Core Viewpoint - The Shenzhen Municipal Government has introduced the "Shenzhen Administrative Law Enforcement Supervision Code Management Regulations" to enhance the supervision of administrative law enforcement related to enterprises, aiming to reduce arbitrary inspections and improve the business environment [1][2]. Background of the Regulations - The national government has prioritized the standardization of administrative law enforcement concerning enterprises, launching a special action in March to address prominent issues raised by businesses [2]. - The introduction of the enforcement supervision code aims to utilize information technology to enhance the efficiency of law enforcement supervision and to standardize administrative law enforcement practices [2][3]. - Historically, enterprises have faced issues such as multiple, redundant, and arbitrary inspections, which have diverted their focus and resources [2]. Importance of the Regulations - The enforcement supervision code system connects law enforcement bodies and business entities, allowing for real-time monitoring of the entire enforcement process [4]. - The system enables businesses to track enforcement activities and file complaints against non-compliant behaviors, thus enhancing accountability and transparency [4][5]. - The regulations aim to establish a long-term mechanism for the application of the enforcement supervision code, transitioning successful pilot practices into formal regulations [4]. Next Steps - The Shenzhen Municipal Justice Bureau plans to continue improving the system's functionality and promoting the standardization of administrative law enforcement actions [7]. - There will be an emphasis on legal education and compliance guidance for enterprises to better support their development and enhance the legal business environment in Shenzhen [7].

Core Insights - Sichuan has launched a special action to standardize administrative law enforcement related to enterprises, collecting 1,828 problem clues and rectifying 1,740 issues since March, recovering economic losses of 34.45 million yuan for businesses [1][2] Group 1: Administrative Law Enforcement Actions - The special action focuses on key areas, regions, and issues, implementing measures such as publishing enforcement entities, standardizing administrative penalty discretion, and enhancing supervision of major enterprise-related law enforcement [1] - The action has shown initial results in addressing "four chaos" issues, particularly in reducing arbitrary fines, inspections, seizures, and charges [1] Group 2: Specific Issues Addressed - In terms of "arbitrary fines," Sichuan has refined the criteria for administrative penalties, leading to a nearly 70% increase in cases not subject to penalties [1] - Regarding "arbitrary inspections," local departments have established 150 regulations, resulting in a significant decrease in on-site inspections and a steady rise in non-intrusive checks [1] - For "arbitrary seizures," 47 regulations were introduced, correcting 82 cases of wrongful seizures and allowing five companies to unfreeze accounts, releasing 340,000 yuan [1] - Concerning "arbitrary charges," 49 regulations were implemented, resulting in the return of 1.3 million yuan to businesses [1] Group 3: Digital Initiatives - Sichuan has fully implemented the "Tianfu Enterprise Code" since September 1, with plans for statewide implementation by April 1 next year, allowing businesses to refuse inspections if the code is not presented [2] - The initiative aims to enhance transparency, traceability, and supervision of administrative checks through digital means, fundamentally curbing the issue of arbitrary inspections [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the introduction of eight measures by the market regulatory authorities in the Yangtze River Delta region to standardize cross-regional law enforcement practices, aiming to prevent unfair competition and protect the legitimate rights of private enterprises [1][3]. Group 1: Background and Rationale - The Yangtze River Delta region is characterized by geographical proximity, cultural similarities, and economic integration, which provides a strong foundation for the implementation of these measures [3]. - The measures are a response to the need for regulating "offshore fishing" style law enforcement that disrupts fair competition and harms the development momentum of local economies [1][3]. Group 2: Definition and Scope of Cross-Regional Law Enforcement - The article defines "cross-regional law enforcement" as actions taken by market regulatory authorities from Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui to investigate entities outside their jurisdiction [3]. - Emphasis is placed on minimizing the impact of such enforcement on the normal operations of businesses [3][8]. Group 3: Key Measures Introduced - The measures include prioritizing collaborative investigations and requiring local regulatory authorities to accompany enforcement personnel during cross-regional activities [4]. - Legal evidence obtained in any region of the Yangtze River Delta will be mutually recognized to prevent redundant evidence collection [6]. - Administrative coercive measures will be applied cautiously to avoid disrupting normal business activities [8]. - There will be a unified approach to administrative penalties to prevent excessive or insufficient penalties and to enhance the overall quality of law enforcement [11]. Group 4: Conflict Resolution and Communication - A mechanism for resolving jurisdictional disputes between different provincial regulatory authorities will be established, with enforcement activities suspended during the negotiation period [13]. - For cases of significant public interest or media attention, a case discussion mechanism will be organized to facilitate the exchange of opinions and achieve a balance of political, social, and legal outcomes [15]. - Channels for reporting suspected violations of cross-regional law enforcement will be improved to enhance awareness of legal rights among businesses [17].

