How should the legality of the specific administrative act being sued be discussed in the reasons pa

The legality of a specific administrative act is based on the criteria of the law, in short, whether there is a legal basis for a specific administrative act, and whether there is no legal basis is a violation of the law, for a specific administrative act.

Answer]: Where the specific administrative act being sued is lawful but there is a question of reasonableness, the Pei Zhaoqian People's Court shall make a judgment to reject the litigation claim of the plaintiff.

The defendant bears the burden of proof for the administrative act and shall provide evidence of the administrative act and the normative documents on which it is based. The plaintiff is unable to provide evidence for legitimate reasons.

In cases of administrative compensation or compensation, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of the damage caused by the administrative act. Where the plaintiff is unable to present evidence due to reasons attributable to the defendant, the defendant bears the burden of proof.

Legal basis] Article 34 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the defendant bears the burden of proof for the administrative act taken, and shall provide evidence of the administrative act and the normative documents on which it is based.

Where the defendant does not provide evidence or fails to provide evidence within the time limit without a legitimate reason, it is deemed that there is no corresponding evidence. However, the administrative act being sued involves the lawful rights and interests of a third party, except where the third party provides evidence.

Article 38 of the Administrative Litigation Law provides that in a case where the defendant is sued for non-performance of statutory duties, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of its application to the defendant. However, there are any of the following circumstances:

1) The defendant shall take the initiative to perform legally-prescribed duties in accordance with their authority; (2) The plaintiff is unable to provide evidence for legitimate reasons.

In cases of administrative compensation or compensation, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of the damage caused by the administrative act. Where the plaintiff is unable to present evidence due to reasons attributable to the defendant, the defendant bears the burden of proof.

Yes, the legal basis is as follows:

Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China

Article 12: People's courts accept the following lawsuits raised by citizens, legal persons, or other organizations:

1) Refusing to accept administrative punishments such as administrative detention, temporary seizure or revocation of permits and licenses, orders to suspend production and business, confiscation of unlawful gains, confiscation of illegal property, fines, warnings, or other administrative punishments;

2) Refusing to accept administrative compulsory measures or administrative compulsory enforcement such as restricting personal liberty or sealing, seizing, or freezing property;

3) Where an administrative organ refuses or does not respond within the statutory time limit when applying for an administrative license, or is dissatisfied with other decisions made by the administrative organ on administrative licensing;

4) Refusing to accept a decision made by an administrative organ on confirming the ownership or right to use natural resources such as land, mineral deposits, water streams, forests, mountains, grasslands, wastelands, tidal flats, and sea areas;

5) Refusing to accept the expropriation or expropriation decision and the compensation decision;

6) Where an application is made to an administrative organ to perform a legally-prescribed duty to protect personal rights, property rights, or other lawful rights and interests, but the administrative organ refuses to perform or does not respond;

7) Where it is found that an administrative organ has violated its operational autonomy or the right to contract and operate rural land or the right to operate rural land;

8) Where it is found that an administrative organ has abused its administrative power to eliminate or restrict competition;

9) Where it is found that an administrative organ has illegally raised funds, apportioned expenses, or illegally demanded the performance of other obligations;

10) Where it is found that an administrative organ has not paid a bereavement pension, minimum subsistence allowance or social insurance benefits in accordance with law;

11) It is believed that the administrative organ does not perform in accordance with the law, fails to perform in accordance with the agreement, or illegally changes or dissolves the ** franchise agreement, land and housing expropriation compensation agreement and other agreements;

Without other conditions, this proposition is false. Courts examine the legality of specific administrative acts. There is only one exception, and the court changes the administrative penalty that is obviously unfair, which is a review of the reasonableness of the specific administrative act.

According to the principles of administrative law, the court has the power to review the legality and reasonableness of the specific administrative acts of the administrative organs.

Wrong. Courts can only review the legality of specific administrative acts!

When a specific administrative act (e.g., a specific administrative act made on the basis of discretion) is procedurally lawful and the application of law is extremely unreasonable, then the act is already illegal.

Generally, there is no review of reasonableness, and only the legality of specific administrative acts is heard. Unless the act is unusually severe.

There is no reasonableness review, only legality review.

What is at stake here is a question of non-interference between the judicial and executive powers.

It should be "legitimacy", not rationality.

This proposition is too decisive and wrong, because the court has an exception to the review of the legality of specific administrative acts, that is, the court changes the administrative punishment that is obviously unfair.

The people's court takes the principle of reviewing the legality of specific administrative acts as the exception, and the review of the reasonableness of specific administrative acts as an exception, and the modification of a judgment is a judgment involving discretion, which is the result of judicial review of a specific administrative act that is not illegal in form, but violates in essence the requirements of the principle of fairness and reasonableness of the law, so it is an exception to the legality review and a reasonableness review.

Therefore, the proposition is too absolute and is a false proposition.

Administrative Litigation Law.

Article 55: Where a people's court makes a judgment that the defendant takes a new specific administrative act, the defendant must not use the same facts and reasons to take a specific administrative act that is basically the same as the original specific administrative act.

The answer is wrong.

Judicial Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court

Where a people's court makes a judgment to revoke the specific administrative act being sued on the grounds of violating legally-prescribed procedures, the administrative organ's new specific administrative act is not subject to the restrictions provided for in article 55 of the Administrative Litigation Law.

Article 55: Where a people's court makes a judgment that the defendant takes a new specific administrative act, the defendant must not use the same facts and reasons to take a specific administrative act that is basically the same as the original specific administrative act.

Answer]: A According to Article 32 of the Administrative Litigation Law, the defendant bears the burden of proof for the specific administrative act, and shall provide evidence of the specific administrative act and the normative documents on which it is based.