Title: Supreme People's Court interpretation on the application of the "Administrative Litigation Law of the P.R.C." Promulgating Entities: Supreme People's Court Reference number: Promulgation Date: 2018-2-6 Expiration date: Source of text: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA3MjEwNzYzOQ==&mid=2650502838&idx=2&sn=77e882c5e8d8c8409cf803ca7ce00e01&chksm=872c85aeb05b0cb82a439160ed8f12fe2bb6d47aba57ffab76b7663742a6147b2dfb64f4d214&mpshare=1&scene=23&srcid=02074VBJZ0x0s2qDLeInGZx5#rd
Table of Contents
VI. Indictment and Case Acceptance
VIII. Responsible Persons for Administrative Organs Appearing in Court in Response to Litigation
IX. Reconsideration Organs as Joint Defendants
X. Combined Trial of Civil Disputes
XI. Joint review of normative documents
XIII. Supplementary Provisions
This interpretation is formulated so as to correctly apply the "People's Republic of China Administrative Litigation Law" (hereinafter simply Administrative Litigation Law") in combination with the actual conditions of the people's courts' administrative trial work.
I. Scope of Case Acceptance
Article 1: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations are dissatisfied with the administrative acts of administrative organs or their staffs and raise lawsuits in accordance with law, it is within the scope of people's courts acceptance of administrative litigation.
The following acts are not within the scope of people's court acceptance of administrative litigation:
(1) Acts that the public security, state security, or other organs are clearly authorized by the Criminal Procedure Law to carry out;
(2) Mediation acts as well as legally-prescribed arbitration acts;
(3) Acts of administrative guidance;
(4) Repeated acts rejecting a parties raising collateral appeal regarding administrative acts;
(5) Acts by an administrative organ that do not product external legal effect;
(6) Process acts such as administrative organs preparations, debate, research, reporting up, or making inquiries in furtherance of administrative acts;
(7) Acts by administrative organs made on the basis of effective judgments by the people's courts, or assisting with enforcement notices, except where the administrative organ expands the scope of enforcement or employs illegal methods.
(8) Acts by higher level administrative organs made based on internal hierarchical oversight of lower level organs, such as hearing reports, law enforcement inspections, and urging performance of duties.
(9) Acts by administrative organs made directed at petitioning matters such as registering, accepting, assigning, re-examination, or review of opinions;
(10) Acts that do not create an actual impact on the rights and obligations of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations.
Article 2: "Acts of State" as used in article 13 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to acts related to national defense and foreign affairs by the State Council, Central Military Commission, Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and so forth, authorized by the Constitution and laws, and carried out in the name of the State, as well as acts such as declarations of states of emergency by the state organs as authorized by the Constitution and laws.
"Decisions and orders that are widely binding" as used in article 13(2) of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to normative documents published by administrative organs directed at specific targets that can be used repeatedly.
"Decisions on administrative organ personnel, such as rewards and punishments, or appointments and terminations" as used in article 13(3) of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to decisions by administrative organs involving the rights and obligations of administrative organs' staff and officials.
"Laws" as used in "administrative acts for which the laws provide that an administrative organ has the final judgment" in article 13 (4) of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to normative documents formulated and adopted by the National People's Congress and its standing committee.
II. Jurisdiction
Article 3: All levels of people's courts' administrative tribunals hear administrative cases and cases reviewing administrative organs' applications for enforcement of their administrative acts.
Specialized people's courts and divisions do not hear administrative cases and also do not hear cases reviewing and enforcing administrative organs' applications for enforcement of their administrative acts. Railroad and transport courts and other such specialized people's courts hearing administrative cases shall implement the provisions of the second paragraph of Administrative Litigation Law article 18.
Article 4: After a case has been filed, the right of jurisdiction of the people's court accepting the case is not to be impacted by the parties changing residences, addition of defendants, or other such facts and changes in legal status.
Article 5: in any of the following circumstances, it is a 'significant and complicated case in the jurisdictional region" as provided in article 15 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
(1) Joint action cases with a major social impact;
(2) Cases involving foreign interests or involving the Hong Kong or Macao special administrative regions, or the Taiwan region.
(3) Other major or complicated cases.
Article 6: Where due to a case being significant or complicated, parties find that it would be improper for a basic level people's court with jurisdictional rights to exercise jurisdiction, or initiate litigation with the intermediate people's court on the basis of article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the intermediate people's court shall make a distinct ruling based on the differing circumstances within 7 days:
(1) decide to try it itself;
(2) designate a basic level people's courts in that jurisdictional region to take jurisdiction;
(3) Inform the parties in writing to raise the lawsuit in a basic level people's court with jurisdiction rights.
Article 7: Where basic level people's courts feel that an administrative case over which they have first-instance jurisdiction needs to heard by an intermediate people's court or have jurisdiction designated, they may report the situation to the intermediate people's court for a decision. Intermediate people's courts shall make one of the following distinct dispositions based on differing circumstances:
(1) decide to try it itself;
(2) designate a basic level people's courts in that jurisdictional region to take jurisdiction;
(3) Decide to have the people's court making the report hear the case.
Article 8: The 'place of the plaintiff' as used in article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Law, includes the location of the plaintiff's household registration [hukou] , habitual residence, and a location where their physical liberty has been restricted.
The people's court for the place of the defendant or the place of the plaintiff has jurisdiction regarding dissatisfaction with administrative organs employing administrative compulsory measures that restrict citizens' physical liberty, and then employ other administrative compulsory measures or administrative punishments based on the same facts.
Article 9: 'Administrative cases raised due to immovable property' as used in article 20 of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to litigation raised as a result of administrative acts leading to changes in immovable property rights.
Where immovable property is registered, the immovable property's location is that of its registration, where immovable property is not registered, the immovable property's location is its actual location.
Article 10: Where after the people's courts accept a case, defendants submit objections to jurisdiction, they shall be submitted within 15 days of receiving a copy of the complaint.
People's courts shall conduct a review of objections to jurisdiction submitted by the parties. Where the objection is sustained, rule to have the case transferred to a people's court with jurisdiction authority; where the objection is not sustained, rule to reject it.
Where people's courts determine that they have jurisdiction authority after reviewing an objection to jurisdiction, jurisdiction is not changed for reasons such as parties adding or modifying litigation demands, except where it violates jurisdiction by forum level or exclusive jurisdiction provisions.
Article 11: Where applications have any of the following situations, the people's courts shall not review them:
(1) In cases that the people's courts remand for new trial or retry in accordance with first-instance trial procedures, where the parties submit objections to jurisdiction;
(2) Where parties have not submitted an objection to jurisdiction in accordance with the legally prescribed time limits or forms during the first-instance trial procedures, but do submit them during second-instance trial procedures.
III. Litigation Participants
Article 12: In any of the following situations, it is an "interest in an administrative act" as provided for in the first paragraph of article 25 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
(1) Where the administrative act being litigated involves their adjacent rights or rights to fair competition;
(2) Where they have been added as third parties in an administrative reconsideration or other administrative procedure;
(3) Where they request administrative organs pursue the legal responsibility of an offender in accordance with law;
(4) Where revocation or modification of administrative acts involves their lawful rights and interests;
(5) Where complaints are made to administrative organs so as to preserve their own lawful rights and interests, and an administrative organ with the duty to handle complaints has made or failed to make a disposition;
(6) Other situations of having interests in administrative acts.
Article 13: Where creditors initiate administrative litigation regarding the administrative acts taken by the debtor that harm their creditor rights, the people's courts shall inform them to initiate civil litigation regarding the civil dispute, except where the administrative organ should have given protection or consideration when taking its administrative act.
Article 14: "Close family members" as used in the second paragraph of article 25 of the Administrative Litigation Law includes spouses, parents, children, siblings, paternal grandparents, maternal grandparents, grandchildren, and any other relatives that they raise or support.
Where citizens cannot initiate litigation because their physical liberty has been restricted, their close relatives may be lawfully entrusted, orally or in writing, to initiate lawsuits in the name of that citizen. Close relatives that have no way to contact a citizen whose physical liberty has been restricted when they are raising litigation may first initiate litigation and later supplement the proofs of entrustment during litigation.
Article 15: Where partnership enterprises raise lawsuits in the people's courts, they shall have the approved and verified shop name [字号] as the plaintiff. The partnership of individual partners who have not registered for business licenses are joint plaintiffs; the partnership may select a representative; and the selected representative should have a written selection document from the partnership.
Where individual-operated businesses raise lawsuits to the people's courts, the plaintiff is the operator registered on the business licenses. For those having a shop name, the shop name registered on the business license is the plaintiff, and the basic information of the operator of the shop name should be noted.
Article 16: Where joint-equity enterprises' shareholders' conference, shareholder board, board of directors, and so forth feel that administrative acts by an administrative organ has violated the enterprise's rights of operational autonomy, they may initiate a lawsuit in the name of the enterprise.
Where affiliated enterprises, sino-foreign joint ventures, or cooperative enterprises' affiliated, joint investors, or cooperating parties find that the affiliated, joint investment or cooperative enterprise's rights and interests, or their own lawful rights and interests, have been violated by an administrative act, they may initiate a lawsuit in their own name.
Where non-state owned enterprises have been deregistered, revoked, merged, forcibly merged, sold, divided, or had a modification of the enterprises' hierarchic relationships, that enterprise or its legally designated representative may initiate litigation.
Article 17: Where the contributors or founders of non-profit legal persons such as public institutions, social groups, foundations, and social service organizations, feel that administrative acts ham the lawful rights and interests of the legal person, they may initiate litigation in their own name.
Article 18: Owners committees may initiate litigation in their own name against administrative acts of administrative organs that involve owners common interests.
Where owners committees do not initiate litigation, owners with exclusive possession more than half of the total area of structures or more than half of the total operations, may initiate litigation.
Article 19: Where parties are not satisfied with administrative acts approved by a higher level administrative organ and initiate litigation, the organ whose name appeared on external legally effective documents is to be the defendant.
Article 20: Where administrative organs establish and endow bodies with administrative management duties, but lacking independent capacity to bear legal responsibility, to take administrative acts in their name, and parties are dissatisfied and initiate litigation, the administrative organs establishing the body shall be the defendant.
