In November 2024, Supreme People’s Court (SPC) President Zhang Jun delivered a specialized report on the court system’s administrative litigation work (关于人民法院行政审判工作情况的报告) to the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (NPC Standing Committee).  The report showcases the accomplishments of the courts in administrative litigation and related administrative dispute resolution over the past 10 years.  This blog post provides a  detailed summary of the most significant points of the specialized report.  My comments are italicized for the most part.

Why this report?

As I wrote last year, I surmise that the NPC Standing Committee requested the SPC submit a specialized report on administrative litigation to promote (the Chinese phrase is “倒逼 “) significant changes to resolving administrative disputes, that is, disputes between individuals or enterprises and government agencies, by agreeing to report on administrative litigation.   Administrative cases are more sensitive because as  President Zhang Jun reported: “administrative cases are connected to administrative organs on one end and the people on the other, and are directly related to the people’s trust in the Party and the government and their confidence in the socialist rule of law.” The introduction to the report captures the themes of  administrative litigation work of the court system in this excerpt from one anodyne sentence:

New era administrative adjudication work…tried administrative cases impartially and promptly, resolved administrative disputes, supported administration according to law, protected the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and supervised administrative organs in performing their duties in accordance with the law, making positive contributions to the integrated construction of a country ruled by law, a government ruled by law, and a society ruled by law.

This group of slogans （提法）signals themes seen in the rest of the report: courts do only part of their work through hearing cases;  they are encouraged to resolve the substance of an administrative dispute; the judiciary supports and supervises administrative agencies; they protect the rights of individuals, legal persons and others; and these all actively contribute to the Party and state’s goal of a country governed by law, a government governed by law, and a society governed by law  (为一体建设法治国家、法治政府、法治社会作出积极贡献).

Overview and drafting

The report covers all types of administrative cases the Chinese courts hear. Underlying this report are hundreds of hours of drafting, soliciting data and comments from related offices and institutions. The Administrative Division of the SPC took the lead in drafting the report and must have solicited contributions from the Intellectual Property Court (Tribunal), #3 Civil Division (intellectual property), and the Natural Resources and Environmental Division.  Administrative divisions of Chinese courts, including the SPC, hear or consider a substantial portion of, but not all, administrative cases and matters.   For intellectual property (including anti-monopoly) and environmental and natural resources cases or matters, the relevant specialized divisions of the SPC (and local counterparts) are responsible.  The report incorporates the SPC’s response to a research report on administrative adjudication work prepared by the NPC Standing Committee’s Supervisory and Judicial Affairs Committee (as it would follow the requirements discussed in this earlier blog post).  In a forthcoming article, I will have more to say about specialized reports as a form of NPC Standing Committee oversight.

 Summary of the Report

The report’s structure is the usual one for specialized reports: highlights of the accomplishments of the Chinese courts in administrative cases since 2015,  when the SPC last reported to the NPC Standing Committee on the hearing of administrative cases, followed by a summary of outstanding challenges and suggestions to the NPC Standing Committee for future work. A single sentence in the introduction reveals information about the relationship between the Party leadership and the SPC in reporting to the NPC Standing Committee.  “In April 2024, the Party Leadership Group of the Supreme People’s Court submitted a special written report to the Party Center for the first time on the administrative trial work of the people’s courts.”  What this signals is that submitting a written report to the Party Center is now part of the SPC’s procedure in preparing such specialized reports but was not required in 2015, when the SPC last reported to the NPC Standing Committee on administrative litigation. It would have been part of the drafting process of the 2022 specialized report on foreign-related litigation work as well as the 2023 one on environmental and natural resources litigation work. Similar to the foreign-related adjudication report,  the introduction takes an inclusive view of accomplishments: judicial interpretations, policy documents, typical and guiding cases, as well as correctly deciding important cases.  My summary has omitted most case summaries included in the report. The first part of the report provides overall statistics. From 2016 to September 2024, people’s courts at all levels heard a total of 2.421 million first-instance administrative cases and handled 1.841 million administrative non-litigation enforcement cases  (see below for an explanation of these cases) (so many more than foreign-related cases  (384,000 from 2013-2022)).  Administrative cases account for a small proportion of the cases in the Chinese courts. See this excerpt from this year’s SPC report to the NPC, showing that only 2% of the cases in the Chinese courts were administrative. The causes of action that accounted for a relatively high proportion of the concluded first-instance cases were administrative penalties such as fines and administrative detention, administrative confirmation such as social security qualifications or work-related injury recognition, administrative rulings such as confirmation of natural resource ownership, and “non-performance of duties” such as requests for administrative agencies to perform their statutory duties. See this excerpt from the NPC report providing this information as a graph.

