We all know that the law does not protect those who sleep on their rights. In civil litigation, a statute of limitations system has been established to encourage and urge rights holders to actively exercise their rights. In administrative litigation, there is also a similar concept called the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. The statute of limitations is a proprietary term for administrative litigation, and the purpose of establishing a statute of limitations is to urge administrative counterparties to exercise their rights as soon as possible, improve the efficiency of administrative law enforcement, and maintain administrative management order.

Many people often confuse the statute of limitations with the statute of limitations, or directly apply the relevant legal provisions of the statute of limitations to the statute of limitations, resulting in a delay in the statute of limitations or even loss of the right to sue.

This article will provide an overview of the concept, characteristics, types, legal consequences of exceeding the statute of limitations in administrative litigation, as well as disputes over statute of limitations in judicial practice, to help readers understand the statute of limitations.

01. The concept of the statute of limitations for administrative litigation

The Administrative Litigation Law and judicial interpretations do not provide a clear definition of the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. Article 46 of the Administrative Litigation Law stipulates that if a citizen, legal person, or other organization directly files a lawsuit with a people's court, they shall file it within six months from the date they knew or should have known that the administrative action was taken. Unless otherwise provided by law. This is a clear requirement of the law regarding the time limit for administrative counterparties to file administrative lawsuits; Article 48 stipulates that if a citizen, legal person or other organization delays the deadline for filing a lawsuit due to force majeure or other reasons that do not belong to itself, the time delayed shall not be counted towards the deadline for filing a lawsuit.

From this, it can be seen that there is a time limit for administrative counterparties to file administrative lawsuits, and this time limit is the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits. Here, we can summarize that the time limit for filing an administrative lawsuit refers to the time limit stipulated by law for citizens, legal persons, or other organizations to file an administrative lawsuit with the people's court if they are dissatisfied with the specific administrative actions of the administrative organ.

02. Characteristics of the statute of limitations for administrative litigation

03. Types of time limits for administrative litigation

According to the Administrative Litigation Law and relevant judicial interpretations, the time limit for filing administrative litigation is mainly divided into the following three types:

Firstly, the general statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit: within six months from the date of knowing or should have known that the administrative action was taken.

This is a general provision for the statute of limitations in administrative litigation, applicable to most administrative cases.

Secondly, special statute of limitations: The law sets different statute of limitations for certain specific types of administrative actions.

(1) If dissatisfied with the administrative reconsideration decision, within fifteen days from the date of receiving the reconsideration decision;

(2) For those who fail to take action by administrative agencies, they shall be held accountable within six months from the expiration of the statutory duty period of the administrative agency (the duty period is usually two months).

(3) If the administrative organ fails to inform the right to sue or the deadline for filing a lawsuit, the deadline for filing a lawsuit may be calculated from the date when the right to sue was known or should have been known, but the longest shall not exceed one year (Article 64 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law).

Thirdly, the maximum statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit: within five years from the date of the administrative action; For cases involving real estate, the maximum statute of limitations for prosecution shall not exceed 20 years, except as otherwise provided by other laws.

This is to prevent administrative legal relationships from being in an uncertain state for a long time (starting from the date of the administrative action).

04. Legal consequences of exceeding the deadline for filing a lawsuit

If the deadline for filing a lawsuit is exceeded, the parties will lose their right to file a lawsuit, and the people's court will rule not to accept the case. If the case has already been accepted, the court will rule to dismiss the lawsuit.

05. Some controversial issues arising from the deadline for filing a lawsuit in judicial practice

（1） The determination of "knowing or should know"

Chen Jinping, from the Administrative Division of the People's Court of Nantong Economic and Technological Development Zone, Jiangsu Province, asked the Supreme People's Court: How to understand Article 64 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the "Interpretation"), which states "knowing or should have known the content of the administrative act"?

The Supreme Court's response: Firstly, the phrase "knowing or should have known the content of the administrative act" should be understood as both knowing or should have known the content of the administrative act and knowing or should have known the administrative agency that made the administrative act. Knowing or should know that the content of administrative actions is directly related to the infringement of rights. From the principle of administrative law, regardless of the statute of limitations or time limit, it should be calculated from the date of knowing or should have known that the right has been infringed, that is, from the date of knowing or should have known the deadline for filing a lawsuit. Secondly, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof for the fact that the plaintiff knew the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit. If the defendant claims that the plaintiff knew or should have known the content and subject of the administrative action for more than one year from the date of filing the lawsuit, the defendant shall bear the burden of proof.

In addition, the Supreme People's Court held in Administrative Judgment No. 374 of 2020 that "knowing" refers to having sufficient evidence to prove that the applicant knew the time when the administrative action was taken; The so-called 'should know' refers to following the professional ethics of judges, using logical reasoning and life experience, and based on relevant evidence, inferring that the applicant knows the time when the administrative action was taken.

Based on the above content, the author believes that to determine whether one "knew or should have known", on the one hand, it is necessary to combine the evidence of all parties and apply the rules of burden of proof allocation to determine whether the administrative counterpart knew both the administrative agency and the administrative agency that made the sued administrative action, in order to judge whether it was overdue; On the other hand, in specific cases, judges need to comprehensively judge whether the administrative counterpart knows or should know about the administrative action based on logical reasoning and life experience.

