The Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice jointly issued a statement on September 17, 2025 10 Typical cases of administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation were selected from across the country, covering ten hot areas such as withdrawal of construction qualifications, collection of land liquidated damages, appropriateness of administrative penalties, project completion acceptance filing, identification of collusive bidding, implementation of administrative promises, execution of administrative agreements, administrative licensing conditions, trust protection of production capacity replacement, and compensation for mining rights. The purpose is to give full play to the exemplary and leading role of typical cases and highlight the mission of administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation in serving and ensuring high-quality economic and social development.
The 10 major cases highlighted three key points in rights protection: First, procedural justice determines victory or defeat. For example, 103 construction companies had their qualifications withdrawn because they did not receive rectification notices. The reconsideration agency determined that the administrative agency failed to fulfill its service obligations and violated the right to know and the right to make statements and defences, and finally revoked the decision to withdraw; second, the principle of proportionate punishment. For a traditional Chinese medicine clinic that violated the law for the first time and actively cooperated with rectification, the fine was adjusted from 30,000 yuan to 20,000 yuan. Ten thousand yuan, the standard clauses restricting consumer rights will not be punished; the third is the protection of trust interests. A machinery company relied on government meeting minutes to prepare for production capacity replacement, and the court ruled that government departments should continue to perform their duties and provide policy support. In the case, a development company avoided economic losses of nearly one billion yuan, a real estate company received compensation of more than 8.41 million yuan, and a mining company received compensation of more than 5.83 million yuan, fully embodying the principle of equal protection.
This batch of cases has achieved a governance upgrade from "correcting a case" to "standardizing a type of behavior." The administrative review agency promotes self-correction by administrative agencies through risk reminder letters and opinion letters, establishes a province-wide administrative approval consultation hotline matrix, compiles a guidebook for enterprise-related qualification declarations, and standardizes enterprise-related licensing behaviors. Lawyer Ying Ting reminded: When private enterprises encounter administrative law enforcement disputes, they should focus on whether the administrative agencies have fulfilled their service obligations in accordance with the law, whether they have guaranteed the right to make statements and defences, whether the penalties are commensurate with the illegal acts, and whether they have illegally added license conditions. Procedural rights are the "talisman" of an enterprise. If you find that the procedure is illegal, you must promptly apply for administrative reconsideration or file an administrative lawsuit. If necessary, you can seek professional legal support to safeguard your legitimate rights and interests in accordance with the law. The legal code is trustworthy in court and protects private enterprises.
Case source: Official WeChat account of the Supreme People’s Court.Case 1: 103 companies are dissatisfied with the administrative review of the withdrawal of construction qualification licenses by a housing and urban-rural development department in Jiangsu Province——Before the administrative agency withdraws the administrative license, it shall fully protect the licensee’s right to know and the right to make statements and defences.[Basic case facts]On March 22, 2023, a housing and urban-rural development department in Jiangsu Province issued the "Notice on the Centralized Clearance of the Qualifications of Construction Enterprises that Do Not Meet the Qualification Standards" and decided to conduct a centralized cleanup of the company's net assets, number of registered construction engineers, and professional qualifications that did not meet the standard conditions. Subsequently, the department issued the "Notice of Ordering Rectification within a Time Limit", "Notice of Withdrawal of Administrative Permit" and "Decision of Withdrawal of Administrative Permit" in April, July and October of that year respectively, and sent them to relevant companies via registered postal mail. In the end, 768 qualifications of 656 construction companies were withdrawn. At the same time, a withdrawal announcement was released on the official website on November 3. From the end of 2023 to March 2024, 103 companies whose qualifications were withdrawn successively submitted 117 administrative review applications to the administrative review authorities. These enterprises all claimed that during the process of their qualifications being withdrawn, they did not receive the "Notice of Order to Make Correction within a Time Limit" and the "Notice of Withdrawal of Administrative License", which resulted in their right to know and statement and defense not being fully protected, and they lost the opportunity for rectification. They then applied for administrative review to the administrative review authority, requesting that the decision to withdraw the qualification be revoked in accordance with the law.【Reconsideration result】The administrative review agency concluded that the focus of the dispute in this batch of cases was whether the respondent had fulfilled its service obligations in accordance with the law before making the decision to withdraw its qualifications, and whether it had fully protected the company's right to know and to state and defend. After trial, the administrative review agency believed that the evidence provided by the respondent could not prove that it had effectively served the company involved in the case with the "Notice of Order to Make Corrections within a Time Limit" and other documents. As a result, the company's right to know and the right to make statements and defense were not fully protected, and the opportunity for rectification was missed. Therefore, the relevant decision to withdraw the qualifications was a major procedural violation and should be revoked in accordance with the law. In order to resolve administrative disputes efficiently, on the one hand, the administrative reconsideration agency organizes face-to-face communication between the respondent and the enterprise involved in the case through procedures such as listening to opinions and case investigation, explaining the qualification standards and industry management policies to the enterprise, and at the same time comprehensively understanding the enterprise's true operating conditions and practical difficulties, and guiding the enterprise to standardize its business behavior according to the rectification requirements. On the other hand, the administrative review agency sent an administrative review risk reminder letter and opinion letter to the respondent, urging it to initiate a self-correction procedure for administrative actions in response to the problems existing in the license withdrawal process, and revoked the decision to withdraw the administrative license; it also guided the respondent to conduct self-examination and rectification of the current enterprise-related qualification licensing approval and dynamic supervision work, further promoted the establishment of an administrative approval consultation service hotline matrix covering the entire province, and compiled a guidebook for enterprise-related qualification declarations by category to standardize enterprise-related licensing behaviors from the source and facilitate enterprises to apply for licenses. In the end, 103 companies voluntarily withdrew all their applications for administrative reconsideration, and this batch of cases was substantially resolved.
