C ALE Discussion Paper No.3
January, 2010

GROUNDS FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
AN ANALYSIS OF
VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Dr. Nguyen Van Quang

Nagoya University
C e n t e r for Asian Legal Exchange

C A L E D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r No.3 (January, 2010)
Nagoya University
C e n t e r f o r A s i a n L egal Exchange

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
AN ANALYSIS OF VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Dr. Nguyen Van Quang
Hanoi Law University, Vietnam

34CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Contents

Introduction

8

I. Grounds for review under the law of Vietnam: an
11overview
A. Commonly-accepted general principles

11

B. No clear-cut determination of detailed grounds for review

13

1. Lack of legal provisions determining detailed grounds
for review

14

2. Lack of related judicial interpretations

16

3. Lack of scholarly interest

19

II. Grounds for judicial review of administrative actionin the Vietnamese legal context: a close analysis

20

A. Grounds involving substantive requirements

22

1. Ultra vires

22

a. Two common circumstancesb. Judicial control of the exercise of discretion under the law ofVietnam

2. Failure to perform legal duties

28

3. Error of law

30

4. No sufficient reason to justify the making of the decision 35
B. Grounds for review involving procedural requirements

37

1. Failure to comply with administrative procedures38

2. Rules of “procedural fairness” (“natural justice”)
under Vietnam’s law?

42

III. Improving the law of Vietnam in relation to grounds 45

5

for judicial review
A. Framework legal provisions for grounds for review

46

B. Enhancing the role of the people’s Supreme Court inmaking judicial interpretations
C. Call for the adoption of a doctrine of precedent48
49

Conclusion

55

Selected bibliography

58

6

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Abstract

To facilitate an understanding of Vietnamese administrative law,
this paper aims to provide an introduction to the grounds forjudicial review of administrative action in the Vietnamese legal
context. This paper also includes an analysis of the inadequacies ofVietnamese law in this regard and offers several suggestions for its
improvement given the legal experiences of several foreigncountries as well as the current conditions of Vietnam. Whileemphasizing the need for incorporating provisions that statestraightforwardly grounds for judicial review in the law of Vietnam,
this paper contends that the role of the Supreme People’s Court inlegal interpretation needs to be strengthened and calls for the
adoption of a doctrine of precedent should be considered. It thenargues that the recent publication of the first volumes of cassation
decisions of the Justice Council of the Supreme People’s Court may
be a good beginning for the adoption of elements of a doctrine ofprecedent relevant to the current Vietnamese legal context.

7

Introduction
Safeguarding legality is the most important purpose for the judicial
review of administrative actions. Thus, in most administrative law systems, aperson seeking judicial review of an administrative decision must be able topersuade the court that there are grounds for review in order for the legality of
the administrative decision to be judicially challenged. In one sense, there must
always be the premise of “want of legality”. The reality is that mostadministrative law systems have come to recognize a number of categories ofadministrative lawfulness, which in turn, sets up various detailed grounds forreview.2 Such detailed categories of grounds for review can serve not only as
the legal basis for judicially challenging administrative action but also as
requirements to ensure the making of a valid administrative decision.
Since July 1, 1996, Vietnam’s people’s courts have had the jurisdiction
to hear administrative cases. The jurisdiction was introduced by the Law
Amending and Revising Some Articles of Law on Organization of People’s
Court 1992 [Luat sua doi, bo sung mot so dieu cua Luat to chuc toa an nhandan] 1995 3 in parallel with the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving
Administrative Cases [Phap lenh thu tuc giai quyet cac vu an hanh chinh]
1996.4 This has been recognized as an important step towards establishing a
judicial mechanism for controlling public power and the development of the2See, e.g., ss 5-7 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ofAustralia [hereinafter AD (JR) Act]; article 54 of the Administrative Litigation Law (ALL)[Zhonghua Remin Gongheguo Susong Fa] 1989 of the People’s Republic of China[hereinafter ALL].
3

This Law conferred administrative jurisdiction on people’s courts of Vietnam.
However, only since July 1, 1996 when administrative divisions of the people’s courts at thecentral and provincial levels were established, have the Vietnam’s people’s courts officiallyexercised their administrative jurisdiction.
4

This Ordinance was most recently amended in 2006. It includes 76 articles whichmainly determine the scope of judicial review of administrative action, jurisdictions to hearadministrative cases and procedures to hear administrative cases.

8

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Rule of Law.5 However, while judicial review of administrative action is along-standing feature of Western legal systems, it is still quite recent in
Vietnam. Thus, much work has to be done within both the institutional andlegal frameworks to assure the effectiveness of Vietnam’s administrative
adjudication system.
In Vietnam, the people’s courts review the legality of an administrativedecision (act)6 on the basis of a general legal principle of legality that can beinferred from several legal provisions.7 Relying on this general principle, thegrounds for review on which Vietnam’s courts review the legality of an
administrative decision (act) may differ little from those accepted in any legal
system where judicial review of administrative action is recognized. However,as long as legal normative documents8 are the only legal source to which courts
can formally refer, Vietnam’s courts, in effect, cannot easily review the legalityof an administrative decision (act) due to lack of legal provisions explicitly
stating grounds for review.9 The lack of such legal provisions also suggests
5

