Di Wu
On May 14, 2021, in order to deepen the reform of the administrative litigation system, promote the bifurcation of complex and simple administrative cases, light and heavy cases and fast and slow cases, optimize the allocation of administrative trial resources, promote the substantive resolution of administrative disputes, protect the rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, and support and supervise the administrative work conducted by administrative agencies, the Supreme People’s Court formulated the Opinions on Promoting the Reform to Separate Complex and Simple Administrative Litigation Procedures (the “Opinions”) in accordance with the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “Administrative Litigation Law”) and judicial interpretations in combination with trial practices. The Opinions are highlighted below:
I. The scope of simple cases is clarified
Simple cases include: 1. first instance cases which (1) fall under Article 82, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law, including those in which the administrative act being litigated was conducted on the spot in accordance with law; involve less than RMB 2,000; (2) do not meet the statutory conditions for filing a complaint; (3) contest the decision of an administration reconsideration agency to decline or reject the reconsideration application or (4) are administrative cases involving government information disclosure of minimal dispute where the facts are clear and the rights and obligations clearly stipulated, with clear facts, obvious right and obligation relationship or minimum disputes, or performance of a statutory duty, or confirmation of rights in a trademark license matter; 2. second instance cases which (1) are appeals that were quickly adjudicated by the court of first instance under simple case procedure; (2) in which the parties withdrew the appeal or complaint or in which the appeal was automatically withdrawn; and (3) are appeals from rulings that rejected the establishment of the case, dismissed the complaint or relating to jurisdiction objections, etc.
II. Stipulating pre-litigation separation of administrative disputes
The people’s courts shall strengthen the source governance of administrative disputes, and improve the separation interfacing mechanisms between administrative litigation and non-litigation dispute resolution methods, such as administrative reconsideration and administrative orders. Pursuant to the Administrative Litigation Law, for cases that can be mediated, cases that the administrative respondent requests a settlement, or cases for which a settlement is more conducive to the substantive resolution of the administrative dispute, the people’s court may guide the parties to settle by themselves or through third-party mediation before the case is established in the docket. If a settlement agreement is reached through pre-litigation mediation, and the parties jointly apply for judicial confirmation, the people’s court can issue a pre-litigation administrative mediation document. If the parties refuse to mediate or fail to reach a settlement agreement, and the statutory conditions for establishing up a case are satisfied, the people’s court shall promptly register and establish the case in the docket. Subsequently, if the mediation parties apply for withdrawal, and the people’s court believes that such withdrawal conforms with the law, it shall grant the withdrawal. Facts not disputed by the parties during the pre-litigation mediation should be included in the mediation record signed and confirmed by the parties. Subject to the parties’ agreement, the parties will not submit during the trial proceedings evidence or conduct cross-examination concerning facts that the parties did not dispute during the mediation procedure, except for facts that the parties recognized in a compromise for a settlement agreement or those that can be refuted with sufficient counterevidence.
III. The rules of summary procedure are clarified
The people’s court may apply a summary procedure to hear administrative cases in the following manners so as to protect the parties’ litigation rights to present a defense, produce evidence, cross-examine, make statements and engage in oral argument: (1) If the identities of the parties have been verified, their rights and obligations communicated, and the court disciplinary rules announced during the pre-trial preparatory stage or in some other manner they do not have to be repeated during the trial; (2) if the trial is centered around the legality of the administrative act being litigated, the court investigation and arguments may proceed concurrently; and (3) if the parties indicate that there is no need for a response period or a deadline on evidence production, the people’s court may elect to conduct a hearing without being subject to the response period or evidence production deadline. In addition, cases tried pursuant to a summary procedure should generally be concluded after a single hearing.
IV. The specific circumstances for speedy adjudication of simple cases are clarified
If a people’s court believes that the plaintiff’s complaint does not meet the legal requirements after it reviewed the file, conducted an investigation, or questioned the parties may directly dismiss the complaint.
If the identities of the parties have been verified, their rights and obligations communicated, and the evidence exchange completed before the trial, they do not have to be repeated during the trial. Evidence that was confirmed as not disputed during the pretrial preparatory stage and recorded in the case file as such may be explained by the people’s court in its investigation, and if the parties agree, they may further serve as a factual basis of the case.
In cases where the reconsideration agency is a co-defendant, and the facts determined in the reconsideration decision and the original administrative act have been specifically recognized by the opposing party during trial, the people’s court may simplify the production of evidence and cross-examination at trial.
For an appeal where the parties are dissatisfied with the first instance administrative adjudication and believe that the application of laws and regulations in the first instance was erroneous, the people’s court may try the case without a hearing after having reviewed the files, conducted an investigation or questioned the parties if no new facts, evidence or grounds are submitted. To protect the litigation rights of the parties, the court of second instance may question the parties through the litigation platform, telephone, messaging or other simple ways, and record the process, unless the matter involves new facts or evidence. If the parties claim that the cause of retrial was obviously not established, or the conditions for applying for retrial were not met, the decision to reject the retrial application may be appropriately simplified.
If different parties file separate lawsuits against the same or the same type of administrative act, the cases can be set up collectively and the same trial team will implement collective scheduling, hearing, trial, and sentencing.