Your current location >> Press Release
SRTC Briefed on the Judicial Review of Administrative Cases in 2021
[2022-06-16]

 

 

On June 16, 2022, the Shanghai Railway Transportation Court (¡°SRTC¡±) held a press conference to brief on the judicial review of administrative cases in 2021. Lou Zhengtao, vice president of the SRTC, introduced the relevant situation. Reporters from media outlets like CCTV, China News Service, and Jiefang Daily attended the meeting online.

According to the press conference, in 2021, the SRTC continued to follow the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implement Xi Jinping Thought on the Rule of Law, focus on serving and guaranteeing the overall situation, give full play to the role of administrative adjudication, and provide a strong judicial guarantee for safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the people and promoting regional economic and social development. 1. An overview of administrative adjudication. The SRTC accepted 1,191 administrative cases in 2021, up 24.1% year on year. Specifically, 924 cases involved the four districts under centralized jurisdiction: Xuhui, Changning, Hongkou, and Putuo, up 28.0% year on year, accounting for 77.6% of all the cases; 202 cases with municipal organs as defendants, accounting for 17.0%; 40 cases with governments of districts other than the four mentioned above as defendants, accounting for 3.3%; ten cases over environmental resources with administrative organs of districts other than the four mentioned above as defendants, accounting for 0.8%; and 15 cases with universities and other entities as defendants, accounting for 1.3%. A total of 1,178 administrative cases were concluded. The conclusion to acceptance ratio is 98.9 to 100. Those cases mainly feature the following characteristics: a) There has been a significant increase in the number of cases accepted, with nearly 80% of cases involving the four districts under centralized jurisdiction; b) The law enforcement areas involved in administrative disputes have basically remained the same, and new types of cases have kept emerging; c) The losing rate of administrative organs has basically been the same year on year, and the law enforcement areas involved were relatively concentrated; d) The rate of coordinated resolution has improved while maintaining stability, and substantial progress has been made in resolving disputes; e) The rate of heads of administrative organs appearing in court to answer the charge has continued to rise substantially.

 

2. Features and highlights of administrative adjudication: (1) Always serving and guaranteeing the bigger picture of economic and social development and giving full play to the role of cross-district adjudication: a) The SRTC carefully handled administrative cases over housing expropriation to provide a strong judicial guarantee for the smooth renovation and expropriation of old houses in different districts; b) The SRTC carefully handled cases over market regulation and administrative licensing to help foster a fair and law-based business environment; c) The SRTC carefully handled cases of administrative penalties for environmental protection, which covered areas such as sewage treatment and enterprise operational pollution, thereby facilitating the ecological development of Shanghai. (2) Improving the mechanism for diversified resolution of administrative disputes and promoting substantive settlement of administrative disputes: a) The SRTC kept improving the whole-process settlement mechanism, and extended the substantive settlement of administrative disputes from pre-litigation and trial to post-judgment; b) The SRTC kept improving the mechanism for joint settlement between the filing, trial, and enforcement departments, strengthened communication between them, and enforced judgments through prior reconciliation; c) The SRTC kept improving the mechanism for the simultaneous settlement of related disputes, and promoted the package settlement of the involved disputes, related basic disputes, and derivative disputes, thereby getting things done for once and for all. In 2021, the rate of administrative cases handled by the SRTC through coordinated settlement was 36.0%, up three percentage points year-on-year, ranking top among primary people¡¯s courts in Shanghai. (3) Boosting positive interaction between the judiciary and the administration in an all-round manner to form synergy in building a law-based government: a) The SRTC enhanced the exchange and discussion mechanism. It strengthened the exchanges and discussions on problems in law-based administration and difficulties in the enforcement of cases of certain types, improved the awareness of administration according to law, and clarified the standards for application of relevant laws; b) The SRTC improved the feedback mechanism for judicial suggestions. Regarding the problems found during the trial of cases, it would send judicial suggestions to relevant administrative organs to plug loopholes in management and improve law enforcement; c) Together with the four districts under centralized jurisdiction, the SRTC carried out activities on a regular basis about hearing administrative cases, attending such hearings, and commenting on the cases, which fully covered the four districts. It also signed a framework agreement with the Justice Bureau and the Party School of Xuhui District as a new way to carry out those activities.

