Group 1 - The core focus of the recent administrative law enforcement action is to address issues of "random inspections" and "random fines," enhancing the precision and effectiveness of administrative checks, thereby alleviating burdens on enterprises [2][3] - The release includes eight typical cases that showcase the practical outcomes of addressing "random inspections" and "random fines," highlighting the importance of administrative law enforcement supervision in correcting enforcement irregularities and promoting a citizen-centric enforcement philosophy [2][3] - A specific case from a county in Henan revealed that the local fire rescue team imposed mandatory monthly targets for administrative penalties, which led to a pattern of uniformity in penalty cases, prompting the administrative law enforcement supervision bureau to intervene and correct this enforcement approach [2][3] Group 2 - The administrative law enforcement supervision bureau discovered that the fire rescue team had set rigid targets for penalties, which contradicted the original intent of administrative law enforcement and undermined its authority and credibility [3] - The Ministry of Justice emphasized the need for continuous improvement in the demonstration and warning effects of typical cases, urging local authorities to increase accountability for illegal enforcement actions and to translate the results of the special actions into tangible benefits for enterprises and the public [3]

Core Points - The Ministry of Justice has released the second batch of eight typical cases focusing on the rectification of "disorderly inspections" and "arbitrary fines," highlighting the importance of administrative law enforcement supervision in correcting law enforcement irregularities and establishing a "law enforcement for the people" concept [1][2] Group 1: Issues Addressed - The article addresses the issue of "ineligible subjects" in enterprise inspections, with various government administrative law enforcement supervision agencies enhancing oversight and improving institutional mechanisms to eliminate unauthorized inspections [1] - It discusses the problem of "excessive frequency and repeated disturbances" in enterprise inspections, where agencies are strengthening collaborative supervision and innovating work models to correct disorderly inspection behaviors [1][2] Group 2: Enforcement Actions - The article highlights actions taken against "illegal setting of fines and confiscation indicators," with agencies implementing a dual approach of "error correction and accountability + institutional improvement" to protect enterprises' legal rights [2] - It mentions the enforcement of principles ensuring that administrative penalties are proportionate and based on clear, objective investigations, moving from "vague and arbitrary" to "clear and reasonable" fact recognition [2]

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Justice has emphasized stricter scrutiny of the eligibility of entities involved in administrative penalties, highlighting the importance of proper administrative enforcement and the need to correct illegal practices in administrative law enforcement [1][3][6]. Group 1: Administrative Penalty Practices - The recent release of eight typical cases showcases the results of a campaign against excessive inspections and fines, focusing on ensuring that penalties are precise and reasonable [1][2]. - A notable case involved a fire rescue team in Henan Province that set mandatory monthly targets for administrative penalties, which undermines the seriousness and authority of administrative enforcement [1][5]. - The Ministry of Justice has indicated that the scrutiny of the eligibility of entities imposing penalties will become increasingly stringent, as improper delegation of responsibilities has been a common issue [3][6]. Group 2: Importance of Corrective Measures - The principle of proportionality in administrative penalties is crucial, with recent cases illustrating failures in accurately identifying violations and applying the law [4]. - Corrective actions often arise from public reports and internal supervision, indicating the need for stronger institutional frameworks and increased penalties for violations [4][6]. - The Ministry of Justice is accelerating the development of administrative enforcement supervision regulations to enhance the legal framework supporting high-quality enterprise development and public safety [4][6]. Group 3: Accountability and Governance - The administrative enforcement supervision agency has mandated the cancellation of penalty targets in the aforementioned case, aiming to rectify the enforcement approach that prioritizes fines [5][6]. - There is an expectation for accountability measures against responsible parties in cases of misconduct, as these actions significantly impact government credibility [5][6]. - The ongoing campaign against illegal administrative practices is expected to reveal more violations, creating a "high-pressure environment" for enforcement entities [6].

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Justice has released the second batch of typical cases aimed at standardizing administrative law enforcement related to enterprises, focusing on addressing issues of "disorderly inspections" and "arbitrary fines" [1][2]. Group 1: Strengthening Supervision and Legal Compliance - The government has intensified supervision to ensure that only qualified entities conduct administrative inspections, thereby preventing unauthorized inspections [1][2]. - Specific cases highlight the rectification of unauthorized inspections by third parties and the establishment of clear responsibilities for auxiliary personnel in law enforcement [5][10]. Group 2: Reducing Excessive Inspections - Efforts are being made to reduce the frequency of inspections and to streamline the inspection process, transitioning from a "dispersed and arbitrary" approach to a "coordinated and efficient" model [2][11]. - A notable case showed a 33% reduction in inspection frequency in 2025 compared to the same period in 2024, while the problem discovery rate increased by 29.6% [11]. Group 3: Ensuring Fair and Just Law Enforcement - The government is addressing illegal practices such as setting arbitrary fines and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the violations [2][17]. - Cases demonstrate the correction of unlawful penalty practices and the establishment of accountability mechanisms to prevent future violations [17][18]. Group 4: Improving Fact Recognition and Penalty Precision - Administrative law enforcement agencies are focusing on clear and reasonable fact recognition to avoid repeated penalties and ensure that penalties are proportionate to the violations [3][21]. - A case in Shandong showed that a company was wrongfully penalized despite having complied with payment obligations, leading to a correction of the enforcement decision [21][23]. Group 5: Promoting Information Sharing and Coordination - The establishment of information-sharing mechanisms among different departments is being emphasized to prevent issues like duplicate penalties [3][25]. - A case in Jilin demonstrated the successful collaboration between forestry and natural resource departments to rectify overlapping penalties, enhancing overall administrative efficiency [25].