For a discussion about the establishment of administrative jurisdiction in Vietnam, see,Uong Chung Luu, Procedures for Reviewing Administrative Decisions in Vietnam in J GILLESPIE(ed.) COMMERCIAL LEGAL DEVELOPMENT IN VIETNAM: VIETNAM AND FOREIGNCOMMENTARIES (1997) pp. 461-75; see, also Nguyen Quang, The Organization and Operationof Administrative Courts in Vietnam, in Robert Cribb (ed.) ASIA EXAMINED: PROCEEDINGSOF THE BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF THE ASAA, 2004, CANBERRA, AUSTRALIA (2004),
available at http://coombs.anu.edu.au/ASAA/conference/proceedings/asaa-2004-proceedings.html.
6

For the meaning of the terms ‘administrative decision’ and ‘administrative act’ in the
Vietnamese legal context, see, infra, note 15.
7See, e.g., article 1 of the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Administrative
Cases (providing that “individuals, state agencies and other institutions in accordance withthe legally prescribed procedures have a right to initiate administrative cases requesting
courts to protect their own legitimate rights and interests (emphasis added)”); s 5 of article 4of this Ordinance (providing that “a “plaintiff” in an administrative case is an individual(s),or a state agency (ies), or an institution(s) who believes that their own legitimate rights andinterests are conversely affected by an administrative decision (act) (emphasis added) and,
therefore, initiates an administrative case at a court”). To some extent, the above provisions
imply the ground on which an administrative decision (act) can be judicially challenged.
8
For the meaning of the term ‘legal normative document’ in the Vietnamese legal
context, see, infra, note 33.
9See, Nguyen Van Quang, On determining grounds to review the legality ofadministrative decisions in resolving administrative cases [Ve xac dinh cac can cu danh gia

9that legal requirements to ensure the making of a valid administrative decision
by a decision maker are not well-defined under the law of Vietnam. Thus, forthose who argue for an effective judicial review mechanism of administrative
action, or more broadly, a transparent legal system in Vietnam, the law relating
to grounds for review needs to be improved.
This paper is divided into three parts. By analyzing the main featuresof the grounds for review in the Vietnamese legal context, part I of this paper
attempts to provide an overview of the law and legal practice relating to theissue in question. Part II of the paper then provides a close analysis of grounds
for review under Vietnamese law. Part II also includes several administrative
law cases to illustrate the legal rules of grounds for review and analyzes theinadequacies of Vietnamese law in this regard. Part III then offers several
suggestions for improving the law of Vietnam with regard to grounds forjudicial review of administrative action. This paper takes a practical approach,comparing selected foreign legal experiences with that of Vietnam. 10 Thisapproach, will hopefully suggest some ways in which Vietnam could improveupon its current administrative law system.

tinh hop phap cua quyet dinh hanh chinh trong xet xu cac vu an hanh chinh],
JURISPRUDENCE REVIEW [LUAT HOC], (October 2004), pp. 47-49.
10

For comparative purposes, the law and practice of Australia and China in thisregard is mostly referred to in this paper.

10

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

I. Grounds for review under the law of Vietnam: an
overview
A. Commonly accepted general principles
In response to a challenge to the legality of administrative action,
courts generally need to consider the compliance of administrators with bothsubstantive and procedural legal rules. This is because any administrativedecision making process involves the exercise of legally conferred powers andthe observation of legally prescribed procedures. For example, describing thebasic principles defining grounds for review under the law of Australia,
Douglas writes the following:
The most basic rules of administrative law are first that decisionmakers may exercise only those powers which are conferred on themby law and, second, that they may exercise those powers only after
compliance with such procedural prerequisites as exist. So long as
administrators comply with these two rules, their decisions are safe.11

These two rules also are commonly accepted in the legal practice ofVietnam.12 Being constitutionally recognized, the principle of socialist legality
is one of Vietnamese administrative law’s fundamental principles and is central
to determination of grounds for review. Article 12 of the Constitution 1992
reads as follows:

11

R DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS AND JONES’S ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (2002),

p. 426.
12

See, Nguyen Phuc Thanh, Administrative Decision [Quyet dinh hanh chinh] in
TRAN MINH HUONG (ed.), TEXTBOOK ON THEMES OF VIETNAMESEADMINISTRATIVE LAW [GIAO TRINH LUAT HANH CHINH VIET NAM] (2004),
p.198. In this law textbook, the author points out the criteria based on which the legality ofadministrative decision are as follows:(i)
Administrative decisions (acts) must be made by legally conferredadministrators and in accordance with the law;(ii)
Administrative decisions (acts) must be made in accordance with thelegally prescribed procedures.

11

The State exercises the administration of society by means of thelaw; it shall unceasingly strengthen socialist legality.
All State organs, economics and social bodies, units of the people’s
armed forces, and all citizens must seriously observe the Constitution
and the law, strive to prevent and oppose all criminal behavior andall violations of the Constitution and the law.13

From the perspective of administrators, this fundamental principle
generally requires that the exercise of powers of administrators must strictly
comply with the law both substantively and procedurally. 14 In each area of
public administration, these basic requirements of the principle of legality havebeen detailed by several legal provisions in relation to powers and legal dutiesof the administrators concerned.15 It follows, therefore, that the legality of an
administrative decision (act)16 can be judicially challenged on grounds that theadministrative decision (act) does not comply with the above mentioned basic
requirements of legality. Explicitly, when instructing the inferior courts how toresolve administrative cases, the Administrative Division of the Supreme