Where internal bodies, remote bodies, or other organizations of administrative organs that are authorized by laws, regulations, or rules to exercise administrative duties, carry out administrative acts exceeding the scope of their authority, and parties are dissatisfied and initiate litigation, the defendant is the body or organization that carried out that administrative act.
Where in the absence of provisions in laws, regulations or rules, administrative organs authorize internal bodies, remote bodies, or other organizations to exercise administrative duties, it is entrusted in accordance with article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Law. Where parties are dissatisfied and initiate litigation, the administrative organ shall be the defendant.
Article 21: Where parties initiate litigation due to dissatisfaction with administrative acts made by bodies whose approval was established by the State Council or provincial level people's governments to administer development zones, the body administering the development zone is the defendant; where litigation is initiated due to dissatisfaction with administrative acts made by subordinate functional departments of bodies whose approval was established by the State Council or provincial level people's governments to administer development zones, that functional department is the defendant; and litigation intiated due to dissatisfaction with the adminstrative acts of the subordinate functional departments of other bodies administrating development zones, the administrative body is the defendant; and where the body administrating the development zone does not have standing as an administrative entity, the local people's government that established that body is the defendant.
Article 22: "Reconsideration organ modification of original administrative conduct" as provided for in Administrative Litigation Law Article 26 paragraph 2, refers to the reconsideration organ altering the disposition of the original administrative action. Where reconsideration organs change the primary facts and evidence determined by the original administrative act or change the regulatory basis applied by the original administrative act, but do not change the outcome of the original administrative act, it is viewed as the reconsideration organ sustaining the original administrative act.
Reconsideration organs confirmation that an original administrative act is invalid, is a modification of an original administrative act.
Reconsideration organs confirmation that an original administrative act was unlawful is a modification of an original administrative act, except where the grounds for the confirmation of illegality is a violation of legally-prescribed procedures.
Article 23: Where administrative organs are revoked or their duties are modified, and their is no administrative organ continuing their duties, the people's government they belong to is the defendant; and where they are implementing vertical leadership, the administrative organs at the vertical leadership level above is the defendant.
Article 24: Where parties initiate litigation due to dissatisfaction with villagers' committee or residents' committee performance of administrative management duties authorized by laws, regulations, or rules, the villagers' committee or the residents' committee is the defendant.
Where parties initiate litigation due to dissatisfaction with villagers' committees or residents' committees acts commissioned by administrative organs, the administrative organs that commissioned them are the defendants.
Where parties initiate litigation due to dissatisfaction with acts carried out by public institutions such as institutions of higher learning, or of industry associations such lawyers associations or institutes of certified accountants, as authorized by laws, regulations, or rules; that public institutions or industry association is the defendant.
Where parties initiate litigation due to dissatisfaction with acts carried out by public institutions such as institutions of higher learning, or of industry associations such lawyers associations or institutes of certified accountants, as commissioned by administrative organs, the administrative organs that commissioned them are the defendants.
Article 25: Where administrative acts are carried out by municipal or county level people's governments' departments of housing expropriation during the course of housing expropriation and compensation work, and the subject of the expropriation is not satisfied and initiates litigation, the department of housing expropriation is the defendant.
Where the subject of the expropriation is dissatisfied with acts of the unit carrying out expropriation as commissioned by the department of housing expropriation, which are within the scope of the commission, the department of housing expropriation shall be the defendant.
Article 26: Where the defendant sued by the plaintiff is not proper, the people's courts shall inform the plaintiff to change the defendant; where the plaintiff does not agree with the change, rule to reject the lawsuit.
Where a defendant should be added but the plaintiff does not agree to add them, the people's courts shall notify them to participate in the litigation as third parties, except for administrative reconsideration organs serving as joint defendants.
Article 27: Where parties necessary to conduct joint litigation have not participated in the litigation, the people's court shall inform them to participate in accordance with law; parties may also apply to participate to the people's courts.
People's courts shall conduct a review of applications submitted by parties, and where the grounds for the application are not sustained, rule to reject it; where the grounds for the application are sustained, inform them in writing to participate.
'Necessary to conduct litigation' as provided for in the preceding paragraph refers to lawsuits where the people's courts must combine trial in accordance with article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Law where one or both parties has two or more persons that have a dispute over the same administrative act's occurrence.
Article 28: When people's courts attach a party in joint litigation, they shall notify the other parties. Where a plaintiff that must be attached has already made clear that they waive their substantive rights, it is allowed to not attach them; where they are both unwilling to participate in litigation, but have also not waived their substantive rights, they should be attached as third parties and there not participating in the litigation cannot obstruct the people's courts trial and ruling upon the case.
Article 29: "Large group of people" as provided for in Article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Law generally refers to 10 of more people.
Where one parties is a large group of people as provided for in article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the parties are to elect a representative. Where the party cannot choose, the people's court may appoint a representative from among the parties raising the lawsuit.
There may be 2-5 of the representatives provided for in article 28 of the Administrative Litigation Law. Representatives may retain one or two persons as agents ad litem.
Article 30: Where the same administrative act of an administrative organ involves more than two interested parties, and some of the interested parties are dissatisfied with the administrative act and initiate litigation, the people's court shall notify other interested parties that have not initiated litigation to participate in the litigation as a third party.
Third parties with an interest in the disposition of administrative cases may apply to participate in the litigation or be notified by the people’s court to participate in the litigation. A third party that a people's court has ruled is to bears obligations or has its rights and interests reduced, has the right to submit an appeal or apply for a retrial.
Where third parties provided for in article 29 of the Administrative Litigation Law did not participate in litgation on the grounds that the matter was not attributable to them, but there is evidence showing that a legally effective judgment, ruling, mediation document has harmed their lawful rights and interests, they may follow the provisions of article 90 of the Administrative Litigation Law to apply for retrial with the people's court at the level above, within 6 months from when they knew or should have known that their rights were harmed.
Article 31: Parties retaining agents ad litem shall submit a signed retention document to the people's courts with their signature and affixed seal. The retention document shall indicate the subject matter and specific rights for the retention. Where citizens are unable to make the retention in righting in special circumstances, they may also have others do so their behalf and confirm it through means such as leaving their mark, and the people's court shall verify this and record it in the file; where the administrative organs being sued or other organs with an obligation to assist refuse to allow the people's courts to verify with citizens whose physical liberty is restricted, it is viewed as a successful retention. If the parties dissolve or modify the retention, they shall report this to the people's court in writing.
Article 32: In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2(2) of the article 31 of the Administrative Litigation Law, employees that have lawful labor relations with a party may act as agents ad litem as the party's employee. Those participating in litigation activities as an employee of a party shall submit one of the follow types of evidence as support:
(1) payment vouchers for social insurance records;
(2) receipts from wages;
(3) Other evidence that can prove their identity as an employee.
Article 33: In accordance with paragraph 2(3) of article 31 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where relevant social groups recommend citizens to serve as agent ad litem, they shall meet the following requirements:
(1) Social groups that are non-profit legal person organizations, which have lawfully registered establishment or lawfully do not need to register establishment;
(2) Their agent is a member of the social group, or one party's domicile is located in the activity area of the social group;
(3) The subject of the agency is within the operation range indicated in the social group's charter;
(4) The citizen who is recommended is the responsible person for that social group or is an employee with a lawful labor employment relationship with the social group.
Upon recommendation of the China National Patent Agents Association, patent agents may serve as agents ad litem in administrative cases on patents.
IV. Evidence
Article 34: On the basis of the first paragraph of Article 36 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where defendants apply for extensions in providing evidence, they shall make a submission to the people's court within 15 days of receiving the copy of the Complaint. Where the people's court allows the delayed provision, the defendant shall provide evidence within 15 days after the legitimate reasons [for delay] are eliminated. Where provision is overdue, it is viewed as there being no evidence on the administrative acts that are the subject of the litigation.
Article 35: The plaintiff or a third party shall provide evidence before the in-court proceedings begin or on the day that the people's court determines the list of evidence to be exchanged. Where an extension for provision of evidence is applied for due to legitimate reasons, it may be provided during court investigation upon approval of the people's court. Where the provision of evidence is overdue, the people's court shall order them to state the reasons; and where they refuse to state the reasons or the reasons are not sustained, it is viewed as waiving the right to present evidence.
The people's courts will not accept evidence provided in the second-instance trial procedures by plaintiffs or third parties that did not provide evidence without legitimate reason in the first-instance trial procedures.
Article 36: Parties applying to extend the time period for presenting evidence shall submit a written application to the people's court prior to the completion of the period for presentation of evidence.
Where the application is sustained, the people's court shall permit it, appropriately extend the period for presenting evidence and notify the other parties. Where the grounds to the application are not sustained, the people's court will not approve it and will notify the applicant.
Article 37: Based on article 39 of the Administrative Litigation Law, matters that the parties do not disagree on, but which involve national interests, public interests, or the lawful rights and interests of others, the people's courts may order the parties to provide or supplement relevant evidence.
Article 38: In cases where the situation is more complicated or there is a larger amount of evidence, the people's courts may organize the parties to present or exchange evidence with the other side prior to beginning in-court proceedings, and record the list of exchanged evidence in the case file.
Evidence over which the parties have no disagreement in the course of exchanging evidence prior to the beginning of court proceedings and they record in the case file, may be evidence used to determine the facts of the case upon explanation of the adjudicators during trial.
Article 39: Where parties apply to investigate and collect evidence, but that evidence is relevant to the facts to be proven and has no value to proving those facts or it is otherwise unnecessary to investigate and collect evidence, the people's court is not to permit it.
Article 40: Before witnesses appear in court to testify, people's courts shall inform them of their obligation to testify truthfully as well as the legal consequences of perjury.
Necessary transportation, accommodation, meals and other such expenses incurred by witnesses as a result of performing their obligation to appear in court to testify, as well as lost wages, are to be borne by the losing party.
Article 41: In any of the following circumstances, where the plaintiffs or third parties request that relevant administrative law enforcement personnel appear in court to make explanations, the people's courts may permit it:
(1) There are objections to the lawfulness or authenticity of on-site records;
(2) There are objections to the types or quantities of property seized;
(3) There are objections to the sampling or custody of inspected items;
(4) There are objections to the legality of the identity of administrative law enforcement personnel;
(5) Other situations require appearing in court to give explanations.
