Legal information

Jilin Provincial High Court’s typical administrative trial cases in 2025. Lawyer Ying Ting compiled and briefly analyzed these ten typical cases:

First, the "hard support" of rights protection is used to solve the pain points of people's livelihood and the idling of procedures. The typical cases released this time directly hit the "urgent, difficult and anxious" issues that the people are most concerned about. In the identification of work-related injuries, it is clarified that reasonable detours for mobile positions such as truck drivers are "workplace extensions", which strengthens the employer's burden of proof; in the field of social security, the "advance payment" rule for work-related injury benefits is established. When the company refuses to pay compensation, the social security fund must cover the cost to ensure that the injured can receive life-saving money in time. In addition, in response to problems such as errors in real estate registration and compensation for damage caused by wild animals, the court has tried and ordered administrative agencies to perform their duties through "civilian and bank cross-examination", breaking the previous "slip-the-ball" litigation cycle, allowing the people's legitimate rights and interests to be truly realized from "paper rights" to "real money".

Second, supervise law enforcement with "strict standards" and correct inappropriate penalties and administrative inaction. The case clearly reflects the judicial norms and constraints on administrative power. Regarding cases such as property companies being fined for selling public spaces and practicing medicine without a license, the court adhered to the principle of "the penalty is proportionate to the penalty" and reduced the excessive fines through mediation, which not only maintained the dignity of the law but also took into account the business environment. At the same time, the "lazy" behavior of administrative agencies was severely rectified. For example, the housing expropriation center refused to disclose information on the grounds that it was "a non-administrative agency", and the natural resources bureau failed to respond to reports overdue. The courts all ruled to revoke the relevant decisions and ordered them to be redone. This is a warning to all administrative agencies: they cannot do anything without the authorization of the law, and legal duties must be fulfilled. Any attempt to avoid substantive responsibilities through procedural excuses will face negative judicial evaluation.

Third, a "new path" to substantively resolve disputes and promote the settlement of cases and social harmony. The biggest highlight of this case is that it is no longer limited to a simple "judgment of victory or defeat", but pursues the substantive resolution of disputes. Whether it is guiding the owners' committee to confirm ownership through civil litigation to promote administrative registration corrections, or accurately clarifying legal relationships in complex cases such as tax inspections and traffic certificate deductions, the courts have demonstrated extremely high professional standards. Especially for measures that are illegal but involve public safety, such as detaining a driving license beyond the expiration date, the court not only confirms the violation but also orders it to be dealt with in accordance with the law, balancing personal private interests and social welfare. These precedents provide clear operational guidelines for future administrative litigation cases, marking the advancement of administrative trials from “formal review” to “substantive justice.”

The following is the full text of a typical case:

Case 1: A certain community owners committee sued a certain city real estate registration center for house ownership registration and a certain community owners committee sued a company for ownership confirmation disputes.

Brief facts of the case

The planning permission for the construction of a certain community includes a guard house. Since 2000, the house involved in the case has been used as the only guardhouse in a certain community until now. In 2009, the real estate registration center of a certain city registered the house involved in the case as a garage of a certain development company based on the application. In 2024, a certain community changed its property service company, and a dispute arose between a certain company and the owners of the community over the ownership and use of the houses involved in the case. A company informed the owner that the house involved in the case was registered as owned by the company and was no longer used as a guard house. A community property committee filed an administrative lawsuit on behalf of the owners, requesting that the house ownership registration be revoked and registered as jointly owned by all owners. The People's Court explained to the parties that the essence of the dispute in this case lies in the dispute over the ownership of the house, and they can apply to resolve related civil disputes together. A certain community property committee named a company as the defendant and filed a lawsuit to confirm the ownership of the house.

referee result

Disputes arising from the ownership of property rights involved in real estate registration are civil disputes. When the parties file a lawsuit regarding real estate registration, they may apply to resolve the relevant civil disputes together. The people's court may hear them together in accordance with Article 61 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. The house involved in the case is the only guard house in a certain community. The planning permission, location, area, building structure, and actual use are all in line with the public service nature of the community. A company registered the guard's room as its own garage without the owner's consent, changed the use of the property, and infringed on the owner's rights. Therefore, the civil judgment confirmed that the house involved in the case was owned by all the owners of a certain community. Because the registration of the real estate under investigation did not match the real right holder confirmed in the civil judgment and should be corrected, the administrative judgment was made that the real estate registration center of a certain city should correct and register the house involved in the case as owned by all owners of a certain community.

