界面新闻记者 | 赵孟

界面新闻编辑 | 刘海川

2022年3月22日，律师陈宏达发现家里的一节燃气管道“不翼而飞”，天然气被断供。经他多方投诉获悉，管道被燃气供应方东莞新奥燃气有限公司（下称东莞新奥燃气）实施拆除，这一行为获得城管单位的授权。

燃气虽然已经恢复供应，但陈宏达认为这种行为属于私闯民宅，将城管单位、燃气公司和物业公司告上法庭，希望判令其行为违法，并赔偿损失。在经过一、二审被法院驳回诉求后，陈宏达向最高人民法院申请再审。他近日获悉，最高人民法院已于3月28日对此案立案再审。

陈宏达告诉界面新闻，事发当日，他全天都在东莞市樟木头镇帝豪花园的家中，傍晚时发现燃气设备无法启用，以为是小区停气了，当日深夜再检查安装在阳台上的燃气表，发现一节连接气表的管道不见了，管道被截断之处留有一张署名“东莞新奥燃气有限公司”的贴条。

陈宏达随即通过12345、东莞阳光热线问政平台网络等渠道反映情况。

后来他从其他业主处获悉，有不少人家的燃气管道也被拆除，而后被东莞新奥燃气公司要求更换新的燃气表，或以热水器存在安全隐患为由，要求购买新奥燃气提供的热水器。陈宏达质疑，拆除行为是在东莞市城管局授权下，由燃气公司非法实施的私闯民宅行为，目的是以燃气安全为由，推销燃气公司的热水器等设备。

次日，燃气公司上门为他重新安装了管道，并拆掉旧的机械计量表，安装了新的电子计量表，此外，燃气公司还要求更换热水器。安装工人还向陈宏达出示了盖有东莞市城市管理和综合执法局樟木头分局公章的《关于安全使用燃气器具的通知》，其上载有“对于不落实、拒绝整改的燃气用户，将暂停供气”。

3月25日，新奥燃气公司通过短信回复陈宏达，在确认实施了拆除燃气管道操作的同时，表示该行动是在该小区物业公司工作人员陪同下进行的高空作业。

该小区另一位业主乔先生告诉界面新闻，去年他家燃气用完后，再次充值时失败，后燃气公司告诉他，家里的热水器存在安全隐患，需要更换，并向他推销燃气公司自己的热水器，“外面买一个才一千多点，他们可能要两三千”。乔先生坚持在市场上购买了一台1000多元的热水器，但小区里有些老人被买了燃气公司推销的热水器。

热水器更换后，乔先生申请恢复供气，燃气公司人员上门检查后，又提出厨房的燃气管道存在安全隐患，向其推销一个加装在管道上的小器件，价格需要100多元。当时他未在家，妻子只能接受推销，才恢复供气。后来他在网上查到，这个小器件仅售价二三十元。

界面新闻致电新奥燃气公司，一位工作人员称，燃气公司并未强制推销热水器，但“安装我们自己的会快一些”，至于价格，他提到的一款新奥燃气自己的品牌热水器，价格为2000多元。

2022年3月30日，陈宏达将东莞市城市管理和综合执法局（简称东莞城管局）、第三人东莞新奥燃气公司，以及小区里的三家物业公司裕纬发展有限公司、东莞市樟木头物业管理有限公司、东莞市尚君物业管理有限公司告上法庭，称其违反《中华人民共和国宪法》第39条、《中华人民共和国刑法》第245条有关禁止侵犯公民住宅的规定，请求判令东莞城管局的行政行为违法，并公开道歉、承诺不再私闯住宅，赔偿经济损失。

东莞城管局的答辩状称，东莞城管局未组织或实施陈宏达所称的拆除燃气管道的行为，亦未授意或委托任何单位实施，该行为并非行政行为，不属于行政诉讼的受案范围，陈宏达诉请确认违法并要求东莞城管局道歉、赔偿毫无事实根据和法律依据。

新奥公司则辩称，为确保小区燃气安全用气，对超过三年未能入户安检或有安全隐患又无法联系的用户，通过户外作业方式进行临时停气封堵措施，并未私闯，也并非针对陈宏达一户进行户外封堵，且新奥燃气公司没有损害陈宏达的晾衣架。

新奥公司还称，2022年3月22日晚，陈宏达发现家里燃气无法使用，致电12345热线投诉后，新奥公司第二天安排工作人员上门安检，发现其家里燃气存在严重的安全隐患，其中热水器隐患一直未整改，称陈宏达的诉讼请求没有事实和法律依据。

