Seven Model Cases Issued by the Supreme People's Court at the Tenth Anniversary of the Amendment and Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law

Seven Model Cases Issued by the Supreme People's Court at the Tenth Anniversary of the Amendment and Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law [Effective]

最高人民法院发布7件行政诉讼法修正施行十周年典型案例 [现行有效]

【法宝引证码】

Issuing authority： Supreme People's Court
Date issued： 10-17-2025
Effective date: 10-17-2025
Level of Authority: Working Documents of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate
Area of Law:Administrative Litigation,Civil Litigation,Administrative Litigation


Seven Model Cases Issued by the Supreme People's Court at the Tenth Anniversary of the Amendment and Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law		最高人民法院发布7件行政诉讼法修正施行十周年典型案例
(October 17, 2025)		（2025年10月17日）
The Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China was amended and took effect on May 1, 2015 and was amended for the second time and took effect on July 1, 2017. Over the past ten years, the people's courts have thoroughly studied and implemented the Xi Jinping Thought on Rule of Law, have conscientiously carried out the spirit and requirements of the newly amended Administrative Procedure Law, have remained committed to people-centered development philosophy, and have tried administrative cases fairly and efficiently. The changes in administrative trial work are encouraging and the results are remarkable. From May 2015 to June 2025, the people's courts at all levels concluded 2.831 million administrative cases of first instance and handled 2.085 million non-litigation administrative enforcement cases. Administrative trials have fully fulfilled the duties and missions of settling administrative disputes, protecting citizens' rights, and supervising the exercise of administrative power according to the law. The people have more trust in administrative trials and the judicial credibility has been significantly enhanced. At the same time, administrative litigation also faces challenges and some types of administrative cases occur frequently and at a high rate. Among the newly accepted administrative cases of first instance in 2024, cases involving "urban construction" and "resources" triggered by expropriation, demolition, and relocation accounted for 26.1% and administrative penalty cases accounted for 14.42%; and the appeal rate of administrative cases was high and the rate of applications for retrial remained relatively high. In 2024, the appeal rate of administrative cases in the people's courts across the country was 48.83% and the rate of applications for retrial was 18.47%. The capacity of the people's courts to supervise the exercise of administrative power according to the law, substantively settle administrative disputes, and promote the prevention and resolution of contradictions and disputes at the source still needs to be further improved.		2015年5月1日《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》修正施行，2017年7月1日该法第二次修正施行。十年来，人民法院深入学习贯彻习近平法治思想，认真落实新修正行政诉讼法的精神和要求，坚持以人民为中心的发展思想，公正高效审理行政案件，行政审判工作变化可喜、成效显著。2015年5月至2025年6月，各级人民法院共审结一审行政案件283.1万件，办结行政非诉执行案件208.5万件。行政审判全面履行了解决行政争议，保护公民权利，监督依法行政的职责使命，人民群众更加信任行政审判，司法公信力明显提升。与此同时，行政诉讼也面临着挑战，部分类型的行政案件多发高发，2024年新收一审行政案件中，因征收拆迁引发的“城建”“资源”类案件占26.1%，行政处罚类案件占比14.42%；行政案件上诉率高、申请再审率仍然较高，2024年全国法院行政案件上诉率48.83%、申请再审率18.47%，人民法院监督依法行政、实质化解行政争议、促进矛盾纠纷源头预防化解的能力仍有待进一步提高。
General Secretary Xi Jinping has stressed that "building a government based on the rule of law is key task and main project of comprehensively governing the country according to the law" and "an impartial judiciary is the last line of defense for social fairness and justice." Administrative trials are directly related to the people's trust in the Party and the government and their confidence in the socialist rule of law. On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the amendment and implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law, the Supreme People's Court ("SPC") selected seven model cases from the guiding cases of administrative trials, reference cases in the People's Court Case Database, model cases, and other influential cases. These cases not only reflect the spirit and requirements of the amended Administrative Procedure Law, but also have significance for adjudicative rules.		习近平总书记深刻指出，“法治政府建设是全面依法治国的重点任务和主体工程”“公正司法是维护社会公平正义的最后一道防线”。行政审判直接关系人民群众对党和政府的信任、对社会主义法治的信心。值此行政诉讼法修正施行十周年之际，最高人民法院从行政审判指导性案例、人民法院案例库参考案例、典型案例及其他有影响力的案例中，遴选出7件既能体现修正后行政诉讼法精神要求，又具有裁判规则意义的典型案例予以发布。