Article 42: Evidence that can reflect the actual case situation, is relevant to the facts to be proven, has sources and formats conforming to the provisions of the law, shall be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case
Article 43: In any of the following situations, it is an "evidence acquired by illegal means" as provided for in the third paragraph of article 42 of the Administrative Litigation Law:
(1) Evidence materials collected in serious violation of legally-designated procedures;
(2) Evidence materials that are obtained in violation of mandatory provisions of the law, and infringe upon the lawful rights and interests of others;
(3) Evidence materials obtained by means such as enticement, fraud, coercion and violence.
Article 44: Where the people's court finds it necessary, it may request that the parties themselves, or administrative organs' law enforcement personnel appear in court to be questioned about the facts of the case. Before the questioning, they may be requested to sign a written guarantee.
The written guarantee shall indicate that they will state the facts honestly and be willing to accept the punishment for false statements. The parties or administrative organ law enforcement personnel shall sign or affix a seal to the guarantee.
Where parties with responsibility for presenting evidence refuse to appear, refuse to be questioned, or refuse to sign the written guarantee, and there is a shortage of evidence or corroborating evidence on the facts to be proven, the people's court is not to affirm the facts put forward.
Article 45: Where defendants have evidence showing that they followed legally-designated procedures to request that the plaintiff or third parties provide evidence during the administrative procedures, and that the plaintiff or the third parties should have provided evidence in accordance with law but did not do so, but provides the evidence during the litigation procedures, the people's court is usually not to accept it.
Article 46: Where the plaintiff or a third party truly has evidence showing that the defendant has evidence beneficial to the plaintiff or third party, they may apply in writing to the people's court before in-court proceedings begin to have the people's court order the administrative organ to provide it.
Where the grounds for the application are sustained, the people's court shall order the administrative organ to submit them, and the applicant is to pre-pay fees incurred by the submission of the evidence. Where administrative organs refuse to submit it without a legitimate reason, the people's courts may make an assumption that the plaitiff or third party's position on the matter which the evidence would prove is sustained.
Where, with the goal of obstructing the other parties from using it, the party in possession of evidence destroys the relevant evidence of carries out other conduct to make to make the evidence unusable, the people's courts may make a presumption that the other parties' position on the matter which the evidence would prove is sustained; and may handle it in accordance with article 59 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
Article 47: On the basis of the second paragraph of article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where during administrative compensation and ammends cases [赔偿、补充] the plaintiff is unable to present evidence on the harm for reasons brought on by the defendant, the defendant shall bear the burden of presenting evidence on the harm.
Where there is no way to confirm the value of damages put forward by each side, the party with the burden of presenting evidence shall apply for an evaluation, except where laws, regulations, or rules provide that administrative organs shall make an assessment or evaluation when taking administrative acts; and where the party with the burden of presenting evidence refuses to apply for an evaluation, it is to bear the adverse legal consequences.
Where the parties cannot evaluate the damages for objective reasons, the people's courts shall determine an amount for compensation by combining the parties' positions and the evidence in the case, following professional judicial ethics, using logical reasoning and life experience, and in light of the circumstances.
V. Timing and Service
Article 48: Time periods include legally-prescribed time periods set by the people's courts.
Time periods are calculated in hours, days, months, and years. The hour and day in which the period begins are not calculated into the time period.
Where the final day on which a time period is completed is a holiday, the period is to be completed on the day following the holiday.
Time periods do not include time in transit, and where litigation documents are mailed before the period for sending is complete, is is viewed as being sent within the time limit.
Article 49: For the time period for filing cases provided for in paragraph two of article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where due to defects in the content of the Complaint or other errors, the plaintiff is notified to supplement and correct in a set period of time, the period is calculated from the day after it is supplemented and corrected and handed over to the people's court. In cases transferred by a higher people's court for filing in a lower people's court, the time period is calculated from the day after the people's court accepting the case receives the complaint.
Article 50: The time limits for trial provided for in Administrative Litigation Law articles 81, 83, and 88, refer to the period from when the case is filed to announcement of the verdict or the delivery of the mediation agreement, but the periods for giving notice, evaluations, mediation, suspension of proceedings, and handling of jurisdiction objections raised by the parties or handling of jurisdiction disputes between people's courts, are not calculated in.
Where retrial cases are heard in accordance with either the first-instance trial or second-instance trial procedures, the time limits for trial provided in articles 81 and 88 of the Administrative Litigation Law apply. The time limits for trial are calculated from when the retrial case is filed.
Basic level people's courts applying for an extension of the time limits for trial shall directly request approval from the High People's Court, and concurrently report to the intermediate people's court for the record.
Article 51: People's courts may request that parties sign a written confirmation of the address for service, and the confirmed address for service will be the address used for service by the people's courts.
Where parties agree to electronic service, electronic delivery addresses such as fax numbers and email addresses shall be confirmed.
Where parties addresses for service change, they shall promptly inform the people's court accepting the case in writing; where they do not promptly inform them, the people's court is to give service in accordance with the original address, and it will be viewed as lawful service.
People's courts may go through national postal service to process service by means of special courier.
Article 52: People's courts may directly serve parties with litigation documents in places other than their residence. Where parties refuse to sign a receipt for service, methods such as taking a video or photograph of the delivery process are to be employed, and it will be viewed as being served. Adjudicators and clerks shall note the circumstances of service and sign their names on the receipt of service.
VI. Indictment and Case Acceptance
Article 53: People's courts shall file cases that meet the conditions for bringing lawsuits, ensuring that parties are able to exercise their lawful rights to bring a lawsuit.
With respect to litigation lawfully initiated by Parties, people's courts shall accept the complaints in accordance with article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law. Where it can be sufficiently determined to meet the requirements, the case shall be registered and filed on the spot; where it cannot be determined on site that whether it meets requirements, a decision shall be made within 7 days of receiving the complaint as to whether or not to file the case; where ; Where a determination still can not be made within 7 days, the case shall first be filed.
Article 54: In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law, citizens, legal persons, or other organizations shall hand over the following materials when initiating litigation:
(1) The plaintiff's identification materials and valid contact information.;
(2) Materials showing the administrative acts or nonfeasance that is subject of the litigation;
(3) Materials on the plaintiff's interest in the administrative acts;
(4) Other materials that the people's courts finds need to be submitted;
Where a legally-designated representative or a retained agent ad litem initiates litigation, the basic circumstances of the legally-designated representative or retained agent ad litem shall also be explained to the people's court when litigation is initiated either orally or in writing, and materials showing the identity and authorization of the legally-designated representative or retained agent ad litem shall also be submitted.
Article 55: In accordance with article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the people's courts shall conduct a review of whether the content and materials of the Complaint are complete, as well as of whether the Administrative Litigation Law's requirements for initiating litigation are met.
Where a complaint lacks some content or materials, people's courts shall give parties guidance and explanations, and a single comprehensive notification of all of the content or other materials that they need to supplement and the time limits for supplementing materials. Complaints that are supplemented and corrected to meet the requirements for initiating litigation within the time limit, shall be registered and filed. Where a party refuses to supplement or correct, or where having supplemented and corrected it still does not meet the conditions for litigation, return the complaint and record this; where they persist in raising it, and a ruling is made that the case will not be filed, the ruling will additionally clearly state the reasons for not filing the case.
Article 56: Where laws or regulations provide that an application for reconsideration be made first, and citizens, legal persons, or other organizations that have not applied for a reconsideration directly initiate litigation, the people's court will rule to not file the case.
in accordance with article 45 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where the reconsideration organ does not accept the application for reconsideration or does not make a reconsideration decision within the legally-prescribed time period, and citizens, legal persons, or other organizations are dissatisfied and lawfully initiate litigation in the people's court's, the people's courts shall file the case in accordance with law.
Article 57: Where laws or regulations have not provided that administrative reconsideration is a necessary procedural requirement for initiating litigation, and citizens, legal persons, or other organizations both initiate litigation and apply for an administrative reconsideration, the organ that first files the case has jurisdiction; where they simultaneously file the cases, the citizens, legal persons, or other organizations are to make a selection. Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations have already applied for an administrative reconsideration, and during the legally-prescribed period for reconsideration also initiate litigation in the people's courts, the people's court are to rule to not file the case.
Article 58: Where laws or regulations have not provided that administrative reconsideration is a necessary procedural requirement for initiating litigation, and after citizens, legal persons, or other organizations apply for an administrative reconsideration with the reconsideration organ, and then withdraw the application for an reconsideration with the consent of the reconsideration organ, and initiate litigation over the original administrative acts within the legally-designated period, the people's courts shall file it in accordance with law.
Article 59: Where after citizens, legal persons, or other organizations apply for an administrative reconsideration with the reconsideration organ, and the reconsideration organ makes a decision to maintain the administrative acts, the reconsideration organ and the organ that took the original act are to be joint defendants, and the period for initiating litigation is to be determined from the period of delivery of the reconsideration decision.
Article 60: Where after the people's courts rule to permit the plaintiffs' withdrawal of a lawsuit, the plaintiffs initiate litigation on the same facts and grounds, the people's courts will not file the case.
Where a ruling to permit withdrawal of a lawsuit was truly in error and the plaintiffs apply for a retrial, the people's courts shall revoke the original ruling to permit withdrawal of the lawsuit through the trial supervision procedures, and conduct a new trial of the case.
Article 61: Where the plaintiff or appellant have not prepaid case acceptance fees within the period provided, and also have not submitted an application for fee deferment, fee reduction, or waiving fees, or where the application was denied, it is handled as an automatic withdrawal. Where after a case withdrawal is handled, the plaintiff or appellant again initiates litigation or an appeal within the legally-prescribed time period, and lawfully resolves the issues with prepayment of litigation fees, the people's court should file the case.
Article 62: Where after the people's courts make a judgment to revoke the administrative acts of the administrative organs, citizens, legal persons, or other organizations are dissatisfied with the administrative organ's newly taken administrative acts and initiate litigation with the people's courts, the people's courts shall file the case in accordance with law.
