Administrative Law and Administrative Litigation Law
What the exam tests
Administrative Law tests the legality of administrative acts, licensing, punishment, compulsion, reconsideration, and litigation. The core question is whether an agency acted within authority, followed procedure, and respected rights.
Core rules
- Administrative acts must have a legal basis, proper authority, correct facts, lawful procedure, and must not abuse power or exceed discretion.
- Administrative punishment must follow statutory grounds and procedures; for large fines or other serious penalties, the party has a right to a hearing.
- Administrative reconsideration is a review by a higher or same-level agency; the revised Reconsideration Law effective 2024 expands channels and stresses substantive resolution.
- In administrative litigation, the defendant is the administrative organ; the defendant bears the burden of proving the legality of the act. The general time limit is six months from knowing the act; reconsideration generally must be applied for within 60 days.
- The court reviews legality, not the merits of policy choices, though it may review abuse of power and obvious impropriety.
Worked example
An environmental agency fines a factory 500,000 yuan and orders immediate closure without holding a hearing. The factory sues. The analysis: a large fine triggers the hearing right; closure is a serious restriction. If the agency did not inform the factory of the right to a hearing or did not hold one on request, the procedure is unlawful. The court may revoke the penalty and the closure order. It does not substitute its own fine. The reasoning must separate substantive legality (was there a violation?) from procedural legality (was the hearing given?).
Traps
Do not say the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the administrative act unlawful; the defendant does. Do not confuse reconsideration and litigation time limits. Do not assume all administrative disputes can be mediated. Do not treat state compensation as the same as administrative litigation. Do not ignore the hearing threshold. Do not review policy merits as if the court were the agency.