央驻津单位）能够承担的建设任务，应由本市施工企业承担。任何部门、任何单位不准自行使用外地施工队伍承建工程。个别专业性、技术性强的市重点项目需使用外地施工队伍的，按市建委1990年建计32号文执行。
第三条 本市各施工企业、建设承包公司要严格按核准的营业范围承包工程，不准擅自扩大承包工程范围或越级承包工程。市重点工程由本市一、二级施工企业承担。设计施工一体化的联合建设公司只能承揽设计施工一体化的任务。四级以下（含四级）施工企业不能单独承包建筑面积
在三百平方米以上或工程造价在十万元以上的工程。
第四条 郊县乡镇企业建筑队，以承揽本区、县非市重点工程的小型建筑和农田水利工程为主。在市内只能承揽小型及维修工程，其中，三级乡镇企业建筑队中承揽建筑面积一千平方米以下或工程造价三十万元以下的工程或分包工程；四级乡镇企业建筑队可承揽建筑面积三百平方米以
下或工程造价在十万元以下的工程或分包工程。
第五条 对允许按资质等级范围独立承包各类工程的国营与大集体三级以上（含三级）施工企业，实行“施工任务承包登记证”制度。由市建委按施工企业类别和等级核定年度施工任务量，控制施工企业承包量。登记证由施工企业申领，由市建委签章生效。施工企业新接任务，必须持
证办理登记手续。达到核定任务量后，不得再承接新工程。
建工局、房管局、中建六局在全局总核定任务量不变的情况下，局可在局属企业间调剂任务量。
第六条 对建筑面积在一千平方米以上（含一千平方米）或工程造价在三十万元以上（含三十万元）的建设项目，实行计划指导下的招、投标。对参加投标的企业，由市建委核发“施工企业投标许可证”，实行验证投标制度。
第七条 对个别不具备招、投标条件的市重点工程，经建设单位主管局批准，由建设单位填报“建设工程定向议标申请表”，报市建委审批。
第八条 市区内建筑面积在一千平方米以下、三百平方米以上和工程造价在三十万元以下、十万元以上，按规定不需招、投标的建设项目，建设单位委托施工企业承包前，由建设单位填报“建设工程委托承包审批表”，报市建委审批后再办理合同签证手续。塘沽、汉沽、大港区、开发
区及各县，由区、县招标站办理审批登记手续。
第九条 各施工企业承揽的工程应自行完成，不得转包。当独立完成有困难时，可联合承包。本市一、二级施工企业承建的部分市重点工程需使用分包队伍时，填报“使用分包队伍申请表”，由主管局签署意见后报市建委审批。分包队伍以使用市内三级以下（含三级）施工企业为主。
三级施工企业不准使用分包队伍。
设计施工一体化的联合建设公司及其他联合体，均不能向联合体以外的施工企业转包工程。
建设承包公司不准向四级以下（含四级）施工企业分包工程。
第十条 建设单位、施工单位都要自觉接受各专业银行和招标管理站、外地施工队伍管理站、郊县建筑管理总站及市建委指定部门的监督。对违反上述规定的单位，各专业银行停拨工程款，有关部门按照市政府关于加强建设市场管理的有关规定进行处罚。
第十一条 本办法自公布之日起执行。
1990年6月16日