Article 63: Where administrative organs do not draft or do not deliver legal documents when taking administrative acts, citizens, legal persons, or other organizations only need to show the existence of the administrative act and initiate litigation in the legally-prescribed time period, and the the people's courts shall file the case in accordance with law.
Article 64: Where administrative organs do not inform citizens, legal persons, or other organizations of the time period for initiating litigation when they take administrative acts, the period for initiating litigation is calculated from the day on which the citizens, legal persons, or other organizations knew or should have known of the time period for litigation, except that it must not exceed one year from when they knew of or should have known of the content of the administrative act.
Where a reconsideration decision does not inform citizens, legal persons, or other organizations of the time period for initiating litigation, the provisions of the preceding paragraph apply.
Article 65: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations do not know the content of administrative acts by administrative organs, the period for their initiating litigation is calculated from the day on which they knew or should have known the content of the administrative acts, except that at longest it must not exceed the time period for initiating litigation provided for in paragraph 2 of article 46 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
Article 66: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate litigation, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 47 of the Administrative Litigation Law on an administrative organ's failure to perform their legally-prescribed duties, it shall be initiated within 6 months from the date on which the time period for the administrative organs performance of the legally-prescribed duty was completed.
Article 67: Where plaintiffs provide the defendants' names and other information sufficient to distinguish the defendants from other administrative organs, it may be held to be 'having a clear defendant' as provided for in paragraph 2 of article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
Where the information on defendants listed in the Complaint is insufficient to determine a clear defendant, the people's courts may inform the plaintiffs to supplement and correct it; and where after the plaintiffs supplement and correct a clear defendant still cannot be determined, the people's courts shall rule to not file the case.
Article 68: The phrase 'having specific litigation demands' as provided for in article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law, refers to:
(1) A demand for a judgment revoking or modifying administrative acts;
(2) A demand for a judgment that an administrative organ perform a specific legally prescribed duty or payment obligation;
(3) A demand for a judgment confirming that an administrative act is illegal;
(4) A request for a judgment that an administrative act is void;
(5) A request for a judgment that an administrative organ give compensation or retribution;
(6) A request for resolution of a dispute over an administrative agreement;
(7) A demand for joint review of a regulatory document that is a rule or lower;
(8) Request for a joint resolution of related civil disputes;
(9) Other litigation demands.
Where parties independently or jointly initiate litigation for compensation or amends, they shall have specific matters and amounts for the compensation and ammends; where they request that a review of normative documents that are rules or lower be jointly conducted, they shall provide a clear document name or subject for review; and where they request that a civil dispute be resolved jointly, they shall have a specific demand for the civil litigation.
Where parties cannot accurately express their litigation demands, people's courts shall request they clarify the litigation demands.
Article 69: In any of the following circumstances , where a case has already been filed, a ruling shall be made to reject the litigation:
(1) It does not comply with Article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law;
(2) It exceeds the statutory time limit without circumstances provided for in article 48 of the Administrative Litigation Law;
(3) the wrong defendant is listed and changes are refused;
(4) Failure to follow the law in having a legally-designated representative, designated agent, or a representative conduct the litigation
(5) Failure to follow laws and regulations in first apply for reconsideration from the relevant administrative organs;
(6) raising duplicative litigation;
(7) Bringing litigation again, without a legitimate reason, after it has been withdrawn;
(8) Where the administrative action clearly has no actual effect on his or her lawful rights and interests;
(9) The target of the lawsuit has already been controlled by an effective judgment or mediation document;
(10) Other situations not meeting the legally-prescribed requirements for initiating litigation.
Where the circumstances listed in the preceding paragraph may be supplemented, corrected, or fixed, the people's courts shall order that they be supplemented, corrected, or fixed within a designated time period; and where they are supplemented, corrected, or fixed within the designated time period, shall have trial in accordance with law.
Where people's courts, having read the file, investigated or made inquiries of the parties, believe it is unnecessary to hold try it in court, they may, at their own discretion, rule to dismiss a lawsuit.
Article 70: Where after the Complaint is served on the defendant, the plaintiff submits new litigation demands, the people's court will not permit it, except where there is legitimate cause.
VII. Trial and Judgment
Article 71: People's courts applying the ordinary procedures to hear cases shall summon parties by subpoena three days prior to beginning court proceedings. Written notifications shall be used to notify witnesses, evaluators, inspectors, and interpreters, to come to court. Where parties or other litigation participants are in other places, necessary travel time shall be left.
Article 72: In any of the following circumstances, the time for holding of in-court trial proceedings may be extended:
(1) where parties and other litigation participants that should appear in court have a legitimate reason for not appearing;
(2) Where parties submit recusal applications on which a a decision temporarily cannot be made promptly;
(3) Where it is necessary to notify new witnesses to appear in court , to collect new evidence, or the hold a new appraisal, inquisition, or necessary supplemental investigation;
(4) Other situations where it shall be extended.
Article 73: In any of the following circumstances, people's courts may decide to join trials on the basis of article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Law:
(1) Where two or more administrative organs separately took administrative acts on the same facts, and dissatisfied citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate litigation in the same people's court;
(2) Where administrative organs separately took administrative acts on the same facts regarding several citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, and dissatisfied citizens, legal persons, or other organizations separately initiate litigation in the same people's court;
(3) where in the course of litigation, the defendants take new administrative acts against the plaintiff, and the dissatisfied plaintiffs initiate litigation in the same people's court.
(4) Other situations where the people's courts finds that they may join trials.
Article 74: Parties applying for recusals shall explain the reasons and submit them prior to the beginning of trial; where the matter for the recusal is learned of after the beginning of trial, it shall be submitted before the conclusion of courtroom debate.
Before the people's courts make a decision on whether to recuse, the persons who are the subjects of applications for recusal shall temporarily stop participation and work in that case, except where it is necessary to employ emergency measures in the case.
The people's courts may issue a decision orally or in writing on applications for recusal submitted by the parties. The court may lawfully reject applications that are clearly not within the legally-prescribed matters for recusal on the spot.
Where applicants are dissatisfied with the rejection of an application for recusal, they may apply to the people's court that made the ruling for a single reconsideration. In the reconsideration period, the person whose recusal is applied for do not stop the work of participating in that case. The people's court shall make a reconsideration decision within three days on applicants' applications for reconsideration, and notify the applicant for the reconsideration.
Article 75: Adjudicatory personnel who have previously participated in the trial of a case, must not participate in other trial procedures for that case.
In cases remanded for new trial, where after the first-instance trial court has issued a ruling it then commences second-instance trial procedures, members of the collegial panel from the original second-instance trial procedures are not restricted by the preceding paragraph.
Article 76: In cases that might make administrative acts or effective judgments of people courts impossible or difficult to enforce due to the conduct of one party or other reasons, the people's courts may rule to preserve their assets, order them to take definite acts, or prohibit them from taking definite acts; where the parties do not make an application, the people's courts may also rule to employ the preservation measures described above when necessary.
People's courts taking preservation measures, may order the applicant to provide guarantees; and where the the applicant fails to provide guarantees, rule to reject the application.
Where after people's courts accept an application, they must make a ruling within 48 hours from the time of its acceptance of the application where the situation is urgent; where they make a ruling to take preservation measures, enforcement shall begin immediately.
Where parties are dissatisfied with the preservation ruling, they may apply for reconsideration; enforcement of the ruling is not stopped during the reconsideration period.
Article 77: Where urgent circumstances mean that stakeholders will suffer a harm to their lawful rights and interests that will be difficult to repair if they do not immediately apply for protection, the may apply for preservation measures to be taken, before raising the civil litigation to the people's court at the location of the protected properties, the residence of the the assets owner or the people's court with jurisdiction over the case. Where the applicant must provide a guarantee, but does not provide a guarantee, rule to reject the application.
The people's court must make a ruling within 48 hours from its acceptance of the application; and where it rules to take preservation measures, enforcement shall begin immediately.
Where the applicant has not initiated litigation in accordance with law within 30 days after a people's court has employed preservation measures, the people's court shall revoke the ruling.
Where parties are dissatisfied with the preservation ruling, they may apply for reconsideration; enforcement of the ruling is not stopped during the reconsideration period.
Article 78: Preservation is limited to the scope of the demands, or to property related to the case.
Preservation of property employs sealing, seizing or freezing, or other methods provided by law. After a people's court has preserved property, it shall immediately notify the person subject to the preservation.
Where property has already been sealed or frozen, it must not be duplicatively sealed or frozen.
Where a guarantee is provided by the applicant in a case involving property, the people's courts shall rule to remove preservation.
Where the application has errors, the applicant shall compensate the losses suffered by respondent due to preservation.
Article 79: Where the plaintiff or appellant applies to withdraw a lawsuit, and the people's court rules not to permit it, and upon summons by subpoena, the plaintiff or appellant refuses to appear in court without a legitimate reason, or leaves court midway without first getting the court's permission, the people's court may make a decision in their absence.
Where third parties refuse to appear in court without a legitimate reason upon summons by subpoena, or leave court midway without first getting the court's permission, it does not impede the efficacy of the court's trying the case.
On the basis of article 58 of the Administrative Litigation Law, where the defendant refuses to appear in court upon being summoned by subpoena, or leaves court partway through without the court's permission, the people's court may begin trial as scheduled or continue trial, and lawfully make a judgment in absentia after trial on the litigation demands of the parties that have appeared, both parties' grounds for litigating, and evidence and other litigation materials already submitted.
Article 80: Where the plaintiff or appellant expressly refuses in court to make a statement, or refuses to make a statement through other means, making it so that the hearing cannot be conducted, and still does not state their opinions after the court explains the legal consequences, it is viewed as a waiver of rights, and they are to bear the adverse legal consequences.
In cases where parties apply to withdraw the lawsuit, or cases that may lawfully be handled through withdrawal, where a party has conduct which violates the law and needs to be handled, the people's courts may elect to not permit the withdrawal or not handle it through withdrawal.
People's courts may permit plaintiffs' applications to withdraw a lawsuit after the conclusion of courtroom debate, except where it involves national interests or the societal public interest.
Article 81: Where defendants change the administrative act subject to the litigation during the first-instance trial, hey shall inform the people's court in writing.
Where the plaintiffs or third parties initiate litigation due to dissatisfaction with the changed administrative act, the people's court shall conduct trial on the administrative act as changed.