Typical meaning

The legal relations of cross-cases between the People's Bank of China and the Bank are complex, making it difficult to substantively resolve disputes and prone to circular litigation. Resolving related civil disputes together in administrative litigation is an efficient and effective way to substantively resolve cross-civil disputes in one go. In this case, the administrative act complained of was a real estate registration act, but the dispute over house ownership was the basis for resolving administrative disputes. The people's courts have implemented the concept of substantively resolving conflicts and disputes and preventing procedural idling throughout, accurately clarifying legal relationships, actively explaining guidance, and resolving civil disputes through administrative litigation to fundamentally resolve conflicts and disputes. The judgment in this case safeguarded the community property committee’s right to participate in litigation for the public affairs of the community and the interests of the owners, guided development companies not to change the use of properties at will, and guided the real estate registration agency to perform correction duties based on the ownership of rights confirmed by effective legal documents. It has positive reference significance for the trial of cross-cases between the People’s Bank of China and the People’s Bank of China.

Case 2: A logistics company sued a certain district human resources and social security bureau and a certain district government for work-related injury insurance qualification determination and administrative reconsideration

Brief facts of the case

Dong Moumou is a truck driver for a logistics company and is responsible for delivering goods between the logistics company and a car company. On October 24, 2022, Dong was injured in a traffic accident on his way back to the company after delivering goods. The Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of a certain district made a decision to identify a work-related injury, and the government of a certain district upheld the decision after review. A logistics company filed an administrative lawsuit on the grounds that the place where Dong was injured was not a designated workplace and was a public vehicle for private use, requesting to revoke the work-related injury determination decision.

referee result

Dong was working during working hours when the accident occurred. The vehicle was carrying equipment that needed to be returned to the company after delivery. He had not completed all the work tasks for the day and was still returning to the company to wait for work. A logistics company has no fixed requirements for drivers' round-trip routes, and multiple drivers confirmed the practice of temporary detours. Although Dong made a detour, there was no evidence to prove that he used the bus for private use. This route should be considered a reasonable extension of the workplace. The identification of work-related injuries follows the no-fault principle. Dong’s liability for the accident does not affect the identification of work-related injuries. A logistics company failed to provide evidence to prove that Dong’s injury was not due to work reasons and should bear the burden of failure to prove it. Therefore, the judgment was made to uphold the decision of a certain district human resources and social security bureau to identify a work-related injury and the reconsideration decision made by a certain district government.

Typical meaning

This case has guiding significance for the judicial practice of identifying work-related injuries. When identifying the workplace, make it clear that it is not limited to a fixed area. For mobile positions such as truck drivers, the round-trip route chosen by employees to complete work tasks, even if it is not the optimal route, is a reasonable extension of the workplace as long as it is related to job responsibilities and has no private purpose. In terms of the principle of attribution of liability, the principle of no-fault in determining work-related injuries is reiterated. If an accident is caused by an employee's negligence at work, as long as there are no statutory exclusions such as intentional crime, drunkenness, drug abuse, etc., it should not affect the determination of work-related injuries. Regarding the burden of proof, the employer’s burden of proof is strengthened. It is clarified that employers claiming that employees are injured not due to work-related reasons must provide sufficient evidence, otherwise they will bear the consequences of failure to provide evidence. This not only standardizes the employment management of employers, but also provides clear standards of proof for administrative and judicial organs to handle similar cases.

Case 3: Zhang Moumou v. Administrative Benefits Case against a Municipal Social Insurance Administration Bureau

Brief facts of the case

After Li Moumou joined a human resources service company, he died on the spot due to a traffic accident while working. After the application of Li's wife Zhang, a certain city's Human Resources and Social Security Bureau issued a decision to identify work-related injuries. Because the company failed to pay work-related injury insurance premiums for Li in accordance with the law, Zhang applied to a labor and personnel dispute arbitration committee for arbitration, requiring the company to pay work-related injury insurance benefits. After the arbitration committee made the ruling, the company failed to fulfill its obligations. Zhang Moumou and others applied to the court for compulsory execution, and the court issued an execution ruling to "terminate this execution procedure." Afterwards, Zhang Moumou submitted an advance payment application to a certain city's Social Insurance Administration Bureau, applying for advance payment of relevant benefits from the work-related injury insurance fund. A certain city's Social Insurance Bureau made a decision not to accept the advance payment application. Zhang Moumou was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting that the decision be revoked.

