云南省人民政府办公厅关于印发云南省推广使用安全套管理暂行办法的通知
作者:法律资料网 时间:2024-05-20 22:09:31 浏览:8164
来源:法律资料网
云南省人民政府办公厅关于印发云南省推广使用安全套管理暂行办法的通知
云南省人民政府办公厅
云南省人民政府办公厅关于印发云南省推广使用安全套管理暂行办法的通知
云政办发〔2007〕1号
各州、市人民政府，省直各委、办、厅、局：
经省人民政府同意，现将《云南省推广使用安全套管理暂行办法》印发给你们，请认真贯彻执行。
二○○七年一月五日
云南省推广使用安全套管理暂行办法
第一条 为了推广使用安全套，有效预防和控制艾滋病、性病的流行和蔓延，保障人体健康和公共卫生，根据《中华人民共和国传染病防治法》、《艾滋病防治条例》及有关法律、法规，结合本省实际，制定本暂行办法(以下简称本办法)。
第二条 各级人民政府应当加强对推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作的领导，建立政府领导、部门负责、全社会参与的工作机制，确保推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作的开展。
第三条 各级人民政府鼓励支持机关、团体、企事业单位和其他组织及个人，参与推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作，并保障其合法权益。
第四条 县级以上人口和计划生育行政主管部门负责本行政区域内推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作，组织对推广使用安全套工作的评估。
第五条 卫生行政主管部门负责组织医疗机构、疾病预防控制机构和保健机构开展正确使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病知识的宣传；组织性病门诊、医疗卫生单位落实推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病的措施；组织对有易感染艾滋病病毒危险行为的人群开展推广使用安全套的工作。
第六条 财政部门应当将推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作所需经费列入财政预算，保障推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病的工作经费。
第七条 食品药品监督管理部门应当依法加强对安全套生产、经营企业的监督和产品的监督，监督安全套产品质量；制定政策，便于安全套销售、推广和使用。
第八条 出入境检验检疫、质量技术监督部门应当按照国家标准加强对安全套产品的监督管理，依法实施对安全套产品的强制性认证，保障安全套的质量。
第九条 工商行政主管部门负责制定推广使用安全套公益广告的支持性政策和管理规定；依法监管安全套经营单位的经营行为，查处流通领域的假冒伪劣安全套产品。
第十条 旅游行政主管部门负责督促星级宾馆酒店、旅游景区落实推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病措施；把推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作纳入星级宾馆酒店、旅游景区星级评定及工作成效考核的内容。
第十一条 广播、电视、报刊、互联网等新闻媒体，应当开展推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病知识的公益宣传。
第十二条 公安部门负责依法查处卖淫嫖娼行为，净化社会环境。
第十三条 各级人口和计划生育行政主管部门会同卫生行政主管部门，对艾滋病病毒感染者和艾滋病病人免费提供安全套。
免费提供安全套应当遵循满足需要、避免浪费、保证质量、不歧视和保密的原则。
第十四条 宾馆、饭店、旅馆、招待所等提供住宿的公共场所和营业性娱乐服务公共场所的经营者，经批准开办戒毒治疗业务或者从事艾滋病、性病诊治业务的医疗机构，应当在营业场所、诊疗场所（以下统称公共场所）摆放安全套或者设置安全套发售设施，并设置有关标识，对预防艾滋病、性病知识进行说明。
星级宾馆、饭店摆放的安全套由经营者负责免费提供；非星级宾馆、饭店、旅馆、招待所摆放的安全套由政府主管部门免费提供。
各级人口和计划生育行政主管部门应当采取有效措施，保障低价优质安全套的供给，为在公共场所摆放安全套做好服务工作。
第十五条 任何单位和个人不得拒绝、妨碍摆放安全套或者设置安全套发售设施，不得破坏安全套发售设施。
第十六条 人口和计划生育、卫生、食品药品监督、质量技术监督、工商、文化、旅游、公安等行政主管部门，应当加强对公共场所摆放安全套质量的监督检查。
第十七条 人口和计划生育行政主管部门应当组织做好推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病的宣传教育工作，组织有关部门对公共场所摆放安全套和设置安全套发售设施情况进行监督检查。
第十八条 人口和计划生育行政主管部门应当会同卫生、工商、文化、旅游等行政主管部门，组织开展对公共场所经营者推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病知识的培训。
第十九条 公共场所经营者应当开展推广使用安全套的宣传，组织服务人员开展防治艾滋病、性病知识的培训；查验服务人员健康合格证明，不得允许未取得健康合格证明的人员从事服务工作。
公共场所服务人员应当依法取得健康合格证明，方能从事服务工作。
第二十条 各级人民政府及其人口和计划生育行政主管部门，应当对推广使用安全套预防艾滋病、性病工作中成绩显著的单位和个人给予表彰和奖励。
第二十一条 违反本办法第十三条第一款规定，向免费提供对象收取安全套费用的，由县级以上人民政府责令退还，对责任人员依法给予行政处分；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
第二十二条 违反本办法第十四条第一款、第二款和第十九条第一款规定的，按照有关法规予以处理。
第二十三条 本办法自2007年1月9日起施行。
最高人民法院、国家计划委员会、公安部、国内贸易部关于解决派驻劳改劳教场所法院干部家属“农转非”问题的意见
最高人民法院等
最高人民法院、国家计划委员会、公安部、国内贸易部关于解决派驻劳改劳教场所法院干部家属“农转非”问题的意见
1993年9月6日，最高人民法院等