【Typical meaning】Qualification license is the "access certificate" for business entities to enter specific industries and carry out related businesses. It is the "passport" for fair participation in market competition and is related to the survival and development of enterprises. The Private Economy Promotion Law stipulates that people's governments at all levels and their relevant departments shall treat private economic organizations equally when formulating and implementing policies and measures on qualification licensing and other aspects in accordance with legal authority. In this case, the administrative review agency determined that the respondent's "Notice of Order to Make Corrections within a Time Limit" and other documents were not served in accordance with the law, which violated the company's right to know and make statements and defences, and that the withdrawal of qualifications involved in the case involved major procedural violations. This determination clarified that administrative agencies must protect the company's procedural rights in accordance with the law, and cannot deprive companies of rectification opportunities due to procedural omissions, which fully reflects the principle of equal protection stipulated in the Private Economy Promotion Law. The administrative review agency did not limit itself to “handling cases.” Instead, through face-to-face communication, policy clarification, and promotion of self-correction, it not only corrected illegal administrative behaviors, but also guided 103 companies to meet licensing conditions through rectification, achieving the social effect of “the case is settled.” At the same time, the administrative reconsideration agency further issued administrative reconsideration risk warning letters and opinion letters, urging the respondent to improve licensing work standards, improve in-process and post-event supervision, promote the establishment of long-term mechanisms such as licensing application consultation hotlines, and prepare application guidelines, standardize enterprise-related approval and supervision from the source, and achieve a governance upgrade from "correcting a case" to "standardizing a type of behavior."Case 2: A development company is dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration of the collection of liquidated damages by the Natural Resources and Planning Bureau of a certain city in Zhejiang Province.——The supervision and management of the performance of the "State-owned Construction Land Use Rights Transfer Contract" by administrative agencies should be based on parcels of land.[Basic case facts]In 2017, the applicant, a development company, obtained the state-owned construction land use rights for two plots A and B of a park in a city in Zhejiang Province through package bidding, and then signed a "State-owned Construction Land Use Rights Transfer Contract" with the former city's Land and Resources Bureau (now a city's Natural Resources and Planning Bureau). The contract clearly stipulates the transfer area, location, total transfer price, construction project start and completion time, planning conditions, etc. of plots A and B respectively. It also states the liability for breach of contract for overdue completion: for each day of delay, a penalty of 1‰ of the total transfer price of the land use rights must be paid. During the performance of the contract, the respondent's original land and resources bureau of a certain city determined that the applicant had completed the construction of the residential project on plot A as scheduled, but due to the applicant's own reasons, the commercial complex project on plot B failed to be completed on schedule. Accordingly, the respondent issued a "Decision to Pay Liquidated Damages" on April 18, 2024, determining that the applicant was responsible for breach of contract for the 689-day overdue completion of the two plots A and B, and should pay a liquidated damages of 999.739 million yuan based on the total land use right transfer price (including plots A and B). The applicant was dissatisfied with the decision and applied for administrative reconsideration to the People's Government of a certain city to revoke the decision to pay liquidated damages.【Reconsideration result】The administrative review agency concluded that the focus of the case was whether the applicant should bear liability for breach of contract and whether the calculation of liquidated damages was reasonable. By holding hearings, on-site inspections of construction projects, and convening collective case discussions, the administrative reconsideration agency believes that, with reference to the practice of investigating, identifying and processing idle land on a parcel basis in the disposal of idle land, the supervision and management of the performance of state-owned construction land use right transfer contracts should also be on a parcel basis. In this case, Plot A and Plot B were two independent parcels of land. The appraisal price was determined separately before the transfer. After the transfer, the project was submitted for construction approval in phases. The performance of the contract should be monitored separately for different parcels of land. The parcel price of the commercial complex project of Plot B only accounted for 20% of the total transfer price of the contract, but the respondent calculated liquidated damages based on the total transfer price of the two plots, which was obviously inappropriate. In addition, after the signing of the "State-owned Construction Land Use Rights Transfer Contract", the local government required the applicant to revise the plan due to the implementation of new regulations, resulting in a delay in the processing of construction permits for the commercial complex project in Block B. The respondent directly determined that the commercial complex project was completed overdue due to the applicant's own reasons, which was unfair. Accordingly, the administrative review agency pointed out to the respondent that there were problems with the decision involved in the case, prompting the respondent to correct the error on his own. The applicant voluntarily withdrew the administrative review application, and the administrative review was terminated.
