Tongwang Attention丨The Supreme People's Court Issues Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases (with Reference Cases and Q&A)
Time:
2022-03-22
Author:
Source:
The Supreme People's Court
Visits:
29
On March 21, the Supreme People's Court issued the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation"), which will be implemented on May 1, 2022.
The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" is based on the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases" issued in 1997. Given that relevant laws such as the State Compensation Law and the Administrative Procedure Law have been revised for many years, and the "Civil Code" has been promulgated, it addresses new situations and problems arising in the trial practice of administrative compensation cases. It was formed through multi-level research and extensive consultation to meet the needs of the new situation, further standardize the trial of administrative compensation cases, and summarize the experience and practices of recent years. It is a judicial interpretation of administrative compensation with Chinese characteristics in the new era.
The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" adheres to the Party's absolute leadership over judicial work, always adheres to the guidance of Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, thoroughly implements Xi Jinping's Thought on the Rule of Law, enhances the "Four Consciousnesses", strengthens the "Four Confidences", and achieves the "Two Safeguards", serves and safeguards the overall work of the Party and the country in accordance with the law, supervises and supports administrative organs in fulfilling their administrative compensation obligations in accordance with the law, and substantially resolves administrative compensation disputes. Adhering to the people-centered approach, earnestly implements the people's principal status, adheres to the fundamental position of serving the people, effectively safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, and protects the administrative compensation rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations in accordance with the law. It equally protects the legitimate property rights of various market entities, implements the principle of equal protection of property rights, and effectively safeguards the legitimate property rights of the private economy. Actively implements the requirements of basing itself on the new development stage, implementing the new development concept, and building a new development pattern, accurately identifies the points of convergence and entry points for administrative trial work to serve high-quality development, and provides strong judicial services and guarantees for achieving high-quality development.
The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" combines the trial practice of administrative compensation cases, strictly implements the State Compensation Law and the Administrative Procedure Law, is oriented towards solving prominent problems in practice, focuses on interpreting major and difficult legal application issues with divergent opinions, and focuses on the pertinence, accuracy and effectiveness of norms. The full text has 33 articles, with the following highlights: First, it regulates the scope of acceptance of administrative compensation lawsuits, further clarifies the scope and constituent elements of administrative compensation, stipulates the circumstances of reversed burden of proof, and scientifically divides administrative compensation responsibilities to achieve precise supervision of administrative organs. Second, it reasonably determines the scope of "direct losses", further clarifies the compensation standards for property damage, clarifies that the administrative compensation granted to the expropriated by the people's court shall not be less than the resettlement compensation rights that the expropriated should legally obtain, and improves the provisions on mental damage compensation lawsuits, reflecting the comprehensive protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties. Third, it further clarifies the qualifications of the plaintiffs and defendants in administrative compensation lawsuits, improves the statute of limitations and the system of filing deadlines for administrative compensation claims, further resolves the procedural issues of filing administrative compensation lawsuits together and separately, and further improves the connection between public and private law compensation lawsuits, so as to fully protect the litigation rights of the parties. Fourth, it strengthens the court's obligation to explain, standardizes the people's court's discretionary standards for damages, clarifies the adjudication methods for administrative compensation cases, and enhances the effect of administrative compensation lawsuits in substantially resolving administrative disputes.
The "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases" was adopted at the 1855th meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 6, 2021, and is hereby promulgated and shall be implemented on May 1, 2022.
Supreme People's Court
March 20, 2022
Fa Shi [2022] No. 10
Supreme People's Court on the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases
Provisions on Several Issues
(Adopted at the 1855th Meeting of the Adjudication Committee of the Supreme People's Court on December 6, 2021, and shall be implemented on May 1, 2022)
In order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, supervise administrative organs to perform their administrative compensation obligations in accordance with the law, ensure that the people's courts fairly and promptly hear administrative compensation cases, and substantially resolve administrative compensation disputes, these provisions are formulated in accordance with the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Procedure Law), the "State Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China" (hereinafter referred to as the State Compensation Law) and other laws, in light of the actual administrative trial work.
I. Scope of Acceptance
Article 1 "Other illegal acts" as stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the State Compensation Law include the following circumstances:
(1) Failure to perform statutory duties;
(2) Acts committed by administrative organs and their staff in the process of performing administrative duties that do not produce legal effects, but in fact damage the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, such as personal rights and property rights.
Article 2 In accordance with Article 1, Article 12, Paragraph 1, Item 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law and Article 2 of the State Compensation Law, if citizens, legal persons or other organizations believe that administrative organs and their staff illegally exercise their administrative powers and cause personal or property damage to their legitimate rights and interests such as labor rights and neighboring rights, they may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law.
Article 3 If the compensation claimant is not satisfied with the following acts of the compensation obligation organ, he may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law:
(1) An administrative compensation decision determining the method, items, and amount of compensation;
(2) A decision not to compensate;
(3) Failure to make a compensation decision within the time limit;
(4) Other acts related to administrative compensation.
Article 4 After an administrative act that is legally subject to final adjudication by an administrative organ is confirmed as illegal, the compensation claimant may file an administrative compensation lawsuit separately.
Article 5 If citizens, legal persons or other organizations believe that national acts such as national defense and diplomacy or administrative regulations, rules or decisions and orders with universal binding force formulated and issued by administrative organs infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests and cause damage, and file an administrative compensation lawsuit with the people's court, it does not fall within the scope of acceptance of administrative compensation lawsuits by the people's court.
II. Litigation Parties
Article 6 The status of the parties in an administrative compensation lawsuit filed jointly by citizens, legal persons or other organizations shall be determined according to their status in the administrative lawsuit, unless the parties in the administrative lawsuit and the administrative compensation lawsuit are inconsistent.
Article 7 If the injured citizen dies, his heirs and other persons with support relationships may file an administrative compensation lawsuit and provide the citizen's death certificate and proof of the relationship between the compensation claimant and the deceased citizen.
If the injured citizen dies, the person who pays the reasonable expenses such as medical expenses and funeral expenses for the injured citizen may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law.
If a legal person or other organization entitled to file an administrative compensation lawsuit is split, merged, or terminated, the legal person or other organization that assumes its rights may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law.
Article 8 If two or more administrative organs jointly implement an infringing administrative act that causes damage, the joint infringing administrative organs shall be joint defendants. If the claimant insists on filing an administrative compensation lawsuit against one or several of the infringing organs, the sued organ shall be the defendant, and the non-sued organ shall be added as a third party.