SPC Accomplishments

 1. Serving the overall situation and promoting high-quality development with fair justice

This section first highlights improving the business environment.  It reiterates one of the themes of the report: “we supervise and correct illegal administrative behaviors that infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of various business entities, and strongly support administrative agencies in performing their regulatory duties and maintaining market order according to law.”  Accomplishments include:

• issuing typical cases on unified market administrative litigation; hearing 316,000 first-instance administrative cases related to business, such as administrative licenses, administrative agreements, administrative promises, and administrative penalties with an average annual growth of 23.3%.  The report does not explain the high growth rate.
• serving the innovation-driven development strategy according to law (intellectual property and related issues). This section flags that the courts heard 138,000 first instance intellectual property administrative cases involving intellectual property rights with an average annual growth of 20.3%, also with no explanation. The remainder of this part flags the work of the SPC outside the courtroom (about which I am writing more):
  • concluded a joint policy document with the National Intellectual Property Administration (in Chinese), the Opinions on Strengthening Coordinated Protection of Intellectual Property Rights （English summary here);
  • regularly met with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs to discuss the protection of seed industry intellectual property rights [and concluded a memorandum of understanding and held joint training, not mentioned];
  • regularly met with the National Anti-Monopoly Bureau, etc., to discuss prohibiting the abuse of intellectual property rights to exclude and restrict competition.

On administrative cases in specialized areas, such as environmental and natural resource protection and real estate expropriation cases: 118,000 first-instance environmental and natural resource administrative cases, with an average annual increase of 14.9%, also without explanation； 425,000 first-instance administrative cases involving house and land expropriation and demolition, with an average annual growth of 8.8%, also with no explanation as to reasons.

2. Justice for the people and safeguarding the well-being of the people with fair justice

This section focuses on cases related to people’s livelihood (“民生”). Again, it reiterates the themes of support vs. supervision and substantive resolution of administrative disputes to maintain social stability.  Useful information in this section:

1. The number of first-instance administrative cases has increased by an average of 5.3% annually since 2016.
2. The SPC will improve its mechanisms for dealing with applications for the retrial of administrative cases, including pre-retrial resolution.  It can be surmised that the number of applications for the retrial of administrative cases at the SPC is close to pre-Covid numbers, but statistics are not available. Jiangsu will pilot legal aid in administrative litigation.  This signals the importance of legal advice for both efficient case resolution and better communication with litigants.
3.  The SPC emphasizes that it supports administrative agencies in punishing illegal acts such as endangering food and drug safety, damaging the ecological environment, and withholding wages for migrant workers.  It also signals that the courts will supervise those  with the occasional [common?]  problem of “heavy penalties for minor offenses” [likely linked to profit-making administration].  The SPC signals that those issues should be handled outside the courtroom, through outreach to law enforcement, to promote fairness and openness, commensurate penalties, and combining penalties with education.
4.  On the substantive resolution of disputes, the report uses as an example a case handled by the SPC and later provides an example of an analogous case handled by the military courts. For the outside observer, the SPC case provides an example of the SPC’s unique role. The cases involved three brothers surnamed Sun who filed 137 administrative lawsuits and applications for retrials related to social insurance and were long-term petitioners. The original trial court dismissed the cases because the statute of limitations had expired. After review [it is not explained how their case came before the SPC], the SPC took the view that the brothers’ demands were basically reasonable and could be resolved according to the current social security system, although the ruling by the trial court was not wrong.  The SPC notes that the dispute was unresolved and might even intensify. Therefore, mediation was organized together with the administrative authorities, and a package solution was reached. The case demonstrates the importance of substantive resolution of administrative disputes and for litigants, making a fuss to resolve a dispute.
5. As an example of developing the “Fengqiao Experience” in the new era,  1,966 administrative dispute resolution centers were established.  (At least two have been established in Shenzhen, and I hope that they welcome foreign visitors.)

