On March 31, the seminar on the top ten administrative lawsuits for promoting the rule of law in China cum the 30th anniversary of the promulgation of the Administrative Litigation Law was held in Beijing. Professor Zhou Youyong, Vice President of Southeast University, and Professor Meng Hongzhi, Director of the Center for the Study of the Rule of Law, were invited to attend the meeting and commented on typical cases.

    At the meeting, Professor Zhou Youyong commented on case of “Tian Yong v. Beijing University of Science and Technology”. He pointed that this case had typical significance of the process of advancing the rule of law in China. Professor Zhou Youyong believed it had profound implications that the court applied the principle of administrative law to judge the case instead of adhering to the traditional legal concept of “regular centralism”. Professor Zhou Youyong regarded this case as a landmark and an immortal masterpiece for that it not only played a continuous reference role in the practice of the rule of law, but also had become a classic that we can't do without in administrative law research. In addition, it also reflected in the significance of the “Tian Yong case” that the court extended the judicial review to the internal management of colleges and universities, which was of far-reaching significance for promoting the rule of law in higher education in China. This case boldly broke through the traditional shackles of “special power relations”, emphasizing that the relationship between schools and students also belonged to a legal relationship. It promoted the rule of law in colleges and universities that colleges and universities should use their educational autonomy or “university autonomy” according to law, enlarging the litigation scope.

    Professor Meng Hongzhi commented on the “Compulsory Demolition and Administrative Compensation Case of Shandong Huimin County Government”. Professor Meng Hongzhi believed that there were two major problems in the major controversy or value of the case. The first was the issue of the qualification of the defendant, and the second was the issue of the distribution of the burden of proof. The burden of proof in this case was a highly relevant issue, and the plaintiff provided the initial proof. The preliminary proof required the defendant to make the opposite proof and a reversal of the administrative lawsuit occurred. The consideration of the measurement of interest, behind the case involving the relationship between the interests of the majority of the demolition and the public interest, provided a good inspiration. The Administrative Litigation Law proposed to clarify the preliminary evidence of the defendant and then presume it. With regard to the statutory duty of recognizing and presuming such evidence, it was necessary to further promote from the academic community to the practical community, and to further clarify specific standards and conditions, which may be the content that the academic and practical circles would pay attention to and continue to study in the future.

    Since the promulgation and implementation of the Administrative Litigation Law for 30 years, the top ten typical cases of theadministrative litigation have reflected the transformation of society and the progress ofrestricting public power and protecting  citizens' rights in the rule of law.