【Typical meaning】Supervising and managing the performance of state-owned construction land use rights transfer contracts in accordance with laws and regulations is a statutory means for the government to strengthen macro-control of land, and is an inevitable requirement for regulating land market behavior and promoting economical and intensive land use. Administrative review agencies should conscientiously implement the Private Economy Promotion Law, ensure that private economic organizations have equal use of land and other production factors in accordance with the law, and resolutely put an end to behaviors that harm the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises. In this case, the administrative review agency insisted on taking the facts as the basis and the law as the criterion, and determined that the supervision and management of the performance of the "State-owned Construction Land Use Rights Transfer Contract" should be based on land parcels. It also pointed out that the respondent's determination that the applicant should bear the liability for breach of contract was unfair and the calculation of the amount of liquidated damages was obviously inappropriate. By correcting the respondent's "overallThe misunderstanding that "transfer equals overall responsibility" has encouraged them to correct improper performance supervision behaviors on their own, saving private enterprises from economic losses of nearly one billion yuan, effectively protecting the rights and interests of enterprises in the equal use of land and other production factors in accordance with the law, and creating a good development environment for private enterprises.Case three: A Chinese medicine clinic Co., Ltd. is dissatisfied with the administrative review of administrative penalties imposed by a certain district market supervision and administration bureau in Shanghai.——Administrative penalties imposed by administrative agencies should be commensurate with the facts, nature, circumstances and degree of social harm of the illegal act[Basic case facts]In April 2024, when the staff of the market supervision and administration bureau of a certain district in Shanghai, the respondent, inspected the traditional Chinese medicine clinic opened by the applicant, they found a number of suspected illegal behaviors: First, the clinic used the "2022 Popular Brands of a Certain Online Group Buying Platform" and "A Certain City" on the online group buying platform. Slogans such as "Member Unit of the Healthy Immunity Association" and "Serving 300+ people" are not supported by relevant evidence; secondly, the membership description in the store lists provisions such as "no return of cards", which limits consumers' rights to change or terminate the contract in accordance with the law; thirdly, there is no purchase inspection record for medical devices in the store. After verification, the respondent determined that the above-mentioned behaviors violated the relevant provisions of the Advertising Law of the People's Republic of China, the Measures for the Administrative Supervision and Management of Contracts (2023), and the Regulations on Supervision and Administration of Medical Devices (revised in 2020), and constituted the publication of false advertisements, the use of format clauses to restrict consumer rights, and the failure to implement the medical device purchase inspection and recording system as required. Accordingly, the respondent made an administrative penalty decision on September 5 of that year and imposed a fine of 30,000 yuan, a fine of 10,000 yuan and a warning on the applicant for the three illegal acts respectively. The applicant was dissatisfied with the above-mentioned administrative penalty decision and believed that the facts ascertained by the respondent were unclear and the penalty was too severe, so he applied for administrative review to a certain district people's government and requested to revoke the administrative penalty decision.【Reconsideration result】The administrative review agency concluded that the focus of the case was whether the administrative penalty imposed by the respondent was appropriate. The administrative review agency went to the site for on-site inspection and held a case coordination meeting to fully listen to the opinions of both parties. After investigation and verification, the applicant did indeed commit the above three illegal acts. The illegal facts were clear and the evidence was conclusive and sufficient. The respondent should be punished in accordance with the law. However, during the investigation by the administrative review agency, it was found that the applicant had violated the law for the first time and actively cooperated in rectification after being investigated and punished. The respondent did not fully consider the above-mentioned discretionary factors when making the administrative penalty decision, and failed to fully reflect the appropriateness of the administrative penalty. In order to substantively resolve administrative disputes, after obtaining the consent of both parties, the administrative review agency organizes mediation in accordance with the law. After many rounds of legal interpretation, communication and coordination, the applicant and the respondent reached an agreement. The administrative review authority issued an administrative review mediation letter, adjusting the fine for the applicant's illegal behavior of publishing false advertisements from 30,000 yuan to 20,000 yuan. At the same time, according to the "Shanghai Implementation Measures for No Administrative Penalties and Reduced Administrative Penalties in the Field of Market Supervision" (effective on December 25, 2024), the applicant's behavior of using format clauses to restrict consumer rights will not be punished, achieving a combination of punishment and education.
【Typical meaning】The medical industry is directly related to the vital interests of the people. Adhering to a strict tone for administrative law enforcement in the medical system is not only an inevitable requirement to safeguard public life, health and safety, but also an important guarantee for standardizing the order of the medical market and ensuring the healthy development of the industry. However, the tone of strictness is not simply "heavy punishment", but emphasizes the unity of rigidity and precision in administrative law enforcement. If it is necessary to impose administrative penalties or take other measures for illegal acts of private enterprises in accordance with the law, they shall be commensurate with the facts, nature, circumstances and degree of social harm of the illegal acts. In this case, the administrative reconsideration agency investigated and verified the facts of the case, and ensured that "the punishment was commensurate" by accurately applying local discretionary standards. In the end, the administrative review agency moderately adjusted the amount of fines within the legal framework based on consensus reached by both parties, which not only maintained legal authority, but also reduced the economic burden on enterprises and achieved a balance between the intensity and temperature of law enforcement. At the same time, the administrative review authority produced a mediation letter to substantively resolve the administrative dispute through mediation, preventing the respondent from restarting the administrative penalty procedure, which reflected the institutional advantages of administrative review in resolving administrative disputes fairly and efficiently.Case 4: A real estate company is dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration of the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau of a city in Heilongjiang Province for failing to perform its statutory duty of project completion acceptance and filing.——Administrative agencies shall not arbitrarily create conditions or procedures when conducting administrative filings, and shall not diminish the rights of business entities or increase the obligations of business entities.