Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China

Legal Interpretation [2015] No. 9

In order to correctly apply the "Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China" as amended by the decision of the 11th Session of the Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress, and in consideration of the actual conditions of the people's courts' administrative adjudication work, the following interpretations are made on the application of the relevant provisions:

Article 1: People's courts shall file cases that meet the requirements for initiating litigation, and ensure the parties' exercise of procedural rights in accordance with law.

The people's courts shall accept all complaints in accordance with the provisions of article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law for lawsuits raised by parties in accordance with law. where it can be judged that the requirements for initiating litigation are met, the case shall be registered and filed on the spot; Where it is not possible to judge whether the requirements for initiating litigation are met at the scene, a decision on whether to file the case shall be made within 7 days of receiving the indictment; Where a judgment cannot be made within 7 days, the case shall be filed first.

Where the content or materials of the complaint are insufficient, the people's court shall comprehensively inform the parties of the content that needs to be supplemented and corrected, the materials to be supplemented, and the time period for supplementation. Where it is supplemented and corrected within the designated time period and the requirements for initiating litigation are met, the case shall be registered and filed. Where the parties refuse to supplement and correct or still do not meet the requirements for initiating litigation after supplementation and correction, rule not to file the case, and clearly state the reasons for not filing the case.

Where parties are dissatisfied with the ruling not to file a case, they may file an appeal.

Article 2: "There are specific litigation demands" as provided for in paragraph 3 of article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to:

(1) Requesting a judgment to revoke or modify an administrative act;

(2) Requesting a judgment on the administrative organ's performance of legally-prescribed duties or payment obligations;

(3) Requesting a judgment confirming that the administrative act is unlawful;

(4) Requesting a judgment confirming the invalidity of the administrative act;

(5) Requesting a judgment for compensation or compensation by the administrative organ;

(6) Request for resolution of administrative agreement disputes;

(G) a request to review the normative documents below the rules;

(8) Request that the relevant civil disputes be resolved together;

(9) Other litigation demands.

Where parties fail to correctly express litigation demands, the people's courts shall give explanations.

Article 3: In any of the following circumstances, where a case has already been filed, a ruling shall be made to reject the lawsuit:

(1) It does not comply with the provisions of article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law;

(2) Where the legally-prescribed time limit for initiating litigation has been exceeded and there is no legitimate reason;

(3) Wrongly listing the defendant and refusing to make changes;

(4) Failure to have a legally-designated representative, designated representative, or representative conduct of litigation in accordance with legal provisions;

(5) Failing to first apply to an administrative organ for reconsideration in accordance with laws and regulations;

(6) Repeated prosecutions;

(7) After withdrawing the indictment, there is no legitimate reason for initiating another indictment;

(8) The administrative act clearly does not have an actual impact on their lawful rights and interests;

(9) The subject matter of the litigation is already bound by an effective judgment;

(10) They do not meet other legally-prescribed requirements for initiating litigation.

Where, after reading the case file, investigating and questioning the parties, the people's court finds that it is not necessary to hold in-court proceedings, it may rule to reject the indictment.

Article 4: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate litigation against administrative organs for not performing their legally-prescribed duties in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 47 of the Administrative Litigation Law, they shall submit it within 6 months of the completion of the period for the administrative organ's performance of legally-prescribed duties.

Article 5: The "responsible persons of administrative organs" as provided for in paragraph 3 of article 3 of the Administrative Litigation Law include the principal and deputy responsible persons of administrative organs. Where the responsible person for an administrative organ appears in court to respond to a lawsuit, one or two agents ad litem may be separately retained.

Article 6: The "reconsideration organ's decision to maintain the original administrative act" as provided for in paragraph 2 of article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Law includes circumstances where the reconsideration organ rejects an application for reconsideration or a request for reconsideration, except where the reconsideration application is rejected on the grounds that it does not meet the requirements for acceptance.

"Alteration of the original administrative act by the reconsideration organ" as provided for in paragraph 2 of article 26 of the Administrative Litigation Law refers to the outcome of the reconsideration organ's modification of the original administrative act.

Article 7: Where the reconsideration organ decides to maintain the original administrative act, the administrative organ that took the original administrative act and the reconsideration organ are joint defendants. Where the plaintiff only sues the administrative organ or reconsideration organ that took the original administrative act, the people's court shall inform the plaintiff to add the defendant. Where the plaintiff does not agree to the addition, the people's court shall list the other organ as a co-defendant.

Article 8: Where the administrative organ that took the original administrative act and the reconsideration organ are joint defendants, the administrative organ that took the original administrative act is to determine the level of jurisdiction over the case.