2022年11月14日，东莞市中级人民法院作出裁定认为，陈宏达主张东莞城管局于2022年3月22日委派新奥公司非法进入其住宅拆除燃气管道，但并未能提供有效证据证明东莞城管局存在该委派行为，东莞城管局也明确表示未参与此事。结合陈宏达陈述的实际情况，不能确定拆除燃气管道的行为属于东莞城管局的具体行政行为。法院认为此案不属于行政诉讼受案范围，驳回陈宏达的诉讼请求。

陈宏达不服裁定，于2022年12月5日上诉至广东省高级人民法院。2023年8月23日，广东省高级人民法院驳回陈宏达的诉求。

随后，陈宏达向最高人民法院提出再审申请。他在再审申请中称，一审及上诉期间他共提交了19份证据证实，事实清楚，证据确凿，被申请人及第三人在一审、二审答辩期间亦在其所提交的证据中多番自认。但一、二审法院对这19份证据及对方所提交的自认材料视若无睹。

陈宏达在再审申请书中称，强制断气行为为行政诉讼法所明确禁止，私闯民宅亦是刑法所明令禁止的行为，被申请人及第三人的违法行为事实清楚、证据确凿，一审、二审法院的枉法裁判行为明显，故此，申请人特向最高人民法院提出再审申请，由最高人民法院立案、审理。

陈宏达 认为，这是城管单位介入断气这一行政行为的直接证据。受访者 图

他特别指出，二审法院在裁定书中称，他提交的《关于对长期未安检民用户管控的函》超过法定期限，但早在一审期间，东莞新奥燃气有限公司答辩时就已向一审法院提交过同样一份证据，提起上诉后，一审法院已向二审法院移交。上诉期间，他又提交了这份证据。此函落款为东莞城管局樟木头分局和东莞新奥燃气公司，是东莞城管局授权拆除行为的明确证据，希望获最高人民法院采纳。

陈宏达称，实施强制断气行为当天，他全天在家中，没有接到燃气公司的电话，也没有任何人来敲门。“我并不拒绝进行合法的燃气安全检查工作，但东莞新奥燃气公司及被告城管局在私闯住宅之后，在法庭材料中自始至终未提供私闯民宅时燃气管道存在重大安全隐患的有效证明。”陈宏达说，被拆除的燃气管道位于家中阳台，阳台属于房产证载明的室内空间，拆除行为发生在民宅内。

新闻译文：

Interface News reporter | Zhao Meng

Interface News Editor | Liu Haichuan

On March 22, 2022, lawyer Chen Hongda discovered that a gas pipeline in his home had gone missing, and natural gas supply had been cut off. After multiple complaints from him, it was learned that the pipeline was dismantled by the gas supplier Dongguan Xinao Gas Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dongguan Xinao Gas), and this action was authorized by the urban management unit.

Although the supply of gas has been restored, Chen Hongda believes that this behavior is a private intrusion into residential properties. He has sued the urban management unit, gas company, and property management company, hoping to make their behavior illegal and compensate for the losses. After being rejected by the court in the first and second trials, Chen Hongda applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial. He recently learned that the Supreme People's Court has filed a retrial of this case on March 28th.

Chen Hongda told Interface News that on the day of the incident, he spent all day at his home in Dihao Garden, Zhangmutou Town, Dongguan City. In the evening, he found that the gas equipment could not be used, thinking that the community had stopped gas. Later that night, he checked the gas meter installed on the balcony and found that a section of the pipeline connecting the gas meter was missing. There was a sticker with the name "Dongguan Xinao Gas Co., Ltd." left where the pipeline was cut off.

Chen Hongda immediately reported the situation through channels such as 12345 and the Dongguan Sunshine Hotline political platform network.

Later, he learned from other homeowners that many of their gas pipelines had also been dismantled. Later, Dongguan Xinao Gas Company requested to replace the gas meter with a new one, or requested to purchase the water heater provided by Xinao Gas, citing safety hazards in the water heater. Chen Hongda questioned that the demolition was an illegal act of breaking into residential buildings by a gas company under the authorization of Dongguan Urban Management Bureau, with the aim of promoting the company's water heaters and other equipment under the pretext of gas safety.

The next day, the gas company came to his door and reinstalled the pipeline, dismantled the old mechanical measuring meter, and installed a new electronic measuring meter. In addition, the gas company also requested to replace the water heater. The installation workers also showed Chen Hongda the "Notice on the Safe Use of Gas Appliances" stamped with the official seal of the Zhangmutou Branch of the Dongguan City Urban Management and Comprehensive law Enforcement Bureau, which stated that "gas supply will be suspended for gas users who do not implement or refuse rectification.".

