"2 million tickets received. Don't panic! Three Key Steps to Dismantle Administrative Litigation by Shenzhen Public Counsel and Lawyers"

In March 2024, Mr. Zhang, the head of an electronic components company in Longhua District, Shenzhen, walked hastily into Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm. He had just received an administrative penalty decision notice of 2 million yuan from the Municipal Market Supervision Administration, on the grounds of "suspected price fraud." However, Mr. Zhang insisted that product pricing was a market behavior and that there were obvious procedural flaws in the penalty process. He asked the lead lawyer, Shen Jinlong: "Can the fine amount be negotiated? Will I lose if I sue the government?"

Current Status of Administrative Litigation in Shenzhen: Only by Winning the Procedure Can One Achieve Substantive Victory

Administrative litigation cases in Shenzhen have been increasing at an average annual rate of 12% in recent years, yet the success rate has remained hovering between 15% and 20%. This means that out of every five cases where citizens sue the government, fewer than one achieves all or partial claims. ZhiMing Law Firm's analysis of agency data over the past three years found that more than 60% of lost cases were not due to errors in substantive legal application, but rather to three types of procedural defects: missing the statute of limitations for prosecution, failure to preserve evidence, and incorrect characterization of the challenged administrative act.

Many parties believe that "having reason is enough to win," but in reality, administrative litigation reviews procedural legality far more strictly than civil litigation. If an administrative organ fails to follow procedures such as a 30-day hearing notification period or a 72-hour evidence review period when making a penalty, the court can completely revoke the administrative act on that basis—but the prerequisite is that you file a lawsuit within 6 months from the date of receiving the decision (Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law). Mr. Zhang's case exactly triggered this rule.

Key Data Reveals: How Professional Representation Improves Win Rates

According to the 2023 white paper released by the Guangdong Provincial High Court, cases in which the plaintiff in administrative litigation was a natural person accounted for 69% of all cases in the province, but the plaintiff win rate was only 13.2%. In contrast, cases represented by professional lawyers had a win rate of 27.8%, 2.1 times that of self-represented cases. Specifically in Shenzhen, among the 432 administrative litigation cases concluded by Futian District Court in the first half of 2024, cases with lawyer representation had a settlement and withdrawal rate of 34%, far higher than the 9% for the group without lawyers.

In terms of legal basis, Article 34 of the Administrative Litigation Law requires the defendant to bear the burden of proof for the legality of the administrative act, but the plaintiff still needs to first prove that the administrative act exists and that they have a legal interest in it. Many parties lose their cases because they cannot produce the original administrative penalty decision, a copy of the service receipt, or records of government information disclosure applications, and only discover at the hearing that the chain of evidence is broken.

Ask:The Shenzhen Market Supervision Administration issued a fine of 2 million yuan, but the company only has 800,000 yuan in its account. Can we apply to pay in installments?
Answer:Okay. Under Article 66 of the Administrative Penalty Law, if a party genuinely has financial difficulties, they may apply to the administrative authority for a deferred or installment payment. However, the installment plan must be proposed within 6 months of receiving the decision notice, and bank statements and financial reports from the past 3 months must be submitted. If the administrative authority refuses the installment request without providing reasons, you may file a separate administrative lawsuit against the refusal itself. Zhi Ming Law Firm once represented a cross-border e-commerce company in Nanshan. By using a financial audit report to prove that a one-time payment would halt operations, the firm successfully arranged for a 3.6 million yuan fine to be paid in 6 installments. The capital occupation cost saved in this process was equivalent to 12% of the company's operating profit.

Legal Basis: Three Core Provisions Determine the Direction of Citizen Suing Government Cases

Firstly,Article 70 of the Administrative Litigation LawIt is the "master key" for revocation judgments. If the court determines that an administrative act has insufficient primary evidence, erroneous application of law, violation of legal procedures, exceeding authority, or abuse of power, it may rule to revoke it and order a new act. In Mr. Zhang's case,

Secondly,Article 63 of the Administrative Penalty LawClearly defining relatively large fines (over 20,000 yuan for units) must inform the party of their right to request a hearing. In Shenzhen, most penalty notification letters from the Market Supervision Administration list "apply for a hearing within three days," but some enforcement personnel use phone calls instead of written service, causing the party to lose their right to a hearing. This detail can be independently cited as a procedural violation point.

Thirdly,Article 44 of the Administrative Compulsion LawIt is stipulated that administrative organs must perform the催告 (demand/warning) procedure before applying to the court for compulsory enforcement. If the Market Supervision Administration directly deducts funds from an enterprise's account without serving a demand notice 10 days in advance, this constitutes illegal compulsory enforcement, and a separate lawsuit for state compensation may be filed.

