In 2018, the people’s representatives of the two sessions suggested that to prevent the government from intervening in civil litigation, it is necessary to have jurisdiction in another place
The people’s representatives of the two sessions suggested that to prevent the government from intervening in “citizens’ lawsuits”, it is necessary to have jurisdiction in another place
When ordinary people go to court, the most difficult thing is "people sue officials"
When ordinary people go to court, the most difficult thing is "people sue officials." A reporter from Beijing Times interviewed Zhang Liyong, President of the Henan Higher People's Court, on issues related to the jurisdiction of administrative litigation. Zhang Liyong said that "citizens sue officials" has problems such as difficulty in filing a case, difficulty in winning the case, and difficulty in enforcement. Judges are also prone to interference from local governments when hearing cases. In order to prevent local administrative interference and promote fair trials of administrative cases, Henan has taken the lead in out-of-region jurisdiction. hear administrative cases within the scope. Last year, the people's winning rate was 27.8, an increase of 17.6 percentage points compared with the original 10.2.
Talking about jurisdiction in different places
What is the difficulty in "people suing officials"?
Judges are susceptible to interference from local governments
Beijing Times: People say it is difficult for people to sue officials. What do you think is the difficulty?
Zhang Liyong: In judicial practice, "citizens sue officials" cases have problems such as difficulty in filing a case, winning the case, and enforcement. The plaintiff’s winning rate is about 9.1, which is the national average, and the Henan court’s is 10.3. In the eyes of many people, the court is the government's court, so if you have grievances, go to the "governor" instead of the "president." Ordinary people don't want to file a lawsuit, don't dare to file a lawsuit, and feel that it would be in vain if they sued. Even if he wins the lawsuit, it cannot be enforced. He believes that the court and the government wear the same pants and vent through the same nostril. Therefore, his so-called lack of belief in the law in petitions mainly comes from administrative litigation cases. Judges are also susceptible to interference from local governments. They dare not try, are not easy to try, and cannot enforce the law after trial.
How to solve these "difficulties"?
The case was filed and tried by a foreign court
Beijing Times: How do you think this "difficulty" can be solved?
Zhang Liyong: In this case, we feel that in order to solve this problem, we must first eliminate interference from some places. We have considered a way, that is, not to try it in the local county, but to try it in another county. , so we call it remote jurisdiction. We are the first in the country to implement off-site jurisdiction for all administrative cases, and stipulate that cases of "citizens suing officials" shall adopt the method of "turning back and grinding", and the other party's court will hear the case.
"Beijing Times": What is the "going around in circles" trial method?
Zhang Liyong: In May 2014, our Henan Higher People's Court issued the "Regulations on the Jurisdiction of Administrative Cases (Trial)", which stipulates that the county people's government is the defendant under the jurisdiction of the grassroots court, and the county people's government is the defendant under the jurisdiction of the intermediate court. Provincial and municipal governments are the defendants and environmental protection administrative cases are subject to three types of cases that are tried in separate rows. On the basis of the obvious results achieved in the reform practice, the "Supplementary Provisions" were promulgated in April 2015, which expanded the scope of off-site trials of administrative cases, and all administrative cases that have administrative intervention channels in the system are subject to off-site trials. The "circle promoter" is used to determine the jurisdictional court. In principle, cases in which county or city-level administrative agencies are defendants are under the jurisdiction of courts in adjacent or nearby counties and cities. For example, cases in Zhengzhou City are under the jurisdiction of the Xinxiang City Court, cases in Xinxiang City are under the jurisdiction of the Luoyang City Court, and cases in Luoyang City are under the jurisdiction of the Zhengzhou City Court.
Beijing Times: Can different jurisdictions solve the problem of interference?
Zhang Liyong: We must greet all cases that implement the decisions of the central government, and register any cases that involve interference. We implement a case registration system. This just prevents you from interfering, but we have solved the problem of what is a different place? This issue is governed and cannot be interfered with. Therefore, the problem of administrative intervention is solved from the institutional level. So I think if administrative litigation cases can be won, then civil cases, criminal cases, and enforcement cases can also be won.
What is the impact of foreign justice?
The people’s winning rate reaches nearly 30%
Beijing Times: What are the effects of remote jurisdiction?
Zhang Liyong: Looking at it now, this method is indeed good. Let me talk about data. Last year, there were 22,642 "citizens suing officials" cases in Henan Province, an increase of 43.8% from the 15,746 cases in the previous year; but the winning rate of ordinary people reached 27.8, an increase of 17.6 percentage points from the original 10.2. Moreover, more and more parties no longer appeal or petition even if they lose the case, and the rate of first-instance judgments and settlements has increased significantly, from the original 46.7 to 76.6. This shows that the public recognizes that you go to court to file a lawsuit and have more confidence in the rule of law. No matter whether you win or lose the lawsuit, ordinary people believe that the court can make a fair decision. Even if you lose the lawsuit, they rarely complain about "officials protecting each other." In addition, on the other hand, judges also feel that the possibility of administrative intervention in the case handling process is greatly reduced, and the quality and efficiency of administrative cases are greatly improved. When hearing a case in which a foreign administrative agency is the defendant, the judge is more confident in handling the case. He does not have to consider other factors other than the case. He can argue according to the law and handle the case fairly during the trial.
