China’s administrative litigation system came into effect in 1990 amidst strong demand for more protection of the legal rights and interests of citizens and private enterprises by enabling them to seek courts’ assistance in reviewing the legality of officials’ decisions.

Such an “eggs-against-hammers” system has experienced challenges but shown progress over the past ten years, as reported by the Supreme People’s Court.  This is encouraging.  However, more information about a key aspect of the system should be disclosed to strengthen the role of Chinese courts and to align with the goals of a new law regarding publicity of China’s legal developments.

Key Progress Since 2015

As the personnel and financial arrangements of a Chinese court are largely controlled by the government of the same locality which that particular court serves, the implementation of China’s administrative litigation system has not been easy.

The situation was particularly difficult during the system’s early years.  Citizens and private enterprises were reluctant to challenge officials’ decisions in courts because of their concerns about potential retribution from powerful officials and/or their disbelief that courts could adjudicate these cases independently, among other reasons.  In addition, administrative agencies often did not take such lawsuits seriously, to the extent of not even sending representatives to participate in many legal proceedings.

“[…] a total number of 2.83 million first-instance administrative litigation cases were handled by Chinese courts across the country during this past decade.”

Against this backdrop, the progress made over the past 10 years, as indicated by recent data released by the Supreme People’s Court, looks impressive.  For example, a total number of 2.83 million first-instance administrative litigation cases were handled by Chinese courts across the country during this past decade.  In addition, to illustrate how officials have become more willing to participate actively in administrative lawsuits, the Supreme People’s Court emphasized that a number of higher-ranking officials have appeared in administrative cases before the courts.  As one example in particular, TIAN Wentao, Deputy Mayor and Director of the Public Security Bureau of Anlu City, Hubei Province, testified in court just recently in February 2025, marking his sixth time to testify in legal proceedings concerning administrative authorities.  Such information does indicate that administrative authorities are treating these court proceedings with greater respect, allowing citizens to understand these authorities’ views and positions expressed in public trials.

Judicial Review of Regulatory Documents

The Supreme People’s Court also released another set of data to show how regulatory documents have been reviewed by courts in administrative litigation cases over the past 10 years. 

As I explained in an earlier article, China’s Administrative Litigation Law allows a private party seeking judicial review of an “administrative act” undertaken by an authority to also request that the court review the legality of the “regulatory document” upon which the “administrative act” is based.  This type of review is, however, subject to two restrictions.  First, only “regulatory documents” that are ranked quite low in China’s complicated system of legal rules can be reviewed by courts in this way.  Second, once a “regulatory document” is determined by a court to be illegal, the court can only (1) state that the document cannot serve as the legal basis for the “administrative act” at issue and (2) “provide the organ that formulated the [regulatory document] with recommendations on [how to] handle [the document]”.  In other words, the court cannot strike down the document directly.

According to the Supreme People’s Court, nearly 3,500 regulatory documents were reviewed by courts in administrative litigation cases in the past 10 years.  It is not clear what percentage of these regulatory documents were determined by courts to be illegal, nor is it clear what recommendations were sent to organs that formulated these “illegal” documents or whether they were subsequently revised or invalidated.

New Law on the Publicity of Legal Developments

“Judicial review of regulatory documents is an important measure to allow courts to protect citizens and private enterprises against authorities formulating rules beyond their rule-making powers […].”

Judicial review of regulatory documents is an important measure to allow courts to protect citizens and private enterprises against authorities formulating rules beyond their rule-making powers or rules that are inconsistent with upper-level legislation.

More information about how courts determine the legality of regulatory documents challenged in administrative lawsuits and what the final outcomes are (including whether illegal documents are revised or invalidated) will help all authorities with rule-making powers to avoid making similar mistakes.

Further, such information will help promote understanding of the Chinese legal system among the general public, a result that is in line with the goals—e.g., “creating a good atmosphere in which the whole society respects, studies, abides by, and applies the law”—stated in the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Publicity of and Education on the Rule of Law, which will come into effect on November 1, 2025.

Articles 18 and 19 of the new law specifically provide that administrative organs and courts should publish “typical cases”, accompanied with explanations, to “conduct rule-of-law publicity and education”.  Administrative litigation cases elucidating courts’ review of regulatory documents and actions taken by administrative authorities in response to judicial recommendations regarding illegal regulatory documents are excellent candidates for such “typical cases”.

Leaders of the Supreme People’s Court have emphasized the importance of administrative litigation cases in this way: “[…] we must focus on judging and grasping [every administrative litigation case] from the perspective of promoting comprehensive governance of the country according to law, promoting high-quality development, and consolidating the [Chinese Communist] Party’s ruling foundation.”  Such an emphasis makes it even more necessary for the Chinese judiciary to disclose more information about judicial review of regulatory documents.

---

• The citation of this article is: Dr. Mei Gechlik, Empowering Courts to Protect “Eggs” Against “Hammers”, SINOTALKS.COM^®, In Brief No. 61, Oct. 29, 2025, https://sinotalks.com/inbrief/court-egg-hammer-china.
  The original, English version of this article was edited by Nathan Harpainter.  The information and views set out in this article are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of SINOTALKS^®. ↩︎

Related Articles