Feng Zhenghu: Breaking the Silence Through Law — Feng Zhenghu Sues the Shanghai Municipal Government in the Shanghai High People’s Court Pursuant to Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law (Series Report One: Defending Citizens’ Right to Litigate)

Faced with the administrative authorities’ “dual nonfeasance” in protecting property rights and handling administrative reconsideration procedures, as well as the judicial obstruction at the case-filing registration stage whereby the lower-level court “neither files the case nor issues a ruling,” Feng Zhenghu has chosen to break the deadlock through complete procedures and rigorous legal reasoning.

After receiving no response to the formal Reminder Letter he sent to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court in accordance with the law, Feng Zhenghu, pursuant to Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, formally sued the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government before the judicial authority at the next higher level—the Shanghai High People’s Court. This pursuit of property rights and defense of the rule of law, which has lasted more than two decades, has once again become a touchstone for testing the results of judicial-system reform and the level of administration in accordance with the law.

I. Property rights left in limbo for 24 years: the question of the fate of assets worth nearly RMB 2 million

This cross-century legal pursuit stems from a historical case in 2001.

In 2001, while investigating a so-called “illegal business operation case,” the Shanghai Municipal Public Security Bureau seized a total of 5,774 electronic optical discs belonging to Feng Zhenghu and Shanghai Tianlun Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tianlun Company”). Following a professional audit and assessment by the Shanghai Judicial Accounting Center at the time, the total value of the discs involved in the case was nearly RMB 2 million.

However, after the criminal judicial proceedings ended, this large quantity of property involved in the case fell into a long-term state of “extralegal circulation.” The effective judgment neither legally determined that the discs involved were illegal property subject to confiscation nor legally ruled that they should be offset against the fine; after the criminal proceedings concluded, the case-handling authorities neither returned the property nor issued any legally prescribed disposition decision. For more than 20 years, the administrative and judicial authorities have shifted responsibility between one another, resulting in the property involved in the case being detained far beyond the statutory period. The lawful property rights of citizens and legal persons, protected by the Constitution, have suffered continuous infringement for 24 years.

This is not merely a claim for the return and recovery of nearly RMB 2 million in lawful property; it is also a serious examination of the state’s legal bottom line of “protecting property rights in accordance with the law and strictly regulating the disposition of property involved in cases.”

II. The “dual nonfeasance” of administrative power: both the request to perform duties and the administrative reconsideration have fallen silent

In order to properly resolve this historical dispute through the rule-of-law process, Feng Zhenghu and Tianlun Company initiated a complete and standardized administrative remedy procedure in accordance with the law, but encountered successive layers of obstruction and inaction by the administrative authorities.

1. First instance of nonfeasance: the application to perform the duty of protecting property rights sinks without a trace

On August 18, 2025, Feng Zhenghu submitted to the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government, via China Post Express Mail Service (EMS tracking number: 1333749789512), an Application Requesting the Shanghai Municipal Government to Perform Its Duty of Protecting Property Rights. He formally requested that the Shanghai Municipal Government effectively perform its statutory regulatory duties, order the relevant lower-level authorities to return within a specified period the 5,774 electronic optical discs that had been detained for a prolonged period, or provide state compensation of an equivalent amount in accordance with the law.

The following day (August 19, 2025), the Shanghai municipal government’s mail-receiving department signed for the materials. Pursuant to the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China and relevant regulations, an administrative authority shall perform its statutory duties or issue a written response within two months of receiving an application from a citizen. However, after the statutory deadline expired, the Shanghai Municipal Government issued no written response whatsoever, constituting the first instance of “administrative nonfeasance.”

2. Second instance of nonfeasance: the statutory administrative reconsideration procedure remains undecided past the deadline

In response to the Shanghai Municipal Government’s nonfeasance, on November 2, 2025, Feng Zhenghu submitted an Application for Administrative Reconsideration to the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government via EMS (tracking number: 1333750103412), formally requesting administrative reconsideration of its refusal to perform its statutory duties.

The reconsideration application was signed for and accepted by the Shanghai municipal government the following day (November 3, 2025). Under the relevant provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, the reconsideration authority shall issue an administrative reconsideration decision within 60 days; even if the circumstances of the case are complex and an extension is legally required, the extension may not exceed 30 days, and the applicant must be notified in writing.

However, by the first half of 2026, the statutory 60-day standard review period and the maximum 30-day extension had long since expired. The Shanghai Municipal Government had neither issued a reconsideration decision nor lawfully served a notice of extension, and the procedure had come to a complete standstill. At this point, the administrative authority had, in fact, committed successive “dual instances of administrative nonfeasance” in the same case.

III. Obstruction before the case-filing registration system: “neither filing the case nor issuing a ruling”

After the administrative remedy channels were completely blocked, judicial review became the final barrier for citizens seeking relief.

Beginning on January 17, 2026, Feng Zhenghu filed an administrative lawsuit through the “People’s Court Online Services” platform with the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court, which had jurisdiction as the court of first instance. On March 21, 2026, because review through the online platform had stalled, he also sent the complete Administrative Complaint and the full set of 26 groups of evidentiary materials in writing via China Post EMS to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court, formally suing the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government and requesting that the court confirm the illegality of the defendant’s administrative nonfeasance and order it to perform its duties in accordance with the law.

