Feng Zhenghu: Sixteen Years of Pursuit and Five Months of Silence: Feng Zhenghu Lawfully Knocks on the Door of the Shanghai High Court (Series Report Two on Defending Citizens’ Right to Sue)

At 2:29 p.m. on July 29, 2026, a China Post express mail item weighing 822 grams (EMS tracking number: 1155329433674) was carefully sent. The recipient field clearly stated: President of the Filing Division of the Shanghai High People’s Court.

This mail, for which the postage actually paid was only 10 yuan, was marked as containing “one administrative complaint.” However, the thick document envelope contained not only a meticulously bound complaint, but also a full chain of 20 detailed sets of evidentiary materials. The sender of the mail is Feng Zhenghu, a Shanghai resident.

In this complaint submitted to the Shanghai High People’s Court, Feng Zhenghu, citing Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, requests that the Shanghai High People’s Court lawfully accept his administrative case against the Yangpu District People’s Government of Shanghai and the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government for administrative inaction, file and hear it itself, or lawfully designate another intermediate people’s court within Shanghai to file and hear it.

What compelled Feng Zhenghu to exercise this rare right to “file a case with a higher-level court” was not a momentary impulse, but the procedural freeze that persisted for more than five months at the lower court with jurisdiction—the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court—which, despite repeated online submissions, offline deliveries and formal demands, remained caught in a state of “neither filing the case nor issuing a ruling refusing to file it.”

Behind this complaint filed with a higher-level court lies a 16-year history of unresolved property seizures, the successive layers of “administrative inaction” by two levels of local administrative authorities, and a solemn challenge by a citizen—after exhausting all statutory remedies—to the “case-filing registration system” and the bottom line of the modern rule of law.

I. Sixteen Years of Seizure: An Administrative Compulsory Measure Without End

This dispute, which has spanned multiple administrative and judicial procedures, originated in an administrative law-enforcement action 16 years ago.

According to the complaint and the evidence submitted with the case, from April 19, 2010, to March 2012, the Yangpu Branch of the Shanghai Public Security Bureau conducted searches on nine separate occasions at Feng Zhenghu’s residence at No. 3, Lane 240, Zhengtong Road, and successively seized a large quantity of his lawful personal property and work equipment, including 14 computer hosts (including laptop computers), nine mobile phones, five printers, two scanners, 255 optical discs, 24 books, 19 folders and 85 personal letters.

As an administrative compulsory measure restricting citizens’ property rights, sealing and seizure are subject to extremely strict time limits under China’s current laws. Paragraph 1 of Article 25 of the Administrative Compulsion Law of the People’s Republic of China expressly provides:

“The period for sealing up or seizing property may not exceed 30 days; where circumstances are complicated, it may be extended with the approval of the person in charge of the administrative organ, but the extension may not exceed 30 days. Except where laws or administrative regulations provide otherwise.”

However, from the first seizure in 2010 to the present, 16 years have passed—more than 5,800 days in total—nearly 100 times the statutory limit. The large quantity of property involved was neither lawfully transferred with the case nor subject to a lawful confiscation decision, and the seizure was never lawfully lifted nor the property returned to its owner. For 16 years, this lawful private property has thus fallen into a legal “black hole,” with neither a final disposition nor a return inventory.

For a citizen, 16 years of waiting has long exceeded the normal tolerance for law enforcement; legally, allowing a compulsory measure to continue indefinitely constitutes an ongoing infringement of the citizen’s lawful property rights.

II. Two Levels of Government Fall Silent: Administrative Remedies Blocked at Every Level

Faced with the seemingly endless seizure of his property, Feng Zhenghu chose to seek legal remedies strictly through the rule-of-law channels. He did not overstep the rules, but instead followed the statutory procedures and submitted requests, level by level, to administrative organs with statutory supervisory and corrective responsibilities.

First remedy: Applying to the district government to perform its duties

On August 18, 2025, Feng Zhenghu sent the Yangpu District People’s Government of Shanghai an Application Requesting the Yangpu District People’s Government to Perform Its Duty to Protect Property Rights by EMS express mail (tracking number: 1333749791312). He urged the district government, as the competent supervisory department of the grassroots administrative authority, to order the public security branch to return the seized property, correct the illegal conduct and provide state compensation. The Yangpu District Government formally signed for receipt the following day.

