Special courts’ independence, transparency praised

Special courts in Beijing and Shanghai that hear administrative cases involving regional governments are winning praise for their independence and transparency.

Last year, the Beijing No 4 Intermediate People’s Court tackled nearly 1,400 such cases, about seven times the number in 2014, said Wu Zaicun, president of the special court, which was set up in December 2014.

In the past, these disputes were handled by a court at the district level. However, as part of China’s judicial reform process, these cases have been sent to an intermediate court under a pilot program. The government lost 18.6 percent of the cases last year, a 6 percentage point increase yearon- year, Wu said.

“Our court was established to remove interference by regional governments in hearings and to ensure that judges make verdicts independently,” Wu said.

A Beijing resident surnamed Shen said he was pleased with the change after winning his lawsuit against the Chaoyang district government over its delay in responding to his application for an administrative review.

The change was also made at Shanghai No 3 Intermediate People’s Court, which dealt with 242 of the 610 administrative disputes last year that named a Shanghai government body as the defendant.

Litigants, even those who did not prevail in their lawsuits, said the change gave them more confidence in suing the government.

Shanghai resident

Yuan Liming took the city and Hongkou district to court on Jan 13, claiming that they failed to disclose information according to law. After an hourlong hearing, the court said that the government’s response was adequate when it told Yuan the information he requested had been sent to the district’s archive bureau.

Although Yuan did not win the case, he applauded the court’s transparent process and clear explanations.

Before trial, the court warned officials not to engage in any behavior that might affect the hearing, and it said that any improper behavior, such as leaving a message to influence the verdict, would be recorded and identified as interference.

After the trial, Yuan received an explanation of the verdict from the judge in charge of the case.

“The explanation gave me more understanding of the verdict,” he said. “Residents in the past had no advantage in suing government departments.”

Consolidating jurisdictions to handle administrative disputes is also a good way to monitor government behavior and standardize hearing conduct, the presidents of the two special courts said.

Previously, some government departments were often late in replying to residents, and their handling of information requests was flawed, said Chen Lianggang, a judge at the Beijing court.

Such errors have been corrected and the process has been significantly improved, which has further established the rule of law, said Chen.

“Internal interference also has been alleviated,” Chen said. “In the past, many verdicts had to be submitted to chief judges and presidents to review, but now judges who hear cases can make the verdicts independently.”

Shi Sheng, a law consultant in Hongkou district in Shanghai, participated in a case on Jan 13 and saw the new court’s changed focus in action. “In many administrative disputes, we are being asked to disclose information, and we are being urged to regulate our behavior and be absent during trials,” Shi said.

Now, most heads of Beijing governments involved in lawsuits need not attend case hearings, “and we discuss how to improve administrative behavior in line with the law,” said Wu, the capital’s special court president.