On July 1, 2019, we received the "Banning Decision" fromthe Civil Affairs Bureau of Changping District of Beijing, which "decidedto ban Unirule Institute of Economics and its branches", because thatUnirule Institute of Economics (hereinafter referred to as "UniruleInstitute") and its branches "were unregistered and unauthorized, butacts in the name of privatenon-enterprise".
On July 5, 2019, we received the "Administrative PenaltyDecision" from the Market Supervision and Administration Bureau of HaidianDistrict, Beijing, and decided to revoke the business license of BeijingChina-review.com Information Technology Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as"China-review.com"), on the grounds that it "has not obtainedthe ‘Internet Publishing Service License’ in accordance with the law, withoutauthorization... ... engage in online publishing services through the website(www.unirule.cloud).
We believe that the above two "decisions" seriouslyviolate Article 35 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, thatcitizens are endowed with the freedom of speaking, of publishing, ......of associating... . According to theLegislative Law, the so-called "laws and regulations" on which thetwo "decisions" are based have no legal effect; the two penaltieshave no factual basis; and they are "invalid" because they do notfollow the due process prescribed by the Administrative Punishment Law (seeappendix for details).
The violations of the Constitution, the Legislative Law and theAdministrative Punishment Law by these two administrative organs not only harmthe Unirule Institute and China-review.com, but also infringe on the generalconstitutional rights of all citizens and organizations and the sense ofsecurity protected by law. We regret that the two administrative bodies did notfulfill their constitutional obligations and did not follow the principles of"rule by constitution" and "rule of law" advocated by theCommunist Party of China.
Unirule Institute of Economics is a registered non-profitable institutionin 1999. In 2004, because of the withdrawal of the competent institution, theBoard decided to change it to be as the second-level institution ofChina-review.com. According to the Administrative Reconsideration Law and theAdministrative Procedure Law, we will respectively initiate administrativereconsideration or litigation to the "Administrative PenaltyDecision" of Haidian District Market Supervision Bureau and the"Banning Decision" of Changping District Civil Affairs Bureau.
Despite our objections to the above two administrative penaltydecisions, we will hold a meeting of shareholders of the China-review.com toform a liquidation group while the administrative reconsideration andadministrative litigation. At the same time, we will stop the activities underthe name of Unirule Institute of Economics, and stop updating the website ofUnirule Institute of Economics except for notices concerning liquidation,rehabilitation, administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation.
Beijing China-review.com Information Technology Co., Ltd.
Unirule Institute of Economics
August 26, 2019
Appendix Statement of Opinions on theAbove-mentioned "Administrative Punishment Decision" and"Banning Decision" in Violation of the Constitution, the LegislativeLaw and the Administrative Punishment Law
I. The reason for the "Banning Decision" of the CivilAffairs Bureau of Changping District is that "the Unirule Institute ofEconomics and its subsidiary branches are not registered and act as privatenon-enterprise without authorization", "which violates the provisionsof Article 3 of the Provisional Regulations on the Registration andAdministration of Private Non-enterprise".
Our opinions are as follows:
1. The Provisional Regulations on the Registration and Administrationof Private Non-Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as the ProvisionalRegulations) violate Article 35 of the Constitution, "Citizens of thePeople's Republic of China are endowed with the freedom of ...associating."
2. The Provisional Regulations were promulgated in 1998. Accordingto the Legislative Law promulgated in 2000, there is no such kind of regulationas "Provisional Regulations". The promulgation of the ProvisionalRegulations has not gone through the due process of legislation stipulated inthe Legislative Law, and has long exceeded the default time of"Provisional Regulations". So there is no legal effect.
3. The Interim Measures for the Suppression of Illegal CivilOrganizations, on which the "Banning Decision" based, is a lower leveladministrative document than the "Interim Regulations". Apart frombeing outside the legal norms stipulated in the Legislative Law, it is notsubject to due process of legislation, but self-authorized by the Ministry ofCivil Affairs. It also has no legal effect.
4. The Unirule Institute of Economics has never held activities inthe name of "private non-enterprise".
5. Unirule Institute of Economics was established and registered asa public institution in Beijing in 1999. In 2004, the Science and TechnologyOffice of Fengtai District ceased to act as a competent unit and the license ofthe Unirule Institute was to be cancelled. On September 26, 2004, the board ofUnirule Institute decided to entrust Beijing China-review.com InformationTechnology Co., Ltd. to manage Unirule Institute of Economics. UniruleInstitute of Economics became the second-level research institute ofChina-review.com.