Under paragraph 1 of Article 47 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, when a citizen applies for an administrative organ to perform its statutory duties to protect lawful rights and interests including personal and property rights, the administrative organ shall perform them within two months from the date it receives the application. Accordingly, the statutory deadline for the district government to perform its duties in this case expired on October 19, 2025.

However, by the time Feng Zhenghu drafted the complaint, the Yangpu District Government had been overdue by 266 days and had not undertaken any substantive handling, or even issued any procedural notice, falling into complete silence in practice.

Second remedy: Applying to the municipal government for administrative reconsideration

The silence of the grassroots government pushed the party concerned toward the statutory remedy at the next higher level. On November 8, 2025, Feng Zhenghu applied to the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government for administrative reconsideration of the Yangpu District Government’s inaction by express mail (tracking number: 1333750127212). The Shanghai Municipal Government signed for receipt of the reconsideration application materials the following day.

Under the newly revised Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, which took effect in 2024, an administrative reconsideration organ shall issue an administrative reconsideration decision within 60 days from the date it accepts an application; where the time limit is extended because circumstances are complicated, the extension may not exceed 30 days. Thus, the final statutory deadline for the Shanghai Municipal Government’s reconsideration expired on February 7, 2026.

However, the reconsideration mechanism of the municipal administrative organ likewise failed to operate. After the maximum statutory period of 90 days had passed, the Shanghai Municipal Government was 155 days overdue. It had neither issued a reconsideration decision rejecting or supporting the application, nor served a notice of postponement, and had likewise fallen into complete silence.

The successive silence of the two levels of government established, in terms of procedural law, an indisputable case of “administrative inaction” and “inaction in administrative reconsideration.”

III. Judicial Suspension: The Second Intermediate Court “Neither Files the Case Nor Issues a Ruling”

When all avenues for administrative self-correction and reconsideration by a higher authority had failed, judicial litigation became the final barrier for citizens seeking to protect their rights.

Facing the overdue inaction of the two administrative organs, Feng Zhenghu filed an administrative lawsuit with the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court, which had statutory jurisdiction, naming the Yangpu District People’s Government as the first defendant and the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government as the second defendant.

Under Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, when a people’s court receives a complaint, it shall register and file the case if the conditions for filing are met; if it cannot determine this on the spot, it shall accept the complaint, issue a written receipt specifying the date of receipt, and decide within seven days whether to file the case; if it considers that the complaint does not meet the statutory conditions, it must issue a written ruling refusing to file the case, stating the specific reasons in the ruling so that the party concerned may exercise the right to appeal in accordance with the law.

In a series of provisions establishing the reform of the case-filing registration system, the Supreme People’s Court repeatedly emphasized that courts must “accept all complaints and issue written receipts,” and strictly prohibited any form of delayed filing, covert refusal to file or artificially raising the threshold for filing.

However, over the ensuing period of more than five months, the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court displayed a procedurally perplexing pattern:

· Repeated returns by the system: In the People’s Court Online Service System, the party’s complaint was repeatedly “returned” or marked “review failed”;

· Extremely vague reasons: The system’s review comments were either perfunctorily marked “other,” or simply stated “returned” or “duplicate submission,” and never explained any jurisdictional grounds or legal defects;

· Refusal to issue a ruling: The court never issued a stamped “ruling refusing to file the case” as expressly required by the Administrative Litigation Law.

This practice of “returning the complaint without issuing a ruling” has, in judicial practice, effectively constructed an invisible “procedural isolation wall”—because the case was never formally filed, it could not enter substantive adjudication; because there was no ruling refusing to file it, the party concerned could not lawfully appeal to a higher court. The citizen’s right to sue was thus suspended amid endless system clicks and returns.

To break the deadlock, on June 25, 2026, Feng Zhenghu formally sent, by express mail, a Demand Letter Regarding the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court’s Failure to File Within the Time Limit the Case of Feng Zhenghu v. the Yangpu District People’s Government of Shanghai and the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government Concerning Inaction in Performing Their Duties (Neither Filing the Case Nor Issuing a Ruling) to the president of the Filing Division and the president’s office of the Shanghai Second Intermediate People’s Court. He attached complete mailing and receipt records, screenshots of the system reviews and legal analysis, urging the Second Intermediate Court to correct its judicial inaction.

However, more than a month quietly passed after the demand letter was delivered, and the filing window of the Second Intermediate Court remained as silent as before.

IV. Breaking the Deadlock Through Law: Activating the “Dormant” Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law

When a lower court builds a wall of silence, does the design of the rule of law thereby fall into a dead end? It does not.

