Putting non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms in the forefront promote diversified resolution of administrative disputes

In order to thoroughly implement General Secretary Xi Jinping's important instructions on "putting the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism in the front" and further promote the diversified resolution of administrative disputes in the people's courts, the Supreme People's Court recently issued the "Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Further Promoting the Diversified Resolution of Administrative Disputes" (hereinafter referred to as the "Opinions"), and the responsible comrades of the Administrative Trial Division of the Supreme People's Court answered reporters' questions on the relevant contents of the Opinions.

Q: Please tell us about the background of the drafting of the Opinions.

Answer: The Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning the Comprehensive Advancement of Governing the Country According to Law adopted by the Fourth Plenary Session of the Eighteenth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China proposes to improve the mechanism for preventing and resolving social contradictions and disputes, and to improve the diversified dispute resolution mechanism that organically links and coordinates mediation, arbitration, administrative rulings, administrative reconsideration, litigation, and so on. In 2015, the General Office of the Central Committee and the General Office of the State Council issued the Opinions on Improving the Diversified Resolution Mechanism for Contradictions and Disputes, which made a top-level design for the reform of the diversified dispute resolution mechanism from the institutional level. In 2019, General Secretary Xi Jinping made important instructions at the Central Political and Legal Work Conference, clearly proposing to "put the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism in the front". On February 19, 2021, the 18th meeting of the Central Committee for Comprehensively Deepening Reform deliberated and adopted the Opinions on Strengthening the Governance of Litigation Sources and Promoting the Resolution of the Sources of Contradictions and Disputes, emphasizing the need to promote more rule of law forces to guide and guide the end, strengthen the prevention, front-end resolution, and gate control of the sources of contradictions and disputes, improve the preventive legal system, and reduce the increase in litigation from the source.

The concept of source prevention and control and diversified social governance responds to the practical needs of the main contradictions and changes in mainland society in the new era. Persisting in putting the non-litigation dispute resolution mechanism in the forefront, taking litigation as the last line of defense for dispute resolution, and accelerating the construction of a smoothly connected, coordinated and orderly diversified dispute resolution system have become one of the important contents of the political and legal reform in the new era. Properly handling all kinds of administrative cases in accordance with the law, effectively protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and effectively maintaining social harmony and stability requires that under the leadership of party committees, supervision by people's congresses, and support from the government, we need to fully mobilize various social forces and actively build a joint force for dispute resolution. In recent years, courts in various localities have carried out a lot of practical exploration in the diversified resolution of administrative disputes and the governance of litigation sources, formed many good experiences, and achieved remarkable results. In order to fully implement the spirit of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important instructions, ensure that the major decisions and deployments of the Party Central Committee are implemented in a down-to-earth manner, and better promote the work of diversified solutions, on the basis of summarizing the relevant work experience of various localities, this "Opinion" is formulated and issued.

Q: Please introduce the main contents of the Opinions, and what are your plans for the next step in the diversified solution of administrative disputes?

A: The Opinions are divided into five parts. The main contents are: clarifying the overall requirements for the people's courts to promote diversified resolution of administrative disputes; Clarify that people's courts shall participate in the governance of litigation sources from areas such as administrative legislation, administrative decision-making, administrative law enforcement, comprehensive social governance, internal risk prevention of people's courts, popularization of the law by the whole people, and compliance with the law, to promote the resolution of the source of administrative disputes; Clarify the pre-litigation guidance diversion mechanism, the pre-litigation mediation mechanism, and the functional positioning of the people's court during the mediation process after the case is prosecuted to the people's court; Provisions are made for the linkage mechanism between litigation and non-litigation in diversified solution work from the aspects of pre-litigation mediation and pre-litigation evidence preservation, judicial confirmation of pre-litigation mediation agreements, transfer of mediation and litigation, determination of undisputed facts, handling of dishonest mediation, and improvement of the quality of judgment documents; Provisions are made on organizational safeguards, personnel safeguards, funding guarantees, and legal support for the diversified resolution of administrative disputes.