13
Article 12 of the CONSTITUTION OF THE SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OFVIETNAM 1992 [HIEN PHAP NUOC CONG HOA XA HOI CHU NGHIA VIET NAM
NAM 1992] (latest amended in 2001).
14

See, Nguyen Van Quang, Basic principles in state administration [Cac nguyen
tac co ban trong quan ly hanh chinh nha nuoc] in TRAN MINH HUONG (ed.),TEXTBOOK ON THEMES OF VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [GIAO TRINH
LUAT HANH CHINH VIET NAM ] (2004), pp 83-84.
15See, e.g., articles 28-40 of the Ordinance for Handling Administrative Law
Violations [Phap lenh xu ly vi pham hanh chinh] 2002 (determining powers of state officials
to impose different administrative penalties on offenders); articles 53-56 of thisOrdinance(determining procedures that state officials have to follow in the making ofdecisions imposing such penalties on offenders).
16
In accordance with s 1, article 4 of the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving
Administrative Cases, “an administrative decision [under the Ordinance] is a decision of an
administrative state agency or its authority which is once applied to a specific person (s) ororganization (s) regarding a specific matter”); and s 2 of article 4 of this Ordinance states“act of an administrative state agency or its authority is an act to perform its duties andpublic services according to the law”.

12

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

People’s Court17 points out the two following basic legal requirements as to thelegality of an administrative decision:
In resolving administrative cases, courts only shall review thelegality of administrative decisions. If the decisions in question orpart of them are neither substantively nor procedurally legal, thecourts will decide that the decisions in question or part of them will
be quashed.18

B. No clear-cut determination of detailed grounds for review
If general legal rules determining grounds for review appear to berelatively clear, their application in practice can be difficult. This is because, as
Aronson et al. (2004) point out, “the grounds for review defy precise definition,
leading to the charge by many that they are manipulable, even infinitely
manipulable”19 and “they are rarely to be found in the power-conferring Act
which they are said to qualify”.20 Nevertheless, those who want to examine
detailed grounds for judicial review of administrative action under the law ofAustralia, for example, can refer to the check list of grounds for review set out
by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) (AD (JR)) Act 21 or to17

To exercise administrative jurisdiction, administrative divisions of the people’s
courts at the central and provincial levels are established. Courts at the district level are also
vested with administrative jurisdiction but there are no administrative divisions of people’s
courts at this level. See, articles 23 and 30 of the 1995 Law Amending and Revising Some
Articles of Law on Organization of People’s Court 1992.
18
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT[TOA HANH CHINH – TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO], THE MANUAL FOR
RESOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE CASES [SO TAY TRAO DOI NGHIEP VU GIAIQUYET AN HANH CHINH] (2001), p. 12 (unpublished material, on file with the author).
19
M ARONSON, B DYER and M GROVES, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION (3rd ed., 2004), p. 87.
20

Ibid.

21

See, ss 5-7 of the AD (JR) Act.

13

common law grounds for review by reference of case law. Similarly, in the caseof China, article 54 of the Administrative Litigation Law (ALL) also provides
courts with guidance as to grounds for review.22 The above practice is different
from the case of Vietnam where the law and legal practice in relation to judicial
review of administrative action is still limited.
1. Lack of legal provisions determining detailed grounds for review
Under the law of Vietnam no legal provisions that specificallyenumerate grounds for judicial review of administrative action can be found in
the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Administrative Cases or in any
other Vietnamese legal document. This is not surprising. Administrative
adjudication is a fairly recent task of Vietnam’s court system; thus, it is hard to
immediately expect a “perfect” legal framework that meets all requirements ofan effective administrative adjudication system.23 The common view amongst
legislators, judges, administrators and the public in general in Vietnam is that
22

Article 54 provides:
After hearing a case, a people’s court shall make one of the following judgments
according to the conditions:(1). rule to uphold rule to uphold the specific administrative act if the evidence fortaking the specific administrative act is conclusive, the application of the law andregulations is correct, and the legal procedure is complied with.
(2). rule to cancel or cancel partially the specific administrative act, or rule thedefendant to make a new administrative act if the specific administrative act has beentaken in one of the following circumstances:
1. found to be inadequate in essential evidence;
2. found that the application of the law or regulations is erroneous;
3. found to have violated the legal procedure;
4. found to have acted exceeding authority; or
5. found to have abused the powers.
(3). if a defendant fails to perform or delays the performance of its statutory duty, a
fixed time shall be set by judgment for its performance of the duty.
(4). if an administrative penalty is obviously unfair, rule to make amendment.
23
Comparing this with the case of China. Prior to the passage of the ALL on April
1989, there was an experimental period of about 7 years for administrative adjudication(from 1982 to 1989), which, to some extent, provided Chinese lawmakers with judicial
experiences to make the ALL. For more details about the establishment of the administrative
litigation system and the construction of the ALL in China see, e.g., Songnian Ying,
Administrative Litigation System in China in Yong Zhang (ed.), COMPARATIVE STUDIESON THE JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN EAST AND SOUTHEAST ASIA (1997) pp.
46-47; Minxin Pei, Citizens v. Mandarins: Administrative Litigation in China, 152 THE
CHINA QUARTERLY 832, pp. 833-35 (1997).