Confronted with this typical procedural paralysis, Feng Zhenghu played a powerful statutory card in China’s administrative litigation system—one rarely activated in the public eye—Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law.

The provision states in full:

“Where a people’s court neither files a case nor issues a ruling refusing to file it, the party concerned may bring a lawsuit before the people’s court at the next higher level. Where the people’s court at the next higher level considers that the conditions for filing the case are met, it shall file and hear the case, and may also designate another people’s court at a lower level to file and hear it.”

The provision did not come into being by accident. When the Administrative Litigation Law was substantially amended in 2014 and the “case-filing registration system” was subsequently introduced, the legislature keenly recognized a persistent problem likely to arise when grassroots and intermediate courts faced local administrative resistance: they neither dared file cases for fear of offending administrative organs, nor dared issue rulings refusing to file them for fear of bearing legal responsibility, and thus chose to “shelve cases without handling them and return them without issuing rulings.” Article 52 was specifically created as a judicial “circuit-breaker and remedial mechanism” to eliminate this unwritten practice—when a lower court undermines the right to sue through silence, the party concerned has the right to knock directly on the door of the court at the next higher level.

In the Administrative Complaint submitted to the Shanghai High People’s Court, the plaintiff used a detailed chain of evidence to rigorously demonstrate that the case fully meets the four substantive conditions for filing stipulated in Article 49 of the Administrative Litigation Law:

1. Proper plaintiff: Feng Zhenghu’s property rights were unlawfully seized and left unresolved for 16 years. As the person whose rights were infringed and the administrative counterpart, he has a direct legal interest;

2. Defendants clearly identified: The Yangpu District Government, which has statutory duties to supervise at the lower level and return property, and the Shanghai Municipal Government, which has statutory supervisory duties regarding administrative reconsideration, are clearly identified as the defendants;

3. Specific claims: The plaintiff requests that the court order the two levels of government to respond within a specified time to the overdue inaction regarding the application to perform their duties and the administrative reconsideration. The claims are clearly directed and supported by conclusive factual evidence;

4. Determinate scope of jurisdiction and venue: Administrative lawsuits in which a municipal-level government is the administrative reconsideration organ and the defendant involved are lawfully under the jurisdiction of an intermediate people’s court. Since the Second Intermediate Court neither filed the case nor issued a ruling, the Shanghai High Court, as the higher court, possesses unequivocal statutory jurisdiction and the power to designate a court.

As Feng Zhenghu wrote at the end of the complaint, he had “exhausted all the remedies contemplated by Article 52.” Bringing the case to the High Court was not only an effort to seek justice that had been sealed away for 16 years, but also to place an entire examination paper on judicial procedure squarely on the desk of the Shanghai High People’s Court.

V. Conclusion: A Questioning of the Quality of the Rule of Law and Institutional Commitments

In the vision of a modern country governed by the rule of law, the judiciary is the final line of defense for safeguarding social fairness and justice, while “filing a case” is the entrance to that line of defense.

The reform of the case-filing registration system, fully implemented from May 2015, solemnly pledged that “every case must be filed and every lawsuit must be heard.” Its purpose was to eliminate at the root the “difficulty of filing cases” that kept parties outside the courthouse doors. If a court can use a technical system “return” in place of statutory litigation documents, and use prolonged procedural silence to erode citizens’ right to seek remedies, then the statutory judicial supervision mechanism will be hollowed out, and the dignity of the law will be corroded by silent delay.

The express mail sent from Zhengtong Road in Yangpu District to the Shanghai High People’s Court weighed 822 grams; but on the scales of the rule of law, it carried a far heavier significance:

· It represents a citizen’s persistent pursuit of property that has been seized for 16 years;

· It is a direct demand that two levels of administrative organs perform their duties under the rule of law;

· More importantly, it is an empirical test of whether the “case-filing registration system” is merely words on paper or a real-world commitment.

After receiving this complaint filed with a higher-level court and accompanied by 20 sets of evidence, how will the Shanghai High People’s Court perform its statutory duties under Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law? Will it decisively file and hear the case, or lawfully designate jurisdiction and break the judicial freeze of “neither filing nor issuing a ruling,” or will it continue to allow the silence to spread?

The quality of the rule of law has never been reflected only in grand slogans; it is precisely reflected in whether the rights claims of every ordinary citizen can receive a fair and timely procedural response. The public and history are both waiting for this answer, issued in accordance with the law.

Author: Feng Zhenghu

September 17, 2026