administrative agreement

This case talks about a housing construction department in Jiangsu Province that concentrated on cleaning up construction qualifications and withdrew 768 qualifications of 656 companies. However, 103 companies all won the case after filing administrative reconsideration. The core reason is that the administrative agency failed to prove that it had served the "Notice of Ordering Correction within a Time Limit" and other documents in accordance with the law, which resulted in the company's right to know and statement and defense being deprived, which constituted a major procedural violation. Lawyer Ying Ting believes that before administrative agencies make a decision to withdraw a license, they must fully protect the procedural rights of the licensee, otherwise even the "reasonable" substantive decision will be revoked due to procedural flaws.

The administrative review agency did not simply "handle the case", but organized face-to-face communication between the two parties, explained the qualification standards to the enterprise, and guided and standardized operations; at the same time, it sent a risk reminder letter to the administrative agency to promote self-correction and revocation of the decision. In the end, 103 companies took the initiative to withdraw their response applications, achieving a substantial resolution of the case. This method of correcting illegal behaviors and helping companies rectify and meet standards is worth learning from.

The typical significance of this case is that it achieved a governance upgrade from "correcting a case" to "standardizing a type of behavior." The review agency urges administrative agencies to improve licensing work standards, promote the establishment of a province-wide administrative approval consultation hotline, and prepare a declaration guide manual to standardize enterprise-related approval and supervision from the source. For private enterprises, when encountering similar qualification licensing disputes, they must dare to use administrative reconsideration to protect their legitimate rights and interests. Procedural justice can also determine the outcome of the case.

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.

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.

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."