A case in which a certain management center sued a certain law enforcement bureau over an administrative penalty.
2025-12-24
Keywords: program error; unclear ascertainment of facts
Handling Attorney: Shi Mo
Facts of the Case: On March 20, 2023, a certain enforcement bureau initiated an investigation into illegal construction at a certain market and issued a “Notice of限期改正/停止违法行为” (Notice for Rectification within a Specified Period/Stop of Illegal Activities). Subsequently, the enforcement bureau commissioned an appraisal agency to assess the value of the steel-structure buildings within the market. On June 9, 2023, the Enforcement Bureau issued Administrative Penalty Decision No. Liao Ying Cheng Zong Zhi Chu Jue Zi (2023) No. 2-001, confirming that the north side of the market had been constructed without obtaining the necessary construction project planning permit, in violation of Article 40 and Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law of the People’s Republic of China. The decision ordered the demolition of the illegal structures within a specified period and imposed a fine equal to 10% of the assessed value. We filed a lawsuit with the People’s Court of Xishi District, Yingkou City, requesting the revocation of the administrative penalty decision. We argued that the approval from both the district government and the municipal government was intended solely to address the issue of occupying public roads, leading to the construction of a steel-frame colored canopy that became known as “a certain seafood market.” We contended that the procedure was flawed—for instance, the market had been in operation for over a decade without any relevant administrative authority conducting an investigation or imposing a penalty; the primary basis for the fine—the appraisal report—had not been served on us, and we had neither received nor confirmed it. Furthermore, we asserted that there were errors in the application of law and that the factual findings were unclear. However, the court of first instance ruled that the enforcement bureau’s penalty was justified and dismissed our claim. Dissatisfied with this ruling, we appealed to the Intermediate People’s Court of Yingkou City. During the appeal, we submitted relevant drawings, government documents, and other materials, emphasizing the procedural flaws and the lack of clarity in the factual findings. The second-instance court found that several key facts remained unclarified and confirmed our argument that the appraisal report used as the basis for the penalty had not been served on us, thus rendering the penalty’s legal basis insufficient. Additionally, the enforcement bureau had failed to thoroughly investigate the origin of the buildings and their current usage. Accordingly, the second-instance court reversed the original judgment and revoked the administrative penalty decision.
Key highlights of the case: After the original trial court upheld the administrative authority’s decision to impose an administrative penalty in accordance with Article 64 of the Urban and Rural Planning Law, we found ourselves in a disadvantageous position. However, through the second-instance proceedings, we successfully presented the full picture of the case. The case was fraught with numerous issues, and moreover, serious procedural errors had been committed. As a result, the original judgment and the administrative penalty decision were legally overturned, turning defeat into victory!
Typical significance: The difficulty of finding a breakthrough in administrative cases is something every lawyer handling administrative cases has experienced! When legitimate rights and interests are infringed upon by administrative actions, helping the client identify the illegality and key points of the improper administrative behavior—and then seeking justice through litigation—does not only protect the client’s interests but also gives concrete form to the building of a government ruled by law. In this way, lawyers become tangible embodiments of fairness and justice!
Recommended News
Copyright © 2025 Liaoning Tongfang Law Firm