Judicial Reaction to the Slight Defects of Administrative Procedure

Ling-yun YU

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1671-5195.2005.04.001

2005-01-01

Abstract:Not all administrative action will be recessed when legal procedure is violated. There are several judicial reaction on administrativelitigation to slight defects of administration procedure. Basic conclusion can be drawn through the analysis of several possibilities of judicial re-action.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

On Administrative Litigation's Performing Legal Duty Judgment

Zhang Jiansheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2011.01.012

2011-01-01

Abstract:"Non-performance"of"Administrative Procedure Law"Article 54,paragraph 3 means the executive authorities in a negative way without any intention,and"no answer";and"delayed discharge"is a situation that the statutory or administrative organ do not end the administrative procedures within a legal or reasonable period of time.In the way of judgment to perform statutory duty,the"Administrative Procedure Law"only contains"procedural judge"in content,however it based on philosophy of administrative relief for the administrative counterpart to provide economic,effective.When"the Administrative Procedure Law"is revised in the future,it should recognize the"substantive judgment"legitimacy of judgments to perform duties as an exemption."Administrative omission"does not of course violate administrative law;therefore it is different from"non - performance statutory duties."To the"refusal to perform"administrative act,the Court should annul and redo the judgment.In order to reduce the possible"tired litigation"of administrative counterpart, the court can add certain restrictive"instructions"for administrative organ in redo judgment.It is helpful that pay attention to the situations like"refusal to perform"for the Court to fulfill its statutory duty to judge correctly.
The Boundary of “Collecting Mistakes Whenever Discovered”

Zhang Jiansheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14111/j.cnki.zgfx.2013.02.010

2013-01-01

Abstract:Due to the joint efforts made by the scholars of administrative law over the past two decades,theoretical frame on determination of administrative decision and revocation of rules has become more mature. The contents of this theoretical frame is that if any mistakes is found in an administrative act that has been established, the administrative organ should follow relevant rescinding rules rather than the principle of "collecting mistakes whenever discovered". However, according to administrative judgments and official replies and answers issued by the Supreme People’s Court, it is clear that the Supreme People’s Court insisted on the principle of "collecting mistakes whenever discovered" rather than was influenced by the theoretical frame mentioned earlier. The Court does not alter its view until the case of Jiao Zhigang was published as a guiding case on the Supreme People’s Court Gazette. According to the judgment of the case of Jiao Zhigang, once an administrative act has been legally made and come into force, the administrative act cannot be withdrawn at will, it is binding not only on the affected person(s), but also on the administrative organ itself. However, the relevant judgments made by the courts at various levels show that the case of Jiao Zhigang has not been frequently referred to in the judgments, and the principle of "collecting mistakes whenever discovered" is still deeply rooted. It is possibly because the guiding cases are lacking in practical value and statutory tradition. However, the rules made in the case of Jiao Zhigang are still valuable, and its value has not only represented the impact of the theory on the decisions by the courts, but also acted as a sign of the development of the idea of rule of law.
On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

Zhang Jiansheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14167/j.zjss.2013.02.015

2013-01-01

Abstract:"Administrative Litigation Law" endows people's courts with judicial review of consulting rules when hearing administrative cases. The "refusal to apply rules" in No. 5 guiding case is regarded as the transformation from the doctrine of individual refusal to apply rules to that of universal refusal. That is to say, courts have been authorized to declare rules void. In other words, the case expended the judicial review. According to the hierarchy of legal force established by "Legislation Law", courts should determine first whether the law of lower level contradicts the law of higher level before refusing to apply rules. The standards to determine contradiction are as follows. In the relationship between rights and obligations, contradiction occurs when rights laid down in the law of higher level are restricted or deprived by the law of lower level, and when obligations laid down in the law of higher level are expanded or added by the law of lower level. In the relationship between powers and duties, contradiction occurs when powers laid down in the law of higher level are expanded or added by the law of lower level, and when duties laid down in the law of higher level are exempted by the law of lower level.
The Basic Modification Direction of The Administrative Procedure Law——Discussing Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law

Zhang Jian-sheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.19563/j.cnki.sdzs.2012.01.008

2012-01-01

Abstract:The Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law,as the"soul article"of its legislative purpose,is a barricade when involving modification of The Administrative Procedure Law.The understanding of Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law mainly includes the following three different views as claim of protecting rights,claim of maintaining supervision and equilibrium theory.Based on the analysis of these three kinds of views,right relief should be the legislative purpose of administrative lawsuit.So,the modification of The Administrative Procedure Law should abide by the principles such as effectiveness,rights protection and non-loophole rights protection.
Reflection on Administrative Litigation System under the Concept of "people Oriented"