Where the defendant changes original unlawful administrative acts, and the plaintiffs still request confirmation of the illegality of the original administrative acts, the people's courts shall make a confirmation judgment in accordance with law.
Where plaintiffs sue defendants over nonfeasance, and during the litigation the defendant takes administrative action but the plaintiff does not withdraw the lawsuit, the people's courts shall lawfully make a judgment on the nonfeasance.
Article 82: Where the is malicious collusion among the parties,planning to use litigation and other such methods to harm the national interest, societal public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of others, the people's courts shall rule to reject the litigation or make a judgment rejecting their demands, and give a fine or detention based on the severity of the circumstances, and where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility is pursued in accordance with law.
Article 83: The fines and detention provided for in article 59 of the Administrative Litigation Law may be applied independently or in combination.
Fines for the same conduct obstructing administrative litigation must not be used successively. Where new conduct obstructing administrative litigation occurs, the people's courts may give new fines or detention.
Article 84: After the People's Courts try administrative cases provided for in article 61 of the Administrative Litigation Law, and finding that the legal relationship between the parties is clearly established and that the facts are clear, and after obtaining consent of all parties, the court may initiate mediation.
Article 85: Where mediation reaches an agreement, the people's court shall draft a mediation document. The mediation document shall clearly state the litigation demands, the facts of the case, and the result of mediation.
Mediation documents are to be signed by the adjudicators and the court clerk,the court's seal is to be affixed, and are to be sent to the parties of both sides.
After the mediation document is signed by both parties, it has legal effect. The effective date of a mediation document is determined on the basis of the date of receipt of the last party to receive the mediation document.
Article 86: People's courts hearing administrative cases are not to make the course of mediation public, except where the parties consent to it being open.
With the permission of the people's court, third parties may participate in mediation. Where the people's court finds it necessary, it may notify third parties to participate in mediation.
The content of the mediation agreements is not public, except where the people's courts find there is a need to release it so as to protect national interests, the societal public interest, or others' lawful rights and interests.
Where the parties of one or both sides are unwilling to mediate, and the mediation cannot reach an agreement, the people's court shall promptly make a judgment.
Where after the parties have settled or reached a mediation on their own, they request the people's court to draft a judgment opinion in accordance with the contents o the settlement agreement or the mediation agreement, the people's court shall not permit it.
Article 87: Where any of the following circumstances occur during the course of litigation, the proceedings are to be suspended:
(1) The plaintiff dies, and it is necessary to wait for his next of kin to indicate whether they will participate in the litigation;
(2) The plaintiff loses capacity for litigation, and a legally-designated representative has not yet been confirmed;
(3) The parties of one side that are administrative organs, legal persons, or other organisations are terminated, and the successor of its rights and obligations have not yet been confirmed;
(4) The parties of one side can not participate in a lawsuit due to force majeure;
(5) The case touches upon questions on the application of law and it is necessary that an organ with authority make an interpretation or confirmation;
(6) The case needs the trial outcome of related civil, criminal, or other administrative cases to be a basis for judgment, and the trial of the relevant case has not concluded;
(7) Other situations where litigation shall be suspended.
After the reason for suspending proceedings has been eliminated, the proceedings will be resumed.
Article 88: Where any of the following circumstances occur during the course of litigation, the proceedings are to be terminated:
(1) The plaintiff dies, and there are no close relatives, or the close relatives waive their litigation rights;
(2) After a legal person or other organization that is the plaintiff is terminated, the successor in its rights and obligations waives its litigation rights.
Where litigation has been suspended for 90 days for reasons such as those provided for in items 1-3 of the first paragraph of article 87 of this Interpretation, and there is still no way to continue proceedings, rule to terminate the litigation except where there are special circumstances.
Article 89: Where a reconsideration changed error in the original administrative act, when the people's court makes a judgment to revoke the reconsideration decision, it may concurrently order the reconsideration organ to make a new reconsideration decision, or make a judgment to restore the legal efficacy of the original administrative act.
Article 90: Where the people's court makes a judgment that the defendant must take new administrative acts, and the result of the newly taken administrative act is the same as that of the original administrative act, but there are changes to the main facts or reasoning, it is not a situation as provided for in article 71 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
Where people's courts make a judgment to revoke the administrative act that is subject of the litigation, on the grounds that it violates legally-prescribed procedures, the administrative organs' taking new administrative acts is not restricted by article 71 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
Where administrative organs take new administrative acts on the same facts and grounds, that is essentially similar to the original administrative act, the people's courts shall make a judgment to revoke it, or partially revoke it, on the basis of articles 70 and 71 of the Administrative Litigation Law, and handle it in accordance with article 99 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
Article 91: Where plaintiffs' demand for defendant to fulfill a legally prescribed duty is established, but the defendant unlawfully refuses to perform or exceeds the allowable time for a response without a legitimate reason, people's courts may make a judgment on the basis of article 72 of the Administrative Litigation Law for the defendant to fulfill the duty in the plaintiffs' demands within a certain time period; where it is necessary for the defendant to investigate or use discretion, a judgment shall be made for the defendant to make a new disposition of the plaintiffs' demands.
Article 92: Where plaintiffs application for defendants to fulfill payment obligations, such as paying compensation for disability or death, minimum living guarantee benefits or social insurance benefits, is established, and the defendants have an obligation to make payment in accordance with law but refuse or delay fulfillment of the obligation, people's courts may follow the provisions of article 73 of the Administrative Litigation Law to make a judgment that the defendant must fulfill the relevant payment obligations within a certain time period.
Article 93: Where plaintiffs request that defendants perform legally prescribed duties or lawfully pay out bereavement benefits, minimum living guarantees, social insurance benefits, or other payment obligations, and the plaintiff has not submitted an application to the administrative organs, the people's courts are to rule to reject the litigation.
Where the people's court finds through trial that the legally prescribed duty or payment obligation, which the plaintiff requests be performed, is clearly not within the scope of the administrative organs authority, a ruling may be made to reject the litigation.
Article 94: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate litigation demanding the revocation of administrative acts, and the people's courts find through review that the administrative act is invalid, they shall make a judgment confirming that it is invalid.
Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate litigation requesting confirmation that an administrative act is invalid, and the people's courts find through review that the administrative act is not invalid, and upon the courts' interpretation, the plaintiffs request that the administrative acts be revoked, trial shall be continued and a relevant judgment made in accordance with law; where the plaintiff requests that administrative acts be revoked but the legally-prescribed period for initiating litigation has been past, rule to reject the litigation; where the plaintiff refuses to modify their litigation demands, make a judgment to reject the litigation demands.
Article 95: Where upon review people's courts find that the administrative acts subject to litigation are unlawful or invalid, and might cause harms to the plaintiff, and upon the court's interpretation the plaintiff requests that administrative compensation disputes be jointly resolved, the people's courts may conduct mediation on the compensation matters; and where the mediation does not succeed, shall make a joint judgment. The people's courts may also tell them to initiate a separate lawsuit on the matter of compensation.
Article 96: In any of the following circumstances, where it does not cause serious harm to the plaintiffs' important procedural rights such as hearings, statements, making a case, it is "slightly unlawful procedures" as provided for in item 2 of the first paragraph of Article 74 of the Administrative Litigation Law:
(1) Slight violations of the time limits for handling;
(2) slight violations of procedures such as for notification and service;
（3）Other situations of slightly unlawful procedures
Article 97: Where the plaintiffs or the third parties' losses are caused by both their own fault and the illegal administrative acts of administrative organs, the people's courts shall determine the administrative organs' corresponding responsibility for compensation, based on whether there is a causal link between the actions of the parties and the resulting harm, and on the size of their role in causing the outcome.
Article 98: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations' lawful rights and interests suffer harms from administrative organs' failure to perform, or delayed performance, of legally-prescribed duties, the people's courts shall make a judgment that the administrative organs bear responsibility for compensation. When determining the amount of compensation, consideration shall be given to such factors as the role that non-performance, or delayed performance, of legally-prescribed duties, played in the course of the harm occurring and its outcomes.
Article 99: In any of the following situations, it is "significant and obviously illegal" as provided for in article 75 of the Administrative Litigation Law:
(1) The entity carrying out the administrative act does not have standing as an administrative entity;
(2) There is no basis in legal norms for administrative acts of reducing rights or increasing obligations;
(3) the content of administrative acts cannot objectively be implemented;
(4) other significant and obviously illegal situations.
Article 100: Where people's courts hear administrative cases and apply the judicial interpretations of the Supreme People's Court, they shall be cited in the judgement opinion.
People's courts hearing administrative cases may cite rules and other normative documents in the judgment opinions.
Article 101: The following range of rulings are applied:
(1) not filing a case;
(2) rejecting litigation;
(3) jurisdiction objections;
(4) ending litigation;
(5) suspending proceedings;
(6) transferring or designating jurisdiction;
(7) Stopping the implementation of administrative acts during the litigation period or rejecting applications to stop enforcement during the litigation period;
(8) Property preservation;
(9) Advance enforcement;
(10) permitting or not permitting withdrawal of litigation;
(11) Supplementing or correcting errors in judgment documents;
(12) suspension or termination of enforcement;
(13) Bringing to court, ordering retrial, or remanding for new trial.
(14) Permitting or not permitting the implementation of administrative acts of administrative organ;
(15) Other matters that need to be ruled on.
Parties may appeal regarding rulings in items (1), (2), or (3).
Written rulings shall clearly indicate the outcome of the ruling and the grounds for making that ruling. Written rulings are to be signed by the adjudicators and the court clerk, and the court's seal is to be affixed. Where rulings are oral, record them in transcripts.
Article 102: "The facts are clear" in administrative cases, as provided for in Article 82 of the Administrative Litigation Law, refers to the parties statements on the facts of the contention are essentially the same, they can provide evidence, there is no need for the people's court to investigate and collect evidence and it can verify the facts; "clear relationship between rights and obligations" means that the relationship between rights and obligations in administrative law can be clearly distinguished; "controversy is not large" refers to parties having no substantive disagreement regarding the legality of administrative acts, responsibility for the, and so forth.
