Precedent No. 71/2024/AL on suspending the settlement of a case on the grounds that the matter has been settled by a valid decision of a competent state agency and is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Position of the precedent content:

Paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.

Overview of the precedent content:

- Precedent situation:

The land use rights dispute has been resolved by a valid decision of a competent state agency. The Plaintiff continues to initiate a civil lawsuit over the land use rights dispute and requests the cancellation of the effective decision of the competent state agency. The Plaintiff is not named on the disputed land use rights certificate.

- Legal solution:

In this case, the Court must suspend the settlement of the case on the grounds that the matter has been resolved by a valid decision of a competent state agency and is not within the jurisdiction of the Court.

Legal provisions related to precedents:

- Clauses 1 and 2, Article 34 and Points c and d, Clause 1, Article 192, Point g, Clause 1, Article 217 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code;

- Article 38 of the 1993 Land Law (corresponding to Article 136 of the 2003 Land Law; Article 203 of the 2013 Land Law).

Keywords of precedent:

“Not under the jurisdiction of the Court”; “Resolved by an effective decision of a competent state agency”; “Suspended settlement of the case”.

CONTENT OF THE PRECEDENT

“[3] On November 21, 2000, the People's Committee of District N issued Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH to resolve the complaint, rejecting Mr. T's complaint regarding the claim for the land area of ​​2,152.15m2 that Mr. T had written to Ms. C on December 8, 1987. Disagreeing with this Decision, Mr. T continued to appeal to the Chairman of the People's Committee of Province D. On December 19, 2001, the Chairman of the People's Committee of Province D issued Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT to resolve the complaint, with the following content: Recognizing Decision No. 1627/QD.CT.UBH dated November 21, 2000 of the Chairman of the People's Committee of District N regarding the resolution of the complaint of Mr. T and Ms. C is in accordance with the provisions of law; reject Mr. T's complaint.

[4] Thus, the land area that Ms. H disputed with Ms. C was resolved in Decision No. 4835/QD.CT.UBT dated December 19, 2001 of the Chairman of the People's Committee of D province, which has come into effect.

[6] Therefore, the People's Court of Dong Nai province's suspension of the settlement of the case according to the provisions of Point c, Clause 1, Article 192 and Point g, Clause 1, Article 217 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code is correct. The High People's Court in Ho Chi Minh City annulled the Decision to suspend the settlement of the civil case No. 55/2018/QDST-DS dated October 31, 2018 of the People's Court of Dong Nai province and transferred the case file to the People's Court of Dong Nai province to continue to settle the case according to the provisions of law, which is unfounded."