ZHANG Jian-sheng

2010-01-01

Abstract:Even if the administrative litigation system is not perfect, it is still a strategy selected in the system, by administrative counterparts struggling for their rights. In front of the administrative counterparts who struggle their rights, the difficulties of agency managing social affair have become increasingly prominent. The court, hardly guaranteed the independence in the litigation relationship, often trapped in a kind of embarrassing situations where it cannot help itself. This issue requires us to reflect on the administrative litigation system under the concept of people-oriented idea, so that a good way solving the problem can be found.
Judicial Review on Abuse of Power by Administrative Authority

Lingyun Yu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11463-009-0004-5

2009-01-01

Frontiers of Law in China

Abstract:Through the analysis on three typical cases, it is believed why courts rarely make judgments directly based on the review criteria of “abuse of power” pursuant to article 54 of the Administrative Litigation Law is mostly that the relevant legal provisions are not clear. Besides, in hearings, judges are more inclined to use “conversion techniques”. Meanwhile, it is further revealed of the issues existing in the substantive review of courts.
Examination of Several Controversial Issues in the Administrative Litigation Law (Draft)

SY ZHANG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/clg0009-4609240347

1991-01-01

Abstract:—The sole purpose of the Administrative Litigation Law is to safeguard citizens' lawful rights and interests.
The Analysis Of Administrative Litigation Procedure

BAI Yan

2005-01-01

Abstract:There are some problems in our administrative litigation practice. The appearance of the problems is not all occasional, because they have close relation with our administrative litigation institution. The economical method and theory can give a special explanation to these problems. This is an important part of positive research.
Analysis of Impact from Administrative Reconsideration on Administrative Litigation

Kong Fan-hu

Abstract:Administrative reconsideration can divert part of the administrative disputes,and correct some of the illegal administrative acts,yet due to the limited resolving capacity,administrative reconsideration often causes dispute to move into law suit,or leads to insufficient supervision due to unrealized corrective function. The negative impact from administrative reconsideration on administrative litigation comes both from institutional designing and from other negative factors in practice. To build harmonious relationship between administrative reconsideration and administrative litigation,the positioning of the administrative reconsideration shall take resolution of disputes as its primary goal,and take administrative supervision and right remedy as its secondary goal. In the event when the reconsideration decides to maintain the original specific administrative act,it should take the original organization as the defendant and the reconsideration agency as the third party. Administrative reconsideration shall partially adopted the principle of statement-based hearing procedure,and hold hearing or court trial when the resolution is likely to be negative to the applicant or other persons. Administrative reconsideration committee should be set up as an independent agency.

Law,Political Science
Research on Judicial Review of Manifestly Improper Administrative Acts

HongYu Lea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22158/elp.v7n1p68

2024-05-27

Economics Law and Policy

Abstract:Judicial review, as a form of external supervision, can effectively improve the lack of self-supervision by administrative subjects. Obviously improper as one of the circumstances of administrative behavior, the definition of the academic community, and the “Administrative Procedure Law” and its judicial interpretation of the lack of clear definitions and application standards, resulting in the court in the judicial practice of the application of “obviously improper” as the basis for review of the standard is not uniform and inconsistent application of the problem, judges and Relying on their accumulated professional knowledge and practical experience to determine whether the administrative subject of the administrative act constitutes “obviously improper”, with a greater subjectivity, which may lead to administrative action as well as the judicial trial of the phenomenon of the same case, undermining the impartiality and authority of the judiciary, not conducive to the construction of the rule of law, the rule of law government. Therefore, in order to solve the above problems, the need for the meaning of clearly improper and its judgment standards, standardize the “clearly improper” the scope of application of the basis for review, the establishment of a unified standard of judicial review, but also to continue to improve the administrative case guidance system. Therefore, clarifying its criteria is of great significance to the people’s courts in correctly adjudicating administrative cases to safeguard the lawful rights and interests of citizens and legal persons, and also helps to standardize the criteria for judicial review, and to regulate and limit administrative power.