14

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

this legal framework will improve step-by-step, based on experiences ofVietnam’s courts in the course of their operation. 24 This view has become
accepted in the context of developing and improving the legal system of atransitional state like that of Vietnam.
Another reason for the lack of legal provisions dealing with grounds
for review in the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Administrative Cases
lies in the philosophy of independent law branches [‘nganh luat doc lap’].
Being influenced by the Soviet law school, Vietnamese legal scholars tend toperceive that the legal system is divided into independent law branches, each ofwhich has its own object of adjustment [‘doi tuong dieu chinh’]and method ofadjustment [‘phuong phap dieu chinh’]; one law branch is distinguished fromothers by its object and method of adjustment.25 It has been argued that there isa distinction between administrative law [‘luat hanh chinh’] and proceduraladministrative law [‘luat to tung hanh chinh’]. 26 The former consists ofsubstantive administrative law rules which mostly relate to powers of

24

See, THE STATE SUPERVISION [THANH TRA NHA NUOC], .THE
GENERAL ABSTRACT OF THE PROJECT ‘ADMINISTRATIVE COURT -THEORYAND PRACTICE’ [BAO CAO TONG THUAT DE TAI NGHIEN CUU KHOA HOC‘TOA AN HANH CHINH- NHUNG VAN DE LY LUAN VA THUC TIEN] (1997) pp. 1-2(unpublished material, on file with the author).
25
For more details see, Le Minh Tam, The Socialist Legal System [He thong phap
luat xa hoi chu nghia] in LE MINH TAM (ed.), TEXTBOOK ON THEMES OF STATE
AND LAW [GIAO TRINH LY LUAN NHA NUOC VA PHAP LUAT] (2004) pp. 391-92.
The distinction between Administrative Law and Procedural Administrative Law is based on
this categorization philosophy.
26

See, e.g., Tran Minh Huong, General Issues of Administrative Law [Nhung van dechung cua Luat Hanh chinh ] in TRAN MINH HUONG (ed.),TEXTBOOK ON THEMESOF VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [GIAO TRINH LUAT HANH CHINH
VIET NAM ] (2004), p. 27; see, also TRAN THI HIEN, NGUYEN MANH HUNG, andPHAM HONG QUANG, Administrative Procedural Law Studies and Vietnamese
Administrative Procedural Law [Khoa hoc Luat To tung Hanh chinh va Luat To tung Hanh
chinh Viet Nam ] in HOANG VAN SAO, NGUYEN PHUC THANH (eds.) TEXTBOOKON THEMES OF VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL LAW [GIAO
TRINH LUAT TO TUNG HANH CHINH VIET NAM] (2004), pp. 38-39. The above
authors argue for an independent branch of law called ‘administrative procedural law’ which
exists in parallel with administrative law and specifically deals with procedures for resolving
administrative cases by courts.

15

administrators and their exercise of those powers in general or in a particulararea of public administration. The latter mainly concerns legal rules in relation
to resolution by courts of administrative disputes between governors and thegoverned. The Ordinance for Procedures Resolving Administrative Cases isclassified as a sort of administrative procedural law.27 It has been argued thatgrounds for review can be inferred from the legal provisions of substantive
administrative law that set out powers and duties of administrators.28 Thus, it is
not necessary to include legal provisions pointing to grounds for review in the
Ordinance for Procedures Resolving Administrative Cases, which iscategorized as a type of administrative procedural law.
2. Lack of related judicial interpretations
In terms of legal interpretation, Vietnam has adopted legal provisions
which are very similar to those of China. 29 Under the law of Vietnam, theStanding Committee of the National Assembly enjoys the power to interpret theConstitution, the Laws of the National Assembly and its Ordinances. 30
However, in practice, the Standing Committee of Vietnam’s National Assemblyrarely exercises this power of legal interpretation.31 As a consequence, legal
interpretations tend mainly to fall into the categories of ‘executive

27
See, TRAN THI HIEN, NGUYEN MANH HUNG, and PHAM HONG QUANG,
supra, note 25, p. 36.
28

Ibid. p. 40.

29
For a discussion about legal interpretation in the Chinese legal context, see,JIANFU CHEN, CHINESE LAW: TOWARDS AN UNDERSTANDING OF CHINESE
LAW, ITS NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT (1999), pp. 106-110.
30
31

Article 91 of the CONSTITUTION 1992.

See, Hoang Van Tu, Legal interpretation: some basic theoretical and practicalissues in Vietnam [Giai thich phap luat: Mot so van de co ban ve ly luan va thuc tien oVietnam] LEGISLATIVE STUDIES [NGHIEN CUU LAP PHAP] (July 2008) available at<
http://www.nclp.org.vn/nghien-cuu-lap-phap/126-thang-7-2008/nha-nuoc-va-phapluat/giai-thich-phap-luat-mot-van-111e-co-ban-ve-ly-luan-va-thuc-tien-o-viet-nam.>.