referee result

The existing materials are sufficient to prove that a human resources service company has refused to pay work-related injury insurance related expenses, and the close relatives of the injured employees have gone through work-related injury identification, arbitration, litigation, enforcement and other procedures, but have not yet received work-related injury insurance benefits. The situation meets the conditions for advance payment from the social insurance fund. The decision of a certain city's Social Insurance Administration Bureau to not grant advance payment lacks factual and legal basis. During the trial of the case, the People's Court made a self-correction suggestion to a certain city's Social Insurance Administration, which adopted the suggestion and paid Zhang Moumou's work-related injury insurance in advance. Zhang Moumou applied to the People's Court to withdraw the prosecution, and the court approved it in accordance with the law.

Typical meaning

In this case, the close relatives of the injured employees have not received work-related injury insurance benefits after multiple procedures. The People's Court's ruling to "terminate this execution procedure" can be regarded as the "suspension of execution document" in the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 2, item 3 of the "Interim Measures for Advance Payment of Social Insurance Funds", and meets the conditions for advance payment of social insurance funds. The People's Court did not simply make a judgment, but by making self-correction suggestions to the administrative agencies, it guided the administrative agencies to proactively correct improper administrative behaviors and promoted the substantive resolution of the administrative disputes involved in the case.

Case 4: Meng Moumou sued a certain municipal government for its decision not to accept an application for administrative review

Brief facts of the case

Meng Moumou applied for government information disclosure to a certain city's housing expropriation handling center by mail, and applied for the disclosure of an evaluation report issued by an asset appraisal firm entrusted by the certain city's housing expropriation handling center. Meng did not receive a reply, so he applied for administrative reconsideration to a certain municipal government. A certain municipal government decided not to accept the administrative reconsideration application on the grounds that the housing expropriation handling center of a certain city did not comply with the provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law. At the same time, Meng was informed that the government information disclosure matters applied for by Meng could be applied to the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau of a certain city. Meng Moumou filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting to revoke a municipal government's decision not to accept an application for administrative review.

referee result

According to the regulations on government information disclosure, people's governments at the districted city and county levels and their departments should proactively disclose government information related to land expropriation, housing expropriation, etc. based on the specific local conditions. The subjects obligated to disclose government information related to land and house expropriation and compensation include not only the people's government, but also government departments. Although a certain city's housing expropriation handling center is not a dispatched agency or an internal agency established by an administrative agency, it is a subordinate institution of the housing expropriation department of a certain city's Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau and is the expropriation implementation unit of the expropriation project involved in the case. Moreover, the evaluation report issued by an asset appraisal firm that Meng applied for disclosure was entrusted by the certain city's housing expropriation handling center. Therefore, a certain city's housing expropriation handling center also has the obligation to disclose government information in accordance with the provisions of the government information disclosure regulations. A certain municipal government made a decision not to accept an application for administrative review because the application of the law was wrong. Therefore, the judgment was revoked and the review authority was ordered to make a new review decision.

Typical meaning

The government information disclosure system aims to ensure that citizens, legal persons and other organizations can obtain government information in accordance with the law, improve the transparency of government work, and promote the construction of a law-based government. The judgment in this case clarified that although the housing expropriation handling center is not a dispatched agency or an internal agency established by the administrative agency, as the expropriation implementation unit, it also has the obligation to disclose government information. It reflects the legislative purpose of the Government Information Disclosure Regulations, demonstrates the strong judicial guarantee of the people's legitimate right to know, effectively reduces the burden of litigation for the parties, avoids idle procedures, and provides effective guidance for administrative agencies to accurately apply the law.

Case 5: Ma Moumou v. Administrative Compensation Case of a Municipal Forestry Bureau

Brief facts of the case

The Korean pine and large hazelnuts planted by forest classes 92 and 93 in a certain village where Ma had obtained a forest rights certificate were gnawed and damaged by wild animals. Staff from a certain city's forestry bureau issued an on-site investigation form after an investigation, confirming that ungulates damaged relevant economic crops. After Ma Moumou submitted the compensation application, a certain city's forestry bureau issued a compensation determination form and made a decision not to compensate based on the "Compensation Measures for Personal and Property Damage Caused by Key Protected Terrestrial Wild Animals in Jilin Province" on the grounds that damage to economic forests and seedlings in the forest land will not be compensated in principle. Ma Moumou then filed a lawsuit, requesting to revoke the decision of a certain municipal forestry bureau not to provide compensation and order it to provide reasonable compensation for the losses involved in the case.