Law
Procedure Discretion under Service Idea and its Regulation…

Zheng Chunyan

2009-01-01

Abstract:The concept of service government has gradually been universal after the high-tide of the western countries' Reinventing Government Movements since 1980. Under the guidance of service idea, administrative organ and other subjects who undertake the administrative tasks determine the forms and types of procedure with discretion in order to accomplish the administrative tasks better. On the one hand, the exercises of procedure discretion make a fuzzy bound between different administrative functions, and also destroy the application premises of the strict principle of legal reservation. In modern administration, intervention administration and supply administration often cooperate with each other perfectly to accomplish the hard administrative tasks flexibly. So it is unadvisable to defend the traditional absolute differentiation between intervention administration and supply administration and to apply the strict principle of legal reservation. On the other hand, the exercises of procedure discretion generate a new phenomenon that several administrative actions achieve one administrative target, which disclose the deficiency of the single administrative action form as the main analytical mean in administrative law. Hence the traditional theory of administrative law, which stereotypes administrative action and then judges its legality according to its constitutive requirements, will obstruct the dynamic administrative process artificially, and will obstruct the court to consider the whole and compound administrative actions comprehensively. To analyze this new type of administrative activity, we should not only abide by the law, but also pay attention to the guidance of the administrative purpose, which requires us to consider the whole administrative process with several administrative actions as dynamic administrative legal relationship, and to explore the compound legal status of administrative organs and other subjects who undertake the administrative tasks and administrative counterparts in interactive and pluralistic relationship. The legality of each administrative action should also be judged in dynamic administrative legal relationship.
Analysis on the Types of Administrative Litigation——Taking the Administrative Trials in Zhangzhou As an Example

Wenxian Zhang

2014-01-01

Abstract:As an important link to promote the process of the rules of administrative law,administrative litigation types have not been definite in existing law. Taking the needs of the trialinto consideration,we have to face the following questions: the types of litigation applied to the violation of the legal procedure are too simple; there isn't a standard for distinguishing an objectivelitigation from a reviewing one; the litigation types and the judgment species haven't been linked up. In order to build the system of types of administrative litigation in our country,we can perfect it on the base of drawing on the experiences of foreign countries. In addition,courts have to be required to make particular judgments according to different types of the administrative litigation.
On the Application of Administrative Doctrine by Judge

WANG Gui-song

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-0078.2007.01.018

2007-01-01

Administrative law review

Abstract:Administrative doctrines are very important in administrative law. They should be guaranteed by judicial branch. Given that these doctrines take various forms and effect, it is reasonable for judge to apply different rules and techniques accordingly. This is the requirement of both judicial branch as a law enforcer and the constitutional position taken by judicial branch, moreover, the reasonable constriction to the discretion of judge given by legislation.
A Jurisprudential Analysis on Procedural Sanction System

Chen Ruihua

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-1707.2005.06.013

2005-01-01

Abstract:Procedural sanction is aimed at investigator, procurator and judge whose conduct runs counter to legal procedure and its basic sanction is to announce the trial null and void. Such sanction can safeguard the effective execution of criminal procedure and the realization of value of procedural justice, make court be supervisor of police, procurator and judge of lower court and finally promote the judicial justice. Although this sanction has its defects, its role in safeguarding procedural law can not be substituted.
Judicial Control of Administrative Discretionary Power

Jiacheng Xu

2011-01-01

Abstract:Administrative discretionary power is an important symbol of the contemporary administrative law development.It plays an active role,and it is easily abused for invading the private party's legal rights and affecting the implementation of government functions.So administrative discretionary power should be regulated and controlled.The relation between judicial power and administrative power and the judicial objectivity all decided that judicial control was not only feasible but also effective.In order to prevent judicial power against administrative power,the judicial control must be limited.The limit is different when people's courts make legal examination or reasonable review in the judicial review of administrative discretionary behavior,which means the limit of legal examination,should be strengthened,while the reasonable review must be limited by the un-reasonable that is extent to the abuse of administrative discretionary power.
The Standards and Methods of Judicial Review:From the Perspective of American Administrative Law

Zhang Qianfan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-0221.2006.06.004

2006-01-01

Abstract:In order to ensure administrative legality,different countries have designed complex judicial review mechanisms and developed relevant theories.This article examines the principles and methods that the American federal courts use to review administrative cases.More specifically,how exacting should the judicial standards be in reviewing dif- ferent types of administrative cases? The American courts have accumulated abundant case laws and developed elaborate theories in this area.The judicial experience of American administrative litigation indicates that the adequate depth and standard of judicial review depends on many institutional factors,such as the balance between judicial and administrative powers.
On the Abiding Force of Administrative Action on Civil Adjudication

He Haibo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1003-1707.2008.02.008