Article 9 If the original administrative act causes damage to the claimant and the review decision aggravates the damage, the review agency and the original administrative act agency shall be joint defendants. If the claimant insists on filing an administrative compensation lawsuit against the agency that made the original administrative act or the review agency, the sued agency shall be the defendant, and the non-sued agency shall be added as a third party.
Article 10 If an administrative organ applies to the people's court for compulsory execution of its administrative act in accordance with the provisions of Article 97 of the Administrative Procedure Law, and an administrative compensation lawsuit occurs because the administrative act on which the compulsory execution is based is illegal, the administrative organ applying for compulsory execution shall be the defendant.
3. Evidence
Article 11 In an administrative compensation lawsuit, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of the damage caused by the administrative act; if the plaintiff is unable to provide evidence due to the defendant's reasons, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof.
The people's court shall support the reasonable losses of articles necessary for production and life claimed by the plaintiff; the losses of other valuables and cash beyond the necessities of production and life proposed by the plaintiff may be determined in combination with relevant evidence in the case.
Article 12 If the plaintiff claims that he or she suffered physical injury during the period of restriction of personal freedom, and the defendant denies the relevant damage facts or the causal relationship between the damage and the illegal administrative act, the defendant shall provide corresponding evidence to prove it.
4. Filing and Acceptance
Article 13 If an administrative act has not been confirmed as illegal and a citizen, legal person or other organization files an administrative compensation lawsuit, the people's court shall regard it as filing an administrative compensation lawsuit together with the administrative lawsuit.
If an administrative act has been confirmed as illegal and meets the following conditions, a citizen, legal person or other organization may file an administrative compensation lawsuit separately:
(1) The plaintiff has the qualification to claim administrative compensation;
(2) There is a clear defendant;
(3) There are specific claims for compensation and factual basis for the damage suffered;
(4) The compensation obligor has handled it in advance or has not handled it beyond the statutory time limit;
(5) It falls within the scope of acceptance of administrative compensation lawsuits by the people's court and the jurisdiction of the people's court;
(6) The lawsuit is filed within the statutory time limit for filing a lawsuit.
Article 14 If the plaintiff does not file an administrative compensation lawsuit together with the administrative lawsuit, and the people's court reviews and believes that there may be administrative compensation, it shall inform the plaintiff that an administrative compensation lawsuit may be filed together.
If the plaintiff files an administrative compensation lawsuit before the conclusion of the first-instance trial, and meets the conditions for filing a lawsuit, the people's court shall accept it in accordance with the law; if the plaintiff files an administrative compensation lawsuit after the conclusion of the first-instance trial and before the judgment is pronounced, whether to allow it shall be decided by the people's court.
If the plaintiff raises a claim for administrative compensation in the second-instance procedure or retrial procedure, the people's court may organize mediation among the parties; if the mediation fails, it shall inform them to file a separate lawsuit.
Article 15 Citizens, legal persons or other organizations shall apply to the compensation obligor for administrative compensation within two years from the date they know or should have known that the administrative act infringes upon their legitimate rights and interests. If the compensation obligor fails to make a compensation decision within two months from the date of receiving the compensation application, the citizen, legal person or other organization may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law.
Article 16 If a citizen, legal person or other organization requests administrative compensation together when filing an administrative lawsuit, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law on the time limit for filing a lawsuit shall apply.
Article 17 If a citizen, legal person or other organization only objects to the administrative compensation part of the administrative review decision and files an administrative compensation lawsuit within fifteen days from the date of service of the review decision, the people's court shall accept it in accordance with the law.
When an administrative organ makes an administrative review decision with compensation content, if it fails to inform the citizen, legal person or other organization of the time limit for filing a lawsuit, the time limit for filing a lawsuit shall be calculated from the date when the citizen, legal person or other organization knows or should have known the time limit for filing a lawsuit, but shall not exceed one year from the date of knowing or should have known the content of the administrative review decision.
Article 18 If an administrative act is revoked, changed, confirmed as illegal or invalid by an authorized organ in accordance with legal procedures, or the staff of the administrative organ implementing the administrative act is confirmed as dereliction of duty or abuse of power by an effective legal document or a disciplinary action by the supervisory organ due to the act, it shall be deemed as the administrative act being confirmed as illegal as mentioned in this provision.
Article 19 If a citizen, legal person or other organization files an administrative compensation lawsuit together, and the people's court, after review, believes that the administrative lawsuit does not meet the conditions for filing a lawsuit, it shall rule not to file the administrative compensation lawsuit filed together; if it has been filed, it shall rule to dismiss the lawsuit.
Article 20 In administrative cases involving administrative licenses, registration, expropriation, requisition, and rulings made by administrative organs on civil disputes, if the plaintiff files an administrative compensation lawsuit and the relevant parties apply to resolve the relevant civil disputes together, the people's court may hear them together.
5. Trial and Judgment
Article 21 If two or more administrative organs jointly implement illegal administrative acts, or administrative organs and their staff collude in bad faith with third parties to commit illegal administrative acts, causing actual damage to the personal rights, property rights and other legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, they shall bear joint and several liability for compensation.
After bearing joint and several liability for compensation, a party may seek recovery from other joint and several obligors for the portion exceeding its due share.
Article 22 If two or more administrative organs commit illegal administrative acts separately, causing the same damage, and each administrative organ's illegal act is sufficient to cause all the damage, each administrative organ shall bear joint and several liability for compensation.
If two or more administrative organs commit illegal administrative acts separately, causing the same damage, the people's court shall, according to the role of their illegal administrative acts in the occurrence and result of the damage, determine their respective administrative compensation responsibilities; if it is difficult to determine the size of the responsibility, they shall bear the responsibility equally.
Article 23 If the illegal administrative act is caused by a third party providing false materials, resulting in damage to citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, the people's court shall determine the corresponding administrative compensation liability of the administrative organ according to the role of the illegal administrative act in the occurrence and result of the damage; if the administrative organ has fulfilled its duty of prudent review, it shall not bear administrative compensation liability.
Article 24 If the damage to citizens, legal persons, or other organizations is caused by the act of a third party, the third party shall bear the tort liability for compensation according to law; if the third party's compensation is insufficient, unable to bear the compensation liability, or whereabouts are unknown, and the administrative organ fails to fulfill its statutory obligations such as protection, supervision, and assistance, the people's court shall determine its corresponding administrative compensation liability according to the role of the administrative organ's failure to fulfill its statutory obligations in the occurrence and result of the damage.