The model cases issued this time have four characteristics: First, with focus on the legislative purpose of the Administrative Procedure Law to "supervise the administrative organs in exercising their power according to the law," model cases in which the people's courts, on the basis of reviewing the legality of administrative acs, realized the supervisory functions in accordance with the law by rendering judgments to revoke, modify, and confirm the illegality of the illegal administrative acts were selected. Second, with focus on serving and guaranteeing high-quality development, model cases involving equally and legally protecting the lawful rights and interests of private enterprises, protecting intellectual property rights, and protecting the ecology and environment were selected. Third, with focus on areas such as land expropriation, demolition, and relocation and administrative penalties where administrative cases occur frequently and at a high rate, model cases involving package settlement of civil and administrative disputes, legal revocation of obviously inappropriate administrative penalty decisions, and supervision over administrative agencies' exercise of powers according to the law were selected. Fourth, with focus on preventing and resolving administrative disputes at the source, a model case in which the people's court, through review of the legality of a regulatory document, advanced the administrative agency to modify an "official document," achieving "handling an administrative case and standardizing a greater area" was selected.		本次发布的典型案例具有四个方面特点：一是聚焦行政诉讼法“监督行政机关依法行使职权”的立法目的，选取了人民法院在行政行为合法性审查的基础上，通过对违法行政行为判决撤销、变更、确认违法等方式，实现依法监督职能的典型案例。二是聚焦服务保障高质量发展，选取依法平等保护民营企业合法权益、保护知识产权、保护生态环境的典型案例。三是聚焦行政案件多发高发的征地拆迁、行政处罚等领域，选取了一揽子解决民事行政争议、依法撤销明显不当的行政处罚决定、监督行政机关依法行使职权的典型案例。四是聚焦源头预防化解行政争议，选取人民法院通过规范性文件合法性审查促推行政机关修改“红头文件”，实现行政诉讼“审理一案、规范一片”的典型案例。
We hope that, through the issuance of this group of cases, the court staff across the country will be educated and guided in judging and comprehending each administrative case from the perspective of attaching importance to promoting the comprehensive rule of law, promoting high-quality development, and enhancing the Party's ruling foundation to serve the overall situation and provide justice for the people.		希望通过这批案例的发布，教育引导全国法院干警在办理每一起行政案件时都注重从有利于推进全面依法治国、有利于推动高质量发展、有利于厚植党的执政根基的高度去判断和把握，做实为大局服务、为人民司法。
Model Cases Issued at the Tenth Anniversary of the Amendment and Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law		行政诉讼法修正施行十周年典型案例
Table of Contents		目录
1. Rendering a Judgment to Revoke the Administrative Reconsideration Decision Made by a National Ministry or Commission according to the Law and Effectively Supervising an Administrative Agency's Legal Exercise of its Functions and Powers— Company C v. former Ministry of Land and Resources of the People's Republic of China (Administrative Reconsideration Case)		一、依法判决撤销国家部委行政复议决定，有力监督行政机关依法行使职权——丙公司诉原中华人民共和国国土资源部行政复议案
2. Maximizing the Adjudicatory Functions of Administrative Public Interest Litigation and Legally Safeguarding the National Interests and Public Interests— People's Procuratorate of Jianchuan County, Yunnan Province v. Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County, Yunnan Province (Case of Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation)		二、充分发挥行政公益诉讼审判职能，依法维护国家利益和社会公共利益——云南省剑川县人民检察院诉云南省剑川县森林公安局环境行政公益诉讼案
3. Accurately Comprehending the Rules for Determining Trademark Similarity and the Impact of a Prior Trademark on the Approved Registration of a Subsequent Trademark and Effectively Protecting the Lawful Rights of the Prior Trademark— Guangdong Hao[REDACTED] Technology Group Co., Ltd. v. China National Intellectual Property Administration and Foshan Kai[REDACTED] Enterprise Management Consulting Co., Ltd. (Case of Administrative Dispute over a Request for Declaration of Invalidation of Trademark Rights)		三、准确把握商标近似性判断规则及在先商标对在后商标核准注册的影响，有效保护在先注册商标合法权利——广东好某科技集团股份有限公司诉国家知识产权局、佛山市凯某企业管理咨询有限公司商标权无效宣告请求行政纠纷案