3. Organic Link Between Law Enforcement and the Judiciary

This section emphasizes that the courts have a statutory duty to supervise government action and that “supervision means support and support means supervision.”  Examples of supervision include:

1. A limited number of cases (2664) in which courts engaged in an incidental review of normative documents.   That is consistent with academic research.

2.  Court supervision of administrative action by refusing to enforce certain non-litigation enforcement cases.  As explained in this academic article, when administrative agencies apply to courts to enforce an agency decision when the persons involved do not voluntarily fulfil the obligations required, a court will review the legality of the administrative decision.  The report states that 368,000 administrative non-litigation enforcement cases were handled by courts ruling either not to enforce or not to accept the enforcement case, accounting for 20% of the total number of administrative agencies’ applications for enforcement. This number is larger than what I have seen elsewhere. 3.  The SPC, the Supreme People’s Procuratorate, and the Ministry of Justice established a “3+N” working mechanism with the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Natural Resources.  The goal of the mechanism to analyze and evolve measures to deal with frequently arising administrative disputes.  [These disputes are presumably related to housing demolition]. 4.  Eight courts in Beijing have established an administrative law training base for officials using case-based law teaching. Courts in several provinces have established a regular consultation mechanism with administrative agencies. 5. The rate of administrative agency heads appearing in court to respond to lawsuits in the first instance has steadily increased year by year.  For more on this system with Chinese characteristics, see these academic articles for more details. 6. As I wrote last year, the SPC works with the Ministry of Justice (and correspondingly, lower courts do the same with justice authorities) to encourage litigants to seek administrative reconsideration before going to court. 102,000 first-instance cases that have been reviewed after administrative reconsideration were heard. Last year the number of administrative reconsideration cases exceeded administrative litigation cases for the first time.

Administrative Litigation-Related Judicial Reform

This section, among other content, summarizes the administrative litigation reform measures the SPC has undertaken and the expansion of its “guidance toolbox” (监督指导的“工具箱”).  I will have more to say about the SPC’s guidance toolbox in an article to be published later this spring.

1. The SPC has implemented the arrangements of the Party Center on jurisdiction in administrative cases and has established courts with cross-administrative jurisdiction, such as the Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Court and the Shanghai No. 3 Intermediate People’s Court. See related academic research (but behind the paywall).   The SPC issued procedures on simplified procedures, used in 149,000 first instance cases.  The military courts have implemented administrative litigation–see this summary of the authorizing  notice issued by the Central Military Commmission’s Political-Legal Commission.  However, related information is scarce.
2. On trial supervision, 1.209 million administrative cases of second instance were heard in accordance with the law, with a retrial rate of 7.2%; 327,000 cases of various types of retrial applications were handled (unclear how many at the SPC), and 1,604 cases of protest by the procuratorate were heard.
3. I’m personally glad to see the SPC use the phrase “guidance toolbox,” as that is how I have visualized it. That toolbox includes the platforms Court Answers Platform and the People’s Court Case Library, as well as the more traditional guiding and typical cases.
4. President Zhang Jun thanked the NPC Standing Committee for supporting the administrative litigation work of the courts through promulgating legislation and authorizing pilot projects.