Article 25 If damage is caused to citizens, legal persons, or other organizations due to objective reasons such as force majeure, and the administrative organ fails to perform or delays in performing its statutory obligations according to law, resulting in failure to stop the loss in time or expansion of the damage, the people's court shall determine its corresponding administrative compensation liability according to the role of the administrative organ's failure to perform or delay in performing its statutory obligations in the occurrence and result of the damage.
Article 26 One of the following circumstances shall be deemed as 'causing serious consequences' as stipulated in Article 35 of the State Compensation Law:
(1) The victim's personal freedom is illegally restricted for more than six months;
(2) The victim is identified as having a minor injury or disability;
(3) The victim is diagnosed or identified as having a mental disorder or mental disability, and there is a correlation with the illegal administrative act;
(4) The victim's reputation, honor, family, occupation, education, etc. suffer serious damage, and there is a correlation with the illegal administrative act.
One of the following circumstances may be identified as particularly serious consequences:
(1) The victim's personal freedom is restricted for more than ten years;
(2) The victim dies;
(3) The victim is identified as having a serious injury or a disability of level one to four, and cannot take care of themselves;
(4) The victim is diagnosed or identified as having a severe mental disorder or mental disability of level one to two, cannot take care of themselves, and there is a correlation with the illegal administrative act.
Article 27 If an illegal administrative act causes damage to the property of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, and the property cannot be returned or restored to its original state, the loss shall be calculated according to the market price of the property at the time of the damage. If the market price cannot be determined, or the price is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, other reasonable methods may be used for calculation.
If the people's court rules to grant administrative compensation to the expropriated person for the illegal expropriation of land or houses, it shall not be less than the resettlement compensation rights and interests that the expropriated person should obtain according to law.
Article 28 The following losses fall under the category of 'necessary recurring expenses during the suspension of production and business' as stipulated in Article 36, Paragraph 6 of the State Compensation Law:
(1) The wages of necessary retained employees;
(2) Taxes and social insurance premiums that must be paid;
(3) Water and electricity fees, safekeeping fees, storage fees, and contracting fees that should be paid;
(4) Reasonable rent for houses and venues, equipment rent, and equipment depreciation fees;
(5) Other basic expenses required to maintain operations during the suspension of production and business.
Article 29 The following losses fall under the category of 'direct losses' as stipulated in Article 36, Paragraph 8 of the State Compensation Law:
(1) Deposit interest, loan interest, and cash interest;
(2) Operating losses during the downtime of motor vehicles;
(3) Rewards, subsidies, etc. that should be obtained according to law through administrative compensation procedures;
(4) Other actual losses caused to property.
Article 30 If the defendant has one of the circumstances stipulated in Article 3 of the State Compensation Law, causing mental damage, the people's court shall order it to eliminate the impact, restore the reputation, and apologize to the victim within the scope of the impact of the illegal administrative act; the method of performing the elimination of impact, restoration of reputation, and apology may be negotiated by both parties, and if the negotiation fails, the people's court shall order the defendant to perform in an appropriate manner. If serious consequences are caused, a corresponding mental damage consolation payment shall be ordered.
Article 31 If the people's court finds after trial that the defendant has caused property damage to citizens, legal persons, or other organizations, it shall order the defendant to return the property and restore it to its original state within a time limit; if the property cannot be returned or restored to its original state, it shall order the defendant to pay compensation and corresponding interest losses within a time limit.
When hearing administrative compensation cases, the people's court may clarify the method, items, and standards of compensation by the administrative organ. If the content of compensation is determined, a judgment with payment content such as the amount of compensation shall be made; if there is indeed an error in the determination of the amount of compensation in the administrative compensation decision, the people's court shall rule to change it.
Article 32 Under any of the following circumstances, the people's court shall rule to reject the plaintiff's request for administrative compensation:
(1) The damage claimed by the plaintiff has no factual basis;
(2) There is no causal relationship between the damage claimed by the plaintiff and the illegal administrative act;
(III) The plaintiff's losses have been fully compensated through administrative compensation or other means;
(IV) Other circumstances where the plaintiff's claim for administrative compensation is not justified.
VI. Others
Article 33 These Provisions shall come into force on May 1, 2022. The Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases (Fa Fa [1997] No. 10) shall be repealed simultaneously.
In case the judicial interpretations issued by this Court before the implementation of these Provisions are inconsistent with these Provisions, these Provisions shall prevail.
Reference Cases
Contents
1. Ma Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation
2. Yang Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation
3. Li Moumou v. the People's Government of a County and the County Forestry Bureau for Forestry Administrative Compensation
4. Fan Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Forced Demolition of Houses and Administrative Compensation
5. Yi Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Forced Demolition of Houses and Administrative Compensation
6. Li Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation
7. Wei Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation
8. Du Moumou v. the People's Government of a County for Administrative Compensation
9. Zhou Moumou v. the Management Committee of an Economic and Technological Development Zone for Demolition Administrative Compensation
1、 Ma Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation ——A decision of non-compensation legally falls within the scope of administrative compensation litigation.
Ma Moumou believed that the People's Government of a district and related departments restricted his personal freedom and caused damage, and submitted an application for administrative compensation to the People's Government of a district. The People's Government of a district issued a notice informing Ma Moumou that the materials he provided could not prove that the district People's Government had restricted his personal freedom, so the district People's Government was not an administrative compensation obligation agency. Ma Moumou dissatisfied and filed a lawsuit in the Intermediate People's Court of a city, requesting confirmation that the People's Government of a district had illegally failed to make a compensation decision within the statutory time limit, and compensation for losses of more than 180,000 yuan.
(II) Judgment Results
The court of first instance ruled to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the case did not meet the statutory conditions for filing a lawsuit because it required compensation without confirming the illegality, while the court of second instance ruled to uphold the ruling of the first instance on the grounds that the act of not making a compensation decision was a procedural act and did not have a substantial impact on Ma Moumou's rights and obligations. Ma Moumou dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
The Supreme People's Court held after trial that Ma Moumou requested the People's Government of a district to handle the compensation issue first and the People's Government of a district issued a notice of decision not to compensate. According to the newly revised Article 14, Paragraph 2 of the State Compensation Law, if the compensation claimant is dissatisfied with the notice of decision not to compensate, he may file a lawsuit in the people's court. After the people's court accepts the case, it shall conduct a trial on the administrative compensation dispute between the People's Government of a district and Ma Moumou in accordance with the law.