4. Concurrently Tryingthe Relevant Civil Dispute in Administrative Litigation and Achieving a Package and One-time Resolution of the Civil-Administrative Overlapping Dispute— Da [REDACTED] v. Housing Property Administration Bureau of New Barag Right Banner, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region and Da [REDACTED] v. Si [REDACTED] and Others (Case of Concurrent Trial of Dispute over Housing Registration and Dispute over Ownership Confirmation)		四、行政诉讼一并审理相关民事争议，实现民行交叉争议一揽子、一次性解决——达某诉内蒙古自治区新巴尔虎右旗房产管理所房屋登记及达某诉斯某等人所有权确认纠纷一并审理案
5. Reviewing the Legality of a Regulatory Document, Urging the Administrative Agency to Revise the "Official Document," and Achieving the Goal of "Handling One Case and Standardizing a Greater Area" through Administrative Litigation— Yuan [REDACTED] v. People's Government of Yudu County, Jiangxi Province (Case of Administrative Collection of Commodity Prices)		五、审查规范性文件合法性促推行政机关修改“红头文件”，实现行政诉讼“审理一案、规范一片”——袁某某诉江西省于都县人民政府物价行政征收案
6. Revoking an Obviously Inappropriate Administrative Penalty Decision and Supervising the Administrative Agency's Exercise of functions and powers and Safeguarding the Lawful Rights and Interests of the Party Involved according to the Law— Qin [REDACTED] v. Traffic Patrol Police Detachment under the Public Security Bureau of Qijiang District, Chongqing Municipality, and Public Security Bureau of Qijiang District, Chongqing Municipality (Case of Administrative Penalty and Administrative Reconsideration)		六、依法判决撤销明显不当的行政处罚决定，监督行政机关依法行使职权、维护当事人合法权益——秦某某诉重庆市綦江区公安局交通巡逻警察支队、重庆市綦江区公安局行政处罚及行政复议案
7. Rendering a Judgment by Legally Applying the Private Sector Promotion Law of the People's Republic of China and Effectively Protecting the Lawful Rights and Interests of the Private Economic Organization— Company A v. People's Government of Nanyang City, Henan Province (Case of Refund of Land Expropriation Compensation)		七、依法适用民营经济促进法规定作出裁判，切实保护民营经济组织合法权益——甲公司诉河南省南阳市人民政府返还征收补偿款案
1. Rendering a Judgment to Revoke the Administrative Reconsideration Decision Made by a National Ministry or Commission according to the Law and Effectively Supervising an Administrative Agency's Legal Exercise of its Functions and Powers		一、依法判决撤销国家部委行政复议决定，有力监督行政机关依法行使职权
— Company C v. former Ministry of Land and Resources of the People's Republic of China (Administrative Reconsideration Case)		——丙公司诉原中华人民共和国国土资源部行政复议案
(1) Basic Facts		（一）基本案情
In January 2006, the former Land and Resources Department of Hunan Province issued a Mining License to Company A in Chenzhou City. The mine was named "Hongqiling Mine of Company A" and was valid from January 2006 to January 2010. In 2010, approved by the former Land and Resources Department of Hunan Province, the mining rights were transferred, with the mining right holder modified to Company B upon registration. Since the tin ore reserves reached medium-size or above, Company B completed the registration procedures for the renewal of its mining license at the former Ministry of Land and Resources of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Ministry of Land and Resources") in November 2010 and October 2011. The renewed license was valid from October 2011 to January 2012. At the same time, the Ministry of Land and Resources noted on the mining license that "You should resolve the vertical projection overlap of mining area boundaries within the validity period of this License. After the overlap is resolved, you can apply for renewal registration. Otherwise, your application for renewal will not be approved." In March 2006, the former Land and Resources Bureau of Chenzhou City, Hunan Province issued a Mining License (2006), in which "[REDACTED] North Section Nonferrous Metal Mine" was the mine name and the mining right holder and the validity period was from March 2006 to March 2011; in December 2010, the former Land and Resources Bureau of Chenzhou City renewed the license and modified the license number. After the license expired, the former Land and Resources Department of Hunan Province went through the formalities for renewal of the mining rights and modification of the ownership. The mining right holder was modified from "[REDACTED] North Section Nonferrous Metal Mine" to Company C and