[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the core basis for applying to stop the enforcement of demolition before it takes place is Article 56 of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2017): During the litigation period, the enforcement of administrative acts shall not be stopped in principle. However, the plaintiff or interested parties may apply to stop the enforcement. If the court determines that the enforcement will cause irreparable losses and does not harm the public interest, it may order a stop. The parties shall apply for administrative reconsideration within 60 days from the date they learn of the demolition decision, and initiate administrative litigation within six months. They shall also apply for a stop to the enforcement and property preservation in the process. When forced demolition is imminent, it is recommended to consult professional lawyers as soon as possible with the relevant documents to prevent irreversible damage to the house and the property inside it. For more details, please refer to the following link:Legal services for land expropriation and demolition, and administrative litigation.

I. Problem Background and Typical Scenarios

In practice, many people who have been subject to expropriation face an urgent situation where "their houses may be demolished as soon as the deadline arrives" after receiving the "Decision on Limited Demolition" or the "Decision on Forced Demolition". Typical scenarios include: the houses being identified as illegal buildings, and the administrative authorities ordering them to self-demolish within a few days or else they will be forcibly demolished; the enterprises' factories containing precision equipment and raw materials, which will cause huge losses if forcibly demolished; the lessees who are not the owners of the property but lose their production and operation sites and equipment due to forced demolition; and the parties who disagree with the fact that the building is identified as illegal but don't have time to complete the review and litigation procedures. The common characteristics of such situations are that time is pressing and irreversible. Once the houses are demolished, it will be much more difficult to provide evidence for subsequent compensation. For those involving the ownership of factories and lease relationships, they can be combined with other legal provisions to protect their rights.Legal services for real estate transactions and construction projectsDetermine the basis of rights.

II. Key points of contention

  • Legal compliance of the procedure: Whether the administrative organ has carried out the statutory procedures such as announcement, reminder, and hearing of statements and defenses in accordance with the law, and whether it has applied to the people's court for enforcement, is the core of judging whether the forced demolition is illegal, and it is also an important reason for applying to stop the enforcement.
  • The necessity of stopping the execution: The applicant needs to prove that continuing the execution will cause irreparable losses, and provide preliminary materials such as property, equipment, and evidence clues. Otherwise, the court may not grant the request.
  • The connection between reconsideration and litigation: Should one first go through the reconsideration process and then file a lawsuit, or directly file a lawsuit and apply for preservation of evidence? The choice between the two will affect the timing of requesting a stay of execution and the jurisdiction of the court. This should be considered in light of the time limits of each case.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Henglue Lawyers found that many cases of forced demolition ended in failure because the clients failed to apply for a stay of execution in time and missed the best opportunity to preserve evidence. Taking a case of forced demolition of an enterprise's factory as an example, the administrative authority carried out the demolition while the lawsuit was ongoing, damaging the machinery, equipment, and raw materials in the factory. After Henglue Lawyers took over the case, they argued that the demolition process was seriously illegal, that the authority failed to apply for court enforcement, and that the demolition was carried out during the litigation. The court confirmed that the demolition and damage to the property were illegal and ordered the administrative authority to compensate for the losses of hundreds of thousands of yuan. In another appellate case, the lawyers pointed out that the first-instance procedures were illegal, that the building should not be considered an illegal construction, and that the enforcement decision lacked legal basis. The appellate court overturned the first-instance judgment, the demolition decision, and the reconsideration decision. Such cases serve as a reminder: a stay of execution and a substantive victory in litigation often reinforce each other. The earlier you intervene, the more likely you are to identify procedural violations. For cases involving enterprise assets, you can refer to the following for reference:Legal services for corporate commercial and contract disputesEvaluate the relationship between leasing and compensation.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

At the legal basis level: Article 44 of the Administrative Enforcement Law (effective January 1, 2012) stipulates that if illegal buildings need to be forcibly demolished, the administrative authority shall announce the decision and set a deadline for the parties to demolish them on their own. If the parties do not file for reconsideration, initiate litigation, or demolish the buildings within the statutory time limit, the administrative authority may forcibly demolish them in accordance with the law; Article 46 of the Administrative Procedure Law specifies a six-month deadline for direct litigation, and Articles 45 and 47 stipulate the time limits for reconsideration and performance of obligations; Articles 2, 4, and 36 of the State Compensation Law establish rules for compensation for illegal damages. Practical advice: Calculate the time limit immediately upon receiving the demolition notice; promptly hire a lawyer to initiate administrative litigation and apply for suspension of enforcement and property preservation; simultaneously fix evidence of the current state of the house, the items inside, and the operating losses; and promptly claim compensation for illegal demolition. For matters involving enforcement and compensation, you can pay attention to the relevant developments.Special services and legal services for other cases.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

The golden period for seeking relief against forced demolition is extremely short, and the core actions include the three-step process of "deadline + application + evidence": calculating the 60-day period for reconsideration and the six-month period for filing a lawsuit; actively applying for a stay of execution and property preservation during litigation or reconsideration; and continuously fixing evidence of the house and its contents before and after the forced demolition. Never harbor the hope of "demolishing first and dealing with it later". Once the house is razed, the burden of proof for the amount of compensation will clearly be unfavorable to the expropriated persons. When encountering complex ownership disputes or disputes involving multiple parties, it is advisable to consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible to coordinate the procedures and avoid procedural stagnation. This case is handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Wu JianiThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202011245064, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If you apply for a stay of execution before forced demolition, will the court generally grant it?