2、 Yang Moumou v. the People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation ——When a party simultaneously files a lawsuit for administrative compulsory confirmation of illegality and administrative compensation, even if the people's court files the cases separately, it still belongs to filing an administrative compensation lawsuit together, and there is no need to wait for the confirmation of the illegality judgment to take effect before claiming compensation separately.
Yang Moumou filed an administrative lawsuit with the Intermediate People's Court of a city regarding the administrative compulsory and administrative compensation case of the People's Government of a district. For the administrative compulsory case, the court made a first-instance administrative judgment confirming that the forced demolition of Yang Moumou's house by the People's Government of a district was illegal, and the second-instance court upheld the first-instance judgment for the same reason.
(II) Judgment Results
For the administrative compensation case, the court of first instance ruled to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the facts of illegal infringement and the subject of compensation liability had not been confirmed by the effective judgment of the people's court during the first instance, in order to avoid the judicial procedure from being empty. The court of second instance held that, although the facts of illegal infringement and the subject of compensation liability had been confirmed by the effective judgment of the people's court during the second instance, Yang Moumou could still protect his legitimate rights and interests through applying to the People's Government of a district for administrative compensation or filing a separate administrative compensation lawsuit, so it upheld the first-instance ruling. Yang Moumou dissatisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
The Supreme People's Court held after trial that, in order to substantially resolve administrative disputes, according to the relevant provisions of the State Compensation Law, if an administrative compensation applicant requests administrative compensation together when filing an administrative lawsuit, the people's court shall make a substantive judgment on the administrative compensation request together in accordance with the law while confirming that the administrative act is illegal. The ruling of the first and second instance courts to dismiss Yang Moumou's lawsuit against the People's Government of a district requesting administrative compensation belongs to a disguised deprivation of the party's legitimate right to file an administrative compensation lawsuit together.
3、 Li Moumou v. the People's Government of a County and the County Forestry Bureau for Forestry Administrative Compensation ——If the administrative act made by the administrative organ is illegal due to the provision of false materials by a third party, causing damage to citizens, legal persons or other organizations, the people's court shall determine the corresponding administrative compensation liability to be borne by the administrative organ according to the size of the role of the illegal administrative act in the occurrence and result of the damage.
After Li Moumou and Yuan Mou married, they signed a Land Contract Contract with villagers Gan Mou and others and notarized it, contracting a total of 82 mu of mountain land from Gan Mou and others and planting fir trees. Later, Li Moumou and Yuan Mou divorced by agreement, and 82 mu of fir trees belonged to Li Moumou. On June 23, 2010, Yuan Mou sold 82 mu of planted fir trees to Fan Mou and Huang Mou. On July 12, 2010, Fan Mou submitted a felling application in the name of another person, and the County Forestry Bureau issued No. 81 Forest Logging Permit to Fan Mou. On November 22, 2011, Li Moumou submitted the Application for Confirmation of Illegal State Compensation on the grounds that the administrative act of issuing the forest logging permit was illegal, requesting the revocation of No. 81 Forest Logging Permit, and requesting the County Forestry Bureau to compensate for losses totaling 1.2 million yuan. The County People's Government made a reconsideration decision: 1. Revoke No. 81 Forest Logging Permit. 2. Fan Mou's unauthorized felling without the authorization of Li Moumou and others is a personal act and does not fall within the scope of state compensation. Li Moumou sued the court, requesting the County Forestry Bureau to compensate for its economic losses of 1.2 million yuan; the County People's Government and the County Forestry Bureau shall bear joint and several liability for compensation.
(II) Judgment Results
The first and second instance courts held that the Forestry Bureau of a certain county had fulfilled its necessary review obligations, and the administrative act was appropriate. Although the logging permit was later revoked by the People's Government of a certain county, the reason for the revocation was that Fan used the name of the right holder to apply, rather than the illegal review by the Forestry Bureau of a certain county. Therefore, the court rejected Li's claim. Li was not satisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that the Forestry Bureau of a certain county failed to fulfill its prudent and reasonable review obligations in accordance with legal procedures when issuing the logging permit involved in the case, and the issuance of the permit was illegal. The illegal issuance of the permit by the Forestry Bureau of a certain county and Fan's provision of false materials to apply for the logging permit and his private logging of trees jointly caused property losses to Li. The Forestry Bureau of a certain county shall bear corresponding compensation liability according to the role of its illegal act in the damage process and results.
4、 Fan v. People's Government of a District for Compulsory Demolition of Houses and Administrative Compensation ——In cases of illegal requisition of land and houses, the administrative compensation granted by the people's court to the expropriated party shall not be less than the resettlement compensation rights that the expropriated party should obtain according to law.
(I) Basic Facts
In January 2011, the People's Government of a district demolished Fan's house on collective land within the scope of requisition without reaching an agreement with Fan on compensation and resettlement and without the approval of the people's government for land requisition. The effective judgment of the people's court confirmed that the demolition was illegal. Fan filed a lawsuit in this case to claim compensation according to law.
(II) Judgment Results
The first and second instance courts ruled that the People's Government of a district should compensate at the market appraisal price at the time of the compensation decision. The People's Government of a district was not satisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that the amount of administrative compensation obtained by the expropriated party when the administrative agency illegally forcibly demolishes the house should not be lower than the market price of the expropriated house at the time of compensation. Otherwise, it is not only unfair but also condones the illegal acts of administrative agencies. Therefore, in the case of illegal forced demolition of houses, the people's court's administrative compensation to the expropriated party at the market appraisal price at the time of the compensation decision is in line with the legislative purpose of housing expropriation compensation.
5、 Yi v. People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation for Forced Demolition of Houses ——In property damage compensation, if the market price of the property at the time of the damage is not enough to compensate the victim's loss, other reasonable methods can be used to calculate it.
(I) Basic Facts
Yi's house was forcibly demolished by the People's Government of a district without reaching a resettlement compensation agreement with Yi or making a corresponding compensation decision. The effective administrative judgment also confirmed that the forced demolition was illegal. Yi applied to the People's Government of a district for administrative compensation, but the People's Government of a district failed to make a compensation decision within the statutory time limit. Yi then filed a lawsuit in this case, requesting the court to order the People's Government of a district to restore the original state, or compensate for houses of the same location, area, and use; order the People's Government of a district to compensate for the economic loss of movable property of more than 30,000 yuan.