（2） Regarding the determination of "force majeure or other reasons not attributable to oneself"

1. Letters and visits are not deductible delays

The Supreme People's Court has provided arguments and explanations on this issue in the case of (2019) Supreme Law Enforcement Application No. 369. The Supreme Court believes that if the deadline for filing a lawsuit is exceeded due to reasons that do not belong to the plaintiff, the time delayed will not be counted towards the filing period. The "delayed time" mainly includes situations where the right to sue cannot be exercised due to force majeure, where the parties claim relevant rights through legal channels within the deadline for filing a lawsuit, where they are waiting for the results of the handling, or where the administrative agency has promised to handle the matter, and where they are waiting for the corresponding handling results based on trust. If only one party files a complaint or petition with the relevant department, and there is no protected trust interest during the delay period of the complaint or petition, it belongs to the situation where the party itself abandons resolving the dispute through legal litigation channels and delays the deadline for filing a lawsuit, and does not belong to the period that should be deducted.

2. Detention is a deductible delay time

A panel of experts from the Supreme People's Procuratorate has provided an answer to this question: regarding whether the restriction of personal freedom belongs to "other reasons that do not belong to the parties themselves", the "Interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" edited by Xin Chunying believes that "relevant judicial interpretations stipulate that if the time delayed due to reasons that do not belong to the plaintiff exceeds the deadline for filing a lawsuit, the time during which personal freedom is restricted and cannot be sued shall not be counted during the period of filing a lawsuit. This article (referring to Article 48 of the Administrative Procedure Law) is a provision made based on these contents and comprehensive opinions from various aspects." Therefore, the "Interpretation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" considers that personal freedom is not included in the period of filing a lawsuit. The restriction of freedom is a deduction of the statute of limitations for prosecution. According to the "Interpretation and Application of the Administrative Litigation Law and Judicial Interpretations" edited by Jiang Bixin, "Force majeure and restrictions on personal freedom are special circumstances that do not belong to the party itself." (Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Administrative Litigation Law) The scope of "other" is uncertain and difficult to exhaustively list, and the main criterion for judgment can only be determined: the party is not responsible, that is, there is no fault for exceeding the deadline for filing a lawsuit... The understanding of "restrictions on personal freedom" is more clear, and "restrictions" must be from external factors... The emphasis is only on the objective result of restrictions on personal freedom. "Referring to the above interpretation, the administrative detention of a party is an administrative penalty imposed by the administrative organ on the party's person. During the period of administrative detention, the individual's personal freedom was severely restricted, The inability to seek legal services and exercise litigation rights as usual falls under the category of "other reasons not belonging to the parties themselves" as stipulated in Article 48 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Law, and should be deducted from the deadline for filing a lawsuit in accordance with the law.

3. If the party concerned delays the deadline for filing a lawsuit due to an error in choosing the jurisdiction court, is the delayed time counted towards the deadline for filing a lawsuit?

The judges' opinions in the "Minutes of the Judges' Meeting of the Administrative Trial Division of the Supreme People's Court (Volume 2)" compiled by the Administrative Trial Division of the Supreme People's Court believe that in order to effectively protect the litigation rights of the parties, China's Administrative Litigation Law clearly stipulates the circumstances for deducting and extending the deadline for filing a lawsuit. According to Article 43 of the effective "Interpretation on Execution" at that time, "if the deadline for filing a lawsuit is exceeded due to reasons that do not belong to the plaintiff himself, the time delayed shall not be counted in the prosecution period". The revised Administrative Litigation Law in 2015 absorbed this provision and further improved it. Article 48 (1) stipulates: "If a citizen, legal person or other organization delays the deadline for filing a lawsuit due to force majeure or other reasons that do not belong to itself, the time delayed shall not be counted towards the deadline for filing a lawsuit." However, the above provisions do not provide specific provisions or explanations for what "reasons that do not belong to the plaintiff itself" means. According to the legislative purpose of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons, or other organizations in the Administrative Litigation Law, from the perspective of effectively safeguarding the litigation rights of parties, in judicial practice, for lawsuits filed with legitimate reasons beyond the statutory time limit, a favorable interpretation should be made for citizens, legal persons, or other organizations. To determine whether there are legitimate reasons for exceeding the deadline for filing a lawsuit, full consideration should be given to whether the administrative counterpart has actively exercised the right to sue and whether there are situations where the administrative counterpart delays the deadline for filing a lawsuit due to reasons that do not belong to itself. The plaintiff exercises the right to sue within the statutory statute of limitations. Although the court of jurisdiction has been chosen incorrectly, after explanation by the people's court, the plaintiff has already filed a lawsuit with a court with jurisdiction within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, the delay in the statute of limitations is justified and is not due to the fault of the parties themselves, and should not be counted towards the statute of limitations.

Therefore, based on the expert opinions and judge opinions mentioned above, it can be seen that the judgment of whether it belongs to the deductible period can be made according to corresponding standards. A relatively uniform judgment standard is whether the parties are responsible (whether they are at fault) and whether they are unable to seek legal services and exercise their litigation rights due to external factors. If the right to sue has been actively exercised, even if the wrong jurisdictional court has been chosen, it is allowed to sue again within a reasonable period of time; But just because of the petition, as there are no obstacles to exercising litigation rights, the time delayed does not belong to the legally deductible period.