[Basic case facts]Buildings 2, 3, and 31 of the first phase of the residential complex built by a real estate company of the applicant are commercial development projects and were purchased by a city’s shed renovation office as resettlement houses. The company obtained the completion report of the above-mentioned houses on November 29, 2019. On May 4, 2020, the applicant brought relevant materials to the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau of a certain city of the respondent to apply for project completion acceptance record, but the application could not be processed due to a malfunction of the online approval platform. In November 2021, the applicant applied for registration again. The respondent believed that even if May 4, 2020 was used as the application time, the applicant's filing application had exceeded the legal application period, and an administrative penalty decision was required on the applicant. The filing could not be processed until a fine was paid, so the applicant's filing was not approved. As a result, the real estate certificate for the house involved in the case could not be obtained, and the applicant was unable to obtain the final payment of the project. The applicant and the house owner reported this problem to the petition department many times. After research and judgment, the petition matter met the conditions for handling through the administrative review procedure. After guidance, the applicant submitted an administrative review application to a certain municipal people's government in July 2024, requesting that the respondent be ordered to perform statutory duties.【Reconsideration result】The administrative review agency reviewed and determined that the focus of the case was whether the respondent's behavior of requiring the applicant to pay a fine first and then go through the registration process was legal. According to the provisions of the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development's "Measures for the Administration of the Recording of Completion Acceptance of Housing Construction and Municipal Infrastructure Projects", if the construction unit fails to complete the registration within 15 days from the date of the completion acceptance of the project, the filing authority has the right to order corrections within a time limit and impose a fine of not less than 200,000 yuan but not more than 500,000 yuan. In this case, although the applicant applied for filing beyond the statutory application period and was subject to administrative penalties according to law, the administrative penalty and the filing act were of different natures. The execution of the administrative penalty was not a prerequisite for filing. The respondent required him to pay a fine before filing, which was an illegal addition of filing conditions. At the administrative review mediation meeting, the administrative review agency explained to the respondent that its "punishment first, certification later" policy was unfounded in law. The respondent agreed and promised to handle the project completion acceptance record for the applicant within 15 days. The applicant withdrew the administrative review application on the spot, and the administrative review was terminated.
【Typical meaning】"Nothing can be done without the authorization of the law" is the basic principle that administrative law enforcement agencies should abide by. Administrative agencies must strictly comply with the law when carrying out administrative filings. They cannot create conditions or procedures at will, and must not diminish the rights of business entities or increase the obligations of business entities. The Private Economy Promotion Law stipulates that administrative agencies should adhere to administration in accordance with the law, and when carrying out law enforcement activities, they should avoid or minimize the impact on the normal production and operation activities of private economic organizations. In this case, the administrative review agency focused on the focus of the dispute at the administrative review mediation meeting and clearly pointed out that the administrative agency's requirement to "punish first and then file" was essentially an illegal addition of filing conditions. It promoted relevant departments to correct illegal acts on their own through internal supervision of administrative review, and eliminated unnecessary restrictions on the completion acceptance and filing of enterprises. At the same time, the administrative reconsideration agency will include petition matters that meet the acceptance conditions into statutory review channels, so that this petition issue that has lasted for many years can be resolved in accordance with the law. It not only effectively solves the dilemma of enterprises, but also promotes the legalization of petition work and gives full play to the advantages of the administrative review system to solve petition problems. It provides replicable practical experience.Case five: A construction company is dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration of administrative penalties issued by the Urban Management and Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of a certain city in Sichuan Province.——Administrative agencies must make a comprehensive judgment based on the implementation regulations of the Tendering and Bidding Law when determining that there is collusive bidding.[Basic case facts]In 2019, in order to obtain public resource investment and transaction information in a certain city, Wen, a construction company of the applicant, and an engineering company of the third party, respectively, handled the online registration of the platform on the website of a certain city's public resource trading center. The contact person left on the account was both Wen. In February 2022, a construction company of the applicant and an engineering company of a third party participated in the bidding of urban infrastructure construction projects in the city. The bidding was conducted by employees of both companies respectively. The contact persons of both parties in the bidding documents were employees of the company, but the contact person left on the website account of a certain city's public resources trading center was still Wen. On October 24, 2024, the Urban Management and Administrative Law Enforcement Bureau of a certain city determined that the applicant and a third party had colluded with each other in this bidding as stipulated in Article 40, Paragraph 2 of the "Implementation Regulations of the Tendering and Bidding Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the "Implementation Regulations of the Tendering and Bidding Law"), and made an "Administrative Penalty Decision" on the applicant and imposed a fine of approximately 110,000 yuan. The applicant was dissatisfied with the penalty decision and applied for administrative reconsideration to a certain city's people's government, requesting that the "Administrative Penalty Decision" involved in the case be revoked.【Reconsideration result】The administrative review agency concluded that the focus of the case was whether the applicant and the third party constituted illegal bidding collusion. According to Article 40 of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Tendering and Bidding Law, the situations in which bidders collude with each other in bidding include "different bidders entrusting the same unit or individual to handle bidding matters." However, "handling bidding matters" in this clause specifically refers to the exclusive behavior carried out in specific bidding projects, covering matters such as receiving bidding documents, preparing bidding materials, visiting the site, attending the bid opening meeting and other matters directly involved in the bidding process. Therefore, the determination of collusive bidding requires a comprehensive judgment based on whether the bidders have committed any of the above-mentioned behaviors, whether the contents of the bidding documents are similar, whether there is a relationship between the bidders, and other relevant circumstances. In this case, the registration behavior of the two companies on the Public Resource Trading Center website occurred long before the start of the project involved in the case. This registration is a general access procedure for obtaining bidding qualifications for unspecified projects. It is neither an exclusive behavior for the project involved, nor does it constitute a substantive link in directly handling bidding matters. In practice, the same registration information may be caused by a variety of reasons, such as company employees joining other companies after leaving their jobs, agency registration, etc. To sum up, the respondent only concluded that there was collusion in bidding and imposed penalties based on the fact that the contact persons registered in the registered accounts of both parties were the same. The main facts were unclear and the evidence was insufficient. Accordingly, the administrative review authority revoked the "Administrative Penalty Decision" involved in the case in accordance with the law. After the case was settled, the administrative review agency further guided the respondent to standardize enterprise-related administrative law enforcement, and pushed the respondent to self-rectify more than 20 administrative review cases similar to the case, which saved the enterprise from economic losses of more than 1 million yuan. The enterprises involved in the case voluntarily withdrew their administrative review applications, and the administrative disputes were substantively resolved.