(II) Judgment Results
The first and second instance courts ruled that the People's Government of a district should compensate for the economic losses caused by the illegal demolition of Yi's house, totaling more than 160,000 yuan, and at the same time rejected Yi's claim for compensation for the loss of movable property. Yi was not satisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that houses, as a special kind of property, fluctuate greatly in price. In order to protect the rights and interests of the parties to the greatest extent, the determination of the time point for house loss compensation should choose the time point that can best compensate the parties' losses. In the case of rapid increase in house prices, taking the time when the illegal administrative act occurred as the standard cannot compensate the parties' losses. At this time, taking the time when the court entrusted the evaluation as the standard is more in line with the principle of fairness and reasonableness.
6、 Li v. People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation ——If property damage is caused to citizens, legal persons or other organizations, and the original state cannot be restored, the people's court shall order the compensation obligation agency to pay compensation and corresponding interest losses.
(I) Basic Facts
On July 16, 2012, the staff of the construction headquarters organized by the People's Government of a district forcibly demolished Li's house. On April 27, 2015, the effective administrative judgment of the court confirmed that the procedure of the People's Government of a district to forcibly demolish Li's house was illegal. Li submitted an 《Administrative Compensation Application》 to the People's Government of a district, but the People's Government of a district did not reply. Li filed an administrative compensation lawsuit in this case, requesting restoration to the original state. During the retrial review stage of this case, the People's Government of a district made an 《Administrative Compensation Decision》 on the house involved in the case.
(II) Judgment Results
The first and second instance courts held that, according to the relevant provisions of the National Compensation Law, if the property to be returned is lost, corresponding compensation shall be paid. The house involved in the case has been demolished and lost, and there is no possibility of restoring the original state. Li refused to change the litigation request of "requiring the demolished house to be restored to its original state" after being explained, and accordingly ruled to reject Li's litigation request. Li was not satisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After hearing, the Supreme People's Court held that the house involved in the case has been damaged and lost due to forced demolition, and the land involved in the case has been included in the scope of requisition, and the house involved in the case does not have the possibility of restoring the original state. The original trial's failure to support Li's claim for restoration to the original state was not inappropriate. However, Li still has the right to obtain compensation, and the court should make a corresponding compensation judgment in accordance with the law through methods such as compensation. It is indeed inappropriate to reject Li's claim solely on the grounds that the claim for restoration to the original state is not supported.
7、 Wei v. People's Government of a District for Administrative Compensation ——When hearing administrative compensation cases, the people's court may clarify the method, items, and standards of compensation made by the administrative agency. If the content of compensation is direct and certain, a judgment with payment content such as the amount of compensation shall be made.
Wei's house on collective land involved in the case is located in the urban village renovation area of a district. Because no resettlement compensation agreement was reached, Wei's house involved in the case was demolished on May 25, 2010. The effective judgment of the court confirmed that the forced demolition by the People's Government of a district was illegal. In June 2015, Wei filed an administrative compensation lawsuit in this case in accordance with the law, requesting the court to order the People's Government of a district to compensate for losses such as house losses.
(II) Judgment Results
The court of first instance ruled that the People's Government of a district should compensate Wei for losses such as house losses. The court of second instance ruled to revoke the administrative compensation judgment of the first instance and ordered the People's Government of a district to fully compensate Wei in accordance with the law within ninety days from the date of the judgment's entry into force. Wei was not satisfied and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court holds that, based on the principle of judicial finality, the people's court shall accept administrative compensation lawsuits in accordance with the law and make clear and specific compensation judgments to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the compensation claimant and substantially resolve administrative disputes. In principle, it should no longer order the compensation obligor to make a compensation decision first, so that the compensation dispute returns to the administrative channel, increasing the burden on the parties. In this case, the second-instance judgment revoked the first-instance administrative compensation judgment and ordered the People's Government of a certain district to fully compensate Wei Moumou in accordance with the law, which is unjustified and violates the principle of judicial finality, and the method of adjudication is obviously inappropriate.
8、 Du Moumou v. People's Government of a Certain County for Administrative Compensation If the plaintiff's losses have been fully compensated through administrative channels, the people's court shall, according to law, reject its claim for administrative compensation.
(I) Basic Facts
In early 2014, the People's Government of a certain county, for the needs of the ring road expressway project construction, with the approval of the higher-level government, its established demolition and relocation headquarters signed the "Housing Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement" with the expropriated person Du Moumou and agreed on the payment time and the house delivery time. Subsequently, the demolition and relocation headquarters fulfilled the relevant obligations as agreed. In October of the same year, the house involved in the case was demolished without going through the handover procedures. The demolition act was confirmed by the court's effective judgment that the demolition act of a certain county's people's government was illegal. On November 7, 2016, Du Moumou applied to the People's Government of a certain county for administrative compensation, and the People's Government of a certain county did not reply within the statutory time limit. Du Moumou filed this case for compensation.
(II) Judgment Results
The first and second instance courts held that, before the house was forcibly demolished, Du Moumou had already obtained the relevant compensation and homestead resettlement compensation agreed in the "Housing Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement", and after the house was demolished, Du Moumou received compensation for discarded items and relocation man-hour expenses from the village committee, so the court ruled to reject Du Moumou's claim. Du Moumou refused to accept the judgment and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that the confirmation of the illegality of an administrative act does not necessarily give rise to administrative compensation liability, and only if actual damage is caused shall compensation liability be borne. The demolition and relocation headquarters established by the People's Government of a certain county has signed the "Housing Expropriation Compensation and Resettlement Agreement" with Du Moumou, and the agreement has been recognized by the court's effective judgment as legal and valid and has been actually performed. Therefore, although Du Moumou's house was illegally forcibly demolished, he did not provide evidence in the lawsuit to prove that there were other damages, and his legitimate rights and interests were not actually damaged due to the illegal administrative act, and his claim for compensation lacked factual and legal basis.
9、 Zhou Moumou v. Management Committee of a Certain Economic and Technological Development Zone for Demolition Administrative Compensation Case ——Rewards, subsidies, etc. that should be obtained in accordance with the law through administrative compensation procedures and other actual losses caused to property are direct losses.
(I) Basic Facts
Zhou Moumou owns two houses on the collective land of a certain natural village, which began to implement the renovation of farmhouses demolition in 2010. Because no resettlement compensation agreement was reached with Zhou Moumou, in March 2012, the demolition office organized personnel to forcibly demolish the buildings involved in the case. Zhou Moumou refused to accept the lawsuit to the court, requesting the court to order the Management Committee of a certain Economic and Technological Development Zone to compensate him with RMB 8.00 million yuan for resettlement.