16

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

interpretations’ made by the executive organs32 and ‘judicial interpretations’ by
the Supreme People’s Court. 33 The Court firstly exercises this function byenacting judicial interpretation documents in the form of legal normative
documents with the legally prescribed names which are binding within the
court system. 34 The Court also issues official letters [‘cong van’] giving
general instructions to inferior courts in relation to their legal application.35 In
addition, the Court annually issues a summation report [‘bao cao tong ket’],part of which summarizes adjudicative experience and instructs inferior courts
how to apply the law. Besides that, there is also a common pattern of judicial
interpretation in which an inferior court asks for instruction from the Supreme
People’s Court on (usually) legal matters related to its particular cases and the32‘Executive interpretations’ are performed by ‘top-down level’ agencies within theexecutive system. A law passed by the National Assembly or an ordinance passed by its
Standing Committee usually includes an article which provides that to execute this law orordinance, the Government is responsible for enacting legal normative documents detailingthis law (or ordinance). To fulfill that task, the Government normally will issue decrees
clarifying the law or ordinance in particular areas of public administration. In turn, thePrime Minister or Ministers and the people’s committees at the local levels respectively will
issue documents detailing documents of the higher level agencies within the scope of powers
authorized by law.
33
One of the powers and duties of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam is to
instruct the court system how to uniformly apply the law and to summate adjudicative
experiences of the court system (see, article 19 of the Law on Organization of People’s
Courts 2002. The Council of Judges including the President of the Court, vice Presidents of
the Courts and some selected judges of the Court (the number of members of the Council
does not exceed 17) is mainly responsible for exercising that power and duty of the Court(articles 21 and 22 of the Law on Organization of People’s Courts 2002).
34

See, Law on Enacting Legal Normative Documents [Luat ban hanh van ban quy
pham phap luat] 2008. Article 1 of this Law offers a rather vague definition of legal
normative document, according to which, a legal normative document is a document enacted
by a competent state body includes general rules of behavior which are enforced by the Statein order to regulate social relations. The Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam is a body whichhas power to enact such legal normative documents. In accordance with article 17 of thisLaw, the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s Court has the power to enact
resolutions [‘nghi quyet’]. Resolutions of the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s
Court, in effect, mainly include its instructions in relation to the application of documents of
the National Assembly, the Standing Committee of the National Assembly and the State
President in hearing cases.
35

As official letters are not legal normative documents, in principle, they are notlegally binding on inferior courts. However, official letters are commonly used due to theprocedural flexibility (quick and less formal) in the making of them. In fact, the inferior
courts regard official letters as ‘de factor’ legal normative documents.

17

Court gives its instructions by issuing official letters.36 By doing so, the Court
does not make any new laws but interprets the meanings of original laws andthe interpretations must not be in conflict with original laws and general legal
principles.
With regard to administrative adjudication, the Court has issued
several interpretation documents as an attempt to assist inferior courts indealing with difficulties in hearing administrative cases.37 However, so far, noofficial judicial interpretation in relation to grounds for judicial review ofadministrative action has been given. In recent annual reports of the Court, asection focuses specifically on the difficulties arising in administrative
adjudication and suggests solutions to such difficulties. Unfortunately, none ofthese reports have focused on the issue of grounds for review. In 2001, to assist
theinferior

people’scourtsinresolvingadministrative

cases,

theAdministrative Division of the Supreme People’s Court compiled a training
manual as an internal document (not legally binding) that provides judges withsome basic legal knowledge on administrative law and professional skills tohear administrative cases.38 Except for some very general principles, nothinghas been written about grounds for judicial review of administrative action in36
For example, Official Letter No. 35/2000/KHXX dated 20 March 2000 of theSupreme People’s Court instructing how to enforce judgments in relation to imprisonment is
a response to a query of the People’s Court of Phu Yen province concerning the matter inquestion.
37
The two important documents are Official Letter No.39/KHXX dated 6 July 1996of the Supreme People’s Court interpreting some provisions of the Ordinance on Proceduresfor Resolving Administrative Cases and Resolution of the Council of Judges of the Supreme
People’s Court No. 04/2006/NQ-HDTP dated 04 August 2006 instructing theimplementation of some provisions of the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving
Administrative Cases.
38

See, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S
COURT [TOA HANH CHINH – TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO], supra, note 17.

18

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

this document. Similarly, in Benchbook online recently published by theSupreme People’s Court, the issue in question has also not been addressed. 39
3. Lack of scholarly interest
Vietnamese legal scholars have not paid much attention to the grounds
for judicial review of administrative action under the law of Vietnam. In
practice, it is very rare to see discussions or the exchange of opinions about thisissue amongst lawyers, legal scholars and judges in Vietnam. 40 This is in
striking contrast to traditional jurisdictions such as criminal and civil
jurisdictions where the relevant laws and legal practices have attracted much
legal scholarship. The fact that administrative adjudication is still very new toVietnam’s court system and the number of administrative cases heard by courts
is very modest may suggest reasons why less legal scholarship focuses on theissue in question.41 This, again, adds to the difficulties faced by Vietnam’s
judges in deciding administrative cases.

39
See, Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam, Benchbook online (2006), available at<http://www.sotaythamphan.gov.vn/detail.php?indexID=431&hidEvent=View&hidLang=en>.
40

Following up Vietnamese language legal journals, there has been so far only two
articles in which the grounds for judicial review of administrative action in the Vietnamese
legal context were discussed. For more details see, Dao Kim Cuong, Some grounds forannulling challenged administrative decisions and paying compensation for citizens in casestate agencies issue illegal administrative decisions [Mot so can cu huy quyet dinh hanhchinh bi khieu kien, co quan nha nuoc ban hanh quyet dinh hanh chinh trai phap luat boi
thuong thiet hai cho cong dan], PEOPLE’S COURT REVIEW [TAP CHI TOA AN NHAN
DAN], (April 2001), p. 18 and Nguyen Van Quang, supra, note 7.
41
For example, in 2003, Vietnam’s people’s courts heard 786 administrative lawcases at first instance against 49,373 criminal law cases and 102,972 civil law cases. See,
The Supreme People’s Court [Toa an nhan dan toi cao], Report on the 2003’s summation ofactivities and the 2004’s orientation of the court system [Bao cao tong ket cong tac nam
2003 va phuong huong nhiem vu cong tac nam 2004 cua nganh Toa an nhan dan] No.
28/BC-TA (December 25, 2003), p. 2 (unpublished material, on file with the author).