【Typical meaning】Strengthen the supervision of "tendering and bidding" and resolutely curb bid collusion, fraud and other behaviors that undermine fair competition.It is of great significance to promote private economic entities to equally participate in market competition and build a fair and orderly market environment. At the same time, the supervision of "tendering and bidding" must be strictly limited within the framework of the rule of law, and enterprise-related administrative law enforcement must abide by the principles of legality and appropriateness, and resolutely put an end to "arbitrary punishments" in the name of "supervision." In this case, the administrative review agency clarified the scope of application of collusive bidding in Article 40, Paragraph 2, of the Regulations for the Implementation of the Tendering and Bidding Law. By clarifying the difference in legal nature between "early registration behavior" and "specific bidding behavior," it effectively avoided the administrative agencies' expanded application of legal provisions, corrected the administrative agencies' law enforcement deviations in accordance with the law, and safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises. At the same time, the administrative review agency promoted the proper resolution of more than 20 similar cases through the "individual case supervision + similar case regulations" model, avoiding the sustained damage to the business environment caused by improper administrative law enforcement and achieving the supervision effect of similar case regulations.Case 6: A real estate company v. a certain municipal people’s government of Henan Province and a certain municipal natural resources and planning bureau on administrative commitment case——If the administrative agency fails to fulfill its administrative commitments and causes losses to the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises, it shall bear the liability for compensation.[Basic case facts]In July 2010, the people's government of a city in Henan Province issued the minutes of the meeting involved in the case, agreeing that a real estate company should reach an agreement with the land-expropriated people on the compensation issue for the land involved in the case, and the real estate company would increase the compensation on the basis of the original compensation standard. For the additional compensation expenses and economic losses caused by a real estate company, the relevant departments of the People's Government of a certain city will provide preferential treatment and compensation in terms of land transfer, floor area ratio, supporting fees and other policies. In April 2012, a real estate company reached a mediation agreement with the people whose land was expropriated, and the people's government of a certain city stamped the seal in the upper right corner of the first page of the mediation agreement. A real estate company paid compensation to the villagers in accordance with the mediation agreement involved in the case, which solved the problem of land acquisition compensation and the construction of the development project was smoothly advanced. However, the compensation promised to a real estate company by a certain municipal people's government failed to be fully fulfilled. A real estate company believed that a certain city's people's government had failed to fulfill its compensation obligations, so it filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting that a certain city's people's government and a certain city's natural resources and planning bureau pay the land acquisition compensation, young crop compensation and occupied capital costs advanced by it.【Referee result】The first and second instance courts ruled to reject a certain real estate company’s claim, and a certain real estate company applied to the Supreme People’s Court for a retrial. The Supreme People's Court held in retrial that it is the legal obligation of local people's governments at or above the county level to expropriate collective land in accordance with the law and pay compensation. A real estate company obtained the use rights of the state-owned land involved in the case through public "bidding, auction, and listing" after the collective land was expropriated and converted into state-owned land. Because the dispute over expropriation and compensation could not be properly resolved, the people's government of a certain city agreed in the form of meeting minutes that a real estate company and the people whose land was expropriated signed a mediation agreement to increase the compensation fee. After a real estate company fulfilled the mediation agreement in accordance with the contract, the People's Government of a certain city failed to fulfill its administrative promise to transfer 40 acres of land through a separate agreement and to provide preferential treatment or compensation for the losses involved in the case, such as floor area ratio and supporting fees. The Supreme People's Court believes that administrative agencies should keep their promises and create a more stable, fair, transparent and predictable legal business environment. In accordance with the provisions of Article 70 of the Private Economy Promotion Law, the judgment of the first and second instance is revoked. Based on the background and reasons for the losses involved in the case, the extent of the responsibilities of both parties, and the profits of the real estate projects involved in the case, the People's Government of a certain city and the Natural Resources and Planning Bureau of a certain city are ordered to pay 841 RMB 841 to a real estate company within 15 days after the judgment takes effect.millionFor overdue payments, interest will be calculated based on the corresponding loan interest rate from the date of overdue payment to the date of actual payment.
