The principle of territorial jurisdiction of administrative cases

Administrative cases refer to cases that occur according to administrative law. Administrative cases generally include demolition cases and business license issuance cases. Like other cases, administrative cases need to solve jurisdiction problems. Only by solving the jurisdiction problem can the case be closed better. So what is the principle of territorial jurisdiction of administrative cases? Next, let me answer your question.

I the principle of territorial jurisdiction of administrative cases

1, which is convenient for the parties to participate in litigation, especially suitable for the administrative counterpart to participate in litigation as the plaintiff;

2. It is conducive to the people's courts to hear, judge and execute cases;

3. It is conducive to ensuring the fairness and accuracy of administrative litigation;

4, is conducive to the reasonable sharing of workload between the people's courts.

Two. General territorial jurisdiction

Article 18 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that once a reconsideration is made, no matter whether the reconsideration organ upholds the decision, makes a decision to change or does not act, it can choose the jurisdiction of the court where the original organ is located or where the reconsideration organ is located. A case after reconsideration may also be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the reconsideration organ is located. The question to pay attention to here is:

General territorial jurisdiction is applicable to general administrative cases without statutory special factors. If a case has two natures, special territorial jurisdiction should be applied first. If the reconsideration organ changes the real estate case of the original specific administrative act, the special jurisdiction provisions for real estate should be applied in the jurisdiction.

General territorial jurisdiction adopts the principle of "plaintiff is defendant". In principle, administrative cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the administrative organ initially made the specific administrative act, so as to:

(1) to facilitate the litigation of the parties.

(2) It is convenient for the court to notify, investigate, collect evidence and execute.

(3) Respect the regional effectiveness of laws, regulations and other normative documents; Being under the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant's administrative organ is located can ensure the consistency of the basis between the administrative organ and the judicial organ and avoid the conflict of regional norms.

(4) Prevent disorderly complaints.

Cases in which the administrative organ for reconsideration maintains the original specific administrative act shall still be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the administrative organ that made the original specific administrative act is located. In this case, the reconsideration decision is a simple repetition of the original specific administrative act, and the object of review is actually still the original specific administrative act.

Where the reconsideration organ changes the original specific administrative act, it may be under the jurisdiction of the court where the administrative organ that made the original specific administrative act is located or the court where the reconsideration organ is located. This is the same situation that * * * governs. The reconsideration organ changes a specific administrative act, which means that the original administrative act is invalid and a new specific administrative act has been made. According to Article 7 of the Interpretation of the Procedural Law, the so-called "reconsideration decision changes the original specific administrative act" refers to any of the following circumstances:

(1) The reconsideration decision changes the main facts and evidence identified in the original specific administrative act. The so-called main fact refers to the statutory constituent fact of a specific administrative act, and the main evidence is the evidence that proves the constituent fact. The "change" here includes supplement, substitution, exchange, and the change and re-identification of the reasoning process.

(two) to change the normative basis of the original specific administrative act, which has an impact on the qualitative analysis. The so-called "change" includes adding, reducing or adjusting the legal provisions applicable to the original specific administrative act, or making a new interpretation, or changing the nature of the case.

(3) Revoking, partially revoking or changing the results of the original specific administrative act. Regardless of whether the reconsideration decision changes the facts and the basis of application of the original specific administrative act, as long as the final result changes the original specific administrative act, the litigation jurisdiction stipulated in this article shall be applied. Changes in processing results include revocation, partial revocation, change and other forms.

Three. Special territorial jurisdiction

The Administrative Procedure Law stipulates two special territorial jurisdictions:

A lawsuit against an administrative compulsory measure that restricts personal freedom shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant is located or where the plaintiff is located. In this regard, the first paragraph of Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Procedure Law stipulates that Article 18 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that "the plaintiff's domicile" includes the plaintiff's domicile, habitual residence and restricted personal freedom. The so-called habitual residence refers to the place where citizens have lived continuously for more than 1 year without shelter. The so-called places where personal freedom is restricted refer to places where citizens are detained and their freedom of life is restricted.

The main purpose of this provision in the Administrative Procedure Law is to facilitate citizens' prosecution and prevent administrative organs from evading the law. The question to pay attention to here is:

(1) This special jurisdiction applies to all administrative coercive measures that restrict citizens' personal freedom, regardless of their names, measures, procedures and implementation status.

(2) Whether administrative detention belongs to the administrative compulsory measures to restrict personal freedom mentioned here is controversial in theory. From the perspective of protecting citizens' litigation rights, administrative detention measures should be applied to special regional jurisdiction.

(3) For the same case, if the same administrative organ or different administrative organs take compulsory measures to restrict personal freedom, compulsory measures to restrict property rights or administrative punishment, the plaintiff may choose the court of jurisdiction, and the people's court against whom the lawsuit is filed may jointly exercise jurisdiction. If the plaintiff requests joint jurisdiction, the court of appeal shall have joint jurisdiction. In this regard, the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Procedural Law stipulates that the administrative organ imposes administrative penalties or takes administrative compulsory measures on the person or property based on the same fact. If the citizens whose personal freedom is restricted, the citizens whose property has been sealed up or confiscated, legal persons or other organizations are dissatisfied with the above actions, they may bring a lawsuit to the people's court where the defendant is located, or to the people's court where the plaintiff is located, and the people's court against whom the lawsuit is filed may have joint jurisdiction.

A lawsuit brought over real estate shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the real estate is located. The so-called real estate refers to land, buildings, beaches, mountains, grasslands and other properties that are physically immobile or will lose their economic value. The jurisdiction of the court where the real estate is located is a general rule in the litigation jurisdiction system, mainly for the purpose of nearby investigation and convenient court execution. The question to pay attention to here is:

(1) The scope of "real estate". The "real estate" referred to in the Administrative Procedure Law should refer to "real estate rights" rather than "real estate"; In other words, it belongs to the right of real estate or movable property that has lost its value. Specifically, it includes: real estate ownership and use right cases, building demolition and reconstruction cases, real estate pollution cases, natural ownership expropriation cases, natural resource cutting permission cases, etc.

(2) It must be a "real estate case", that is, "real estate" must be the subject of a case or a dispute between the parties, or "real estate" is the cause of administrative litigation, and the parties sue to solve the problem of real estate ownership. If the real estate is only evidence or relevant information, it does not belong to the real estate case.

According to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Jurisdiction of State-owned Assets Property Management Administrative Cases (2001February 2 1), if a party brings an administrative lawsuit for the definition of state-owned assets property rights, the court of jurisdiction shall be determined according to different situations. The act of defining real right directly against real estate shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the real estate is located. If the whole property right, including real estate, is defined, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the original administrative organ for defining property right is located. After reconsideration, if the reconsideration organ changes the original definition of property rights, it may also be under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the reconsideration organ is located.

This is the relevant content of the principle of territorial jurisdiction of administrative cases. The principle of territoriality of administrative cases is based on the principle of convenience and efficiency. This is conducive to improving the public's trust in administrative behavior and more conducive to social development.