(II) Judgment Results
The first and second instance courts held that the houses involved in the case have been demolished and can no longer be evaluated, and the parties have no objection to the building area, attachments, etc. From the perspective of benefiting Zhou Moumou, the compensation for the houses involved in the case can be calculated with reference to relevant regulations and according to the replacement price of the demolished farmhouses, and the Management Committee of a certain Economic and Technological Development Zone was ordered to compensate Zhou Moumou with more than 490,000 yuan, and other litigation claims were rejected. Zhou Moumou refused to accept the judgment and applied to the Supreme People's Court for retrial.
After review, the Supreme People's Court held that, in order to maximize the function and role of the State Compensation Law in safeguarding and remedying the legitimate rights and interests of the injured administrative counterparties, the understanding of the "direct losses" regarding the scope of compensation for losses in Article 36 of the Law shall include not only the losses of vested property interests, but also the losses of property interests such as the right to enjoy the compensation for the demolition and resettlement of farmhouses, which are not vested but are necessarily available. In this case, if there is no intervention of the illegal demolition by the Management Committee of a certain Economic and Technological Development Zone, Zhou Moumou can obtain corresponding compensation in accordance with the law through the demolition resettlement compensation procedure, so this part of the interest is a necessary available interest and should be included in the scope of "direct losses" stipulated in the State Compensation Law.
Person in charge of the Administrative Tribunal of the Supreme People's Court
Answers reporters' questions on the "Provisions"
1、 Ask: Please introduce the drafting background and main process of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation").
Answer: The "National Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China" was adopted at the seventh meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eighth National People's Congress on May 12, 1994. Afterwards, the first amendment was made in accordance with the "Decision on Amending the National Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China" of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People's Congress on April 29, 2010; the second amendment was made in accordance with the "Decision on Amending the National Compensation Law of the People's Republic of China" of the Twenty-ninth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Eleventh National People's Congress on October 26, 2012.
The current "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Trial of Administrative Compensation Cases" was issued in 1997 and has 40 articles. The judicial interpretation has played a positive role in implementing the State Compensation Law, ensuring that the people's courts hear all types of administrative compensation cases in accordance with the law in a timely and fair manner, standardizing and strengthening administrative compensation work, substantially resolving administrative compensation disputes, protecting the right of compensation claimants to obtain administrative compensation, and supervising administrative organs to perform administrative compensation obligations in accordance with the law. Considering that relevant laws such as the State Compensation Law and the Administrative Procedure Law have been revised for many years, the "Civil Code" has been promulgated, and some new situations and new problems have emerged in the practice of administrative compensation trial, in order to adapt to the needs of the new situation and further standardize the trial of administrative compensation cases, it is necessary to summarize the experience and practices in recent years and revise and improve the original judicial interpretation. On the basis of this, we will formulate a new era of administrative compensation judicial interpretation with Chinese characteristics.
In the process of drafting the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation," we conducted multi-form and multi-level research activities. We not only listened to the opinions of courts at all levels, but also repeatedly invited experts and scholars of administrative law to participate in research seminars and listen to their opinions; we not only solicited the opinions of relevant departments within the court, but also widely solicited the opinions of relevant state organs such as the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People's Congress and the Ministry of Justice. Through full communication and consultation, on the basis of a broad consensus reached on the basic issues of the scope of acceptance, litigation channels, trial objects, and judgment methods of administrative compensation litigation, we have revised it many times, and finally formed the draft judicial interpretation of administrative compensation for review, which was discussed and approved by the adjudication committee of the Supreme People's Court. The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" combines the trial practice of administrative compensation cases, is oriented towards solving prominent problems in practice, and focuses on interpreting major and difficult legal application issues that are controversial, and focuses on the pertinence, accuracy and effectiveness of norms. For those with clear provisions in the Administrative Litigation Law, the State Compensation Law and related judicial interpretations, no further provisions will be made; no provisions will be made for contents that can or may not be stipulated or that are currently difficult to reach a basic consensus; the contents that have already been stipulated in the old judicial interpretations and are effective will continue to be retained; corresponding clauses will be added for the contents that urgently need to be resolved in judicial practice in recent years and are not stipulated in the old judicial interpretations. Do not pursue comprehensiveness, and determine the content and quantity of specific clauses according to the needs of trial practice.
2、 Ask: What are the basic principles of the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation"?
Answer: In the process of drafting the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation," we have always adhered to the following basic principles:
First, we must adhere to the Party's absolute leadership over judicial work. In drafting the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation", we have always adhered to Xi Jinping's Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as our guide, thoroughly implemented Xi Jinping's Thought on the Rule of Law, strengthened the "four consciousnesses", strengthened the "four self-confidences", and achieved the "two safeguards", served and guaranteed the overall work of the Party and the State in accordance with the law, supervised and supported administrative organs in fulfilling their administrative compensation obligations in accordance with the law, effectively safeguarded the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations, substantially resolved administrative compensation disputes, and strived to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case.
Second, we must adhere to the people-centered approach. In drafting the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation", we conscientiously implemented the people's principal position, adhered to the fundamental position of serving the people, strived to smooth the channels for administrative compensation relief, reasonably distinguished the responsibility for losses, improved the method of administrative compensation judgment, and protected the administrative compensation rights of citizens, legal persons and other organizations in accordance with the law.
Third, we must equally protect the legitimate property rights of all types of market entities. The property rights system is the cornerstone of the socialist market economy. Improving the property rights protection system, equally protecting the legitimate rights of all types of market entities, especially protecting the legitimate property rights of private enterprises in accordance with the law, is a basic requirement for building a sound legal environment, promoting high-quality economic development, and improving the socialist market economic system. The judicial interpretation implements the principle of equal protection of property rights, effectively safeguards the legitimate property rights of the private economy, and clearly stipulates that the "direct loss" compensation in the State Compensation Law is the "actual loss" compensation, and that if an illegal administrative act by an administrative organ causes damage to citizens, legal persons or other organizations, it shall be fully compensated; it clearly stipulates the calculation method of property compensation and the scope of necessary recurring expenses during the period of suspension of production and business, so as to set specific standards for full compensation; it clearly stipulates that if illegal demolition causes losses in the process of land and housing expropriation, the compensation standard and amount shall not be lower than the compensation and resettlement standards and amounts that the expropriated person should obtain in accordance with the law, and so on.