Core Viewpoint - The Urumqi Market Supervision Bureau in Xinjiang is enhancing its regulatory practices by implementing a series of measures aimed at creating a fair and law-based business environment, focusing on administrative inspections related to enterprises and optimizing services [1] Group 1: Regulatory Measures - The bureau has strictly enforced an administrative inspection filing mechanism, ensuring compliance with the "Tacheng Region's Implementation Plan for Scanning Enterprises" [1] - A "scan code" system has been introduced for inspections, requiring prior approval and ensuring transparency during the inspection process [1] - The bureau has adopted a reasoning-based enforcement approach, adhering to a "first violation not penalized, minor violations exempted" policy, which has resulted in 4 cases not penalized, 17 cases with reduced penalties, and 11 cases with lighter penalties [1] Group 2: Service Optimization - The bureau has implemented a "three documents delivered simultaneously" mechanism, providing guidance for credit restoration alongside administrative penalty decisions [1] - Public access to complaint and reporting channels for administrative enforcement has been established, promoting social oversight [1] - Joint inspections have been conducted in collaboration with various departments, reducing redundant checks and enhancing efficiency [1] Group 3: Capacity Building - The bureau has developed a code of conduct for enforcement personnel, clarifying various enforcement processes and requirements [1] - Training sessions and case studies have been organized to improve the legal knowledge and capabilities of enforcement staff [1] - The goal is to build a high-quality, disciplined, and public-satisfaction-oriented administrative enforcement team to support the high-quality economic and social development of the city [1]

Core Viewpoint - The article emphasizes the importance of standardizing administrative law enforcement related to enterprises to support healthy economic development, optimize the business environment, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of enterprises [1] Group 1: Administrative Law Enforcement Practices - The national ecological environment system has actively carried out a special action to standardize administrative law enforcement related to enterprises, achieving positive results through various effective measures [1] - Many localities have strictly implemented relevant deployments and requirements, utilizing advanced technologies such as satellite remote sensing and drones to enhance regulatory effectiveness while reducing on-site enforcement [1] Group 2: Issues in Law Enforcement - Some local practices have shown concerning behaviors, such as equating fewer enforcement actions with stronger execution, imposing additional conditions for on-site enforcement, and substituting avoidance of enforcement for standardized enforcement [1][2] - These inappropriate practices have negatively impacted ecological environment protection and need to be corrected [1] Group 3: Distinction Between Administrative and Civil Domains - A significant reason for these improper practices is the confusion between the "administrative domain" and the "civil domain," where the former involves public management actions characterized by legality and authority, while the latter involves equal interactions among civil subjects [2] - Ecological environment administrative law enforcement should maintain sufficient deterrence and authority, and not weaken the rigidity and dignity of enforcement [2] Group 4: Improving Law Enforcement Quality - There is a need to balance the intensity and warmth of ecological environment law enforcement, ensuring that enforcement is both effective and considerate [3] - Law enforcement personnel should enhance their awareness of the overall situation, combining principles with discretionary power, and consider the severity of violations and the attitude of responsible parties when deciding on penalties [3] - Encouraging compliance through education and guidance can help enterprises reduce the likelihood of penalties, fostering a cooperative relationship between local governments and enterprises [3]

Core Insights - 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 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 innovating work models and strengthening supervisory collaboration to correct disorderly inspection behaviors [1] - The article highlights the issue of "illegal setting of penalty indicators and procedural violations," emphasizing a dual approach of "error correction and accountability + institutional improvement" to protect enterprises' legal rights [2] Group 2: Case Examples - Specific cases are mentioned, such as a county government in Henan correcting illegal penalty indicators set by the fire rescue team, and a county in Jiangxi addressing violations by transportation enforcement personnel [2] - The article notes that a county in Shandong corrected improper penalties by guiding enforcement agencies to apply non-penalty regulations based on specific facts [2] - It also mentions a county in Jilin promoting the establishment of an information-sharing mechanism among enforcement departments to avoid additional burdens on enterprises due to inter-departmental collaboration gaps [2]

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].