referee result

Ma Moumou completed the registration change of the forest rights certificate in 2018 and legally obtained the right to operate the forest land. The loss of economic trees in his forest land fell into the "other property losses" stipulated in the "Wild Animal Protection Law of the People's Republic of China" and the "Compensation Measures for Personal Property Damage Caused by Key Protected Terrestrial Wild Animals in Jilin Province", which is within the scope of compensation. Although the Jilin Province Compensation Measures do not specify the calculation method of compensation for this type of loss, it stipulates that compensation in other circumstances can be subject to approval and confirmation by superiors. Ma Moumou has the right to apply for compensation according to law. The forestry bureau of a certain city had no objection to the fact that wild animals caused harm, but made a decision not to provide compensation only because there was no special compensation standard. This was an error in the application of law and should be corrected. The decision was then made to revoke the decision not to award compensation, and ordered a certain municipal forestry bureau to make a new compensation decision within a time limit.

Typical meaning

Based on the rule of law principle of unifying ecological protection and administrative powers and responsibilities, administrative agencies have statutory compensation responsibilities for property losses caused by nationally protected wild animals. This duty is clearly stipulated in laws and regulations related to wildlife protection. It is a legal obligation that administrative agencies must perform, rather than a discretionary and optional obligation. This case clarified that the administrative agency’s decision not to grant compensation on the grounds that there was no specific compensation standard was inappropriate in the application of law, and established clear guidelines for the judgment standards of similar cases, effectively protecting citizens’ legitimate property rights and interests, and achieving both wildlife protection and people’s livelihood rights protection.

Case 6: A property company sued a street office and a district government for administrative penalties and administrative reconsideration

Brief facts of the case

A property company signed a "Use Rights Transfer Agreement" with Zhang Moumou and sold the public space jointly owned by the owner to Zhang Moumou. Then, a certain sub-district office made an administrative penalty decision, requiring a property company to immediately restore the original appearance and use of some jointly owned buildings, and imposed a fine of RMB 200,000. A property company was dissatisfied with the penalty decision and applied to a certain district government for administrative reconsideration. A certain district government upheld the penalty decision after reconsideration. However, a property company was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit to request the revocation of the penalty decision and the reconsideration decision.

referee result

After mediation hosted by the People's Court, all parties voluntarily reached a mediation agreement. A certain sub-district office changed the administrative penalty decision from "a fine of RMB 200,000 yuan" to "a fine of RMB 100,000 yuan", and a property company paid it to a certain sub-district office.

Typical meaning

When making decisions on administrative penalties, administrative agencies should follow the basic principles of combining punishment with education and making the punishment proportionate to the excessive punishment. Although a property company's behavior of selling public space violated the relevant provisions of the "Jilin Provincial Property Management Regulations", it did not cause serious consequences. A certain sub-district office punished the illegal behavior at the upper limit of the statutory penalty range, resulting in an abnormally heavy penalty, which is not conducive to maintaining the sustainable operation of the company, not conducive to optimizing the business environment, and it is difficult to achieve the social effect of equal emphasis on punishment and education. The People's Court actively organized the parties to mediate and finally reached a mediation agreement, substantively resolving the administrative dispute and achieving good legal and social effects.

Case 7: Liu sued the traffic management brigade of a certain city public security bureau for detention

Brief facts of the case

On November 10, 2016, Liu drove a motor vehicle and collided with a pedestrian named Lu. A certain city's public security traffic control brigade issued an accident determination letter, finding that Liu drove a motor vehicle drunk, failed to drive safely according to operating regulations, abandoned the vehicle and fled, and bore the primary responsibility for the accident, while Lv bore secondary responsibility. In the same year, a certain city’s public security traffic control brigade made an administrative penalty decision and revoked Liu’s motor vehicle driving license (he was not allowed to obtain a new motor vehicle driving license within five years). On February 15, 2017, the People's Court issued a criminal judgment, finding that Liu was driving a motor vehicle while drunk and caused a traffic accident, resulting in the death of Lu. Liu escaped after the accident. Liu was convicted of traffic accident and sentenced to two years and six months in prison. On January 13, 2022, Liu reapplied for a motor vehicle driving license. On March 7, 2023, a certain city’s public security traffic control brigade detained the motor vehicle driving license held by Liu. Liu filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting to revoke the detention measures of a certain city’s public security traffic control brigade, return the motor vehicle driving license Liu received in 2022, and compensate for the transportation expenses during the period when the driver’s license was withheld.

