最高法：行政公益诉讼判决确认行政行为违法等案件比例较高

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the characteristics and trends of administrative public interest litigation in China, highlighting the expansion of case types, diverse adjudication methods, and updated judicial philosophies aimed at enhancing public interest protection. Group 1: Case Characteristics - The scope of cases has expanded, with a concentration in specific fields and regional disparities. Since 2018, new legal areas for public interest litigation have been established, including protection of martyrs, minors, military personnel rights, safety production, personal information protection, anti-monopoly, anti-telecom fraud, women's rights, barrier-free environment construction, and cultural relic protection [2] - In the past year, the distribution of administrative public interest litigation cases has been relatively concentrated, with the highest number of cases in food and drug safety, state property protection, and state land use rights transfer [2] Group 2: Adjudication Methods - The adjudication methods have become more diverse, effectively utilizing the functions of administrative trials. The courts have focused on correcting administrative actions that harm public interests, with a high proportion of cases resulting in the confirmation of illegal administrative actions or the annulment of such actions [3] - The principle that "post-litigation compliance does not exempt from illegality" has been emphasized, reinforcing the supervisory role of administrative public interest litigation and ensuring that administrative bodies fulfill their legal responsibilities proactively [3] Group 3: Judicial Philosophy - The judicial philosophy has evolved to promote win-win outcomes. Courts have worked collaboratively with relevant departments to address issues arising from overlapping administrative powers and gaps in governance, effectively tackling public interest problems that lack oversight [4] - Courts have not only focused on individual cases but also analyzed the reasons behind administrative failures and common issues, transitioning from "case rectification" to "systematic governance" to extend judicial functions and participate in social governance [4]