人民法院设立在劳改劳教场所的人民法庭担负着死缓、无期徒刑，有期徒刑等犯人的减刑、假释和又犯罪案件的审判工作。派驻劳改劳教场所的法庭工作人员与劳改劳教干部、检察干部只是工作分工不同，其生活、工作条件都是完全一样的，因此，他们的家属和子女的“农转非”问题应参照劳改劳教干部和检察干部家属“农转非”的原则和条件予以解决。根据中央关于加强劳改劳教工作的指示和有关政策，为进一步贯彻《全国法院减刑、假释工作座谈会纪要》的精神，稳定设立在劳改劳教场所的人民法院审判队伍，参照中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅1981年转发《第八次全国劳改工作会议纪要》确定的原则和公安部、劳动人事部、商业部、最高人民检察院1984年下发的《关于解决人民检察院劳改劳教检察派出机构干部的农村亲属迁往派出机构所在地区落户由国家供应口粮问题的规定》，经研究对人民法院设立在劳改劳教场所人民法庭工作的干部家属办理“农转非”的具体条件和审批手续提出如下意见：
一、准许家属落户的条件
凡派驻在劳改劳教农场和大中城市近郊区、县以外的劳改劳教工业单位区域内人民法庭的干部，参加工作15年以上，或年龄在38周岁以上，或现任审判员以上职务的，其在农村的配偶和符合计划生育政策的15周岁及15周岁以下子女（包括超过15周岁在校中学生或因病残生活不能自理的），以及丧失劳动能力、在农村无依无靠、唯一靠法院工作人员赡养的父母，应当允许将户口迁入人民法庭所在地，粮食部门办理市镇粮食供应手续，保留市镇定量人口的粮食供应关系，在未放开粮价的地方由国家供应口粮。所增加的支出，由地方财政负担。
二、审批的权限和手续
人民法院设立在劳改劳教场所人民法庭工作的干部农村家属到人民法庭所在地落户，由上一级人民法院审查后，层报最高人民法院审核。经审核认定和地市公安、粮食部门批准，到所在地公安和粮食机关办理户粮手续。
法院干部家属“农转非”所需指标，列入国家计划。根据最高人民法院汇总核实的数字，由国家分别下达给有关省、自治区、直辖市，各地负责统筹安排。
三、设立在劳改劳教场所的人民法庭干部家属“农转非”后，除提升等特殊情况外，本人至少在3至5年内不得申请调离现岗位
Stratic Advice on Intellectual Property Investment in Asia
苏冉
IssueⅠ: Legal framework of protection on software copyright in P.R.C and Singapore
A) P.R.C
In conjunction with China’s astonishing economic growth over the past two decades, especially after the entrance to WTO, China has steadily improved its legal framework on Software Copyright by checking and clearing large-scale regulations both in domestic and international activities.
Frankly speaking, China joined in three vital international treaties relate to copyright: the Berne Convention , TRIPs and Universal Copyright Convention. Moreover, China and US signed MOU especially for software in January 1992. All these Conventions are regarded as a milestone to reflect China’s dramatic promotion and strong determination to build a satisfactory environment for foreign software investors.
Similarly to US, P.R.C has chosen to protect software under copyright law rather than trademark, patent, or contract law. One year after Copyright Law Amendment in 2001, Chinese Council corrected its software-specific “Computer Software Protection Rules” , to deal with new problems prevailing in software protection nowadays. Under the Rule, software is defined as two particular types: computer program and their relevant documentation. Furthermore, since MOU came into force, computer software is protected as a literary work. Third, according to the conditional nation treatment here, foreigners are required to comply with “connecting factor”, to sum up, either first publication or nationality/residence of the author in China or in any of these countries ,between the work and China or a country who is a member of the WTO, or the Berne Convention. So, despite your software products first being published in US, you can still enjoy the original copyright and the legal protection on in China.