Article 103: In administrative cases applying the summary procedures, the people's court may summon parties, notify the witnesses, and serve litigation documents other than he ruling convenient means such as verbal notification, telephone, text message, fax, or e-mail.
Where the court serves notice of court proceedings through a simplified convenient means, without the parties' confirmation or without any other evidence proving that the parties have received it, the people's courts must not make a judgment in absentia.
Article 104: In cases applying the summary procedures, the time limits for presenting evidence are determined by the people's court, or may also be agreed upon by the parties through negotiation approved by the people's court, but not exceeding 15 days. Where the defendant requests a written reply, the people's court may determine a reasonable time for reply.
People's courts shall inform both parties of the time limits for presentation of evidence and the date of court proceedings, and explain to the parties the legal consequences of presenting evidence after the time limit and for refusal to appear in court, with both parties signing or affixing a seal to the receipt of service for the records and court summonses.
Where both parties indicate that they agree to immediately begin court proceedings or reduce the time periods for presentation of evidence and debate, the people's court may immediately commence trial proceedings or determine to begin court sessions in the near future.
Article 105: Where people's courts find that the circumstances of a case are complicated and need to be switched to ordinary proceedings for trial, they shall make a ruling before the completion of the time limits for trial and notify both parties of the composition of the collegial panel and other relevant matters in writing.
Where cases are switched to ordinary proceedings, the time limits for trial are calculated from the date on which the people's court files the case.
Article 106: A repetitive complaint is constituted where parties bring new litigation regarding over a matter for which litigation has previously been initiated, either in the course of litigation or after a ruling has taken effect, and there are any of the following situations:
(1) the parties of the two lawsuits are the same;
(2) the subject matters of the two lawsuits are the same;
(3) the demands of the two lawsuits are the same, or the demands of the later suit are contained in the previous ruling.
Article 107: Where after the people's court for the first-instance trial makes a judgment and ruling, the parties all appeal, all parties appealing are appellants.
Where some of the parties appeal, opposing parties that did not appeal are respondents, and the other parties are listed with their litigation standing from the first trial.
Article 108: When parties appeal, a copies of the appeal shall be submitted according to the number of other parties or their representatives for the litigation.
When the people's court for the original trial receives an appeal, they shall send a copy of the appeal to the parties within five days of receiving it, and opposing parties shall submit a response within 15 days of receiving a copy of the appeal.
The original people's court shall send a copy of the Response to the appellant within five days of receiving it. The opposing party's failure to submit a Response does not affect the trial of the case by the people's court.
Original trial courts receiving appeal complaints or responses shall deliver them to the second-instance trial court together with the entire case file and evidence, within 5 days, and also send any litigation fees collected in advance.
Article 109: Where the people's court for the second-instance trial finds that the people's court for the original trial's ruling to not file a case or to reject it was in error, and that the parties had met the conditions for initiation of litigation, they shall rule to revoke the ruling of the people's court for the original trial, and order the original court to file the case or continue trial in accordance with law.
In administrative cases where the second-instance trial people's court rules to remand to the original people's court for new trial, the original people's court shall separately form a collegial panel to conduct trial.
Where the judgment from the original trial omitted parties that must participate in proceedings or litigation demands, the people's court for the second-instance trial shall rule to revoke the judgment and remand for new trial.
Where the original judgment omitted a demand for administrative compensation, and upon review the people's court for the second-instance trial finds that compensation shall not be paid in accordance with law, it shall make a judgment to reject the demand for administrative compensation.
Where the original judgment omitted a demand for administrative compensation, and upon review the people's court for the second-instance trial finds that compensation shall be paid in accordance with law, it may conduct mediation on the issue of administrative compensation at the same time as it determines the whether the administrative acts were illegal, and where the mediation is not successful, it shall remand for new trial on the administrative compensation portion.
Where during the second-instance trial period, parties submit a demand for administrative compensation, the people's court for the second-instance trial may conduct mediation, where mediation is not successful, it shall inform the parties to separately initiate litigation.
Article 110: Parties applying for retrial to the people's court at the level above shall do so within 6 months of the judgment, ruling or mediation certificate taking legal effect. In any of the following circumstances, it shall be submitted within 6 months of the day on which they learned or should have learned:
(1) there is new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment or ruling；
(2) the principle evidence on which the original judgment or ruling was determined was fabricated;
(3) the legal documents on which the original judgment or ruling was based have been annulled or modified；
(4) adjudicators hearing the case were corrupt or took bribes, acted for personal gain, or abused the law in a capricious and arbitrary manner.
Article 111: Where parties apply for retrial, they shall submit materials such as the written application for retrial. Where the people's court finds it necessary, a copy of the application for retrial may be sent to the other party within five days from the date it receives the application for retrial. The opposing parties shall submit written opinions within 15 days from the date of receiving the copy of the application for retrial. The people's court may require the applicant and the opposing parties to supplement relevant materials and may question them on relevant matters.
Article 112: The people's courts shall review applications for retrial within six months from the date of their filing, but where an extension is needed for special circumstances, the court president of that court is to approve it.
Article 113: As needed for reviewing a retrial case, the people's court is to decide whether to question the parties; and where new evidence might overturn the original judgment or ruling, the people's courts shall question the parties.
Article 114: During the period for reviewing applications for retrial, where the applicant and other parties from the original trial submit an application for retrial in accordance with law , the people's court shall list them as applicants for retrial, review their matters for retrial at the same time, and the time limits for review are newly calculated. After review, where one of the applicants for retrial's grounds are sustained, a ruling shall be made for retrial. Where no applicant for retrial's grounds are sustained, a ruling shall be made for to reject the applications together.
Article 115: Where during the period for applying for retrial, the applicants for retrial apply to the people's court to commission an evaluation or inquest, the people's court is not to permit it.
Where during the period for applying for retrial, the applicants for retrial withdraw their application for retrial, the people's court is to rule on whether to permit it.
Where the applicant for retrial has been summoned by subpoena, but refuses to be questioned without a legitimate reason, it is handled as a withdrawal of the demand for retrial.
Where after the people's court permits the withdrawal of the retrial application or handles the application to withdraw the retrial application, the applicant again applies for a retrial, the case is not to be filed, except that where there are circumstances provided for in items (2),(3), (7) or (8) of Article 91 of the Administrative Litigation Law, and the application is submitted with six months of when they knew or should have known.
Article 116: Where the grounds proposed for retrial by the parties are sustained, and meet the requirements for applications for retrial as provided for in the Administrative Litigation Law and this Interpretation, the people's court shall rule for a retrial.
Where the grounds for retrial proposed by the parties are not sustained, or the parties' applications for retrial exceeded the legally-prescribed time limits for applications for retrial, exceeded the legally-prescribed scope of matters for retrial, or otherwise did not meet the requirements for applications for retrial provided in the Administrative Litigation Law and in this Interpretation, the people's court shall rule to reject the application for retrial.
Article 117: In any of the following circumstances, parties may apply to the people's procuratorate to make a procuratorial appeal or procuratorial suggestion:
(1) the people's courts have rejected an application for retrial;
(2) The people's courts have exceeded the time period without making a ruling on an application for retrial;
(3) There is clear error in a retrial judgment or ruling.
Where, after people's courts make a judgment or ruling on the basis of procuratorial appeals or suggestions, parties apply for a retrial, the people's courts will not file the case.
Article 118: In cases where a retrial decision is made in accordance with the trial supervision procedures, a decision to suspend the enforcement of the original judgment, ruling, or mediation document is to be made, but in cases on bereavement benefits, minimum living allowances, or social insurance benefits, it may be decided to not suspend enforcement.
Where the higher level people's court decides to bring it for trial or order the lower level people's court to hold a retrial, it shall make a ruling and the ruling shall clearly indicate that enforcement of the original judgment is suspended; where the situation is urgent, they may orally inform the people's courts responsible for enforcement, or that made the effective judgment or ruling, of the suspension, but a written ruling shall be issued within 10 days of giving the oral notice.
Article 119: In cases where people's courts follow the trial supervision procedures for retrial, where judgments or rulings which have taken legal force were made by the first-instance trial court, follow the first-instance trial procedures at trial, and parties may appeal all judgments or rulings made; where the judgments or rulings which have taken legal force were made by the second-instance trial court, follow the second-instance trial procedures at trial, and all judgments or rulings made are legally effective judgments and rulings; where a higher people's court at a higher level brings the case for trial in accordance with the trial supervision procedures, follow the second-instance trial procedures at trial, and all judgments or rulings made are legally effective judgments and rulings.
In retrial cases heard by the people's courts, a separate collegial panel shall be formed.
Article 120: The people's courts hearing retrial cases shall proceed focusing on the retrial demands and the legality of the administrative act being sued. Where the parties' retrial demands exceed the demands of the original suit and meets the requirements for separate litigation, inform the parties that they may separately initiate litigation.
Where the subject of the application and other parties from the original trial submit requests for retrial before courtroom debate is concluded, and it is within the time limits for applications provided by this Interpretation, the people's court shall join them for trial.
Where upon retrial, people's courts discover that a judgment or ruling that has already taken legal effect is harmful to the national interest, societal public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of others, it shall be tried together.
Article 121: Where during the period of retrial there are any of the following circumstances, rule to conclude the retrial procedures:
(1) The applicant for retrial withdraws the retrial request during the retrial, and the people's court approves it;
(2) Where the applicant for retrial has been summoned by subpoena, but refuses to appear in court without a legitimate reason, or abandons the cases half-way without the court's permission, it is handled as a withdrawal of the demand for retrial.
(3) the people's procuratorate has withdrawn a complaint appeal;
(4) Other circumstances where the retrial procedures shall be concluded.
In cases retried because the people's procuratorate has made a complaint appeal, where the party that applied for the complaint appeal has situations provided for in the preceding paragraph, and it does not harm the national interest, societal public interest, or the lawful rights and interests of others, the people's courts are to rule to conclude the trial procedures.
After the conclusion of the retrial procedures, the original effective judgment that the people's court ruled to suspend enforcement of, is to have enforcement automatically restored.
Article 122: People's courts trying retrial cases that find the original effective judgment or ruling is truly in error, may make rulings on the content of the effective judgment or ruling at the same time as they revoke it, or may rule to revoke the effective judgment or ruling and remand it for new trial by the people's court that made it.