the Mining License (2011) was issued, valid from September 2011 to September 2014. According to the geological data and mine reserves, there was a vertical projection overlap of the above two mining areas. Since the overlap failed to be resolved, Company B filed an application for administrative reconsideration with the Ministry of Land and Resources in November 2012, requesting revocation of the administrative acts that the former Land and Resources Department of Hunan Province authorized the former Land and Resources Bureau of Chenzhou City to issue a Mining License to Company C in 2006 and renewed the Mining License (2011) in 2011. In December 2012, the Ministry of Land and Resources decided to accept the application for administrative reconsideration filed by Company B and notified Company C of participating in the administrative reconsideration. Since the Ministry of Land and Resources deemed that it was necessary to further ascertain the relevant facts and basis, it suspended the trial of this case in January 2013, resumed the trial of this case in July 2014, and issued the administrative reconsideration decision (No. 455 [2014], Reconsideration, Ministry of Land and Resources) to revoke the Mining License issued by the former Land and Resources Department of Hunan Province to Company C. Company C was dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration decision and filed an administrative lawsuit, requesting revocation of the above-mentioned administrative reconsideration decision.		2006年1月，原湖南省国土资源厅向郴州市甲公司颁发《采矿许可证》，矿山名称为“甲公司红旗岭矿”，有效期限为2006年1月至2010年1月；2010年，采矿权人经原湖南省国土资源厅批准转让和变更登记为乙公司。因锡矿储量达到中型以上，乙公司于2010年11月和2011年10月在原中华人民共和国国土资源部（以下简称国土资源部）办理了采矿许可延续登记手续，有效期限为2011年10月至2012年1月；同时，国土资源部在该采矿许可证上标注：“请在本证有效期内解决重叠问题，重叠问题解决后，再申请办理延续登记。否则不再予以延续”。2006年3月，原湖南省郴州市国土资源局颁发2006年《采矿许可证》，矿山名称、采矿权人均记载为“XXX北段有色金属矿”，有效期限为2006年3月至2011年3月；2010年12月，原郴州市国土资源局进行换证，变更了证号。该证到期后，原湖南省国土资源厅办理采矿权延续登记和变更登记手续，采矿权人从“XXX北段有色金属矿”变更登记为丙公司，并颁发了2011年《采矿许可证》，有效期限为2011年9月至2014年9月。据地质资料和矿山储量核实，上述两处矿区垂直投影重叠。因无法解决重叠问题，乙公司于2012年11月向国土资源部提出行政复议申请，请求撤销原湖南省国土资源厅（授权原郴州市国土资源局）于2006年向丙公司颁发、于2011年又经原湖南省国土资源厅延续的2011年《采矿许可证》的行政行为。2012年12月，国土资源部决定受理乙公司提出的复议申请，并通知丙公司参加行政复议。因认为需要进一步查明有关事实和依据，国土资源部于2013年1月中止该案的审理，2014年7月恢复该案审理，并作出国土资复议〔2014〕455号行政复议决定，撤销原湖南省国土资源厅向丙公司颁发的《采矿许可证》。丙公司不服，提起行政诉讼，请求撤销上述行政复议决定。
In July 2015, the court of first instance, First Intermediate People's Court of Beijing Municipality, rendered an administrative judgment (No. 839 [2015], First, Administrative, First IPC, Beijing) to dismiss the claim of Company C. In March 2016, the court of second instance, High People's Court of Beijing Municipality, rendered an administrative judgment (No. 3209 [2015], Final, Administrative, HPC, Beijing) to dismiss the appeal and affirm the judgment of first instance. In March 2018, the retrial court, SPC, rendered an administrative judgment (No. 6 [2018], Retrial, Administrative, SPC) to set aside the judgments of first instance and second instance, revoke the above-mentioned administrative reconsideration decision, and ordered the Ministry of Land and Resources to issue a new administrative reconsideration decision.		一审北京市第一中级人民法院2015年7月作出（2015）一中行初字第839号行政判决，驳回丙公司的诉讼请求。二审北京市高级人民法院2016年3月作出（2015）高行终字第3209号行政判决，驳回上诉、维持一审判决。再审最高人民法院2018年3月作出（2018）最高法行再6号行政判决，撤销一、二审判决，撤销上述行政复议决定并责令重新作出行政复议决定。
(2) Reasons for the Judgment		（二）裁判理由
The court's effective judgment held that the issuance of a mining license was a typical licensing-based benefit-conferring administrative act. In the revocation of a mining license, the protection of the licensee's reliance interests must be taken into account and the extent of the loss of interests caused to the state, others, and the right holder must be weighed. If such revocation was indeed necessary, the principle of proportionality should be followed and the relationship between full revocation and partial revocation should be weighed. The Mining License (2011) that was revoked upon reconsideration was valid from 2011 to September 2014; when the Ministry of Land and Resources issued the reconsideration decision being sued on July 14, 2014, the validity period of the Mining License was approaching expiration. Where the license period was approaching expiration, both parties had already ceased