Article 9: Where the reconsideration organ decides to maintain the original administrative act, the people's court shall review the legality of the reconsideration procedure at the same time as reviewing the legality of the original administrative act.

The administrative organ that took the original administrative act and the reconsideration organ jointly bear the burden of presenting evidence on the legality of the original administrative act, and one of the organs may carry out the act of presenting evidence. The reconsideration organ bears the burden of proof for the legality of the reconsideration procedure.

Article 10: At the same time that a people's court makes a judgment on the original administrative act, it shall also make a corresponding judgment on the reconsideration decision.

Where a people's court makes a judgment to revoke the original administrative act or reconsideration decision, it may make a judgment that the administrative organ that took the original administrative act to take a new administrative act.

Where a people's court makes a judgment that the administrative organ that took the original administrative act performs its legally-prescribed duties or payment obligations, it shall make a judgment to revoke the reconsideration decision at the same time.

Where the original administrative act was lawful and the reconsideration decision violated legally-prescribed procedures, a judgment shall be made confirming that the reconsideration decision was unlawful, and at the same time a judgment shall be made to reject the plaintiff's litigation claims against the original administrative act.

Where the original administrative act is revoked, confirmed to be illegal, or invalid, causing losses to the plaintiff, the administrative organ that took the original administrative act shall bear responsibility for compensation; Where losses are caused to the plaintiff due to the illegal reconsideration procedure, the reconsideration organ shall bear the responsibility for compensation.

Article 11: Agreements with the content of rights and obligations under administrative law that administrative organs negotiate and conclude with citizens, legal persons, or other organizations within the scope of their legally-prescribed duties in order to achieve the public interest or administrative management goals are administrative agreements as provided for in item 11 of the first paragraph of article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Law.

Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate administrative litigation over the following administrative agreements, the people's courts shall accept them in accordance with law:

(1) Government concession agreements;

(2) Compensation agreements for expropriation and expropriation of land, houses, etc.;

(3) Other administrative agreements.

Article 12: Where citizens, legal persons, or other organizations initiate litigation against administrative organs for not performing in accordance with law or for failing to perform agreements as agreed, refer to the provisions of civil law norms on the statute of limitations; Where litigation is initiated against an administrative organ's unilateral modification or termination of an agreement, the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law and its judicial interpretations on the time limit for initiating litigation are to be applied.

Article 13: In cases where litigation is initiated against an administrative agreement, the provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law and its judicial interpretations are to be applied to determine the competent court.

Article 14: People's courts reviewing whether administrative organs are lawfully performing on agreements, performing agreements in accordance with agreements, or unilaterally modifying or terminating agreements are lawful, may apply civil legal norms that do not violate the mandatory provisions of the Administrative Law and the Administrative Litigation Law while applying administrative law norms.

Article 15: Where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not perform in accordance with law, failed to perform the agreement as agreed, or unilaterally modified or terminated the agreement unlawfully, and the grounds are sustained, the people's court may make a judgment confirming the validity of the agreement, ruling that the defendant continue to perform the agreement, and clarifying the specific content of continued performance; where the defendant is unable to continue performance or it is no longer meaningful to continue performance, a judgment is made that the defendant shall take corresponding remedial measures; and where losses are caused to the plaintiff, the defendant is to be ordered to compensate.

If the plaintiff requests to terminate the agreement or confirm that the agreement is invalid, and the reasons are sustained, a judgment shall be made to terminate the agreement or confirm that the agreement is invalid, and a disposition shall be made in accordance with the Contract Law and other relevant legal provisions.

Where the defendant unilaterally modifies or terminates the agreement due to public interest or other legally-prescribed reasons, causing losses to the plaintiff, the defendant is to be compensated.

Article 16: Where an administrative organ initiates litigation for not performing in accordance with law or failing to perform an agreement as agreed, the litigation costs are to be paid in accordance with the standards for civil cases; Where litigation is initiated against an administrative organ's unilateral modification or termination of an agreement, the standards for payment of administrative cases are to be applied to litigation costs.

Article 17: Citizens, legal persons, or other organizations requesting that civil disputes provided for in article 61 of the Administrative Litigation Law be tried together shall be submitted before the first-instance trial begins; Where there is a legitimate reason, it may also be raised in the court investigation.

In any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall make a decision not to allow the civil dispute to be heard together, and inform the parties that they may claim their rights through other channels in accordance with law:

(1) Where the law provides that the administrative organ shall handle it first;

(2) Violating the provisions on exclusive jurisdiction of the Civil Procedure Law or the agreement on jurisdiction;

(3) Where an application for arbitration or a civil lawsuit has already been initiated;

(4) Other civil disputes that are not suitable for trial together.