On March 25th, Xinao Gas Company replied to Chen Hongda via text message, confirming that the dismantling of gas pipelines had been carried out, and stating that the operation was carried out at high altitude with the accompaniment of the property management company staff in the community.

Another homeowner in the community, Mr. Qiao, told Interface News that his home failed to recharge after running out of gas last year. Later, the gas company told him that the water heater at home had safety hazards and needed to be replaced. They also promoted the gas company's own water heater to him, saying, "It's only a little over a thousand yuan to buy one from outside, and they may need two to three thousand yuan.". Mr. Qiao insisted on purchasing a water heater worth over 1000 yuan in the market, but some elderly people in the community were bought water heaters promoted by gas companies.

After replacing the water heater, Mr. Qiao applied to restore gas supply. After the gas company personnel came to inspect it, they also pointed out that there were safety hazards in the kitchen's gas pipeline and promoted a small device installed on the pipeline, which cost more than 100 yuan. At that time, he was not at home, and his wife had to accept sales before resuming gas supply. Later, he found out online that this small device was only priced at 20-30 yuan.

Interface News called Xinao Gas Company, and a staff member said that the gas company did not force the promotion of water heaters, but "it would be faster to install our own". As for the price, he mentioned a brand water heater from Xinao Gas, which is priced at over 2000 yuan.

On March 30, 2022, Chen Hongda filed a lawsuit against Dongguan Urban Management and Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau (referred to as Dongguan Urban Management Bureau), a third party Dongguan Xinao Gas Company, as well as three property management companies in the community, Yuwei Development Co., Ltd., Dongguan Zhangmutou Property Management Co., Ltd., and Dongguan Shangjun Property Management Co., Ltd., alleging that they violated Article 39 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and Article 245 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, which prohibits infringement of citizens' homes. He requested that the administrative actions of Dongguan Urban Management Bureau be ordered to be illegal, and publicly apologized and promised not to illegally enter homes and compensate for economic losses.

The defense of Dongguan Urban Management Bureau stated that it did not organize or implement Chen Hongda's alleged act of dismantling gas pipelines, nor did it instruct or entrust any unit to carry out it. This act is not an administrative act and does not fall within the scope of administrative litigation. Chen Hongda's lawsuit to confirm the illegality and demand an apology and compensation from Dongguan Urban Management Bureau has no factual or legal basis.

Xinao Company argued that in order to ensure the safe use of gas in the community, temporary gas stoppage and blocking measures were taken through outdoor operations for users who have not been able to enter the house for more than three years or have safety hazards and cannot be contacted. They did not intrude or block Chen Hongda's household outdoors, and Xinao Gas Company did not damage Chen Hongda's clothes rack.

New Ao Company also stated that on the evening of March 22, 2022, Chen Hongda discovered that his gas at home could not be used. After calling the 12345 hotline to complain, New Ao Company arranged for staff to come to his home for security checks the next day, and found that there were serious safety hazards in his gas at home. Among them, the hidden danger of the water heater had not been rectified, and claimed that Chen Hongda's lawsuit had no factual and legal basis.

On November 14, 2022, the Intermediate People's Court of Dongguan City ruled that Chen Hongda claimed that Dongguan Urban Management Bureau had illegally dispatched Xinao Company to dismantle gas pipelines in his residence on March 22, 2022, but failed to provide valid evidence to prove that Dongguan Urban Management Bureau had engaged in such delegation behavior. Dongguan Urban Management Bureau also clearly stated that it did not participate in this matter. Based on the actual situation stated by Chen Hongda, it cannot be determined that the act of dismantling the gas pipeline belongs to the specific administrative action of Dongguan Urban Management Bureau. The court considers that this case does not fall within the scope of administrative litigation and rejects Chen Hongda's lawsuit request.

Chen Hongda was dissatisfied with the ruling and appealed to the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court on December 5, 2022. On August 23, 2023, the Guangdong Provincial High People's Court rejected Chen Hongda's appeal.

Subsequently, Chen Hongda submitted a retrial application to the Supreme People's Court. In his application for retrial, he stated that he submitted a total of 19 pieces of evidence during the first instance and appeal, which were clear and conclusive. The respondent and the third party also repeatedly admitted themselves to the evidence they submitted during the first and second instance defenses. But the first and second instance courts turned a blind eye to these 19 pieces of evidence and the self admission materials submitted by the other party.

