Supreme People's Court Issues Reply on Eviction Cases

August 31, 2005

The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued a Reply to the Zhejiang High People’s Court confirming that people’s courts may not directly accept civil lawsuits involving disputes over compensation for urban evictions. The Reply provides that such disputes must first be submitted to administrative adjudication boards under procedures outlined in China’s Urban Housing Demolition and Relocation Management Regulations.

The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) has issued a Reply to the Zhejiang High People’s Court confirming that people’s courts may not directly accept civil lawsuits involving disputes over compensation for urban evictions. The Reply provides that such disputes must first be submitted to administrative adjudication boards under procedures outlined in China’s Urban Housing Demolition and Relocation Management Regulations. Under the Regulations, parties must submit compensation disputes to administrative adjudication tribunals, and may appeal to higher level administrative organs and/or file an administrative lawsuit in a people’s court to challenge the adjudication decision if they are not satisfied.

The Reply appears to confirm existing law and procedures for eviction compensation cases. An August 12 South China Morning Post article incorrectly suggests that the Reply cut off access to the courts for parties in eviction compensation disputes. However, the Reply does not explicitly prohibit courts from accepting appeals of administrative decisions as provided in the Demolition Regulations. It merely confirms that courts may not directly accept a different type of lawsuit (a civil suit). This interpretation appears to be consistent with a provision on land disputes contained in SPC interpretation on the General Principles of Civil Law (Article 96). An article in China’s domestic press confirms that parties in eviction proceedings retain the right to file administrative lawsuits to contest adjudication decisions on eviction compensation.

Urban evictions have sparked a surge of petitions, lawsuits, and protests in recent years and are a growing cause of urban social unrest, a problem acknowledged by China’s central leadership. As noted in a Human Rights Watch research paper, the urban eviction process and existing dispute resolution mechanisms are riddled with corruption and abuse. To the extent that the SPC Reply cuts off one possible avenue for the redress of grievances, it could be considered a setback for evictee rights. According to the SCMP, Chinese lawyers expressed disappointment at the decision.

The SPC Reply probably reflects a fear that courts presently lack the capacity to deal with the flood of lawsuits that could result if it confirmed a right to file direct civil claims in eviction compensation cases. By requiring parties to submit to adjudication and then file administrative lawsuits, the SPC may hope to weed out some cases while preserving access to the courts for the most extreme cases.