Under the core principle of the “case-filing registration system” established by Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China, a people’s court shall immediately register and file a case that meets the statutory conditions for filing a lawsuit; if it cannot determine the matter on the spot, it shall decide within seven days of receiving the complaint whether to file the case; if it considers that the conditions for filing are not met, it shall issue a ruling refusing to file the case within the statutory period and state the reasons, thereby safeguarding the parties’ right to appeal.

However, after signing for all the litigation materials, the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court adopted an approach of “neither filing the case nor lawfully issuing a ruling refusing to file it.” The judicial case-filing review procedure was unilaterally shelved for an extended period, leaving the party unable to advance the substantive proceedings and, because there was no written judicial document, unable to initiate appellate relief. The citizen’s right to litigate was effectively deprived at the gates of the judiciary.

IV. Institutional breakthrough after exhausting procedures: directly suing the High Court under Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law

Faced with the procedural dereliction of the court of first instance, Feng Zhenghu did not abandon the statutory remedy channels. Instead, he proceeded step by step in strict accordance with legal principles and litigation procedure.

On June 25, 2026, Feng Zhenghu formally sent a written Reminder Letter to the Shanghai Third Intermediate People’s Court, solemnly pointing out that the court’s failure to process the complaint beyond the statutory period had violated the mandatory provisions of the litigation law, and urging it to perform its statutory adjudicatory duty to register and file the case or issue a ruling. However, after the Reminder Letter was delivered, the court of first instance still failed to issue any procedural response within a reasonable period.

After exhausting all reminder and remedy procedures before the court of first instance, Feng Zhenghu decisively activated a key provision in the administrative litigation legislative system specifically designed to overcome local judicial obstruction—Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China:

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

Relying on a complete chain of evidence, including EMS mailing and delivery receipts, records of the case’s circulation through the judicial services platform, and the Reminder Letter, Feng Zhenghu formally submitted the litigation materials to the Shanghai High People’s Court, bypassing the obstruction at the first-instance level and directly suing the Shanghai Municipal People’s Government before the people’s court at the next higher level.

Feng Zhenghu expressly asserted the following claims in his requests for relief:

1. Confirmation of illegality: Confirm in accordance with the law that the defendant Shanghai Municipal People’s Government’s failure to respond and failure to decide within the statutory period regarding the plaintiff’s application for protection of property rights and application for administrative reconsideration constituted illegal “dual administrative nonfeasance”;

2. Order to perform duties: Order the defendant to issue a written decision within a specified period and, in accordance with the law, return the 5,774 electronic optical discs that had been illegally detained for 24 years, or pay state compensation of equivalent value;

3. Correcting the procedural obstruction: Request that the Shanghai High People’s Court directly accept the case and conduct a substantive hearing in accordance with its statutory duties, or lawfully rule to designate another lower-level people’s court to hear the case, thereby comprehensively correcting the illegal state of “neither filing nor ruling.”

V. Legal analysis: a touchstone for the case-filing registration system and the protection of property rights involved in cases

This case is by no means an isolated administrative-compensation case. It directly addresses the core concerns of administrative review and judicial oversight in the current process of comprehensively governing the country according to law:

First, the bottom line of case-filing registration reform must not be rendered meaningless.

The fundamental purpose of case-filing registration reform is to eradicate the persistent difficulty of “filing a case.” Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law was specifically established by legislators as a “judicial circuit breaker” to prevent lower-level courts from becoming passive and derelict in their duties due to administrative interference or concerns about maintaining stability. Whether the Shanghai High People’s Court can faithfully perform its statutory duties and strictly apply Article 52 to file the case directly or designate jurisdiction not only concerns whether the party’s lawful right to litigate can be realized; it is also a mirror testing the effectiveness of case-filing registration reform and judicial credibility.

Second, the contemporary issue of the rule of administrative law and the protection of private property involved in cases.

Property-rights protection is the cornerstone of a modern society governed by the rule of law. The unresolved status of property involved in the case for 24 years, and the prolonged silence of the reconsideration authority in the face of a statutory oversight procedure, have starkly exposed the bad habits of “new officials ignoring old accounts” and lazy, delayed governance in certain mechanisms of power operation. Ordering, through neutral and authoritative judicial review, that the administrative nonfeasance be declared illegal and that corrective action be taken is not only relief for the lawful rights and interests of individual citizens, but also an inevitable requirement for maintaining the credibility of administrative reconsideration and bolstering private-sector confidence in a law-based business environment.

From the application to perform duties in August 2025, to the administrative reconsideration in November, to the lawful reminder in June 2026, and now to the filing of a lawsuit with the Shanghai High People’s Court pursuant to Article 52 of the Administrative Litigation Law, every rigorous and carefully planned step in Feng Zhenghu’s procedural rights defense vividly demonstrates that legal provisions are not merely nominal text, but the most powerful weapon citizens have to confront dereliction of duty with reason and perseverance and defend their lawful rights and interests.

The filing and adjudication of this case by the Shanghai High People’s Court will continue to draw the attention of the legal community and society as a whole.

Author: Feng Zhenghu September 6, 2026