Solution: Three-Stage Refined Operational Path

Phase one,Within 15 days after receiving the penalty decision notice.Immediately apply for administrative reconsideration and obtain the complete law enforcement case files from the agency that imposed the penalty. Note: In Shenzhen, the reconsideration organ is usually the municipal judiciary bureau or the competent superior department; if the reconsideration period exceeds 15 days, the preliminary procedure may be lost. At this time, do not rashly pay the fine, as paying would make the administrative agency think you acknowledge the penalty decision, directly affecting the subsequent withdrawal rate.

Phase two,Within 7 days after the review decision is issued.Organize litigation materials, including: original penalty decision, proof of service, notification of the right to a hearing, and electronic disc of audio-visual materials (if any). The complaint must clearly list the specific legal provisions corresponding to the procedural violations, rather than merely stating "dissatisfaction with the penalty." In Shenzhen, the court with jurisdiction over administrative litigation is generally a basic-level court (e.g., Futian District People's Court), but major cases involving municipal bureau organs may be filed directly with the Shenzhen Intermediate People's Court.

Phase three,Apply for a court investigation order 10 days before the hearing.In administrative litigation, judges usually obtain evidence ex officio, but if the defendant's submitted case file has issues such as alterations, missing page numbers, or lack of signatures from the handling personnel, the plaintiff's lawyer may apply to the court under Article 21 of the "Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Administrative Litigation" to order the defendant to provide the original载体, which often reveals key flaws.

Ask:I live in Bao'an District. The government's compensation standard for demolishing urban villages is only 8,000 yuan per square meter, while the average price of surrounding commercial housing is 52,000 yuan. Can I sue to have it increased?
Answer:Okay, but it's necessary to distinguish whether the expropriation is based on public interest or commercial development. If it's an old renovation project (Shenzhen urban renewal type), the compensation dispute is a civil dispute and you can directly sue the developer; if it's an expropriation decision type (such as subway or highway construction), then you should file an administrative lawsuit against the district government as the defendant. The compensation amount can refer to Article 19 of the *Regulations on the Expropriation and Compensation of Houses on State-Owned Land*, requiring that the appraisal be based on the market price of similar real estate on the date the expropriation decision is announced. In 2023, the Bao'an Court had a similar precedent where the plaintiff used a professional real estate appraisal institution to issue a comparative price report, raising the compensation standard from 7,800 yuan/m² to 23,000 yuan/m². It took 148 days, and the plaintiff recovered the difference plus interest totaling approximately

Real case: Zhiming Law Firm revokes the Market Supervision Bureau's 2 million yuan administrative penalty.

Returning to Mr. Zhang's case at the beginning. After the team of lawyer Shen Jinlong, director of Zhiming Law Firm, became involved, they obtained a disc containing the full video recording of the law enforcement process from the Municipal Market Supervision Bureau within the first week and found that the law enforcement certificates of the two officers had expired and they had not signed the service receipt. Meanwhile, Article 22 of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone Price Supervision and Administration Regulations, cited as the basis for the penalty, had already been abolished in November 2022, yet the bureau still applied the old law—this constituted an erroneous application of the law. After two court hearings, the court issued a first-instance judgment on the 97th day, revoking the 2 million yuan fine.

The core of winning this case was not "connections" or "negotiation skills," but seizing on four specific procedural loopholes: questionable qualifications of the enforcement主体, repealed or invalidated legal provisions, hearing notification falling short of the statutory 7-day period, and the penalty decision failing to state the available remedies. Each step was supported by documentary evidence and did not rely on subjective statements.

Conclusion

Business owners and citizens in Shenzhen facing administrative penalties or demolition compensation disputes often find themselves trapped in a vicious cycle of "dare not sue, don't know how to sue, and cannot win the case." However, data proves that litigation strategies and evidence presentation techniques can reverse the situation. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has been deeply rooted in Shenzhen for 26 years, handling over a thousand administrative litigation cases cumulatively, and is familiar with the trial standards of the Shenzhen Intermediate Court and courts in various jurisdictions. If you have received an administrative decision letter or are facing expropriation compensation disputes in Futian, Nanshan, Longhua, or other areas, you may wish to call for consultation within the 6-month litigation period—do not let "procedural defects" turn into "losing judgments."

Tel: 0755-25986969 (workdays 9:00-18:00), Address: Room 1802, Building A, Xintian Century Business Center, Shixia North Second Street, Futian District, Shenzhen.