【Typical meaning】As my country's first basic law on the development of the private economy, the Private Economy Promotion Law is a landmark measure to implement the spirit of the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Party and the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important speech at the Private Enterprise Symposium. It fully demonstrates the party and the country's clear stance and firm determination to encourage and support the development of the private economy. The key to implementing the Private Economy Promotion Law is to optimize the development environment of the private economy, supervise the exercise of powers by administrative agencies in accordance with the law, and ensure equal protection of the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises in accordance with the law, so that everything has laws to follow, everyone knows and abides by the laws, and all parties act in accordance with the law. This case is the first administrative case adjudicated by the Supreme People’s Court applying the Private Economy Promotion Law. In this case, the People's Court comprehensively determined the cause of the dispute and fault liability, clarified the liability sharing ratio between the administrative agency and the counterparty, and determined a fair and reasonable amount of compensation in accordance with the law. Evaluating and regulating the behavior of administrative agencies that fail to fulfill their administrative promises and fail to take remedial measures demonstrates the People's Court's attitude towards in-depth implementation of the Party Central Committee's guidelines and policies to support the development of the private economy. It will help strengthen the role of administrative litigation in supervising administrative agencies to perform their duties in accordance with the law and keep their promises, and further promote the construction of a law-based government, an honest government, and a service-oriented government.Case 7: A case of a passenger transport group company suing the people's government of a city in Jilin Province for the implementation of an administrative agreement on public transportation transformation——After reaching an administrative agreement with a private enterprise, the administrative agency shall not illegally add conditions to prevent the performance of the administrative agreement.[Basic case facts]In order to implement the requirements of the people's government of a certain city in Jilin Province to strengthen communication and integration between cities and implement public transportation transformation of passenger transport lines between adjacent cities, the People's Government of a certain city in Jilin Province held a special meeting and compiled the minutes of the meeting, clarifying that the relevant departments will promote the restructuring of a certain passenger transport company. To this end, a certain municipal people's government signed an agreement with a certain passenger transport group company, stipulating that in order to implement intercity bus lines between two cities, a certain passenger transport group company would acquire the entire assets of a certain passenger transport company and assume the liabilities. After the agreement was signed, a certain passenger transport group company established a certain bus company and a certain city branch. The certain bus company carried out public transportation transformation work such as reducing fares and replacing vehicles and implemented actual operations. In 2018, in order to implement the aforementioned meeting minutes, a certain transportation bureau took the lead in promoting the transformation of intercity public transportation between the two cities and solicited opinions on the issue of line opening. The municipal people's government of the adjacent city agreed to open the line, but the people's government of a certain city refused to open the line. In the subsequent implementation of the agreement, a certain municipal people's government required a bus company to obtain a bus road transport operating license as a condition for opening the line. In 2019, a certain city branch of a bus company applied to the city's Transportation Management Office for an urban bus (electric) vehicle road transport operation license, but was not granted the license. A passenger transport group company then filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting an order to order a certain city's people's government to perform its obligations under the agreement and bear the losses caused by delayed performance.【Referee result】The effective judgment of the People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the accused agreement was an administrative agreement, whether it should be performed, and whether a certain municipal people's government should be liable for compensation if it failed to perform the agreement. According to the minutes of a meeting of a certain municipal people's government and the relevant agreement signed with a certain passenger transport group company, it can be determined that the relevant agreement reached by a certain municipal people's government and a certain passenger transport group company on the transformation of intercity public transportation between two cities in order to achieve public management purposes is an administrative agreement. The agreement obligations of a certain city's people's government can be embodied in negotiating with adjacent cities to open bus passenger lines between the two cities. In the process of implementing the agreement, the people's government of a certain city required obtaining an urban bus (tram) road transport operating license as a condition for opening intercity bus lines. According to Article 70 of the "Regulations on the Administration of Urban Bus and Tram Passenger Transport" of the Ministry of Transport, the opening of bus lines in adjacent cities shall be determined by the relevant city people's governments through consultation. In addition, there are no other statutory restrictions. The behavior of a certain city people's government constitutes improperly adding restrictions in the process of performing administrative agreements. Therefore, when a passenger transport group company has fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and has actually invested, the people's government of a certain city should fulfill its obligations under the agreement, otherwise it should bear corresponding liability for compensation.The court of first instance ordered a certain municipal people's government to continue to perform its obligations under the agreement; if a certain municipal people's government is unable to perform its obligations, the losses caused to a certain passenger transport group company shall be dealt with in accordance with the law within two months from the date when it is determined that it cannot perform. The second-instance court upheld the first-instance judgment. After the judgment came into effect, the people's government of a certain city proactively fulfilled its obligations under the agreement and opened intercity bus lines with adjacent cities in a timely manner, which had a positive impact on facilitating people's travel and promoting the integration of the two places.【Typical meaning】General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly pointed out that “we must attach great importance to the construction of the rule of law and integrity, give full play to the normative and protective role of the rule of law in social governance, strengthen the value guidance of honesty and trustworthiness, and improve the level of government integrity, corporate integrity, and social integrity.” Administrative agencies should always adhere to administration in accordance with the law, reasonable administration and honest administration, and implement the requirements of the Private Economy Promotion Law to equally protect the legitimate rights and interests of all types of business entities in accordance with the law. After reaching an administrative agreement, the agreement must be kept and the performance of the administrative agreement shall not be hindered by adding administrative licensing conditions, let alone restricting private enterprises from participating in market competition fairly and reasonably. When hearing administrative agreement cases, the people's courts should proceed from the perspective of maintaining transaction security and protecting legitimate rights and interests, fully utilize the thinking of "penetrating trial", and seek the best balance between ensuring the realization of administrative management goals and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises in accordance with the law. When the people's court ruled that the administrative agency should perform its obligations under the agreement, it also clarified that if it failed to perform its obligations as agreed in the agreement, it should bear corresponding liability for compensation. This not only facilitated the administrative agency to fulfill its obligations under the agreement and substantively resolved administrative disputes, but also optimized the business environment and achieved good results in supporting the construction of an honest government with high-quality justice.Case 8: An investment company sued a branch of the Public Security Bureau of a city in Fujian Province for failing to perform its statutory duties of administrative licensing and review of normative documents——Normative documents formulated by administrative agencies must not violate the conditions for adding administrative licenses stipulated in higher-level laws.