 

3. Problems existing in administrative law enforcement and in response to lawsuits: 2021 saw good performance of relevant administrative organs, yet there were some problems in law enforcement and response to lawsuits which required attention and improvement. (1) Problems in administrative law enforcement. a) Poor performance in investigation and evidence collection: In some cases, evidence was not properly collected and preserved in the process of law enforcement; facts identified by administrative acts were not supported by necessary evidence; or facts identified by administrative acts were not definite due to lax examination. b) Non-standard law enforcement procedure: In some cases, a legal procedure was not followed; the administrative act exceeded the legal time limit with no justification; or the service was not standard. c) Inaccurate application of law: In some cases, the wrong version of law was applied; the specific provisions of the legal basis were not included in the notice; or the law was wrongly applied. (2) Problems in response to administrative lawsuits. Some administrative organs failed to produce evidence in compliance with the norms; the scope of heads of administrative organs appearing in court and the quality of their response to lawsuits were not so good; and there was a lack of awareness to resolve disputes and improve the mechanism for substantive dispute resolution.

 

4. Suggestions on promoting law-based administration and building a law-based government: (1) Promoting the benign interaction between the judiciary and the administration through division of labor and cooperation. The regular linkage mechanism between the government and the people¡¯s court can be improved by allowing people in charge of administrative cases to appear in court, attend hearings, and make comments. The liaison officer system and the litigation quality and effectiveness feedback system can be improved by digging into the causes of losing a case and solving any common problems. Efforts should be made to study cases of certain types and clarify the standards for the application of laws. (2) Improving the effectiveness of building a law-based government by placing equal emphasis on the quality and quantity and encouraging heads of administrative bodies to appear in court to respond to lawsuits. Administrative law enforcement can be improved by increasing the number of heads of administrative bodies to appear in court to respond to lawsuits and improving the quality and effectiveness of their appearance in court. The level of law-based administration can be improved by raising decision-makers¡¯ awareness of legal risks and law enforcement personnel¡¯s awareness of evidence and procedure. A professional and stable legal team can be built by identifying the responsibilities of legal personnel and lawyers and strengthening their capabilities to respond to lawsuits. (3) Preventing administrative disputes at the source and resolving them substantively through coordination at the front, middle, and back ends. At the front end, efforts should be made to manage the sources of cases, sink them into the masses, and establish effective communication channels for resolving disputes. At the middle end, it is necessary to enhance the performance of duties and avoid inaction, slow action, or formalist action. At the back end, it should give full play to the function of administrative reconsideration, increase the supervision of reconsideration, and strive to resolve administrative disputes in administrative procedures. For those brought to the court, relevant administrative organs should work with the court and use their resources to promote substantive settlement of administrative disputes. (4) Enhancing the ability and level of law-based administration through concerted efforts at the ¡°point, line, and surface¡±. Prudent efforts should be made to deal with new situations and problems arising from the reform of the comprehensive administrative law enforcement system at the grassroots level, the reform of the administrative reconsideration system, and the implementation of new laws and regulations, such as the Administrative Punishment Law. It is necessary to be problem-oriented and pay close attention to the tough and hot points in law enforcement and lawsuit handling; capability-oriented and improve law-based administration at the line level; and result-oriented and keep improving the effectiveness of reform and governance at the grassroots level.

 

>> Chinese Version
The English version of this article, which is translated from the Chinese version by CTPC, is for reference only and shall be subject to the corresponding contents on the Chinese webpage.
Copyright @2014 Shanghai High People's Court, All Rights Reserved.