referee result

Liu drove a motor vehicle while drunk, caused a traffic accident that resulted in death, and escaped after the hit-and-run. He was held criminally responsible in accordance with the law. According to the provisions of Article 5, Article 91, Item 5, and Article 110 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, Liu's driver's license was detained in compliance with the law. However, after taking detainment measures, a certain city's public security traffic control brigade has not taken subsequent actions such as temporary detainment, revocation or return in accordance with Article 25, paragraph 1 and 27 of the "Administrative Enforcement Law of the People's Republic of China" and Article 112 of the "Procedures for Handling Administrative Cases by Public Security Organs", and its detention behavior has exceeded the legal detention period. However, the law stipulates that if a drunk driving motor vehicle causes a major traffic accident, which constitutes a crime, the driver will not be able to obtain a motor vehicle driving license again for life. Due to the above circumstances of Liu, returning the motor vehicle driving license to Liu may cause significant damage to social and public interests before the public security organs have verified and dealt with it and made follow-up actions in accordance with the law. Therefore, the detention measure cannot be lifted. The court then ruled that the administrative coercive measure of a certain city’s public security traffic control brigade in detaining Liu’s motor vehicle driving license for an extended period was illegal, ordered it to conduct follow-up procedures, and rejected Liu’s other claims.

Typical meaning

This case is a typical case in the field of administrative enforcement measures. The nature of detention is an administrative coercive measure, which is temporary in nature. After the detention measure is taken, follow-up actions should be taken within the statutory period. Generally speaking, if the legal detention period is exceeded, the administrative agency should be ordered to lift the detention measures. However, when lifting the detention may cause significant harm to social and public interests, we cannot stick to specific legal provisions and simply decide to lift the detention measures. Instead, we should proceed from the legislative purposes of the Road Traffic Safety Law, Administrative Enforcement Law and Administrative Procedure Law, weigh individual private interests and social welfare, and while confirming that the extended detention is illegal, order the administrative agency to make follow-up actions in accordance with the law within a designated period. This case provides a useful reference for the trial of similar cases.

Case 8: Administrative penalty case against a certain city’s tax inspection bureau by a distribution company

Brief facts of the case

In July 2023, the Tax Inspection Bureau of a certain city opened an investigation into a distribution company suspected of tax evasion. It was found that a distribution company and a transportation company purchased special VAT invoices from a transportation company by paying invoicing fees without real business, and used them to declare the VAT input tax deduction and corporate income tax deduction. In November 2024, the Tax Inspection Bureau of a certain city issued a "Tax Treatment Decision" and determined that a distribution company used falsely issued special VAT invoices to declare the VAT input tax and use it for pre-tax deductions, violating the invoice management regulations and other regulations, resulting in an underpayment of taxes, and required back taxes of more than 650,000 yuan. It also issued a "Tax Punishment Decision" and imposed a fine of more than 320,000 yuan on a distribution company for tax evasion. A distribution company believed that its behavior did not constitute tax evasion and filed an administrative lawsuit against the decision.

referee result

Whether a distribution company uses falsely issued special VAT invoices to declare and deduct VAT input tax, use it for pre-tax deductions, and whether it should pay back taxes is the factual basis for later administrative penalties. If a party directly files a lawsuit against a tax penalty decision without applying for administrative reconsideration or filing a lawsuit against the tax treatment decision, the people's court shall review the tax treatment decision as evidence. The tax treatment decision does not contain any major and obvious illegal circumstances and should be adopted. A distribution company used falsely issued special VAT invoices to declare and deduct the VAT input tax for pre-tax deductions, thereby achieving the purpose of underpaying the tax payable, which constituted tax evasion. The administrative penalty in this case was not inappropriate, and the judgment was made to reject the litigation claim of a distribution company.

Typical meaning

Taxation is an important means for the country to achieve macro-control. Illegal activities that violate tax collection and administration infringe on the country's taxation interests and undermine the order of economic development. The purpose of paying less tax due through "buying invoices" endangers the order of invoice management and destroys the environment for fair economic development. Punishing "ticket sellers" and "ticket buyers" in accordance with the law is conducive to maintaining taxation order. The judgment in this case accurately echoes the requirements of the times to "optimize the business environment" and "standardize tax law enforcement" and will help promote the construction of a more legal and standardized tax supervision system.