19

II. Grounds for judicial review of administrative actionin the Vietnamese legal context: a close analysis
Notwithstanding that rules in relation to grounds for review are notwell-defined under the law of Vietnam, some guidance as to the grounds onwhich the legality of an administrative decision (act) is judicially reviewed by
the people’s courts can be drawn from legal practice. In one of the few journal
articles discussing grounds for review under the law of Vietnam, Cuong lists a
range of circumstances where he claims that the courts are required to quash thedecision in question or part of it, or to declare the act conducted by theadministrator to be illegal.42 Cuong’s list is based partly on implications drawn
from current legal provisions in relation to the administrative decision making
process and is also drawn partly from implications of the practice ofadministrative adjudication of the courts in Vietnam. Some of the grounds, as
Cuong pointed out, can be found by reference to administrative law cases heard
by the courts in Vietnam, whereas others are somewhat hypothetical as far as
they have almost never been used for challenging the legality of an
administrative decision (act). To be sure, the analysis of those grounds forreview under the law of Vietnam is somewhat superficial. This is partly due tothe lack of scholarly research on the issue. Moreover, in Vietnam, official
reports of cases in general and administrative law cases in particular, until the
recent publications of the first volumes of cassation decisions by the JusticeCommittee of the Supreme People’s Court appeared, were not published.43 The
number of administrative law cases heard by Supreme People’s Court of42
43

Dao Kim Cuong, supra, note 39.

See, e.g., THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT [TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI
CAO], CASSATION DECISIONS OF THE JUSTICE COUNCIL OF THE SUPREMEPEOPLE’S COURT 2006 [QUYET DINH GIAM DOC THAM CUA HOI DONG THAM
PHAN TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO NAM 2006] (2008). So far, four volumes of
cassation decisions of the Justice Council of the Supreme People Court have been published.
Volumes 1&2 (for the decisions of years 2003 &2004) were published in 2005 and volumes
3&4 (for the decisions of years 2005 &2006) were published in 2008.

20

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Vietnam is modest and so far only eleven cassation decisions on administrative
law cases have been published. In some law journals or newspapers of Vietnam,
some authors who are generally judges or court staff sometimes report caseswith the exchange of opinions about particular legal matters as their prime
purpose.44 For research purposes, Vietnam’s administrative law cases cited inthis paper mostly come from secondary sources.
It is suggested that an administrative decision would be safe if theadministrator exercises such powers as have been legally conferred on him(substantive requirement) and complies with procedures required by law(procedural requirement); therefore, grounds for review could be categorizedbased on these most basic requirements. This categorization of grounds forreview could be accepted not only in Vietnam but in many other jurisdictions.
For example, in accordance with the principle of legality, courts of China
review the legality of a concrete administrative act by looking at whether its
substance and the procedures for the undertaking of that act are lawful. 45
Similarly, under French administrative law, the legality of an administrativedecision can be judicially challenged on the basis of any of the four grounds forreview including inexistence, incompétence, violation de la loi, and vice deforme.46
44

In Vietnam, summaries of cases usually can be found by reference to a journal
published by the Supreme People’s Court titled TAP CHI TOA AN NHAN DAN[PEOPLE’S COURT REVIEW]. This monthly legal journal mainly focuses on legal
information in relation to the organization and operation of the court system and exchange of
opinions amongst judges and court staff about particular legal matters. Other legal journals
or newspapers like DAN CHU & PHAP LUAT [DEMOCRACY & LAW] and PHAP LUAT
[THE LAW] (both are published by the Ministry of Justice), to some extent, also publish
articles which involve reported law cases.
45

See, L FENG, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PROCEDURES AND REMEDIES INCHINA (1996) p. 162.
46

See, generally L N BROWN, J S BELL with assistance of JEAN MICHELGALABERT, FRENCH ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (4th ed., 1993), pp. 223-35. Under the
French law, inexistence means failure to perform legal duties; incompétence is equivalent to‘ultra vires’ under the English law; violation de la loi could be interpreted as errors of law;and vice de forme is understood as procedural ‘ultra vires’.

21

A. Grounds involving substantive requirements
1. Ultra vires
Cases where the administrative decision (act) in question is judiciallychallenged on the ground ultra vires [‘vi pham tham quyen’] appear to be notuncommon in the legal practice of Vietnam. Except for two common
circumstances mentioned below, the issue of whether the exercise of
discretionary powers is subject to judicial control remains unclear under the lawof Vietnam.
a. Two common circumstances
In the Vietnamese legal context, ‘ultra vires’ (excess of legal authority)[‘ngoai pham vi quyen han’ or ‘vuot quyen’] usually refers to the two following
typical circumstances:47(i)

The administrator exercised a power which is not related tohis or her functions [‘ngoai pham vi quyen han’]:The case Nguyen Van Nhat v the People’s Committee of Tien Phuoc
District reported by Linh (2001) can be cited as an example for this ground ofreview.48 In this case, Mr. Nhat, the appellant, had a dispute with a third party,
Mr. Thi, in relation to a land use certificate that was issued by the People’s
Committee of Tien Phuoc District (the respondent) who made the decision No.
34 dated March 13, 1999 to resolve Mr. Nhat’s complaint regarding Mr. Tien’s
land use certificate. Mr. Nhat initiated the case on the ground that the47
48

Dao Kim Cuong, supra, note 39.

