How is the jurisdiction of administrative litigation stipulated?

Article 17 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that administrative cases shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the administrative organ initially performed the specific administrative act. After reconsideration, if the reconsideration organ changes the original specific administrative act, it 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3, the reconsideration organ to maintain the original specific administrative act of the case, is still under the jurisdiction of the people's court where the administrative organ that made the original specific administrative act. 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.

4. 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 it may be under the jurisdiction of 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.

Second, special regional jurisdiction.

The Administrative Procedure Law stipulates two special territorial jurisdictions:

1. Jiong's lawsuit against administrative compulsory measures restricting personal freedom shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant is located or 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.

2. The lawsuit brought by the 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.

Third, the same jurisdiction.

* * * Joint jurisdiction refers to the situation where two or more courts have legal jurisdiction over the same litigation case. The * * * cases under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Procedure Law include:

1. If the administrative reconsideration decision changes the original specific administrative act, the administrative reconsideration organ and the people's court where the original administrative organ is located shall have jurisdiction.

2. Cases where administrative compulsory measures are taken to restrict personal freedom shall be under the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant is located and the court where the plaintiff's domicile, domicile and personal freedom are restricted. According to the provisions of Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Procedural Law, if an administrative organ imposes administrative penalties or takes administrative compulsory measures on a person or property based on the same fact, and a citizen whose personal freedom is restricted, a citizen whose property has been sealed up or confiscated, a legal person or any other organization refuses to accept the above actions, it 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 where the defendant is sued may be under the jurisdiction of both parties.

3. Key real estate cases. The people's courts of the relevant administrative regions have jurisdiction. What is more common here is the situation caused by critical reservoir areas and protected areas. rule

In order to avoid and solve jurisdiction disputes, the Administrative Procedure Law and the Interpretation of Procedure Law provide the following solutions:

1, plaintiff's choice. In this regard, Article 20 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that if two or more people's courts have jurisdiction, the plaintiff may choose one of them to bring a lawsuit.

2. The jurisdiction of the people's court that first received the complaint. In this regard, Article 20 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that if the plaintiff brings a lawsuit to two or more people's courts with jurisdiction, the people's court that first received the complaint shall have jurisdiction.

3. Jurisdiction of the people's courts. That is, in the case of compulsory measures to restrict personal freedom, if the administrative organ takes other administrative measures at the same time, the plaintiff can choose the court, and the sued people's court can have jurisdiction together and review several specific administrative acts through one litigation procedure. In this regard, the second paragraph of Article 9 of the Interpretation of the Procedural Law has made provisions.

4. Agreed jurisdiction or designated jurisdiction. In case of jurisdiction dispute, you can consult the relevant court. If negotiation fails, the people's court at the next higher level shall designate jurisdiction. In this regard, the second paragraph of Article 22 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that if a people's court has a dispute over its jurisdiction, it shall be settled by both parties to the dispute through consultation. If negotiation fails, it shall be reported to the people's court at a higher level for designated jurisdiction.