A reconsideration of the decision not to grant may be applied for once.

Article 18: Where people's courts hear relevant civil disputes together in administrative litigation, the civil disputes shall be filed separately and heard by the same trial organization.

Where cases of adjudication of civil disputes made by administrative organs are heard, and civil disputes are heard together, a separate case is not to be filed.

Article 19: People's courts are to apply the relevant provisions of civil legal norms when hearing relevant civil disputes together, except as otherwise provided by law.

The disposition of civil rights and interests by the parties in mediation cannot be used as a basis for reviewing the legality of the administrative act being sued.

Administrative disputes and civil disputes shall be adjudicated separately. Where a party only appeals an administrative or civil judgment, the judgment that has not been appealed will take legal effect after the period for appeal is completed. The first-instance trial court shall transfer the entire case file to the second-instance trial court, and the administrative trial division will hear it. Where the second-instance trial court discovers that an effective judgment that has not been appealed is truly in error, it shall retry it in accordance with the trial supervision procedures.

Article 20: Citizens, legal persons, or other organizations requesting that the people's courts jointly review the normative documents provided for in article 53 of the Administrative Litigation Law shall submit them before the first-instance trial begins; Where there is a legitimate reason, it may also be raised in the court investigation.

Article 21: Where normative documents are unlawful, the people's courts are not to be the basis for determining the legality of administrative acts, and are to explain them in the reasons for the adjudication. The people's court that made an effective judgment shall submit a disposition recommendation to the organ that drafted the normative document, and may send a copy to the people's government at the same level as the drafting organ or to the administrative organ at the level above.

Article 22: Where the plaintiff's reasons for requesting that the defendant perform legally-prescribed duties are sustained, and the defendant unlawfully refuses to perform or fails to respond within the time limit without a legitimate reason, the people's court may, on the basis of article 72 of the Administrative Litigation Law, make a judgment that the defendant lawfully perform the legally-prescribed duties requested by the plaintiff within a set period of time; Where it is still necessary for the defendant to investigate or make a decision, a judgment shall be made that the defendant shall make a new disposition in response to the plaintiff's request.

Article 23: Where the plaintiff's grounds for applying for the defendant's lawful performance of payment obligations such as bereavement pensions, minimum livelihood security benefits, or social insurance benefits are sustained, and the defendant has an obligation to pay in accordance with law but refuses or delays performance of the obligation without a legitimate reason, the people's court may make a judgment that the defendant is to perform the corresponding payment obligation within a set period of time on the basis of article 73 of the Administrative Litigation Law.

Article 24: Parties applying to the people's court at the level above for retrial shall submit it within 6 months of the judgment, ruling, or mediation document taking legal effect. In any of the following circumstances, it is to be submitted within 6 months from the date on which it was known or should have been known:

(1) There is new evidence sufficient to overturn the original judgment or ruling;

(2) The primary evidence for the facts ascertained in the original judgment or ruling was fabricated;

(3) The legal documents on which the original judgment or ruling was based have been revoked or modified;

(4) Adjudicators engaged in acts of corruption, bribery, twisting the law for personal gain, or perverting the law when trying the case.

Article 25: In any of the following circumstances, parties may apply to the people's procuratorate for a procuratorial counter-appeal or procuratorial recommendation:

(1) The people's court rejects the application for retrial;

(2) The people's court has not made a ruling on the application for retrial within the time limit;

(3) There are obvious errors in the retrial judgment or ruling.

Where after a people's court makes a retrial judgment or ruling based on a prosecutorial counter-appeal or procuratorial recommendation, and the parties apply for a retrial, the people's court is not to file the case.

Article 26: Where the time limit for initiating litigation has not yet completed before May 1, 2015, apply the provisions of the revised Administrative Litigation Law on the time limit for initiating litigation.

The provisions of the Administrative Litigation Law on trial time limits before the amendment apply to the trial time limits for cases that have not been concluded before May 1, 2015. Procedural matters that have been completed in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Law before the amendment are still valid.

Where a judgment or ruling that took legal effect before May 1, 2015 or an administrative compensation mediation document is dissatisfied with an application for retrial, or where the people's court is to retry in accordance with the trial supervision procedures, the procedural provisions apply to the provisions of the revised Administrative Litigation Law.

Article 27: Where judicial interpretations previously issued by the Supreme People's Court are inconsistent with this interpretation, this interpretation is controlling.