See, Ngoc Linh, On hearing some administrative cases in relation to land
management by procedures of supervision and review [Qua xet xu giam doc tham mot so vu
an hanh chinh ve dat dai], DEMOCRACY & LAW [DAN CHU & PHAP LUAT] [Special
issue on Administrative Courts and Resolving Complaints of Institutions and Citizens],(December 2001), pp. 79-81. In this article, Linh reported several administrative cases forthe purpose of exchange of opinions on hearing administrative cases involving land
management. The case Nguyen Van Nhat v the People’s Committee of Tien Phuoc District
was one amongst cases reported by Linh in this article.

22

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Committee had no power to resolve his complaint and sought an order to quash
the decision No 34 dated Mar. 13, 1999. The court of first instance and thecourt of appeal both dismissed Mr. Nhat’s application. The Administrative
Division of the Supreme People’s Court held that in accordance with the Land
Law 1993,49 only courts have power to resolve complaints such as that made by
Mr. Nhat; therefore, the decision No. 34 dated March 13, 1999 of theCommittee was illegal on the ground that the Committee acted outside its
authorized area. The decision No. 34 was consequently quashed.
(ii)

The administrator exercised a power which was within thefunctions of the administrators but exceeded the scope of
power that is legally conferred on them [ ‘vuot quyen’]:Put simply, this refers to a circumstance where the administrator who
made the administrative decision or conducted the administrative act exercised
the power which is legally conferred on other administrators. Cong (2001)
reported the case Nguyen Van Thanh v the People’s Committee of Tay Luong
Commune.50 In this case, Mr. Thanh, the appellant, initiated the case against thePeople’s Committee of Tay Luong Commune, the respondent, on the groundthat the appellant conducted an illegal act to reclaim a land area of 150 m2 in
his land area for reallocating to Mr. Tuyen. The court of first instance and thecourt of appeal both dismissed Mr. Thanh’s application for review. The
Administrative Division of the Supreme People’s Court held that in accordancewith the Land Law 1993,51 the people’s committees at the commune level have49

S 2, article 38 of the Land Law [Luat Dat dai] 1993.

50
See, Le Cong, The judgment of the administrative court on the illegal act of thePeople's Committee at Tayluong Commune - Tienhai District- Thaibinh Province [Phanquyet cua toa hanh chinh ve hanh vi trai phap luat trong quan ly dat dai cua UBND xa Tay
Luong - Tien Hai - Thai Binh], DEMOCRACY & LAW [DAN CHU & PHAP LUAT][Special issue on Administrative Courts and Resolving Complaints of Institutions andCitizens], (December 2001), 103-08. In this article Cong reported the case Nguyen Van
Thanh v the People’s Committee of Tay Luong Commune.
51

Articles 23 and 28 of the Land Law [Luat Dat Dai] 1993.

23

power in relation to land management but are not granted the power to reclaim
and reallocate land. This power is conferred on the people’s committee at the
district level. As a result, the Decision No. 04/ GDT-HC dated June 5, 1999 of
the Administrative Division of the Supreme People’s Court declared the act
conducted by the People’s Committee of Tay Luong Commune to be illegal
and ceased. The land use right of Mr. Thanh then was recovered.
b. Judicial control of the exercise of discretion under the law of Vietnam
The reviewability of the exercise of discretion of administrators is lessstraightforward. In Western countries like Australia, it has long been conceived
that powers conferred on administrators usually include discretionary elements
and the existence of discretionary powers in modern public administration isboth inevitable and desirable.52 The exercise of discretionary powers, as therule of law requires, must be consistent with a variety of legal requirements53
and subject to judicial control. Consequently, the legality of an administrativedecision (behavior) can be challenged on the grounds that discretion is abused
or improperly exercised by administrators. The Australian common law
developed a range of legal rules in relation to controlling the exercise of
discretion of administrators. The breaches of these rules are generally referred
to as “broad ultra vires” on which an administrative decision (behavior) can be
judicially challenged.54 The AD (JR) Act as a codification of the common law
rules provides a ground for review in relation to an improper use of power of apublic authority such as ‘taking an irrelevant consideration into account in theexercise of a power’, ‘an exercise of a discretionary power in bad faith’ or ‘an
52See, generally K HAWKINS, THE USES OF DISCRETION (1992); KC DAVIS,DISCRETIONARY JUSTICE: A PRELIMINARY INQUIRY (1969).
53

For instance, the exercise of discretionary powers must be consistent with thelegal requirement of reasonableness. The well-known case that is cited for the principle ofreasonableness in the Commonwealth jurisdiction is the Associated Provincial Picture
Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp. [1948] 1K.B. 23(C.A).
54

See, C ENRIGHT, JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION(1985), p. 557.