Case 9: Gu Moumou v. Administrative Punishment Case against a Municipal Health Bureau

Brief facts of the case

After receiving a complaint, the Health Bureau of a certain city opened an investigation into Gu's unlicensed medical practice. After investigation, it was found that Gu Moumou gave injections to many villagers without obtaining a medical qualification certificate or a medical practice certificate. After legal review, collective discussion, and legal procedures such as prior notification of punishment, hearing statements and defenses, and review, the Health Bureau of a certain city made an administrative penalty decision on Gu Moumou, ordering him to immediately stop his illegal practice activities and fine him 40,000 yuan, in accordance with Article 59 of the "Physician Law of the People's Republic of China" and with reference to the "Jilin Provincial Health Administrative Punishment Discretionary Benchmarks". Gu Moumou filed an administrative lawsuit and requested to revoke the administrative penalty decision.

referee result

Gu Moumou provided medical services such as injections to villagers without obtaining a physician qualification certificate or physician practice certificate. This behavior violated the relevant provisions of the "Physician Law of the People's Republic of China". The fact of practicing medicine without a license exists objectively, and he should be subject to administrative penalties in accordance with the law. A certain city's health bureau referred to the "Jilin Province Health Administrative Punishment Discretionary Benchmarks" to impose administrative penalties on Gu Moumou, which was not inappropriate.

Typical meaning

Medical and health services are directly related to the life, health and safety of citizens. The state implements a strict examination and registration system for physician qualifications and physician practice. Practicing medicine without a license seriously disrupts the order of medical management and poses major safety risks. The People's Court supports administrative agencies in regulating unlicensed medical practice in accordance with the law, which has exemplary significance in maintaining medical management order and protecting public life, health and safety.

Case 10: Wu Moumou sued a municipal government for administrative review

Brief facts of the case

Wu Moumou had a dispute with a community developer over the purchase of commercial housing. Later, Wu Moumou reported the developer's illegal construction to the Natural Resources Bureau of a certain city, but the Bureau did not respond within the time limit. Wu Moumou then applied for administrative reconsideration to a certain municipal government, requesting to confirm that the bureau's failure to respond within the time limit was illegal and to order the bureau to perform its investigation duties. A certain municipal government decided to reject Wu's reconsideration application on the grounds that the bureau's reply and whether it investigated or dealt with the matter would not have any actual impact on Wu's rights and obligations. Wu Moumou was dissatisfied and filed an administrative lawsuit in this case, requesting to revoke the review decision.

referee result

Article 6 of the "Regulations on Supervision of Natural Resources Law Enforcement" of the Ministry of Natural Resources of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Any unit or individual who discovers any illegal act on natural resources has the right to report it to the natural resources department at or above the county level. The natural resources department that receives the report shall handle it in accordance with the law and regulations." Article 11, Paragraph 1, of the "Measures for Handling Natural Resources Violation Clues" of the Department of Natural Resources of Jilin Province stipulates: "Reports of illegal clues shall be handled within 60 days from the date of acceptance, and the whistleblower shall be informed of the handling status. ..." Accordingly, the natural resources department has an obligation to inform the whistleblower on the handling of relevant whistleblowing clues. If no reply is made to the whistleblower within the time limit, it will have an actual impact on the whistleblower's right to know. The case was accused of an error in the application of law in the administrative review decision, so the judgment was revoked and the review authority was ordered to make a new administrative review decision.

Typical meaning

Reporting generally refers to the whistleblower reporting to relevant departments the suspected violations of laws and regulations by other entities. Under normal circumstances, the results of substantive penalties imposed by administrative agencies on other entities for violations of laws and regulations will not have a direct and actual impact on the rights and obligations of the whistleblower. Therefore, the whistleblower generally does not have the right to request administrative reconsideration or administrative litigation. However, if laws, regulations, rules or normative documents stipulate that the administrative agency that accepts the report should inform the whistleblower of relevant circumstances, but the administrative agency fails to fulfill its notification obligation within the time limit, and the whistleblower files administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation, it will fall within the scope of administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation. The adjudication rules of this case are of reference significance for the people to exercise their right to report in accordance with the law, administrative agencies to handle reporting matters in accordance with the law and regulations, and the people's courts to make judgments in accordance with the law.