Chinese Administrative Litigation

The Administrative Procedure Law

Administrative litigation in China is governed by the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Xingzheng Susong Fa, 行政诉讼法), originally enacted in 1989 and substantially revised in 2014 and 2017. The Law provides the mechanism for judicial review of administrative acts and protects the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organisations against unlawful administrative action.

The 1989 Law was a landmark in Chinese legal development, establishing, for the first time since the establishment of the PRC, a mechanism for citizens to challenge administrative acts in court. The Law was, however, limited in scope and effectiveness. The 2014 revision significantly expanded the scope of reviewable acts, relaxed standing requirements, strengthened the court’s powers of review, and introduced measures to address the problem of courts refusing to accept administrative cases.

Standing (Article 2)

Standing (yuange) under administrative litigation is defined by Article 2 of the Administrative Procedure Law, as amended in 2014. Any citizen, legal person, or other organisation that claims that an administrative act infringes upon its lawful rights and interests has the right to bring an administrative lawsuit.

The 2014 revision broadened standing in several respects. The requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate a “direct” legal interest was relaxed: plaintiffs with an “indirect” legal interest may now bring suit. The revision also introduced public interest standing for procuratorates in environmental and resource protection cases, and for consumer interests in cases involving illegal administrative acts that harm public interests.

The SPC’s Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law (2018) clarified standing rules for specific categories of plaintiffs: neighbours challenging land-use approvals that may affect their property rights; competitors challenging government procurement decisions that favour another bidder; trade associations challenging regulations that affect their members’ interests; and residents challenging environmental permits for industrial facilities in their community.

Scope (Articles 12-13)

The scope of reviewable administrative acts (shou li fanwei) is defined by Articles 12 and 13 of the Administrative Procedure Law. Article 12 lists 12 categories of reviewable acts: administrative penalties; compulsory administrative measures; administrative licensing decisions; administrative confirmation decisions; administrative expropriation decisions; administrative agreements; infringement of management autonomy; refusal to perform statutory duties; failure to pay social insurance benefits; failure to pay minimum subsistence allowances; administrative acts that infringe on lawful rights to land, mineral resources, water resources, or other natural resources; and other administrative acts that infringe on lawful rights.

Article 13 excludes from judicial review: state acts (defence, foreign affairs); administrative regulations, rules, and regulatory documents (though normative documents may be challenged incidentally); decisions of internal administrative organs on personnel matters; and final administrative decisions that are, by law, not subject to judicial review (such as certain decisions of the State Council in administrative reconsideration).

The 2014 revision expanded the scope by including administrative agreements (xingzheng xieyi) as reviewable acts. The SPC’s 2018 Interpretation confirmed that administrative agreements — including concessions, government procurement, and public-private partnership agreements — may be challenged on grounds of breach of statutory duty, procedural irregularity, abuse of power, or invalidity.

Burden of Proof (Article 34)

The burden of proof in administrative litigation is allocated to the defendant administrative organ. Article 34 provides that the defendant bears the burden of proving that the administrative act was lawful and must produce evidence and the legal basis for the act.

The defendant must submit the evidence within 15 days of receiving the court’s response notice. Evidence not submitted within this period is not admissible at trial, and the administrative act is presumed unlawful. The burden extends to the factual basis for the act and the legal authority under which the act was taken.

The plaintiff does not bear the burden of proving the unlawful nature of the act, but the plaintiff must prove the facts that establish standing and the existence of the administrative act. In certain categories of cases — including administrative inaction cases (where the plaintiff claims the defendant failed to perform a statutory duty) and administrative compensation cases — the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the underlying facts.

Judgment Types

The Administrative Procedure Law provides for several types of judgment (panjue):

Judgment dismissing the claim: where the administrative act is lawful, or where the plaintiff’s claim is unfounded. Judgment quashing the act: where the act is unlawful — the court may quash the act in whole or in part and may order the defendant to take a new act. Judgment of performance: where the defendant has failed to perform a statutory duty, the court orders the defendant to perform within a specified period. Judgment confirming illegality: where the act is unlawful but quashing would harm the public interest, or where the act has been performed and cannot be quashed. Judgment of invalidity: where the act suffers from a major and obvious illegality (zhongda mingxian weifa), the court may declare it void. Judgment ordering compensation: where the plaintiff has suffered loss as a result of an unlawful administrative act, the court may order the defendant to pay compensation.

The 2014 revision added the judgment of liability in administrative agreements, enabling courts to order specific performance, rectification, or damages for breach of an administrative agreement.

Mediation in Administrative Cases

Mediation (tiaojie) in administrative litigation was traditionally excluded. Article 50 of the original 1989 Law prohibited the mediation of administrative cases. The prohibition reflected the principle that administrative acts are exercises of public authority and are not subject to compromise.

The 2014 revision relaxed the prohibition. Article 60 provides that mediation is permitted in cases involving administrative compensation, administrative indemnity, and administrative agreements, and in cases where the administrative organ exercises discretion (i.e., where the law gives the administrative organ a range of options). Mediation may not be conducted in cases involving the lawfulness of an administrative act that does not involve the exercise of discretion.

The mediation must be voluntary and must be based on the principle of legality. The mediation agreement, if reached, is reduced to a written agreement and is enforceable by the court. The court’s encouragement of mediation in administrative cases reflects the broader Chinese preference for consensual dispute resolution.

SPC Interpretation

The Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law (2018, Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Guanyu Shiyong Xingzheng Susong Fa de Jieshi) is the authoritative guide to administrative litigation procedure. The Interpretation addresses: standing to sue; joinder of claims; the calculation of time limits; the admissibility of electronic evidence; the criteria for summary judgment; and the enforcement of judgments in administrative cases.

The Interpretation also addresses the cross-regional jurisdiction reform, authorising Higher People’s Courts to designate courts outside the administrative area of the original administrative authority to hear administrative cases. This provision was designed to address the problem of local protectionism, where courts within the same administrative region as the defendant administrative organ are reluctant to rule against it.

Conclusion

Chinese administrative litigation has evolved from a limited judicial review mechanism (the 1989 Law) to a more robust system of administrative accountability (the 2014 and 2017 revisions). The expanded scope, relaxed standing, reversed burden of proof, and cross-regional jurisdiction reforms have strengthened the role of courts in reviewing administrative action. The continuing challenges include the limited effectiveness of enforcement of judgments against administrative organs, the exclusion of regulatory documents from direct review, and the variable quality of judicial review across regions.