Article 123: People's courts hearing second-instance trial cases or retrials, shall make the following distinct dispositions where there is error in the original trial court's case filing, not filing a case, or rejecting litigation:
(1) Where after the people's court for the first-instance trial makes a substantive judgment, the people's court for the second-instance trial finds that it should not have filed the case, it may reject the litigation at the same time it revokes the judgment of the first-instance trial court.
(2) Where the people's court for the second-instance trial sustains the mistaken ruling of the first-instance trial court to not file a case, the people's court for the retrial shall revoke the rulings of the first-instance trial and second-instance trial courts, and order the first-instance trial court to accept the case;
(3) Where the people's court for the second-instance trial sustains the mistaken ruling of the first-instance trial court to reject a case, the people's court for the retrial shall revoke the rulings of the first-instance trial and second-instance trial courts, and order the first-instance trial court for trial;
Article 124: In cases where people's procuratorates raise complaint appeals, the people's court that accepts the complaint appeal shall make a ruling on retrial within 30 days of accepting the complaint appeal; where there are any of the circumstances provided for in items 2 or 3 of article 91 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the people's court at the level below may be ordered to hold retrial, except where that people's court has already had a retrial.
Where during the period for people's courts review of protest appeal materials, the parties reach a settlement agreement, the people's court may recommend that the people's procuratorate withdraw the protest appeal.
Article 125: In cases where the people's procuratorate raises a protest appeal, when the people's court opens proceedings for retrial, the people's court shall notify the people's procuratorate three days before court proceedings to dispatch personnel to appear in court.
Article 126: After the people's court receives a procuratorial recommendation for retrial, it shall form a collegial panel and conduct a review within three months, and where the original judgments, rulings or mediation documents are found to be in error and retrial is necessary, a ruling for a retrial is to be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 92 of the Administrative Procedure Law, and notice given to the parties; where after review it is decided not to hold a retrial, a written response shall be made to the people's procuratorate.
Article 127: In retrial cases heard by the people's courts due to the people's procuratorate's complaint appeal or procuratorial recommendation for a ruling for retrial, limits on previously rejected applications for retrial from the parties do not apply.
VIII. Responsible Persons for Administrative Organs Appearing in Court in Response to Litigation
Article 128: 'Responsible Persons for the administrative organ' as provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law, includes both the top official and deputies in charge of the administrative organ and other responsible persons participating in some management.
Where an administrative organ's responsible persons shall appear in court in answer to a lawsuit, they may appoint one or two other persons to be their representatives for the proceedings. Where administrative organs' responsible persons cannot appear in court, they shall entrust relevant personnel from the administrative organ to appear in court, they must not just entrust a lawyer to appear in court.
Article 129: In cases, such as those involving major public interests, having a high degree of social interest, or that might lead to mass incidents, as well as cases where the people's courts make a written recommendation that the responsible party for an administrative organ should appear in court, the responsible person for the administrative organ subject of the litigation shall appear in court.
Where the responsible person for the administrative organ subject to the litigation appears in court, they shall be listed in the portion on parties and agents ad litem's basic circumstances and the cause of action.
Where the responsible person for the administrative organ has a legitimate reason for being unable to appear in court, they shall submit an explanation of the circumstances to the people's court, and affix the seal of the administrative organ or have have the principle responsible person for that administrative organ sign in acknowledgement.
Where the administrative organ refuses to explain the reasons, but it does not have the effect of obstructing trial of the case, the people's court may submit a judicial recommendation to the supervisory organ or the administrative organ at the level above.
Article 130: "Relevant personnel from the administrative organ" as used in Administrative Litigation Law article 3, paragraph 3, includes staff who have status as part of the state administrative establishment as well as other personnel performing public functions.
Where the administrative act subject of the litigation was made by the local people's government, the staff of the legal working body for the local people's government, as well as the staff of the specific organ undertaking the administrative act that is subject to the litigation, may be viewed as the relevant personnel of the respondent people's government.
Article 131: Where the responsible person for the administrative organ appears in court, they shall submit materials to the people's court that can show the duties of the position.
Where an administrative organ entrusts the corresponding staff member to appear in court to respond to the complaint, it shall submit a retention document to the people's court with the seal of the administrative organ, and set forth the name, post and scope agency authority of the staff member.
Article 132: Where the administrative organ's responsible person and relevant staff do not appear in court, and only the lawyer is retained to appear in court, or where the people's court recommends in writing that the responsible person for the administrative organ appear in court to respond to the case, but the responsible person for the administrative organ does not appear in court, the people's court shall record this in the case and indicate it in the judgment opinion, and may recommend that the relevant organs make a disposition in accordance with law.
IX. Reconsideration Organs as Joint Defendants
Article 133: 'The reconsideration organ decides to sustain the original administrative action', as provided for in the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Law, includes reconsideration organs' rejection of an application for reconsideration or reconsideration request, except for where the application did not meet the conditions for acceptance.
Article 134: Where a reconsideration organ decides to maintain the original administrative acts, the administrative organ that took the original administrative action and the reconsideration organ are joint defendants. Where a plaintiff only initiates litigation against the administrative organ that took the original administrative acts or the reconsideration organ, the people's court shall inform the plaintiff to add defendants. Where the plaintiff does not consent to the addition, the people's court shall make the other organ a joint defendant.
Where the administrative reconsideration decision has content both sustaining the original administrative act and has content modifying the original administrative act or content not accepting the application, the administrative organ taking the original administrative act and the reconsideration organ are joint defendants.
In cases where the reconsideration organ is a joint defendant, the level of jurisdiction for the cases is determined on the basis of the administrative organ that made the original administrative acts.
Article 135: Where reconsideration organs decide to sustain the original administrative acts, people's courts shall review the legality of the reconsideration decision when reviewing the legality of the original administrative acts.
The administrative organ that took the original administrative acts and the reconsideration organ bear the burden of presenting evidence regarding the legality of the original administrative acts, and may have one of the two organs make the presentation of evidence. The reconsideration organ bears the responsibility of presenting evidence showing the legality of the reconsideration decision.
In cases where a reconsideration organ is a joint defendant, the evidence collected and supplemented by the reconsideration organ during reconsideration procedures may be used as a basis for the people's courts' determination of the legality of the reconsideration decision and the original administrative acts.
Article 136: When people's courts make judgments on the original administrative acts, they shall make corresponding judgments on the reconsideration decision at the same time.
Where the people's courts add the administrative organ that made the original administrative act or a reconsideration organ as a co-defendant in accordance with its functions and powers, it may make corresponding judgments on the original administrative act or reconsideration decision.
Where people's courts make a judgment to revoke the original administrative acts and the reconsideration decision, they may make a judgment for the administrative organ that took the original administrative acts to take new administrative action.
Where people's courts make a judgment for the administrative organ that took the original administrative acts to perform their legally prescribed duties or fulfill payment obligations, they shall simultaneously make a judgment revoking the reconsideration decision.
Where the original administrative acts are lawful, but the reconsideration decision is unlawful, the people's court may make a judgment to revoke the reconsideration decision or confirm that the reconsideration decision is unlawful, and concurrently make a judgment to reject the plaintiff' litigation demands aimed at the original administrative acts.
Where the original administrative acts are revoked, and determined to be unlawful or invalid, and have caused injruy to the plaintiff, the administrative organ that took the original administrative acts shall bear responsibility for compensation; where a reconsideration decision increases the harm, the reconsideration organ bears responsibility for compensation for the increased harm.
Where the original administrative act does not meet requirements for reconsideration or the scope of cases for acceptance, or other requirements for acceptance, and the reconsideration organ makes a decision to sustain it, the people's court shall rule to jointly reject litigation on the original administrative act and the reconsideration decision.
X. Combined Trial of Civil Disputes
Article 137: Citizens, legal persons, or other organizations demanding that people's courts combine trial with that for related civil disputes as provided for by Administrative Litigation Law article 61, shall submit them before the first-instance trial begins hearings; but where there is a legitimate reason, they may also be submitted during court investigation.
Article 138: Where people's courts decide to adjudicate relevant civil disputes together with administrative litigation, or the parties to the case unanimously agree that the relevant civil dispute is to be resolved in the administrative litigation and the people's court permits it, the people's court that accepted the administrative case is to have jurisdiction.
Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations request that the relevant civil dispute be jointly adjudicated, and the people's court finds through review that the administrative case has exceeded the time limit for initiating litigation, and the civil case has not yet been filed, it is to inform the parties to separately initiate file a civil lawsuit; where the civil case has been filed, the original trial organization is to continue trial.
Where, in the course of hearing an administrative case, a people's court finds a civil disputes is the basis for resolving the administrative dispute, and the parties have not requested that the relevant civil dispute be jointly adjudicated, the people's court shall inform the parties to apply to have the civil dispute jointly resolved in accordance with law. Where a party has already initiated litigation regarding a civil dispute and it has been filed, the people's court shall suspend the trial of the administrative litigation. The period for handling the civil dispute is not calculated into the time limits for trial of the administrative litigation.
Article 139: In any of the following circumstances, people's courts shall make a decision to not approve combining trial of the civil dispute, and inform the parties that they may lawfully use other channels to assert their rights:
(1) Where the law provides it shall first be handled by administrative organs;
(2) Where it violates provisions on exclusive jurisdiction in the Civil Procedure Law or jurisdiction set by an agreement;
(3) where arbitration was agreed to, or a civil proceeding has already been initiated;
(4) Other situations inappropriate for hearing civil disputes together.
A single reconsideration may be applied for regarding a decision to not give permission.
Article 140: Where people's courts combine related civil disputes with administrative litigation, the civil dispute shall be independently filed, but heard by the same trial organization.
People's courts hearing cases of administrative organs' rulings in civil disputes and combining trial of the civil dispute, do not separately file the cases.
Article 141 : People's courts combining the trial of a civil dispute are to apply the relevant civil law norms except where the law provides otherwise.
Parties' handling of civil rights and interests in mediation cannot be used as the basis for reviewing the legality of administrative acts.
Article 142: Administrative and Civil disputes shall be ruled upon separately.