[Basic case facts]In June 2019, an investment company obtained the right to rent the house involved in the case through public bidding, and then carried out house decoration, safety and seismic testing, and fire acceptance. In September 2021, an investment company applied for a special industry license for the hotel industry from a branch of the Public Security Bureau of a certain city. The branch refused to issue the special industry license on the grounds that the property ownership certificate of the house involved in the case provided by an investment company was designed to be used for "office" and did not meet the licensing conditions stipulated in the "Notice on Further Regulating the Issuance of Special Industry Licenses for the Hotel Industry" (hereinafter referred to as the "red-headed document") issued by the Fujian Provincial Public Security Department. An investment company believes that its leasing procedures are legal and that a certain district people's government has held a special meeting to adjust the business format of the house; the above-mentioned "red-headed document" was issued only after the renovation of an investment company was completed. The requirements of this document are actually conditions for adding administrative licensing matters and violate the relevant provisions of the higher-level law. An investment company then filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting an order to order a branch of a certain city's public security bureau to perform its statutory duties, issue a special industry license to it in accordance with the law, and also review the legality of the "red-headed documents" involved in the case.【Referee result】After trial, the People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether a branch of a certain city's public security bureau was legal in refusing to issue a special industry license, and whether this behavior was legal depends on whether the relevant provisions of the "red-headed document" it was based on were legal. According to Article 147, Paragraph 1, of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", if the people's court finds that the normative document may be illegal during the review process of the normative document, it shall listen to the opinions of the authority that formulated the normative document. After the People's Court communicated and studied with the Fujian Provincial Public Security Department and a branch of a certain municipal public security bureau on whether the "red-headed document" had a legal basis and whether it complied with the provisions of the Administrative Licensing Law, the Fujian Provincial Public Security Department took the initiative to adjust the relevant content of the "red-headed document" and canceled the restrictions on housing planning uses in special industry licenses. After obtaining a special industry license in 2023, an investment company applied to the People's Court to withdraw the lawsuit.
【Typical meaning】To optimize the legalized business environment, we must further deepen the reform of "decentralization, regulation and service", standardize administrative licensing and administrative approval in accordance with the law, promptly modify and abolish various normative documents that are not conducive to optimizing the business environment, promote fair and orderly competition among various business entities, and reduce system operation costs. The formulation of "red-headed documents" by administrative agencies should be based on higher-level laws and must not conflict with higher-level laws. We must resolutely implement "nothing can be done without authorization from the law." When hearing administrative licensing cases, the people's courts should focus on examining whether the administrative agency has illegally added administrative licensing conditions. In this case, during the review process of the legality of administrative actions, the People's Court found that the normative document may be illegal. By listening to the opinions of the enacting agency and other methods, it pushed the administrative agency to proactively modify the relevant content of the normative document, which not only substantially resolved the administrative dispute in the case, but also promoted the administrative agency to Actively reduce unreasonable pre-approval matters, improve the post-supervision system, achieve case closure, political coordination, effectively promote administrative agencies to exercise their powers in accordance with the law, and implement the Party Central Committee's decision-making and deployment on "creating a market-oriented, legal and international first-class business environment" in judicial practice.Case 9: A machinery company sued a city in Zhejiang Province for non-performance of meeting minutes by the Economic and Information Technology Bureau——Relying on the minutes of government meetings and taking relevant actions constitutes a reason for requesting the performance of statutory duties.[Basic case facts]A machinery company is a traditional casting enterprise. In order to implement the local new energy vehicle structure project production capacity replacement work requirements, the Economic and Information Technology Bureau of a certain city has communicated with a machinery company on production capacity replacement issues many times since September 2022. For this reason, a machinery company made preparations for production shutdown, including the layoff of employees, dismantling of equipment, and interruption of upstream and downstream supply chains. In April 2023, the People's Government of a certain city held an executive meeting to discuss and approve the relevant foundry capacity replacement plan and formulate meeting minutes. It clearly referred to the relevant local policies on the disposal of small foundry enterprises for transformation and upgrading, and provided compensation for one-time equipment and facilities. In May 2023, due to changes in relevant policies, the Economic and Information Technology Bureau of a certain city suspended the production capacity replacement matter with a machinery company. A machinery company believed that it had made preliminary preparations for production capacity replacement. The failure of a certain municipal economic and information bureau to perform its duties as determined in the meeting minutes caused significant losses to the company, so it filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting an order to order a certain municipal economic and information bureau to continue to perform its obligations as determined in the meeting minutes involved and to bear compensation liability for the company's losses.【Referee result】After hearing, the People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether a certain city's Economic and Information Technology Bureau needed to continue to perform its capacity replacement responsibilities as determined in the meeting minutes. During the trial, the People's Court conducted an on-site investigation of the production and operation status of a certain machinery company and found that a certain machinery company had carried out a series of production capacity replacements because it relied on the minutes of the People's Government meeting. It was no longer possible to continue the original production, and the company's conversion and upgrading would be more conducive to its business development. The People's Court then issued a letter of recommendation for coordination and resolution to the administrative agency, pointing out the illegality of the administrative act being sued and the possible adverse consequences of losing the case, and clarifying the reasons for coordination and resolution and the resolution plan. After joint mediation, the two parties voluntarily reached an agreement: a certain city's Economic and Information Technology Bureau would take the lead to provide policy guidance and support for a certain machinery company's old equipment disposal and industrial upgrading, and a certain machinery company took the initiative to withdraw the lawsuit to the People's Court. As of January 2024, the contents of the settlement agreement have been fulfilled, and a machinery company has successfully converted its production.