Core Insights - A stable and predictable development environment is crucial for enterprises, and improving the business environment through strict regulation of administrative law enforcement can reduce burdens on companies and enhance transparency and credibility [1][2] Group 1: Administrative Law Enforcement - The Ministry of Justice launched a special action in March to standardize administrative law enforcement related to enterprises, resulting in a more than 30% year-on-year decrease in administrative inspections from January to August, while the problem discovery rate increased by an average of 16 percentage points [1] - The aim of standardizing administrative law enforcement is to enhance the precision and efficiency of enforcement, allowing regulatory bodies to focus on key areas and significant issues, thus reducing unnecessary inspections and penalties for compliant enterprises [2][3] Group 2: Policy Implementation - The State Council issued comprehensive regulations on administrative inspections related to enterprises, promoting transparency, fairness, and predictability in enforcement actions, which is part of a broader effort to transform government functions [2] - Various regions are innovating flexible enforcement methods, such as the "one code inspection" in Beijing and a list of minor violations in Anhui, to alleviate burdens on enterprises and stimulate their development [3] Group 3: Legal Environment - The focus on regulating administrative law enforcement aims to ensure that all enterprises operate under the same fair rules, fostering a competitive environment where businesses can thrive [3]

人民财讯9月22日电，司法部发布规范涉企行政执法专项行动为民办实事典型案例。规范涉企行政执法 专项行动开展以来，各级司法行政机关牵头会同相关部门聚焦企业"急难愁盼"，严肃纠治"乱收费、乱 罚款、乱检查、乱查封""违规异地执法和趋利性执法""执法标准不一致加重负担""滥用职权、徇私枉 法、该罚不罚、粗暴执法"等四类突出问题，解决了一批制约企业发展的执法痛点、堵点问题，形成了 不少为民办实事的经验执法。截至9月21日，累计为企业挽回损失150多亿元。 ...

Group 1 - The core viewpoint emphasizes the importance of standardizing administrative law enforcement related to enterprises to improve the business environment and enhance corporate confidence [2][3] - The provincial government aims to deepen the reform of the administrative law enforcement system, focusing on the classification and hierarchy of enforcement, and ensuring clear boundaries and processes [2] - There is a commitment to enhance the effectiveness of law enforcement supervision and improve the precision and effectiveness of administrative inspections, particularly in areas that directly impact the public's interests [2]

Core Points - The nationwide special action to regulate administrative law enforcement related to enterprises has significantly reduced the number of administrative inspections since March this year [1] - The Ministry of Justice has reported cases of improper law enforcement, including arbitrary fines and violations of enforcement behavior standards [1][2] - Several cases have been highlighted, showcasing issues such as abuse of power, improper enforcement, and violations of legal procedures [2][3] Group 1 - The special action has led to a substantial decrease in administrative inspections and the return of illegal fees to enterprises [1] - A case in Sichuan revealed a violation of the penalty payment separation rule, prompting corrective measures to prevent corrupt practices [1] - In Hunan, an enforcement officer was penalized for failing to stop a violation of the separation between industry associations and administrative agencies [2] Group 2 - A case in Jiangxi involved an enforcement officer conducting unauthorized inspections and mishandling a situation with a taxi driver, leading to disciplinary action [2] - In Guangxi, a shared bicycle company faced unlawful seizure of its vehicles by a local housing authority, which was later deemed without legal basis [3] - The actions taken by various administrative bodies demonstrate a commitment to correcting improper enforcement practices and ensuring compliance with legal standards [1][2][3]

司法部部长贺荣在会上介绍，司法部开展规范涉企行政执法专项行动，紧盯企业和群众反映强烈的 执法突出问题开展集中纠治，目前已取得阶段性成效。乱收费、乱罚款、乱检查、乱查封和违规异地执 法、趋利性执法等问题得到有效纠治。今年1至8月，各地涉企行政检查数量同比普遍下降30%以上，与 此同时，发现问题率平均提高16个百分点。行政检查的次数下降，但发现问题率提高，这表明行政检查 的精准度和质效大幅提升。 央视网消息：国务院新闻办公室今天（9月8日）上午举行"高质量完成'十四五'规划"系列主题新闻 发布会，介绍"十四五"时期推进社会主义法治建设和司法行政工作，服务经济社会高质量发展有关情 况，并答记者问。 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Ministry of Justice is implementing a special action to regulate administrative law enforcement related to enterprises, focusing on addressing prominent issues raised by businesses and the public, achieving preliminary results [1] Group 1: Administrative Law Enforcement Actions - The Ministry of Justice has initiated a special action to standardize administrative law enforcement concerning enterprises [1] - The action targets issues such as arbitrary charges, fines, inspections, closures, and improper enforcement practices [1] - From January to August this year, the number of administrative inspections related to enterprises has decreased by over 30% year-on-year [1] Group 2: Effectiveness of Inspections - Despite the reduction in the number of inspections, the rate of problem discovery has increased by an average of 16 percentage points [1] - This indicates a significant improvement in the precision and effectiveness of administrative inspections [1]