Except from the above rules, other laws also have supportive stipulation on the protection of software copyrights as follows:
(a)The General Principle of Civil Law, the country’s current basic civil law, has authorized the author’s copyright in general;
(b)The Criminal Code has a section of articles referring to piracy offences, with “Dual Punishment Principle” in front of copyright encroachment;
(c)The newly amended Foreign Trade Law (adopted in Feb).
B) Singapore
The general legal framework of software copyright protection in Singapore is almost the same as P.R.C, but with some characteristics of its own. Actually, different from P.R.C based on Civil law background, laws and litigations in Singapore are principally modeled on the English system under Common law system till nowadays. Pursuant to certain legal revolutions, modern copyright legislation contains the same international conventions as P.R.C: the Berne Conventions, Universal Copyright Convention, and TRIPs. But, Singapore signed ASEAN Framework on Intellectual Property Cooperation and the WIPO Copyright Treaty as a member of ASEAN. Turning to its domestic laws, the latest Copyright Act 1999(revised edition) is the principle one, with some other relevant regulations for enforcement. And it also definites software program into literary work under protection. In addition, Singapore owes large resources of case laws so as to make its legal conditions more particular than that in P.R.C.
The amended Act is first purposed to address issues arising from the use of copyright materials in a digital environment, especially provide legal certainty for the use of copyright in cyberspace. For instance, the extension of concept “reproduction” .Second, the Act plays another role in enhancing performer’s rights, offering two new defenses to allegations of copyright infringement. Therefore, merely surfing the Web doesn’t constitute software copyright infringement, if it’s necessary to browse. Even , Singapore passed the Electronic Transactions Act 1998 to give statutory protection of Network Service Providers. At these points, Singapore seemingly forwards a step further than P.R.C, declining its attention on encouraging the growth of a knowledge-based economy and promoting E-commerce and creative innovations. Last but the most significant point, Singapore and the United State signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) on May 6th 2003, and entered it into force from January 1st 2004. Virtually, this is the first FTA between US and an Asia country .So it’s doubtlessly the greatest advantage for Singapore to attract US investors, apart from other Asian countries. They would encourage the entrepreneurship, investment, job creation and growth in our own technology, science and creative industries as well as set the stage for Singapore’s emergence as a global IP hub.
Issue Ⅱ: Implementation on Software Copyright Law in P.R.C and Singapore
Sufficient and effective enforcement is more useful and practical than recorded documents, with no exception to P.R.C and Singapore.
(ⅰ)Role of Government
A)P.R.C
Learned from Annual Report on the Protection of Intellectual Property Right in China during the past 5 years by the head officer Jingchuan Wang in TableⅠ , you can see copyright administration at various levels make remarkable progress in encouraging innovation, promoting industrial development, regulating market order, and even improving the opening-up policy.
As a matter of fact, the People’s Courts, the People’s Prosecution Department, National Copyright Administration Centre and Public Security compose the backbone of the implementation of copyright law in China with civil remedies, criminal sensations and administrative punishments, such as fine. And border enforcement assistance to copyright owners by the Customs and Excise Department is also available.
TableⅠ:
The Administration on Software Copyright In P.R.C
Year Registration Prosecute Cases Resolved Cases Resolved Cases Rate Seized Pirates(M) Top 1 Region of Piracy
1999 1,041 1,616 1,515 93.75% 20.14 Shenzhen
2000 3,300 2,457 1,980 95.30% 32.60 Guangdong
2001 4,620 2,683 2,327 97.52% 61.75 Guangdong
2002 4,860 2,740 2,604 99.02% 67.90 Guangdong
2003 5,020 6,120 5,793 97.64% 73.28 Beijing
Statistics from NCAC (National Copyright Administration Centre
Fortunately, China has begun to regard software as an industry with strategic significance while formulating effective policies in areas including anti-piracy and anti-monopoly. To adapt to the legal framework, China has shifted its attention upon educating software users and strengthening the law. “Government departments are being asked to show a good example in using copyrighted software only and make software budget each year”. For example, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangdong buy over 3,000 software products every year through public bidding. What’s more, the National Software Government Procurement Regulation will probably act in the near future. Eventually, Chinese government is trying to treat all software companies equal in P.R.C, no matter domestic or foreign countries.
Nevertheless, given China’s vast geography and population, it would be an awesome task for the central government to manage pirating activities throughout the entire country. On the other hand, due to lack of resources, the lack of judicial expertise, the unpredictability of trial outcomes, and large costs, litigation in Chinese courts remains a risky and expensive response to Chinese copyright violations. Another administrative difficulty arises from the increasing decentralization of the Chinese government. Much of China's copyright enforcement takes place at the provincial and local levels; the national government lacks the resources and control to effectively monitor nationwide pirating activity and to impose national enforcement policies.