2008-01-01

Abstract:Should an administrative decision have binding effects on a relevant private-parties dispute under civil proceeding,i.e.,should the court pass its own judgment on the dispute or give deference to the administrative action or suspend the civil proceeding and wait for the result of administrative litigation? This article,through comparing the common law traditions and continental law traditions in their ways and observing China's practices which have shown its own path,seeks a comprehensive solution in the Chinese context.It emphasizes that the autonomy of the judiciary in tackling the case in hand should be respected and that the binding effects of administrative action on civil proceeding should be largely limited.
Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Latin America

Allan Brewer-Carias

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867609.003.0011

2021-08-23

Abstract:This chapter explains administrative procedure and judicial review in Latin America. Judicial review of administrative action has been constitutionalised in many Latin American countries, like Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, and has been the object of special laws regulating the jurisdiction. According to the Constitutions and to the laws regulating the contentious administrative jurisdiction in Latin America, all administrative provisions are subjected to judicial review as it is not possible for any administrative act to escape judicial control. Therefore, the principle applicable is the universal character of the judicial oversight of constitutionality and unlawfulness regarding regulations and administrative acts, which is exercised by the Courts without exception. In almost all Latin American countries, the rules of administrative procedure are regulated through special Administrative Procedure Lasw (APLs), which began to be sanctioned in 1972 (Argentina). In all cases where the courts find that a challenged administrative act infringes the fundamental rights of an individual or corporation, or does not meet the fundamental standards of administrative propriety and fairness, the courts of the contentious administrative jurisdiction in all Latin American countries have the power not only to annul the challenged act but, depending on the nature of the claim filed by the plaintiff, the courts can also award damages for the administrative action.
The Essential Constituents of a Lawful Administrative Action

He Haibo

2009-01-01

Abstract:Grounds of judicial review in China mean essential constituents of a lawful administrative action.The grounds of judicial review can be logically distinguished by several reviewing elements and their reviewing standards respectively.The reviewing elements may be generalized as:(1)qualification and jurisdiction of the instant public authority;(2)legal conditions for a public authority to make disposition;(3)evidences to establish such legal conditions;(4)disposition of the instant case;(5)legal procedure with which the disposition has been made.The reviewing standards roughly contain three levels:legality(consistency with provisions of laws,regulations and rules),reasonability(following principles with regard to administrative discretion)and constitutionality.The author suggests that the grounds of judicial review stipulated in the Administrative Litigation Law 1989 be reconstructed accordingly.
Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review: A ‘Common Core’ Research

Giacinto della Cananea,Mads Andenas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198867609.003.0001

2021-08-23

Abstract:This chapter begins by explaining why judicial review of administration is interesting terrain for a comparative analysis, also in the light of European and international principles. It is helpful to bear in mind that, for a long period of time, a strand of thought in public law has contested not just the usefulness, but even the possibility of a meaningful comparison between national systems of judicial review. It is important, however, to take cognisance of two fundamental dimensions of change: one is the increasing specialization of the courts that exercise control over administrative power and the other is the emergence of common principles at European and international level. The chapter then highlights the importance of procedural fairness and propriety, although the legal relevance and significance of these principles will differ depending upon the history of any society and its political choices. It also addresses some methodological issues, including the nature of the 'factual analysis' and the choice of legal systems.

Judicial Reaction to the Slight Defects of Administrative Procedure

On Administrative Litigation's Performing Legal Duty Judgment

The Boundary of “Collecting Mistakes Whenever Discovered”

On "Refusal to Apply Rules" in Administrative Litigation:Based on the Analysis of No.5 Guiding Case Published by the Supreme People's Court

The Basic Modification Direction of The Administrative Procedure Law——Discussing Article 1 of The Administrative Procedure Law

Reflection on Administrative Litigation System under the Concept of "people Oriented"

Judicial Review on Abuse of Power by Administrative Authority

Examination of Several Controversial Issues in the Administrative Litigation Law (Draft)

The Analysis Of Administrative Litigation Procedure

Analysis of Impact from Administrative Reconsideration on Administrative Litigation

Research on Judicial Review of Manifestly Improper Administrative Acts

Procedure Discretion under Service Idea and its Regulation…

Analysis on the Types of Administrative Litigation——Taking the Administrative Trials in Zhangzhou As an Example

On the Application of Administrative Doctrine by Judge

A Jurisprudential Analysis on Procedural Sanction System

Judicial Control of Administrative Discretionary Power

The Standards and Methods of Judicial Review:From the Perspective of American Administrative Law

On the Abiding Force of Administrative Action on Civil Adjudication

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in Latin America

The Essential Constituents of a Lawful Administrative Action

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review: A ‘Common Core’ Research