In the next step, the Supreme People's Court will strengthen the guidance and supervision of the diversified resolution of administrative disputes in local people's courts at all levels, strengthen the publicity and interpretation of the work of diversified resolution of administrative disputes, issue typical cases of substantive resolution of administrative disputes, help courts at all levels correctly understand and grasp the reform requirements, and improve relevant judicial interpretations and judicial policies on the basis of comprehensively summarizing the reform experience.

Q: What are the specific ways to resolve administrative disputes in a diversified manner under the Opinions?

A: There are three main aspects: First, prevention at the source of administrative disputes. Specifically, through joint consultations between the government and the people, providing advice, and strengthening the review of normative documents, we will help improve the systematic, integrated, and coordinated nature of administrative legislation, and prevent the emergence of administrative disputes from the rule level; In accordance with the arrangements of the government's decision-making mechanism, intervene in the decision-making process in advance, provide reference opinions from the perspective of administrative adjudication, ensure the scientific, democratic and rule-of-law of major administrative decisions, and prevent the emergence of administrative disputes from the decision-making level; Provide opinions and suggestions for administrative law enforcement through judicial recommendations, administrative trial white papers, and other forms, promote administrative organs' administration according to law, and prevent the emergence of administrative disputes from the administrative law enforcement level; Integrate the governance of administrative dispute litigation sources into the social governance system, give full play to the operational guidance role of the people's courts, do a good job of coordinated guidance and resolution, promote pre-litigation resolution of disputes, and truly put non-litigation dispute resolution mechanisms in the forefront; Conduct risk assessments when formulating judicial interpretations and judicial policies, handling major and sensitive cases, and prevent the occurrence of relevant disputes from the court's own level; Through specific forms such as the publication of judicial interpretations, the online access to judgment documents, the release of typical cases, circuit trials, the disclosure of court hearings, and lectures on special topics on the rule of law, raise the people's ability and level to know the law, abide by the law, and safeguard their rights and interests in accordance with the law, and strive to create a good atmosphere of giving priority to non-litigation methods to resolve disputes from the level of law abiding by the whole people.

The second is to strengthen the front-end resolution of administrative disputes. Specifically, the people's courts guide, encourage and support parties to actively choose non-litigation methods such as administrative settlement, administrative reconsideration, administrative ruling, administrative mediation, or application for arbitration to resolve disputes before administrative litigation procedures begin; For cases where it is difficult for the plaintiff's litigation claims to be supported, but there are practical difficulties that need to be resolved urgently, the plaintiff is guided to handle them in advance by means of pre-litigation mediation. At the same time, in cases where pre-litigation mediation or other non-litigation mechanisms resolve disputes, the people's courts shall, on the basis of the specific needs of substantively resolving administrative disputes, guide relevant institutions and personnel to fully understand the background of the formation of administrative disputes, correctly determine the parties to the dispute, the administrative acts of the dispute, and the focus of the dispute, urge the parties to cooperate with mediation around the focus of the dispute, and guide relevant institutions and personnel to assist in promoting the parties to reach an agreement on the basis of making a preliminary judgment on the legality of the administrative act being sued.

The third is to do a good job in linking litigation and non-litigation resolution mechanisms for administrative disputes. Including pre-litigation evidence preservation in accordance with law; Conduct judicial confirmation of pre-litigation mediation agreements that comply with article 60 of the Administrative Procedure Law and that may be reached in mediation cases in accordance with law; Where the parties have no intention to substantively resolve the dispute, insist on filing a lawsuit, the mediation is protracted for a long time, the handling of the case involves issues involving the application of law, and the impartiality of the mediation organization itself is questioned, promptly terminate the mediation, transfer the case to the litigation procedure in accordance with law, and do a good job of deducting the time limit for filing a lawsuit and determining the undisputed facts; For cases suitable for adjudication, strictly standardize trial, improve the quality of adjudication documents, continuously improve model adjudication mechanisms, and provide predictable cases of legal application for the resolution of similar disputes.