production due to the need for resource integration in mining areas, and there were no work safety issues, the reconsideration decision being sued failed to explain the urgency and necessity of such revocation. Instead, Company C was at a clear disadvantage in the possible integration, which increased the difficulty of integration and merger and acquisition. Where there were multiple ways to resolve the overlap of mining rights involved and there may be several reconsideration conclusions, the Ministry of Land and Resources should fully explain the reasons for its selection to issue a decision on revocation of the Mining License. However, from the evidence produced by the reconsideration organ and the complete case files, the reconsideration decision being sued did not reflect the corresponding weighing factors, nor did it provide sufficient reasoning. The reconsideration organ simply issued a decision on revocation of the Mining License involved based on the overlap of mining areas and such reconsideration decision should not be supported by the people's court. Where the people's court held that the evidentiary materials produced by the reconsideration organ could not meet the needs of judicial review and the reconsideration organ has not fully performed its obligation of explaining the reasons, it may require that the reconsideration organ should re-investigate and handle the case and provide evidence, basis, and corresponding reasons for the review.		法院生效裁判认为，颁发采矿许可证属于典型的许可类授益性行政行为，撤销采矿许可必须考虑被许可人的信赖利益保护，衡量撤销许可对国家、他人和权利人造成的利益损失大小问题。确需撤销的，还应当坚持比例原则，衡量全部撤销与部分撤销的关系问题。被复议撤销的2011年《采矿许可证》有效期自2011年至2014年9月；国土资源部2014年7月14日作出被诉复议决定时，该《采矿许可证》的有效期已经临近届满。在许可期限即将届满，双方均已经因矿区资源整合需要停产且不存在安全生产问题的情况下，被诉复议决定未能说明撤销的紧迫性和必要性，反而使丙公司在可能的整合中处于明显不利地位，加大整合并购的难度。在对案涉采矿权重叠问题有多种处理方式以及可能存在多种复议结论的情况下，国土资源部选择作出撤销决定，更应充分说明理由。但是，从复议机关所提供的证据与全案卷宗情况来看，被诉复议决定并未体现相应的衡量因素，也未进行充分说理，仅简单以构成重叠即作出撤销决定，不应得到人民法院支持。人民法院认为复议机关所提供的证据材料不能满足司法审查需要，复议机关未完全履行说明理由义务的，可以要求复议机关重新调查处理，并提供可以进行审查的证据、依据以及相应的理由说明。
(3) Expert Commentary		（三）专家点评
"Supervising administrative organs' exercise of their functions and powers according to the law" is one of the legislative purposes of the Administrative Procedure Law. On the basis of reviewing the legality of administrative acts, the people's courts realize their supervisory functions in accordance with the law by rendering a judgment to revoke, modify, confirm the illegality or invalidity of illegal administrative acts, and order the performance . In this case, the national ministry finally lost the lawsuit. It is a model case where the people's court correctly handled the relationship between protecting the lawful rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, and other organizations and supervising administrative agencies' exercise of their administrative functions and powers according to the law, and fully implemented the legislative purpose of the Administrative Procedure Law. The judgment of this case specified the factors that the reconsideration organ should take into account when it adopted the method of revoking the license: First, the reconsideration organ should weigh the costs for protecting the lawful rights and interests of the counterparts, maintaining the public interests, and taking remedial measures. Second, where there was any circumstance that was not in line with the public interests, the reconsideration organ may decide not to revoke, but choose to confirm the illegality of the acts of the licensee and make other reconsideration decisions. Third, where it was indeed necessary to revoke the license, the reconsideration organ should also specify the relief channels for losses caused to the licensee by the revocation of the license.		“监督行政机关依法行使职权”是行政诉讼法立法目的之一。人民法院在行政行为合法性审查的基础上，通过对违法行政行为判决撤销、变更、确认违法或者无效、责令履行等方式，实现依法监督的职能。该案最终判决国家部委败诉，是人民法院正确处理保护公民、法人和其他组织的合法权益与监督行政机关依法行使行政职权关系，全面贯彻落实行政诉讼法立法目的的典型案例。该案裁判明确了复议机关采用撤销决定方式时需考量的因素：一是权衡保护相对人合法权益、维护社会公共利益以及采取补救措施的成本等；二是存在不符合社会公共利益等情形时，可以决定不予撤销而选择确认违法等复议结果；三是确需撤销的，还需指明撤销许可给被许可人造成损失的救济渠道。
(Commentary by Ma Huaide, President of China University of Political Science and Law, Vice President of the China Law Society, and Director of the Academic Committee of the China Law Society)		（点评专家马怀德：中国政法大学校长，中国法学会副会长、学术委员会主任）
