Is trade secret the reason for refusing to disclose government information?

（1） Basic case

On October 10, 2011, Wang Zongli applied to the information disclosure Office of Tianjin Heping District People's Government (hereinafter referred to as Heping District Information Disclosure Office) to disclose the information about the entrusted demolition agreement signed by Heping District Financial Street company and Heping District Land Consolidation Center and the relevant fees paid to the land consolidation center. On October 11, 2011, the information disclosure Office of Heping District transferred Wang Zongli's application to Heping District Real Estate Administration (hereinafter referred to as Heping District Real Estate Administration), which is responsible for responding to Wang Zongli. In October 2011, Heping District Housing Authority issued a third-party consultation letter to Financial Street company, requesting Financial Street company to reply. On October 24, 2011, Heping District Housing Authority issued the notice concerning the rights and interests of the third party, informing Wang Zongli that the content of the application for inquiry involves business secrets, and the obligee failed to reply within the prescribed time limit and will not make it public. Wang Zongli filed an administrative lawsuit to request the cancellation of the notice, and sentenced the defendant to provide the government information he applied for within 15 days according to law.

（2） Referee result

After the trial, Tianjin Heping District People's court held that after examining Wang Zongli's application for government information disclosure, Heping District Housing Authority only issued a third-party consultation letter to Financial Street company, and did not investigate and verify whether Wang Zongli's application for government information disclosure involves business secrets. In the lawsuit, Heping District Housing Authority also failed to provide any evidence that Wang Zongli's application for government information involves business secrets, which makes it impossible for the court to judge whether Wang Zongli's application for public government information involves business secrets of a third party. Therefore, the evidence of the notice concerning the rights and interests of third parties made by Heping District Housing Authority is insufficient, which is obviously inappropriate. The judgment revokes the sued notice concerning the rights and interests of the third party, and requires Heping District Housing Authority to make a public reply to the government information again within 30 days after the judgment takes effect.

After the judgment of the first instance, none of the parties appealed, and the judgment of the first instance has legal effect.

（3） Lawyer's statement

The focus of this case is on the disclosure of government information involving trade secrets and the application of the procedure for soliciting the opinions of third parties. In the practice of government information disclosure, the administrative organ often refuses to disclose the government information applied for because it involves trade secrets, but sometimes it abuses it. The concept of trade secret has a strict connotation. According to the provisions of anti unfair competition law, trade secret refers to the technical information and business information that is not known to the public, can bring economic benefits to the obligee, has practicability and has been taken confidential measures by the obligee. The administrative organ should carry out examination according to this standard, and should not make a decision simply by the third party's consent or not. The people's court shall, in the examination of legality, make a judgment on whether it constitutes a trade secret or not based on the evidence provided by the administrative organ. In this case, in the administrative procedure of Heping District Housing Administration Bureau, the information applied for disclosure without investigation and verification is directly and subjectively identified as involving trade secrets. In the litigation procedure, the court is not provided with evidence and basis for the relevant government information involving trade secrets, which leads to the court's inability to examine the factual evidence of "involving trade secrets" identified in the notice of action, and thus the court is unable to recognize it Determine whether the conclusion is correct. Based on this, it is in line with the original intention of legislation to make a final judgment against the administrative organ. This case is of typical exemplary significance for regulating how the people's court reviews and judges the government information involving business secrets in the administrative case of government information disclosure.