Beijing Times: The winning rate of ordinary people has increased, and the government’s losing rate has also increased. Do Henan courts feel the pressure?
Zhang Liyong: On the contrary, the government supports such "reforms", and the administrative agencies' awareness of administering in accordance with the law and filing lawsuits in accordance with the law has been further enhanced. The decentralization of administrative judicial power has formed a coercive mechanism for the administrative behavior of administrative agencies. Because of the fear of losing the lawsuit, administrative agencies generally improve administrative behavior, standardize administrative law enforcement, and improve the awareness and level of administration according to law. In order to win lawsuits in local courts, administrative agencies at all levels have become more proactive in participating in litigation. Many administrative leaders have taken the initiative to participate in court hearings, communicate face-to-face with the public, and introduce timely measures to strengthen the standardization of administrative law enforcement, and the relationship between "officials and citizens" has become more harmonious.
Beijing Times reporter: What should we do if people don’t want to go to the “fields” to litigate?
Zhang Liyong: While implementing the reform plan, we have also deliberately given the parties the right to choose the jurisdiction of the case. That is, the parties can directly go to the other party's court to litigate the case, or they can sue in the local court. This is a completely institutionalized jurisdiction system that is not targeted at individual cases or designated by the court. Instead, the right to choose jurisdiction is given to the plaintiff.
What are the challenges of reform?
Increased litigation costs are a problem
"Beijing Times": In the early stages of reform, will there be resistance in the face of some interest barriers that may be involved?
Zhang Liyong: Let’s not talk about resistance. When it comes to the relationship with the government, it is still a bit unexpected. In the early stages of the reform, we were particularly worried about the distrust and resistance of the administrative agencies. However, after a period of practice, we found that most government officials supported and supported it, which was beyond our expectation.
Beijing Times: When ordinary people go to other places to file lawsuits, who pays the costs?
Zhang Liyong: Reform is not smooth sailing, nor is it accomplished overnight. We also face problems and difficulties in advancing reforms, including increased litigation costs. People go to other places to file lawsuits, and administrative agencies go to other places to participate in litigation, which adds some additional costs. The coordination of services by courts in remote locations also increases judicial costs accordingly. In individual cases, there is also the problem of emphasizing legal effects over social effects. Especially when dealing with group cases such as land and house expropriation, insufficient attention is paid to social effects, and there is insufficient motivation to resolve social conflicts through coordination. The connection between petition work and case hearing is not smooth enough. A large number of related petition cases are handled by local party and government agencies, and there is a lack of communication channels between the courts and local party and government agencies. In January and February of this year alone, the number of administrative cases in our province's courts increased by 125 compared with the same period last year. We still have a lot of work to do on how to release the reform dividends of administrative trial power and let the people have a greater sense of gain from the reform. .
Talking about the protection of judges
Judges should receive accident insurance
Beijing Times: Judges occasionally encounter threats and injuries in the process of handling cases. What do you think of judges? Protection of rights and interests?
Zhang Liyong: This year I brought a proposal, which is to apply special procedures to hold accountable those who disrupt court order. Some parties insulted, beat, intimidated, and threatened the judge during the trial. Although this was an isolated phenomenon, it chilled the judge. Once, when the author was conducting local research, I saw a judge being injured by a villager with a hammer during a circuit trial. For this kind of behavior that disrupts court order during the trial, according to the current provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, the public security agency must file a case for investigation, the procuratorate initiates a public prosecution, and the court can make a judgment. But in fact, both the prosecutor and the defender are present at the scene, and there are also spectators at the scene. Everyone is a witness, and there is no need for re-investigation and prosecution. The court judge should be given the right to directly prosecute the defendant and his family members who disrupt the order of the court. In addition, the author believes that it is necessary to provide judges with accident insurance to protect their legitimate rights and interests from being harmed.
Beijing Times: Many judges are leaving the courts to become lawyers. What do you think of this problem?
Zhang Liyong: In the Western legal system, one can go from lawyer to judge, but we go from judge to lawyer. Many people think this is reverse flow. I do not agree with this concept. Some judges have worked in the courts for many years and have joined the ranks of lawyers. After being trained in court positions, they know how to better defend clients. The improvement of their defense level is more conducive to preventing unjust, false and wrongful convictions, and it is also a kind of judicial trial. help. We talk about the unity of the rule of law all day long. Why is there a reverse flow from the court to the lawyer? Shouldn’t we still exclude lawyers from the **** community? This problem of understanding must be solved and corrected.