2. Maximizing the Adjudicatory Functions of Administrative Public Interest Litigation and Legally Safeguarding the National Interests and Public Interests		二、充分发挥行政公益诉讼审判职能，依法维护国家利益和社会公共利益
— People's Procuratorate of Jianchuan County, Yunnan Province v. Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County, Yunnan Province (Case of Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation)		——云南省剑川县人民检察院诉云南省剑川县森林公安局环境行政公益诉讼案
(1) Basic Facts		（一）基本案情
In January 2013, without going through the formalities for forest land expropriation and occupation, Company A commissioned Wang [REDACTED], a resident in Jianchuan County, to excavate a road with a length of 494.8 m, an average width of 4.5 m, and an area of 2,226.6 square meters in the state-owned forest land. In February 2013, the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County imposed an administrative penalty on Company A and Wang [REDACTED] in the name of the Forestry Bureau of Jianchuan County as follows: (1) ordering them to restore the damaged forest land to the original state within the prescribed time limit, and (2) imposing a fine of 10 yuan per square meter of the damaged forest land for illegally changing the use of such forest land, namely, 22,266 yuan. In March 2013, Company A paid the fine and the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County closed the case. However, it did not urge Company A and Wang [REDACTED] to fulfill their administrative obligations of restoring the damaged forest land to the original state within the prescribed time limit. On November 9, 2016, the People's Procuratorate of Jianchuan County issued a procuratorial proposal to the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County, proposing that it should perform its duties according to the law, implement the administrative penalty decision, and take effective measures to restore the damaged forest vegetation. On December 8, 2016, the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County made a reply to the procuratorial proposal, saying that it had taken measures after conscientious study and dispatched a police officer to Wang [REDACTED]'s residence to urge him to fulfill the obligation as prescribed in item (1) of the administrative penalty. In view of Wang [REDACTED]'s death, it terminated the execution of the administrative penalty. The Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County did not prompt Company A to fulfill the obligation as prescribed in the aforesaid item. The People's Procuratorate of Jianchuan County filed an administrative public interest litigation, requesting that the act of the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County of failing to perform its statutory duties should be confirmed illegal and the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County should be ordered to perform its statutory duties within the prescribed time limit.		2013年1月，在未取得林地征占用手续的情况下，甲公司委托剑川县居民王某某在国有林区开挖公路，长度494.8米、平均宽度4.5米、面积2226.6平方米。2013年2月，剑川县森林公安局以剑川县林业局的名义对甲公司及王某某作出行政处罚：1.责令限期恢复原状；2.处非法改变用途林地每平方米10元的罚款，即22266元。2013年3月，甲公司缴纳罚款，剑川县森林公安局即对该案予以结案，后一直未督促甲公司及王某某履行限期恢复原状的行政义务。2016年11月9日，剑川县人民检察院向剑川县森林公安局发出检察建议，建议依法履行职责，落实行政处罚决定，采取有效措施恢复森林植被。2016年12月8日，剑川县森林公安局回复检察建议称认真研究后已采取措施，并派民警到王某某家催告履行第一项行政处罚，鉴于王某某死亡，执行终止。剑川县森林公安局未就该事项催告甲公司履行。剑川县人民检察院提起行政公益诉讼，请求确认剑川县森林公安局怠于履行法定职责的行为违法，判令其在一定期限内履行法定职责。
In June 2017, the Primary People's Court of Jianchuan County, Yunnan Province rendered an administrative judgment (No. 1 [2017], First, Administrative, 2931, Yunnan), confirming that the act of the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County of failing to perform the obligation as prescribed in item (1) of the penalty decision involved was illegal and ordering the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County to continue to perform its statutory duties.		云南省剑川县人民法院2017年6月作出（2017）云2931行初1号行政判决，确认剑川县森林公安局怠于履行案涉处罚决定第一项内容的行为违法；责令剑川县森林公安局继续履行法定职责。
(2) Reasons for the Judgment		（二）裁判理由