6. The China-review.com has registered and owned the trademark of"Unirule Institute of Economics", which includes "marketanalysis", "financial consultation", "publicrelations", "urban planning", "legal services" and soon. It is a legitimate and normal business activity to launch activities in thename of its brand "Unirule Institute of Economics".
7. Unirule Institute of Economics, as the second-level organizationof China-review.com, conducts academic research and public policy researchwhile conducting business operations. Many of the clients and beneficiaries ofthe research results are the central government or local government. That Unirule Institute of Economics is socalled a "non-profit organization" by ourselves emphasizes ouracademic and public nature, and the sense of the public interest of aprofit-making organization.
8. Although the China-review.com provides a large number of publicresearch and consultation for the society and the government, it still paystaxes according to the standards of for-profit enterprises.
9. In China, it is common for enterprises to run internal researchinstitutes. They are generally only cost centers and have no profit-makingtasks, so they are "non-profit" secondary institutions. If we regardthis statement as the "crime evidence" of the Unirule, it is topunish the public interest sense of profit-making organizations.
10. As a decision of administrative penalty, the "BanningDecision" did not follow the procedure prescribed by the AdministrativePenalty Law, did not investigate the parties in advance, and gave them theopportunity to make statements, defending and hearing. Therefore, according toArticle 3 of the Administrative Penalty Law, the "Banning Decision"is "failing to abide by legal procedures, then the administrativepunishment is invalid.”
II. The reason for the "Administrative Penalty Decision"of the Haidian District Market Supervision and Administration is that"without obtaining the ‘Internet Publishing Service License’ in accordancewith the law, the parties without authorization engaged in online publishingservices through the website (www.unirule.cloud) from January of 2017 to Juneof 2019"
Our opinions are as follows:
1. The "Regulation on the Management of Online PublishingServices", upon which the "Administrative Penalty Decision" isbased, as a departmental regulation, violates Article 35 of the Constitution ofthe People's Republic of China, that citizens "are endowed with thefreedom of speaking, ofpublishing......." According to the Legislative Law, "Departmentalregulations shall not set norms that impair the rights of citizens, legalpersons and other organizations or increase their obligations,...". Theregulation requires that network publishing be licensed by some administrativedepartments. That is to say, it impairs citizens' constitutional rights.Therefore, the regulation violates the Constitution and has no legal valid.
2. Beijing China-reivew.com Information Technology Co., Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as China-review.com") is a company for thepurpose of establishing a website. Since its registration in 2000, it hasapplied for an Internet Content Provider (ICP) license.
3. In January of 2017, the website of "Beijing UniruleInstitute of Economics" and that of "China-review.com" wereattacked unknown, which made it impossible to enter. However, our company hadneither been informed by the relevant administrative departments beforehand,nor had the opportunity to defend, nor had it received the "AdministrativePenalty Decision" to cancel the ICP license of the China-reivew.com,according to the Administrative Penalty Law. Article 3. Even if there is an"administrative decision" to cancel the ICP license, it is also"failing to abide by legal procedures, then the administrative punishmentis invalid." On the other hand, the ICP license of China-review.com isstill valid in law.
4. On April 12, July 6, 2017 and February 26, 2018, we applied forthe record and obtained ICP license successively, but all of them weretechnically closed without receiving the valid Administrative Penalty Decision,but this did not prevent the ICP license from still being valid.
5. The website of Unirule Institute of Economics, which isaffiliated to China-review.com, is a non-profit ICP. It is the official websiteof our company, which publishes the information of the organization, and doesnot engage in "network publishing service". The Decision onAdministrative Punishment pushes the extension of "Internet PublishingService" to the extreme, including all the contents on the Internet. Thisis not only the Self-authorization of the administrative department, but alsothe unlimited expansion of the statute, even the denial of Article 35 of theConstitution. According to the proper definition of "networkpublication" in academic circles, it should be e-books.
6. The website www.unirule.cloud referred to in the AdministrativePenalty Decision is a website set up overseas and blocked by domestic firewallsfor overseas visitors. It is an internationalized measure of our company in theera of globalization. This website should be subject to the laws of the countrywhere the server is located. The Haidian District Market Supervision Bureau hasno jurisdiction according to the laws.
7. The Haidian District Market Supervision Bureau failed toimplement the pre-procedure stipulated in Article 69 of the Regulations on theAdministration of Company Registration and Article 23 of the AdministrativePenalty Law before informing our company of its intention to revoke itslicense. According to Article 3 of the Administrative Punishment Law, theAdministrative Punishment Decision is "failing to abide by legalprocedures, then the administrative punishment is invalid."