In his application for retrial, Chen Hongda stated that the act of forcibly cutting off gas is explicitly prohibited by the Administrative Procedure Law, and breaking into residential buildings is also explicitly prohibited by the Criminal Law. The facts of the illegal acts of the respondent and third parties are clear and the evidence is conclusive, and the wrongful judgments of the first and second instance courts are obvious. Therefore, the applicant hereby applies for retrial to the Supreme People's Court, which will file and hear the case.

Chen Hongda believes that this is direct evidence of the intervention of urban management units in the administrative act of cutting off gas. Interviewee image

He specifically pointed out that the second instance court stated in the ruling that the letter he submitted regarding the control of long-term non security checked civilian users exceeded the statutory deadline. However, as early as during the first instance, Dongguan Xinao Gas Co., Ltd. had already submitted the same evidence to the first instance court in its defense. After filing an appeal, the first instance court had already transferred it to the second instance court. During the appeal, he submitted this evidence again. This letter is signed by Zhangmutou Branch of Dongguan Urban Management Bureau and Dongguan Xinao Gas Company, and is clear evidence of the authorized demolition action of Dongguan Urban Management Bureau. It is hoped to be adopted by the Supreme People's Court.

Chen Hongda said that on the day of implementing the mandatory gas outage, he was at home all day and did not receive a call from the gas company, nor did anyone knock on the door. "I do not refuse to conduct legal gas safety inspections, but Dongguan Xinao Gas Company and the defendant Urban Management Bureau did not provide valid proof of significant safety hazards in the gas pipeline during the unauthorized intrusion into the residential area in court documents from beginning to end." Chen Hongda said that the dismantled gas pipeline was located on the balcony of the house, which belongs to the indoor space specified in the property certificate, and the demolition occurred inside the residential area.

重点词汇

• 新闻记者 journalist ; reporter ; newsman ; newspaperman ; journo

• 新闻编辑 news editor

• 燃气管道 Gas pipeline ; gas pipes

• 天然气 natural gas

• 有限公司 corporation ; limited company ; limited liability company ; limited partnership

• 物业公司 Property management ; property management company ; P.M.C

• 赔偿损失 compensate for loss ; indemnify for damage ; make amends to ; indemnify sb. for the loss incurred

• 最高人民法院 Supreme People's Court

• 申请再审 apply for retrial

• 人民法院 People's Courts

句子成分分析：

Chen Hongda said | that [on the day (of implementing the mandatory gas outage)], he was at home [all day] and 

did not receive a call from the gas company, || nor did anyone knock on the door.

句子语法结构详解：

(said 为 say 的过去式。)

* said 为谓语，采用一般过去时。
* that 为连词，引导宾语从句。
* implementing 为动名词，作介词宾语。
* was 为系动词作谓语，采用一般过去时。
* receive 为谓语，采用一般过去时。
* nor 引导倒装句。
* knock 为谓语，采用一般过去时。
* he 为人称代词主格。anyone 为不定代词。did 为助动词。the 为定冠词。a 为不定冠词。

相关语法知识:
   时态
   宾语从句
   动名词
   系动词
   并列连词
   倒装句
   all 的用法
   人称代词 | 助动词 | 不定代词

句子相关词汇解释：

Phrase:

Vocabulary:

句子成分分析：

The court considers | that this case does not fall [within the scope (of administrative litigation)] and rejects Chen 

Hongda's lawsuit request.

句子语法结构详解：

* considers 为谓语，采用一般现在时。动词采用第三人称单数形式。
* that 为连词，引导宾语从句。
* fall 为谓语，采用一般现在时。
* rejects 为谓语，采用一般现在时。动词采用第三人称单数形式。
* does 为助动词。Chen Hongda's 为名词所有格。the 为定冠词。

句子相关词汇解释：

Vocabulary:

以上是蜂词为您整理编写的文章《东莞一律师家被强制断供天然气，最高院立案再审 ——秒词邦背单词app》的全部内容。蜂词是国内权威分题型分考点背诵中高考/四六级考研/专升本/出国单词的专业单词软件。扫描如下小程序码，进入蜂词官方小程序获取更多英语相关资料！ 【关键词：高考单词；高考英语；高中单词；高中英语；单词app；单词软件；记单词app；记单词软件；背单词软件；背单词app；英语单词；四六级单词；四六级英语；四六级单词app；四六级单词软件；考研单词app；考研单词软件；核心单词；高考冲刺复习；高考英语教材；高考英语真题；四六级真题；四六级试题；考研真题；考研英语单词；考研英语真题】