The court's effective judgment held that this lawsuit filed by the public interest litigant was within the scope of accepted administrative public interest litigation cases as prescribed in the Measures of the Supreme People's Court for the Implementation of the Pilot Program of the People's Courts' Trial of Public Interest Litigation Cases Filed by People's Procuratorates and the Measures of the Supreme People's Procuratorate for the Implementation of the Pilot Program of Filing Public Interest Litigation by the People's Procuratorates and satisfied the conditions of prosecution. Paragraph 6 of Article 26 of the Administrative Procedure Law provides that "Where an administrative agency is abolished or its functions and powers are modified, the administrative agency that succeeds to such functions and powers shall be the defendant." On September 27, 2013, the People's Government of Yunnan Province issued the Reply on the Work Plan for Relatively Centralizing the Power to Impose Forestry Administrative Penalties by Forestry Departments in Yunnan Province, according to which the forest public security organs at all levels shall exercise some power of forestry administrative departments to impose administrative penalties in a relatively centralized manner. Therefore, in accordance with the aforesaid provisions, the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County exercised the power to impose an administrative penalty originally exercised by the Forestry Bureau of Jianchuan County and it was a qualified defendant. In this case, after the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County ascertained that Company A and Wang [REDACTED] modified the forest land without authorization, it issued an administrative penalty decision in the name of the Forestry Bureau of Jianchuan County, ordering Company A and Wang [REDACTED] to restore the damaged forest land to the original state within the prescribed time limit and imposing a fine on them, which complied with the legal provisions. However, in more than three years after Company A paid the fine, it did not prompt Company A and Wang [REDACTED] to perform the obligation of restoring the damaged forest land to its original state, nor did it perform such obligation on their behalf. As a result, the forest land that Company A and Wang [REDACTED] had arbitrarily changed has not been restored to its original state to date and it did not provide any evidence to prove that there were relevant legal and reasonable reasons. Its act was obviously inappropriate and constituted failure to perform statutory duties. The administrative penalty decision had not been fully executed. The Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County should continue to perform its statutory duties according to the law and take effective measures to prompt the administrative counterparts to restore the damaged forest land to its original state within the prescribed time limit. After the judgment of this case was pronounced, none of the parties appealed and the Forest Public Security Bureau of Jianchuan County proactively executed the effective judgment.		法院生效裁判认为，公益诉讼人提起本案诉讼符合最高人民法院《人民法院审理人民检察院提起公益诉讼试点工作实施办法》及最高人民检察院《人民检察院提起公益诉讼试点工作实施办法》规定的行政公益诉讼受案范围，符合起诉条件。行政诉讼法第二十六条第六款规定：“行政机关被撤销或者职权变更的，继续行使其职权的行政机关是被告”。2013年9月27日，云南省人民政府《关于云南省林业部门相对集中林业行政处罚权工作方案的批复》授权各级森林公安机关相对集中行使林业行政部门的部分行政处罚权。因此，根据上述规定，剑川县森林公安局行使原来由剑川县林业局行使的林业行政处罚权，是适格的被告。本案中，剑川县森林公安局在查明甲公司及王某某擅自改变林地的事实后，以剑川县林业局名义作出对甲公司和王某某责令限期恢复原状和罚款的行政处罚决定符合法律规定，但在甲公司缴纳罚款后三年多时间里没有督促甲公司和王某某对破坏的林地恢复原状，也没有代为履行，致使甲公司和王某某擅自改变的林地至今没有恢复原状，且未提供证据证明有相关合法、合理的事由，其行为显然不当，是怠于履行法定职责的行为。行政处罚决定没有执行完毕，剑川县森林公安局依法应该继续履行法定职责，采取有效措施，督促行政相对人限期恢复被改变林地的原状。该案宣判后，当事人均未提起上诉，剑川县森林公安局积极履行了生效判决。
．．．．．．		．．．．．．
Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . Should you have any questions, please contact us at: +86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153) Mobile: +86 133-1157-0713 Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268 database@chinalawinfo.com		您好：您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区，如您是我们英文用户可直接登录，进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息；如您还不是我们的英文用户，请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员。如有问题请来电咨询； Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153 Mobile: +86 13311570713 Fax: +86 (10) 82668268 E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

【法宝引证码】北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com

Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.

Confirmation Code:

Click image to reset code!

Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.