A consumption dispute, which took four years and failed to be resolved by several administrative units and judicial organs, was finally successfully resolved by the procuratorial organ, adhering to the people centered judicial philosophy, and adhering to comprehensive review and source of litigation governance.  

　　 Small shopping cards cause administrative disputes  

　　 Q

　　 Can consumers return and exchange stored value cards after purchasing them? Is the clause "This card will not be returned or replaced once sold" legal?   　

　　 The Regulations of Anhui Province on the Protection of Consumers' Rights and Interests clearly stipulates that operators shall not exclude or restrict consumers' rights by means of standard terms, notices, etc. Therefore, the use of "no return" and "no return" clauses on stored value cards in supermarkets, shopping malls and cake shops is invalid, which violates the legitimate rights and interests of consumers and is illegal.  

　　 In this case, Mr. Cheng's request for the enterprise involved to return or replace the stored value card was rejected. After repeated communication failed, he complained to the administrative law enforcement department, which gave warning punishment to the enterprise involved. Mr. Cheng refused to accept the administrative punishment made by the administrative law enforcement department, and still failed to get support after applying for administrative reconsideration to the higher administrative organ, and then filed an administrative lawsuit to the court The second trial was not supported. Originally a simple consumer complaint, it turned into a protracted administrative dispute. On January 21, 2022, Mr. Cheng applied to the procuratorial organ for supervision.  

　　 The procuratorial work not only accepts the "law knot" but also solves the "heart knot"  

　　 This administrative dispute spans two administrative jurisdictions, two administrative organs, two people's courts, and administrative law enforcement departments, administrative reconsideration organs, and courts have repeatedly failed to mediate. This is an ordinary case of illegal supervision of administrative trial proceedings. After accepting the case of administrative supervision, the Procuratorate of Jiujiang District clarified the facts of the case, the focus of controversy, and conducted in-depth investigation and verification.

　　 The undertaking prosecutor adopts the "one-on-one" communication mode of "back-to-back" to thoroughly solve the substantive issues and contradictions and disputes concerned by both parties and obtain the "optimal solution" of the case. We have discussed and judged the facts of the case and the application of law with the two administrative law enforcement departments.  

　　 Through candid conversation with the applicant, the case prosecutor learned that the applicant believed that the law enforcement was unfair, so he refused to mediate, which led to the deadlock of the case. In order to untie the "heart knot" of the applicant, the undertaking prosecutor patiently explained the case to him, and repeatedly interpreted and communicated with him from both legal and reasonable aspects, indicating that the procuratorial organ would accurately supervise.  

　　 At the same time, we interviewed the enterprises involved in the case, explained their legal principles, and made them aware of illegal acts from the perspective of enterprise responsibility. On the basis of fully respecting both parties' willingness to mediate and actively communicating, the Jiujiang District Procuratorate held an administrative procuratorial hearing on the case on March 30, 2022. The disputes among the four parties were resolved on the spot. The enterprise admitted its mistakes and compensated the parties. The administrative authorities all said that they would make a new punishment decision, and the parties promised to stop the lawsuit and visit.    

　　 "Self management" promotes "city management" and promotes social governance  

　　 The Jiujiang District Procuratorate found that the administrative law enforcement department in this case failed to accurately enforce the law due to the wrong application of the law to the administrative punishment of the enterprise involved; The administrative reconsideration organ has maintained the wrong decision on administrative penalty; The enterprises involved in the case have illegal business practices that exclude the legitimate rights and interests of consumers.  

　　 This time, the administrative dispute was resolved substantively, and the undertaking prosecutors were active in performing their duties. By focusing on "our management" and promoting "city management", they thoroughly analyzed the loopholes in law enforcement and business problems reflected in the cases, fully used procuratorial suggestions in resolving conflicts, extended the scope of supervision to the field of social governance, and helped the administrative organs implement law accurately, The key point is to standardize the application of law to administrative punishment in such cases. It warned the enterprises involved in the case to operate according to law, and comprehensively corrected the similar illegal phenomena in the industry, creating an environment of assured consumption.