Fourth, we must supervise and support administrative organs in fulfilling their administrative compensation obligations in accordance with the law. The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" further clarifies the people's court's power to supervise administrative compensation acts, refines the trial methods and judgment methods for administrative compensation cases, clarifies the burden of proof for some special administrative compensation cases, and scientifically divides administrative compensation responsibilities, etc.
Fifth, we must serve high-quality development. Actively implement the requirements of basing ourselves on the new development stage, implementing the new development concept, and building a new development pattern, find the combination point and entry point for administrative trial work to serve high-quality development, and provide strong judicial services and guarantees for achieving high-quality development. The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" clearly stipulates that if an administrative act and a private act jointly infringe rights, the parties may file a civil lawsuit together, and at the same time, a reasonable division of the tort liability of the public and private parties shall be made; it clarifies the court's obligation to inform the plaintiff if an administrative compensation lawsuit is not filed together, and guides the parties to resolve administrative compensation disputes together as much as possible; it clarifies that the people's court shall make a judgment with clear payment content when trying cases of failure to perform administrative compensation obligations, and shall make a change judgment if the amount of the administrative compensation decision under litigation is calculated incorrectly, so as to substantially resolve compensation disputes; it clarifies that the people's court shall rule against the main lawsuit of tort administrative acts, and shall also rule against the administrative compensation lawsuit filed together, so as to substantially resolve various administrative compensation disputes and create a good legal environment for high-quality development.
3、 Ask: Please introduce the main contents of the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation".
Answer: The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" has 33 articles in total. The main contents are as follows:
(1) Clarify the scope, elements and responsibility sharing of administrative compensation, and realize the precise supervision of administrative organs
——Clarified the connotation of legitimate rights and interests. The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" strictly implements the provisions of the State Compensation Law and the amended Administrative Litigation Law, and emphasizes that if citizens, legal persons or other organizations believe that administrative organs and their staff members have illegally exercised their administrative powers and caused personal or property damage to their legitimate rights and interests such as labor rights and neighborhood rights, they may also file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law.
——Defined the scope of "other illegal acts". The "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" stipulates that the "other illegal acts" stipulated in Articles 3 and 4 of the State Compensation Law include the following situations: (1) acts of failing to perform statutory duties; (2) acts committed by administrative organs and their staff members in the process of performing administrative duties that do not produce legal effects, but in fact damage the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, such as personal rights and property rights. According to whether they are actively acting, administrative acts can be divided into administrative acts that are made and acts of omission; according to whether the result of the act comes from the subjective intention of administrative organs and their staff members, administrative acts can be divided into legal acts and factual acts. Administrative organs shall not only bear administrative compensation responsibility for damages caused by illegal administrative acts and legal acts that are made, but also bear administrative compensation responsibility for damages caused by illegal acts of failing to perform statutory duties and factual acts.
——Clarified that administrative acts such as compensation decisions fall within the scope of acceptance. In order to further clarify the scope of acceptance and trial objects of administrative compensation cases, the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" clarifies that administrative acts such as administrative compensation decisions, decisions not to compensate, and failure to make compensation decisions within the time limit fall within the scope of acceptance of administrative compensation lawsuits. Administrative compensation lawsuits shall effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations and substantially resolve administrative compensation disputes on the basis of reviewing and evaluating the legality of the relevant compensation acts themselves.
——Listed two main types of situations in which administrative acts have been confirmed as illegal. In order to accurately grasp the standard that the infringing administrative act has been confirmed as illegal, the "Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation" lists two common specific manifestations: First, the administrative act has been revoked, changed, confirmed as illegal or invalid by the competent authority in accordance with legal procedures; second, the administrative organ staff member who implemented the administrative act has been confirmed as dereliction of duty or abuse of power by an effective legal document or a disciplinary sanction by the supervisory authority because of the act.
——Improving the constituent elements of administrative compensation. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that the people's court shall review whether the act of the administrative organ and its staff in exercising their administrative powers complies with the law, whether the damage fact claimed by the plaintiff exists, whether there is a causal relationship between the damage and the illegal administrative act, and whether the plaintiff's loss has been fully remedied through administrative compensation or other means, thereby improving the statutory constituent elements of administrative compensation.
——Stipulating the circumstances under which the burden of proof is reversed. Under normal circumstances, the plaintiff requesting administrative compensation shall bear the burden of proof for the fact that the illegal administrative act caused damage and the extent of the damage. However, in the following two circumstances, the burden of proof is reversed: First, if the plaintiff is unable to provide evidence due to the defendant's reasons, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof; second, if the plaintiff claims that he suffered physical injury during the period of restriction of personal freedom, and the defendant denies the relevant damage facts or the existence of a causal relationship between the damage and the illegal administrative act, the defendant shall provide corresponding evidence to prove it.
——Scientifically dividing administrative compensation responsibilities. The first is to clarify the joint and several liability for joint infringement by administrative organs; the second is to stipulate the joint and several liability and several liability for separate infringements by administrative organs; the third is to determine the sharing of administrative compensation liability caused by a third party providing false materials that lead to the illegality of the administrative act; the fourth is to regulate the sharing of administrative compensation liability caused by a third party's infringement but the administrative organ's inaction; and the fifth is to define the sharing of administrative compensation liability caused by damage due to objective reasons and the administrative organ's inaction.
(II) Scientifically define the scope of damages to reflect the comprehensive protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties
——Reasonably determining the scope of "direct losses." The State Compensation Law stipulates that administrative compensation only compensates for direct losses caused by infringement of property rights. According to the characteristics of administrative compensation cases, the Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation draws on the relevant provisions of civil tort compensation and clarifies through enumeration that deposit interest, loan interest, cash interest, operating losses during the shutdown of motor vehicles, and rewards and subsidies that should be obtained according to law through administrative compensation procedures all fall within the scope of direct losses. At the same time, the general provision clarifies that other actual losses caused to property are direct losses, so as to maximize the full protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.
——Further clarifying the compensation standard for property damage. The State Compensation Law stipulates that if an illegal administrative act causes property damage and the property cannot be returned or restored to its original state, corresponding compensation shall be paid. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation clarifies that the compensation shall be calculated based on the market price at the time of the damage. If the market price cannot be determined, or the price is not sufficient to compensate for the losses of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, other reasonable methods may be used for calculation. In response to administrative compensation cases caused by illegal land acquisition and requisition of land and houses, which account for a large proportion in judicial practice, the Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation clarifies that the administrative compensation awarded by the people's court to the expropriated person shall not be less than the resettlement compensation rights and interests that the expropriated person should obtain according to law.