【Typical meaning】General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that “developing new productive forces does not mean neglecting or abandoning traditional industries” and “reforming and upgrading traditional industries can also develop new productive forces.” Promoting the development of traditional manufacturing into a high-end, intelligent, green and integrated modern industrial system and promoting the replacement of backward production capacity are important measures to improve the resilience and safety level of industrial and supply chains. They are an inevitable choice to promote the development of productivity and accelerate the construction of a manufacturing power. In the process of promoting the transformation and upgrading of traditional industries, administrative agencies should fully protect the trust interests of private enterprises. The "principle of protection of trust interests" in administrative law requires that after an administrative agency makes an administrative action or administrative promise, if the counterparty disposes of its own legitimate rights and interests based on its trust in the administrative agency, such legitimate rights and interests should be protected. During the trial of the case, the People's Court paid full attention to the core needs of private enterprises, based on the overall transformation and upgrading of the regional industrial structure, took the initiative to take the initiative, and proposed specific substantive resolution plans by issuing letters of coordination and resolution recommendations. This not only eliminated the concerns of administrative agencies who did not dare to mediate, but also effectively protected the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises and maintained the credibility of the government. This case fully demonstrates the important role of administrative trials in supervising the fulfillment of contracts and promises by administrative agencies, assisting private enterprises in green rebirth, and developing new productive forces.Case ten: An administrative compensation case involving a mining company against the People’s Government of a county in Guizhou Province——If the adjustment of the water source protection zone causes the mining rights to be unable to be extended or to be withdrawn, reasonable compensation shall be provided in accordance with the law.[Basic case facts]A mining company obtained a mining license issued by the former Guizhou Provincial Department of Land and Resources, which is valid until December 2020. During the process of applying for the mining license involved in the case, the people's government of a certain county sent a letter to the former Guizhou Provincial Department of Land and Resources stating that the scope of the iron ore mining rights involved in the case was not within the prohibited mining and construction prohibited areas and complied with the provisions of Article 20 of the Mineral Resources Law of the People's Republic of China (2009 Amendment). On October 28, 2020, a branch of the Ecological Environment Bureau of a certain city informed a mining company that the scope of its mining area overlapped with a certain secondary lift-irrigated drinking water source protection zone after adjustment. A mining company was unable to renew its mining license because its mining area overlapped with a water source protection zone, and requested a county people's government to resolve the issue. In March 2021, at the request of a certain county people's government, a mining company actively performed the reclamation and greening work of the iron ore involved in the case and passed the inspection. Due to compensation matters, according to the arrangement of a certain county people's government, a certain county natural resources bureau commissioned an appraisal company in December of the same year to evaluate the iron ore mining rights and mine declared assets held by the mining company. The appraisal report stated that the appraisal value of the iron ore mining rights involved in the case was 5.637 million yuan, and the appraisal value of the mine's declared assets was 5.2779 million yuan. A mining company requested a county people's government to compensate 10.9149 million yuan, but the county people's government did not respond for a long time. A mining company then filed an administrative lawsuit with the People's Court, requesting a judgment from the People's Government of a certain county to provide compensation.【Referee result】The effective judgment of the People's Court held that the focus of the dispute in this case was whether the losses of a certain mining company were legitimate rights and interests and whether the people's government of a certain county should compensate it. If the adjustment of the water source protection area causes the mining area involved in the mining license to overlap with the water source protection area, and the administrative agency no longer applies for the extension of the mining license for the enterprise that has obtained the mining license, the mining right holder shall receive reasonable compensation for the loss of legitimate rights and interests. Regarding the scope, items and amount of legitimate rights and interests losses, factors such as the fact that the mining right holder has obtained an administrative license, the reasons why the administrative license is not renewed, and the specific content of the mining right holder’s legitimate rights and interests must be comprehensively considered. Actual losses are limited, and indirect losses such as expected income are generally not included. Therefore, the People's Court ruled that a certain county people's government suffered actual losses to a mining company, including the mining rights price, mine construction investment costs, etc. 583millionThe remaining yuan and interest will be compensated.
【Typical meaning】Strengthening the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of mining rights holders is an inevitable requirement for optimizing the business environment of the mineral market and promoting the sustainable development of the mineral industry. The newly revised "Mineral Resources Law of the People's Republic of China" was officially implemented on July 1, 2025. The law emphasizes the need to safeguard the rights and interests of state owners of mineral resources and the legitimate rights and interests of mining rights holders. It clearly stipulates that the state protects the exploration rights and mining rights obtained in accordance with the law from infringement, and maintains the production order and working order in mineral resource exploration and mining areas. In this case, based on the need for water source protection, the people's government of a certain county adjusted the scope of the water source protection zone to overlap with the mining area of a mining company's mining rights. As a result, a mining company's mining rights could not be renewed, and reasonable compensation should be given to the loss of its legitimate rights and interests. When hearing this type of administrative compensation cases, the people's courts should pay more attention to the substantive claims of the parties, focus on ascertaining the actual losses and causal relationships, determine the attribution of responsibility, clarify the compensation method and amount, and make as specific a performance judgment as possible when the time for judgment is ripe, so as to stabilize the administrative legal relationship as soon as possible, substantively resolve administrative disputes, reduce procedural idling, timely and effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of private enterprises, and achieve the organic unity of the "three effects".
Related tags：