Where parties submit an appeal only regarding the administrative judgment or the civil judgment, the judgment against which there is no appeal becomes effective at the completion of the period of appeals. The first-instance trial people's court shall send the entire case file together to the second-instance trial people's court, for trial by the administrative trial division. Where the people's courts for second-instance trial discover that an effective ruling on which there was no appeal was truly in error, they shall follow the trial supervision procedures
Article 143: Where the plaintiff in administrative litigation applies to withdraw a lawsuit before the verdict is announces, the people's court will rule on whether to permit it. Where a people's court rules to permit the plaintiff to withdraw an administrative lawsuit, but they do not withdraw a corresponding civil dispute that has already be raised to be tried together, the people's court shall continue trial.
Article 144: People's courts jointly hearing relevant civil suits shall collect litigation fees separately in accordance with the standards for administrative and civil cases.
XI. Joint review of normative documents
Article 145 : Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiating litigation against administrative acts simultaneously request review of the normative documents on which they were based, the court with jurisdiction over the administrative action case is to review it as well.
Article 146: Citizens, legal persons, or other organizations requesting that people's courts combine a review of normative documents as provided for by Administrative Litigation Law article 53, shall submit them before the first-instance trial begins hearings; but where there is a legitimate reason, they may also be submitted during court investigation.
Article 147: Where in the course of reviewing a normative document, the people's court discovers that the normative document may be unlawful, it shall hear the opinions of the organ that drafted the normative document.
Where the drafting organ applies to appear in court to state its opinions, the people's court shall permit it.
Where the administrative organ has not stated its opinion or has not provided relevant supporting materials, it cannot obstruct the people's court from reviewing the normative documents.
Article 148: When jointly conducting review of normative documents, the people's courts may proceed from aspects such as whether the organ drafting the normative documents exceeded their authority or violated the legally-prescribed procedures or provisions on the basis for taking administrative acts.
In any of the following situations, 'the normative document is not lawful' as provided for in article 64 of the Administrative Litigation Law.
(1) It exceeds the drafting organs' legally prescribed duties or exceed the scope of authorization by laws, regulations, and rules;
(2) it conflicts with the provisions of higher level laws, regulations, rules, or so forth;
(3) increasing the obligations or reducing the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, with no basis in laws, regulations, or rules or in violation of law;
(4) Seriously violating drafting procedures by failing to perform legally prescribed approval procedures, and procedures for open publication;
(5) other situations in violation of laws, regulations, or rules.
Article 149: Where upon review, people's courts find that the normative documents on which administrative acts were based are lawful, they shall be a basis for determining that the administrative acts were lawful; where upon review it is found that normative documents are not lawful, they cannot be the basis for determining that administrative acts are lawful, and this should be explained in the judgment's reasoning. The people's courts making the effective rulings shall submit a disposition suggestion to the administrative organ that formulated the regulatory document, and may send a copy to the people's government at the same level as the formulating organ, to the administrative organ at the level above, to the Supervision Organ, or to the organ that recorded the normative document.
Where normative documents are not lawful, the people's courts may, within three months of the ruling taking effect, file a a judicial recommendation to the organ that drafted the normative document to revise or abolish that normative document.
Where the normative documents was jointly formulated by multiple departments, the people's court may send a judicial recommendation to the primary drafting organ for the normative document or to the administrative organ at the next higher level.
The administrative organ that receives the judicial recommendation shall give a written reply within 60 days from the date of receiving it. In urgent situations, the people's courts may recommend that the drafting organ, or the administrative organ at the next higher level, immediately stop implementing the normative documents.
Article 150: Where people's courts find that a normative document is unlawful, they shall submit the judgment for recording with the people's court at the level above after it becomes effective. Where drafting of normative documents involves State Council departments or provincial level administrative organs, the judicial recommendation shall also be separately reported up to the Supreme People's Court and High People's Court for recording.
Article 151: Where the president of any level of people's court looking at an a legally effective judgment or ruling made by that court discovers error in the determination of the legality of a normative document, and feels it is necessary that the case be retried, he shall submit it to the adjudication committee for deliberation and decision.
Where the Supreme People's Court looking at already effective judgments or rulings of local people's courts at any level, or higher level people's courts looking at already effective judgments or rulings of lower level people's courts, discover error in the determination of a normative documents legality, they have the right to bring the case for trial by themselves or order a lower level people's court to try the case.
XII. Enforcement
Article 152: Where one of the parties bearing obligations under a legally effective administrative judgment, administrative ruling, administrative compensation judgment or administrative mediation document refuses to perform, the opposing party may apply to the people's court for enforcement in accordance with law.
Where the people's courts hold that administrative organs are to performs administrative compensation, administrative restitution, or other administrative payment obligations, and the administrative organs refuse to perform, the opposing parties may apply to the court to compel enforcement in accordance with law.
Article 153: The time limit for applying for enforcement is two years. Applications for the suspension or discontinuation of the enforcement period are to apply relevant provisions of law.
The time limit for applying for enforcement is calculated from the final date for performance provided in the legal documents; where legal documents provide for performance in installments, it is calculated from the final day for performance of each installment; where legal documents do not provide a time limit for performance, it is calculated from the date on which the legal documents were served on the parties.
Where applications are made past the deadline, except where there is legitimate cause, the people's courts are not to accept them.
Article 154: Effective administrative judgments, administrative rulings, administrative compensation judgments and administrative mediation documents are enforced by the people's court for the first-instance trial.
Where the people's court for the first-instance trial finds that the situation is special and needs to be enforced by a second-instance people's court, it may request that the second-instance court enforce it; and the the people's court at the second instance may decide to enforce the case or may also decide to have the first-instance court enforce it.
Article 155: Administrative organs applying for enforcement of their administrative acts on the basis of article 97 of the Administrative Litigation Law shall have the following requirements:
(1) The administrative act may be enforced by the people's courts in accordance with law;
(2) the administrative act has taken effect and has enforceable content;
(3) The applicant is the administrative organ that took the administrative action, or an organization authorized by law, regulations, or rules;
(4) The respondent is an obligor as designated by the administrative act;
(5) The respondent fails to fulfill its obligations within the time limit set by the administrative act or within the time limit urged by the administrative organ;
(6) The applicant applies within the statutory time limit;
(7) The administrative cases that for which enforcement is applied is within the jurisdiction of the people's court accepting the enforcement application.
Administrative organs applying to people's courts for enforcement shall submit the relevant materials provided for in article 55 of the Administrative Compulsion Law.
The people's courts file and accept applications that meet the requirements within 5 days, and inform the applicant; where applications do not meet the requirements, a ruling shall be made to not accept them. Where the administrative organs have objections to a ruling that the case will not be accepted, and apply for a reconsideration to the people's court at the level above within 15 days, the people's court at the level above shall make a ruling within 15 days of receiving the application for reconsideration.
Article 156: Administrative organs that do not have compulsory enforcement power applying to a people's court for compulsory enforcement of its administrative act shall do so within three months from the expiration of the of the period for the person subject to enforcement's initiating litigation. Where applications are made past the deadline, except where there is legitimate cause, the people's courts are not to accept them.
Article 157: Where an administrative organ applies to a people's court for compulsory enforcement of its administrative act, it shall be accepted by the basic level people's courts people's court for the area where the applicant is located; where the target of enforcement is immovable property, it shall be accepted by the basic level people's court people's court for the region where the immovable property is located.
Where the basic level people's court finds that there is truly difficulty in enforcement, it may report to a higher people's court for enforcement; the higher people's court may decide to enforce it itself, or may decide to have the lower level people's court enforce.
Article 158: After the administrative organ makes a decision in the civil dispute between equal subjects, where the parties do not initiate litigation and do not perform within the legally-prescribed time limits, and the administrative organ that made the decision does not apply to the people's courts for enforcement within the time limit for applying for enforcement, the right holders designated by an effective administrative decision, their successors, or those now holding the rights may apply to the people's court for compulsory enforcement within six months.
For citizens, legal persons, or other organizations that enjoy the right to apply to the people's court for compulsory enforcement of an effective administrative ruling, refer to the provisions on administrative organs applying to the people's court for compulsory enforcement of administrative acts.
Article 159: Where before an administrative organ or the rights holder designated by an administrative act applies to the people's court for compulsory enforcement, there is sufficient grounds for finding that the person subject to enforcement might avoid enforcement, they may apply to the person subject to enforcement to employ property preservation measures. Where the latter applies for compulsory enforcement, they shall provide relevant property guarantees.
Article 160: After accepting a case in which an administrative organ applies for the enforcement of its administrative act, the people's courts shall, within seven days, have their administrative tribunal conduct a review of the legality of the administrative act and make a ruling on whether or not enforcement is permitted.
Where before making a ruling, a people's court finds that the administrative act is obviously illegal and damages the lawful rights and interests of the person subject to enforcement, it shall hear the opinions of the person subject to enforcement and of the administrative organ and make a ruling on whether to allow enforcement
Where it is necessary to employ compulsory enforcement measures, the body of that court that is responsible for compulsory enforcement of not-litigation administrative acts is to enforce it.
Article 161: Where the administrative that is subject of an application for enforcement has any of the following circumstances, the people's courts shall rule not to permit enforcement:
(1) the enforcing entity does not have standing as an administrative entity;
(2) there is a clear lack of factual basis;
(3) There is a clear lack of basis in laws and regulations;
(4) Other circumstances that obviously violate law and impair the lawful rights and interests of the person subject to enforcement.
Where the administrative organs have objections to a ruling to not permit enforcement, and apply for a reconsideration to the people's court at the level above within 15 days, the people's court at the level above shall make a ruling within 30 days of receiving the application for reconsideration.
XIII. Supplementary Provisions
Article 162: Where a citizen, legal person, or other organization initiates litigation on administrative acts made before May 1, 2015, demanding confirmation that the administrative act is invalid, the people's courts will not file it.
Article 163: This Interpretation takes effect on February 8, 2018.
After this Interpretation is implemented, the "Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the 'Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China' (Legal Interpretation [2000] No. 8) and the "Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the 'Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China' (Legal Interpretation [2015] No. 9) are simultaneously repealed. Where judicial interpretations previously released by the Supreme People's Court do not accord with this Interpretation, no longer apply them.
English
中文(简体)
Be First to Comment