Challenges

1. Law-based governance needs to be improved. The large number of cases in some areas (unspecified) is not only linked to the interests of ordinary people but also reflects that the link between administrative enforcement and the judiciary needs to be improved. Some judges deal with cases mechanically and are not easily able to resolve administrative disputes from the source by communicating with administrative agencies on solutions to avoid future cases.
2. The courts need to improve joint efforts to resolve administrative disputes in substance. This is reflected in the high appeal rate and the high rate of application for retrial.  However, some [unnamed] administrative agencies are unwilling to resolve administrative disputes on their own initiative or correct illegal administrative behavior and do not implement court decisions adequately or in a timely manner.  Problems still remain with agency leaders appearing in court.
3. The smooth connection between pre-litigation mediation, administrative reconsideration, and the administrative litigation of administrative disputes is lacking.
4. Some disputes involve multiple regulators, and therefore, a plaintiff needs to sue each regulator separately rather than bringing a consolidated procedure.

Improvements Needed

1. Uphold Party leadership of the judiciary.  This implies local people’s courts regularly reporting to local party committees, informing the government about administrative judicial work in their jurisdictions, closely relying on the leadership of the Party, and actively seeking government support to promote the resolution of complex contradictions and problems involved in administrative cases.  Zhang Jun stated: we must look at these cases from a political perspective and handle them according to  the rule of law, and act “if I were suing.” 
2. Better serve the high-quality development of the economy and society. This means correcting agencies using administrative power to exclude and restrict market competition and to serve the strategy of constructing a unified national market. On the topic of profit-seeking administration,  it calls for local courts to supervise the illegal use of administrative means to intervene in economic disputes and protect property rights and strengthen judicial supervision of administrative measures such as sealing, seizure, freezing, and administrative compulsory execution. This was mentioned just as “deep-sea fishing”  by administrative agencies came to national attention. Finance, land, and employment administrative cases were highlighted.
3.  The report reiterates the organic connection between administrative cases and other related procedures such as administrative reconsideration, procuratorate oversight of administrative matters, pre-litigation mediation of administrative disputes, and legalization of petition work.  This includes: improving legal aid for administrative litigation (as mentioned above),  requiring judges to clarify and guide litigants in administrative cases; implementing a pre-trial meeting system and other measures.  This section stresses the role of mediation and emphasizes improving the reasoning of decisions. On the trial quality management indicator system,  the SPC calls for implementing related trial management measures suitable for administrative cases and shifting the focus of trial work from “whether the case is closed” to “whether the dispute is resolved”.  Any reader who has made it thus far in this summary would not be surprised.
4. On supervision and support,  the SPC has several suggestions:
   1.  regarding areas where analogous cases frequently arise, create an analysis and notification system to report to the local Party Committee cases that administrative agencies lose and their implementation of effective judgments [presumably those that they lose]; report typical cases to administrative agencies, and strengthen coordination.
   2. further promote the increase in the rate of administrative agency leaders appearing in court to respond to lawsuits, encourage administrative agency leaders to “appear in court and speak out.”
   3. On future SPC administrative litigation judicial interpretations and policies, the report mentions the drafting of judicial interpretations and judicial policies such on housing expropriation and compensation on state-owned land; regulatory documents for the review of administrative documents in the course of administrative litigation, and joint trial of civil disputes, and other measures for unifying legal standards in similar cases. Another issue that the SPC is considering is identifying and regulating abusive administrative litigation, similar to other areas of the law.

Concluding Remarks

President Zhang Jun concludes by suggesting the reform of the jurisdiction system of administrative cases, in which intermediate courts hear major and complex cases; basic level courts hear simple cases through centralized jurisdiction (concentrating them in one basic level court); and the role of the mediation system in resolving administrative disputes is improved.  He also suggests amending the Administrative Litigation Law to improve the linkage between administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation and improve alternative methods to resolve administrative disputes.

A Few Comments

This specialized report provides a useful glimpse into Chinese administrative dispute resolution in the New Era.  For the outside observer, many elements of administrative justice/administrative dispute resolution with Chinese characteristics are visible.  Among those, as stressed in the summary above, are the multiple mechanisms for supervising administrative agencies outside the courtroom and the growing importance of mediating administrative disputes.   _______________________________ Many thanks to Professor Chen Tianhao of the Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management for his comments on an earlier draft of this blogpost!