Administrative Law
Professional legal research in Administrative Law.
Key Points of Judicial Review of Administrative Self-Correction Actions — Taking the Case of Huang v. A Township People's Government in Shanghai (Dispute over Revocation of Decision Not to Impose Penalty) as an Example
Attorney YAO Shu uses the case of "Huang v. A Township People's Government (Dispute over Revocation of Decision Not to Impose Penalty)" to explore the judicial review standards for administrative self-correction actions. When reviewing administrative self-correction actions, courts should focus on three key points: First, the principle of due process — the administrative agency must inform the counterparty of the facts to be corrected in advance and guarantee their right to present statements and defenses. Second, the principle of sufficient factual basis — the administrative agency bears the burden of proving that the original decision was indeed erroneous; it cannot arbitrarily revoke an effective decision based solely on differences in re-inspection data or without clear evidence. Third, the principle of proportionality — comprehensive consideration should be given to the counterparty's fault, reliance interest protection, and public interest to prevent abuse of power. If the self-correction action violates procedural requirements, lacks sufficient evidence, or involves clearly improper discretion, the court should revoke it according to law to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterparty and maintain the stability of administrative legal relations.
Analysis of Cross-Regional Judicial Jurisdiction Models in Administrative Litigation Cases and Practical Tips for Lawyers
Introduction: The traditional model of administrative litigation jurisdiction based on the location of the defendant's administrative entity has been questioned for potentially lacking impartiality due to possible local administrative interference. Therefore, reforms exploring cross-regional judicial jurisdiction for administrative litigation cases have emerged. Courts across the country have exercised local judicial initiative, actively implementing models such as centralized jurisdiction and异地审理 (hearings in different locations), which have not only strengthened judicial supervision over administrative power and optimized the allocation of judicial resources, but also enhanced public trust in administrative trials. This represents an important measure in the modernization of China's judicial system.
From 'Three Olds Renovation' to 'Urban Renewal': Study of Legal Strategies for City Village Renovation Model Transformation — Guangzhou City as Example
Guangzhou's urban renewal policy has gone through six stages, each with distinctive historical characteristics. In the current new round of city village renovation, rule of law guarantee and supervision system improvement have become key topics.
Seriously Non-Compliant APPs May Be Disconnected from the Network! A Detailed Analysis of MIIT's New Regulations Governing the Full-Chain Ecosystem of Mobile Applications
Brief Summary: In February this year, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) issued a notice to address the current state of mobile internet application services, enhance industry service capabilities and user experience, and proposed 26 measures to further regulate mobile internet application service providers. Unlike previous regulations that only mentioned app developers and platforms, this notice further delves into the upstream and downstream of the entire mobile internet industry, including regulation of the full life cycle of APP developers and operators, distribution platforms, SDKs (Software Development Kits), terminals, and access enterprises.
Credit Repair — A Path to Redemption for Those Who Have Lost Trust: Interpretation of Major New Regulations on Credit Information Repair
Attorney WU Zhiqin interprets the *Measures for the Administration of Credit Information Repair After Correction of Dishonest Acts (Trial)* (《失信行为纠正后的信用信息修复管理办法（试行）》) issued by the National Development and Reform Commission. The article points out that while China's current dishonesty punishment system has achieved significant results, the cost of punishment for non-malicious or minor dishonest actors is too high, making it urgent to establish a credit repair mechanism to combine punishment with education. The *Measures* clarify that credit repair is a legal right of credit subjects, aimed at lawfully removing or terminating the public disclosure of dishonest information, rather than erasing the illegal facts themselves. The *Measures* detail the scope, duration, conditions, and procedures for repairing serious dishonesty list information, administrative penalty information, and other dishonest information. Meanwhile, the *Measures* establish a central-local credit information coordination mechanism and set severe penalties for malicious acts such as submitting false materials or making seriously untrue credit commitments, including extended disclosure periods, restricted applications, and criminal liability. The author advises the public to strictly distinguish between "credit repair" and "credit reporting repair," engage legitimate and reliable institutions, and pay attention to the legal boundaries of commercial use of public data. The issuance of these *Measures* provides a lawful path for dishonest actors to reform, helps guide them to proactively correct illegal acts, and further optimizes the social credit system.