——Improving the provisions on compensation for mental distress. According to the State Compensation Law's principled provisions on compensation for mental distress, the Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation further clarifies the method of performance and judgment of compensation for mental distress in administrative compensation litigation, and stipulates that the method of eliminating the impact, restoring reputation, and making an apology may be negotiated by both parties. If the negotiation fails, the people's court shall order the defendant to perform in an appropriate manner. If serious consequences are caused, a corresponding amount of compensation for mental distress shall be ordered to be paid.
(III) Unimpeded administrative compensation litigation procedures to fully protect the parties' litigation rights
——Further clarifying the plaintiff's qualification in administrative compensation litigation. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that if the injured citizen dies, his heirs and other persons with support relationships are legally qualified as plaintiffs; in order to be consistent with the right of claim for tort liability compensation in the Civil Code, the judicial interpretation adds that persons who pay reasonable expenses such as medical expenses and funeral expenses for the injured citizen may file a lawsuit as the plaintiff in the administrative compensation litigation; the Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation also stipulates that if a legal person or other organization that has the right to file an administrative compensation lawsuit is split, merged, or terminated, the legal person or other organization that inherits its rights may become the plaintiff in the administrative compensation lawsuit.
——Further clarifying the defendant's qualification in administrative compensation litigation. The relevant provisions of the Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation mainly include: First, if two or more administrative organs jointly implement an infringing administrative act and cause damage, the joint infringing administrative organs shall be joint defendants; if the plaintiff only files an administrative compensation lawsuit against one or several of the joint infringing organs, the people's court may notify the administrative organs that have not been sued to participate in the lawsuit as third parties. Second, if the review decision aggravates the damage, the review organ and the original administrative act organ shall be joint defendants; if the plaintiff only files an administrative compensation lawsuit against the organ that made the original administrative act or the review organ, the people's court may notify the organ that has not been sued to participate in the lawsuit as a third party.
——Further improving the system of time limit for requesting administrative compensation and the time limit for filing a lawsuit. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that citizens, legal persons or other organizations shall apply to the compensation obligation organ for administrative compensation within two years from the date they know or should have known that the administrative act infringed their legitimate rights and interests. If the compensation obligation organ fails to make a compensation decision within two months from the date of receiving the compensation application, citizens, legal persons or other organizations may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law; if an administrative compensation lawsuit is filed together, the relevant provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law on the time limit for filing a lawsuit shall apply; in administrative compensation cases after review, if the parties only have objections to the administrative compensation part of the administrative review decision, they may file an administrative compensation lawsuit in accordance with the law within fifteen days from the date of service of the administrative review decision; when the administrative organ makes an administrative review decision with compensation content, if it fails to inform the time limit for filing a lawsuit, the longest time limit for filing a lawsuit stipulated in the judicial interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Law shall apply, which shall not exceed one year.
——Further resolving the procedural issues of filing administrative compensation lawsuits together and separately. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation clarifies that when citizens, legal persons or other organizations file an administrative compensation lawsuit, if the administrative act has not been confirmed as illegal and meets the conditions for filing an administrative lawsuit, it shall be deemed as filing an administrative compensation lawsuit together; for filing an administrative compensation lawsuit separately, in addition to meeting the relevant conditions for filing a lawsuit, it is also necessary to premise that the administrative act has been confirmed as illegal.
——Further clarifying the connection between public and private law compensation lawsuits. In order to save judicial resources and facilitate litigation for the parties, the Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that in administrative cases involving administrative licenses, registration, expropriation, requisition, and administrative organs' rulings on civil disputes, if the plaintiff files an administrative compensation lawsuit and the relevant parties apply to resolve the relevant civil disputes together, the people's court may hear them together.
(IV) Improving case trial and judgment methods to enhance the effect of administrative compensation litigation in substantially resolving administrative disputes
——Strengthening the court's obligation to explain. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that if the plaintiff does not file an administrative compensation lawsuit together when filing an administrative compensation lawsuit, and the people's court reviews and believes that there may be administrative compensation, it shall inform the plaintiff that an administrative compensation lawsuit may be filed together.
——Standardizing the discretionary criteria for damages compensation by the courts. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that where the fact of damage objectively exists, but neither the plaintiff nor the defendant can provide sufficient evidence of the specific scope and amount of loss, the people's court shall, in combination with the parties' claims and the evidence on file, follow judicial ethics, use logical reasoning, life experience, and common sense to determine the amount of compensation at its discretion. Reasonable losses of items necessary for the plaintiff's production and life shall be supported; other valuable items and cash losses exceeding what is necessary for production and life may be recognized in combination with relevant evidence in the case, and a decision shall be made on whether to support them.
——Clarifying the rule of dismissing the primary claim and consequently dismissing the secondary claim. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation clarifies that if the administrative act of infringement as the primary claim does not meet the statutory conditions for filing a lawsuit, the administrative compensation lawsuit filed together also does not meet the conditions for filing a lawsuit, and the people's court shall rule to reject the case in its entirety; if the case has already been filed, the lawsuit shall be dismissed in its entirety.
——Clarifying the judgment method for administrative compensation cases. The Judicial Interpretation of Administrative Compensation stipulates that the people's court shall make a clear and specific compensation judgment as much as possible. If the administrative organ fails to perform its statutory administrative compensation obligations or makes an incorrect decision not to compensate, the people's court may clarify the method, items, and standards of compensation for the administrative organ. If the content of compensation is determined, a judgment with payment content such as the amount of compensation shall be made; if the administrative compensation decision is illegal in terms of compensation method, items, and standards, resulting in a definite error in the amount of compensation, the people's court shall correct the amount of compensation and make a modified judgment in accordance with the law, substantially resolving the administrative compensation dispute.
Next, the people's courts will further implement the various deployments and requirements of the Party Central Committee, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law and the State Compensation Law, fairly and promptly hear administrative compensation cases, substantially resolve administrative disputes, supervise and support administrative organs in exercising their powers in accordance with the law, fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations, and strive to make the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case, so as to welcome the victory of the 20th National Congress of the Party with practical actions!
（Source: Supreme People's Court）
More News