Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing legal and administrative disputes surrounding the construction and demolition of a residential building in the Jinpu New Area of Dalian, highlighting issues of regulatory clarity and procedural fairness in local governance [4][12][15]. Group 1: Background and Initial Actions - Wang Wenli and his siblings sought to rebuild their mother's dilapidated house after their father's death in 2017, initiating consultations with local authorities regarding the necessary permits [2][8]. - The Jinpu New Area's administrative structure was unclear during the time of their application, leading to confusion about which department was responsible for approving their construction [3][10]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Administrative Decisions - In October 2019, the Jinpu New Area Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau issued a demolition order for the building, citing lack of proper permits, despite the family's claims of having consulted with authorities [4][9]. - The family pursued administrative reviews and lawsuits against the demolition order, with the first court ruling in their favor, stating that the administrative actions were excessive given the circumstances [12][15]. Group 3: Subsequent Developments and Current Status - The Dalian Intermediate People's Court upheld the initial ruling, requiring the enforcement bureau to reassess the case and issue a new administrative decision [15][20]. - As of September 2025, the enforcement bureau was still in the process of determining the next steps regarding the demolition order, indicating ongoing internal disagreements about how to proceed [19][20].

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court and the Ministry of Justice have selected and published 10 typical cases of administrative review and litigation to promote the implementation of the Private Economy Promotion Law and enhance the protection of private enterprises' rights and interests [1][2][3] Group 1: Administrative Review Cases - Case 1: 103 companies challenged the withdrawal of construction qualifications by a housing and urban-rural development department in Jiangsu Province, arguing that their rights to be informed and to defend themselves were not adequately protected [5][6] - Case 2: A development company contested the collection of a penalty by a natural resources and planning bureau in Zhejiang Province, emphasizing that supervision should be conducted on a per-lot basis [9][10] - Case 3: A traditional Chinese medicine clinic disputed an administrative penalty imposed by a market supervision bureau in Shanghai, claiming the punishment was excessive compared to the violations [13][14] - Case 4: A real estate company filed a review against a housing and urban-rural development bureau in Heilongjiang Province for failing to perform statutory duties regarding project completion verification [17][18] - Case 5: A construction company opposed an administrative penalty from a city management bureau in Sichuan Province, arguing that the determination of collusion in bidding should be based on comprehensive judgment [20][21] Group 2: Administrative Agreements and Compensation - Case 6: A real estate company sought compensation from a municipal government for unfulfilled promises regarding land compensation, resulting in a court ruling that mandated the government to pay over 8.41 million yuan [24][26] - Case 7: A passenger transport group sued a municipal government for not fulfilling an administrative agreement related to the transformation of intercity bus services, leading to a court ruling that required the government to comply with the agreement [28][30] - Case 8: An investment company challenged a police bureau's refusal to issue a special industry license, arguing that the bureau's regulations violated higher laws [33][34] - Case 9: A machinery company sought to enforce a meeting record regarding capacity replacement, resulting in a court ruling that emphasized the protection of trust interests in administrative actions [36][39] - Case 10: A mining company requested compensation from a county government due to the overlap of its mining rights with a newly designated water source protection area, leading to a court ruling for compensation of over 5.83 million yuan [40][42]

Group 1 - The Guangzhou Railway Transport Intermediate Court reported a total of 20,665 new administrative cases in 2024, marking a continuous decline since 2021 [1] - The first-instance judgment rate of administrative agencies losing cases was 8.55%, also showing a continuous decline [1] - The court actively resolved various administrative disputes related to business registration, tax collection, and market regulation, promoting fair competition and healthy development of the private economy [1] Group 2 - The court established four municipal mediation workstations and achieved full coverage in 11 administrative districts, resulting in over 10,000 cases being resolved through mediation or judicial confirmation, with a success rate of 58.55% [1] - A total of 522 cases saw administrative agencies lose in first-instance judgments, with the loss rate decreasing by 2.41 percentage points year-on-year [1] - The court issued 13 judicial recommendations following judgments to correct administrative enforcement errors [1] Group 3 - The white paper highlighted the need for enhanced awareness of lawful performance, balancing legal and reasonable administration, and clarifying responsibilities in overlapping management areas [2] - Recommendations included improving the mediation exemption mechanism to increase administrative agencies' willingness to mediate and strengthening legal construction in key areas like urban renewal [2] - The emphasis was placed on modernizing grassroots governance systems and capabilities, moving away from punitive enforcement approaches [2]