B) Singapore
Switching to Singapore, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS) is its senior administration department, and it leads Singapore to the success in copyright infrastructure. Singapore has announced a number of meaningful standards through requirements for tough penalties to combat piracy and counterfeiting, including, in civil cases, procedures for seizure and destruction of pirated and counterfeit products, and a requirement to provide for statutory and actual damages to remedy such practices. There has been a rule in Singapore that government could only allowed to use copyrighted software since 1996. In order to obtain efficiency, Singapore maintain civil remedies and criminal penalties for circumvention of technology protection measures, and it also has in place implementation allowing for border seizures of infringing articles by customs officials. For example, the copyright infringement is punished with a maximum fine of S$100,000 or five years’ imprisonment or both. So, in comparison to P.R.C, the least time for imprisonment is shorter .But due to the judge’s free power under common law system, the court is increasingly harsh in their sentencing in respect of infringement of copyright. In other words, criminal obligation will become heavier with more limitation in Singapore.
In the contrast with Chinese administrative punishments, Singapore has a large scope of interlocutory remedies to fill in the blank area between civil remedies and criminal sensations, and they are three main types:
(a) the interlocutory injunction---It is an injunction obtained before the trail often with the main objective of maintaining the Stats quo between the parties pending the outcome of the trail. The interlocutory injunction may be in a mandatory or prohibitory form.
(b) the Anton Piller Order---It’s developed from Anton Piller KG v.Mfg Processes Ltd as a safeguard system of evidence for avoiding the defendant to destroy and hide the evidence of copyright infringement, if the plaintiff shows an extremely strong prima facie that his right are being interfered with, or the damage, potential or actual are very serious to the plaintiff, or even there must be clear evidence to proof the defendants faults.
(c) the Norwich Pharmacal Order.---The further expansion of Anton Piller Order to raise over the privilege against self-incrimination from Rank Film Distributors Ltd v. Video Information Centre Virtually . However, case law in Singapore has now established that where the privilege against self-incrimination exists, an undertaking from the plaintiff/ applicant not to use the information obtained in criminal proceedings is not an adequate safeguard for the defendant’s privilege against self-crimination. Singapore courts have also held that they don’t have the power to order that the information be inadmissible in any subsequent criminal prosecution.
Relying on common law foundation, people in Singapore prefer to a lawsuit rather than mediation while more mediation in P.R.C, once in the face of a dispute. Consequently, it would like to be more time and energy consuming somehow, for it costs at least one year of a civil procedure in the High Court of Singapore.
Last but not least, along with legsilation changes, Singapore Administration departments are also mounting a public campaign targeting both consumers and businesses to increase their awareness on the benefits and other implications of the new laws. There’s broad-based public awareness initiatives like the HIP Alliance’s year-long anti-piracy campaign? “The Real thing is the Right thing”, and brain Wave, Singapore’s first reality television show on IP.
(ⅱ)Role of Anti- Piracy Organizations
Both P.R.C and Singapore joined in Business Software Alliance (BSA) ,and WIPO several years ago and established domestic anti-piracy alliances at their own respective locality. The alliances played an active part in combating piracy and protecting the interests of right holders. They always declare laws, promulgate routine reports of current protection on TV, newspapers, and Website and show different points between pirate and authorized products. In the contrast with P.R.C, Singapore has other special disputes resolution organs under its common law system, including the small claims tribunals, E-commerce disputes centre. What’s more, Singapore collaborates with other ASAEN countries to harmonize IP rights with international and regional organizations such as the Office of Harmonization of the Internal Market (OHIM), the European Union, the French National Office of Industrial Property, and IP Australia.
(ⅲ)Introduction of Judgments in Precedent Cases
A) P.R.C
In a landmark verdict on April 16, 1996 against Beijing JuRen Computer, the Beijing No.1 Intermediate Court delivered judgment in favor of the Business Software Alliance (BSA) upholding the plaintiffs' intellectual property rights and ordering the defendant to (a) publicly apologize to the plaintiff; (b) pay over RMB600,000 (US$70,000) in damages, including court costs and accounting costs; (c) pay additional fines directly to the court. The court also ordered the defendant to undertake not to infringe intellectual property rights in the future, and the law enforcement officials to confiscate all computers and software seized during the raid on the defendant's premises. In another case, the same court rendered a judgment against Beijing Giant Computer Co. for software copyright infringement. These were the first cases decided in favor of a US plaintiff in a Chinese court.