Whether support is granted depends on the statutory requirements. According to Article 56 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the execution of the judgment is generally not suspended during the litigation process. However, the court may order a suspension under any of the following circumstances: if the defendant deems it necessary to suspend the execution; if the plaintiff or interested party applies for a suspension and the court determines that the execution will cause irreparable losses, and the suspension will not harm the national interests or public interests; or if the law or regulations stipulate a suspension. Since forced demolitions involving real estate and those that are difficult to restore to their original state are often deemed "irreparable losses," it is more likely to obtain a suspension order by applying for it in a timely manner and submitting a property list and proof of equipment value. However, a suspension order does not equal a revocation of the forced demolition decision. The substantive dispute still needs to be resolved through litigation or administrative reconsideration.

Q2: If I file a lawsuit against the decision to order a demolition within a specified time limit, can I apply for a suspension of the forced demolition at the same time?

Yes. When a party files an administrative lawsuit against the "Decision on Demolition within a Time Limit", he/she may, in accordance with Articles 56 and 57 of the Administrative Litigation Law, apply for a stay of execution and property preservation. In practice, the lawsuit itself does not automatically suspend the forced demolition. The party must submit a written application for a stay of execution to the court, explaining that the forced demolition may cause irreparable consequences such as equipment damage and evidence loss, and attach relevant supporting materials. If the court finds that the application meets the requirements, it may order a suspension of the enforcement. It is important to note that the 60-day appeal period and the six-month lawsuit period are both crucial deadlines. Failure to act within the time limit will result in the loss of the right to seek remedies, so it is essential to take action within the prescribed timeframe.

Q3: If the forced demolition process is illegal, can I demand compensation from the state for the damage to the items in the house?

Yes. If the administrative organ illegally demolishes the house and damages the legitimate items inside it, the victim may file a request for administrative compensation according to the "Law of the People's Republic of China on State Compensation" (amended in 2013). The scope of compensation includes direct losses such as destroyed machinery and equipment, raw materials, inventory, office supplies, etc., as well as losses of production and business that can be proven. The key point is to provide evidence: the party concerned should take photos and videos of the items in the house before the demolition and make a list of them. After the demolition, they should promptly call the police and apply for evidence preservation. In practice, the administrative organ often defends itself by saying "we have already notified you to move out and you will bear the consequences yourself", but illegal demolition does not exempt it from the obligation to properly keep and inventory the items in the house. The court will determine the amount of losses based on the evidence provided by both parties.

Q4: Will the forced demolition be suspended during the application for administrative reconsideration?

In principle, there is no automatic suspension. During the administrative reconsideration period, the specific administrative acts will not be suspended. However, according to the relevant provisions of the Administrative Reconsideration Law, if the respondent deems it necessary to suspend the execution, if the reconsideration organ deems it necessary to suspend the execution, or if the applicant applies for suspension and the reconsideration organ deems that the execution will cause irreparable damage and does not harm the public interest, the execution may be suspended. Therefore, during the 60-day reconsideration period, the parties should actively submit applications for suspension of execution and attach evidence, rather than passively waiting. If the reconsideration organ does not suspend the execution, the parties can still simultaneously initiate administrative litigation and apply to the court for suspension of execution. The two paths can be pursued in parallel to save time. It should be noted that the time limits for reconsideration and litigation are calculated independently. Therefore, do not miss the six-month statute of limitations for litigation by waiting for the result of the reconsideration.

Q5: The forced demolition has already started. Can there be any relief measures after the fact?

Yes, but it will be more difficult and costly. If the house has already been demolished, the party concerned can still confirm that the forced demolition is illegal and claim state compensation, but they will need to bear a heavier burden of proof: they should provide evidence of the house and its contents before the forced demolition, clues about the subject and process of the forced demolition, a list of losses, etc. If the forced demolition is still within the litigation or review period, they can claim that the procedure is illegal and request compensation; if it has already been demolished and there is no prior evidence, the court will often determine the compensation based on the market value and the prices of similar items. The essence of post-event remedies is to replace the suspension of enforcement with compensation, which is far less economically effective than applying for a suspension of enforcement in advance. Therefore, it is still the best strategy to intervene in advance.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Land expropriation and demolition legal services·Attorney Wu Jiani·Beijing Henglu Law Firm