24

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

exercise of a power that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could
have so exercised the power’ (unreasonableness). 55 This ground for review
refers to various circumstances involving the exercise of a discretionary power,
which can be well understood by referring to case law.
In China, to some extent, the theory about discretionary powers andtheir judicial control as seen in Western legal systems has been recognized andapplied.56 Chinese legal scholars argue that the exercise of discretionary power
must comply with certain legal requirements 57 and it is subject to judicial
control. 58 This is a result of the borrowing of Western legal ideas as Feng
(1996) states:

55

See, AD (JR) Act, s5 (2) and s 6(2) for detailed rules in relation to this ground forreview.
56

L Feng, supra, note 44, pp. 214-49. It has been acknowledged that for thousandsof years of feudal autocracy and many decades of a system based on administrative subsidies,administrators had possessed great discretionary powers while there was little control of theexercise of those powers. Recently, Chinese legal scholars and legislators have paid
attention to the issue of controlling the exercise of discretions. On the basis of scholarlyinterpretations and judicial practice, Feng analyzed a range of specific grounds for reviewing
the exercise of discretions set out in the ALL. They include:•
Abuse of powers: unlawful intention, inappropriate consideration,
capriciousness or unreasonableness, and lack of legal grounds;•
Obvious unfairness: improportionality, inappropriate consideration,
inconsistency, double penalties, and failure to provide information;•
Failure or delay in performance of statutory duty.
57

See, ibid. pp. 211-13. Generally, Chinese legal scholars point to the two legal
principles that govern the exercise of discretionary powers of administrators: the principle oflegality and the principle of reasonableness. The principle of legality requires that
discretionary powers should be exercised within the legal framework and be consistent withthe legislative objectives or fundamental legal principles. In relation to the principle ofreasonableness, Feng cited LU HAI CAO, JUDICIAL REVIEW SYSTEM IN CHINA[ZHONG GOU SI FA SHEN CA ZHI DU] (1993). In an effort to express the requirementsof this principles to be somewhat compatible with the concerned legal rules of Westerncountries, Feng suggests that the principle of reasonableness requires that discretionary
powers should be reasonably exercised in the sense that administrators should act for proper
purposes, i.e., not for personal purposes or illegitimate purposes, take into account relevant
considerations and not to take into account irrelevant considerations, and decisions anddecision-making procedures should not be unreasonable.
58
See, Hua Yang, Guang Examination of Judicial Control of Administrative
Discretionary Power [Yu Si Fa Jian Du Kong Zhi Xing Zheng Zi You Cai Liang Quan De Si

25

[J]udicial control of the exercise of discretionary power is a newconcept to the Chinese legal system and most scholars have looked toWestern countries to borrow experience and are naturally influenced
by both their judicial practice and academic writings.59

While legal principles in relation to the exercise of discretionary
powers are well-developed both theoretically and practically in Australia, andto some extent are dealt within the legal practice of China, little attention has
been paid to the issue in the law and legal practice of Vietnam. Generally, likein other jurisdictions, it has been accepted in Vietnam that administrators enjoy
creativity and flexibility in performing their tasks; thus, administrative law doesnot (and could not) deeply interfere in administration, and leaves administrators
to enjoy the freedom to handle their cases within the legal framework settingout the scope of their powers. 60 In practice, Vietnam’s administrators, inaccordance with the law, enjoy wide discretionary powers.61 However, muchspace has been left in Vietnamese law and legal scholarship for discussion on
the question of whether the exercise of these discretionary powers needs to be
judicially controlled, and what the grounds are for such judicial control, should
this be the case.
Some Vietnamese legal scholars, in fact, initially raised the issue of“reasonableness”, and how the reasonableness [‘tinh hop ly’] of administrative

Kao] in COLLECTION OF LEGAL ESSAYS (ADMINISTRATIVE LAW) vol.2 (1991) pp.
92-93 (cited by Feng, supra, note 44, p. 211).
59

L Feng, supra, note 44, p. 216.

60

Tran Minh Huong, supra, note 25, p.14.

61
See, e. g, articles 28-40 of the Ordinance for Handling Administrative Violations
2002 (providing that state authorities such as customs officers, police officers, chairmen of
people’s committees, enjoy discretions to impose particular administrative penalties(warning, fine, revoking licenses) on a certain offender within the legally prescribed frame ofpenalties); articles 39-45 of the Land Law 2003 (providing that several bureaucrats enjoy
discretion in reclaiming lands of land users in various circumstances).

26

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

decisions (acts) would be controlled. 62 An attempt was made to put forward
several requirements that administrators needed to fulfill to assure thereasonableness of an administrative decision (act). This, indeed, is concernedwith the exercise of discretionary powers of administrators. However, theseprimary discussions have been confined to some theoretical issues and thequestion of whether Vietnam’s people’s courts should control the exercise of
discretion of administrators is still debated.63
In fact, the list of grounds for review suggested by Cuong (2001) also
includes some grounds such as ‘abuse of power’ [‘lam quyen’], which might
possibly be understood as grounds for challenging the exercise of discretionary
powers.64 However, there are no specified interpretations of these terms in thecontext of Vietnamese administrative law. Without general rules defining whatis entailed in ‘abuse of power’, it is unclear how the court can assess achallenge to an administrative decision based on these grounds. Moreover,there have been almost no cases in which the legality of an administrativedecision has been challenged on such grounds. Thus, what Cuong suggested
here is hypothetical, and at most, a possible guide for future practice.

62
See, e.g., DINH VAN MAU and PHAM HONG THAI, ADMINISTRATIVEJURISDICTION IN VIETNAM [TAI PHAN HANH CHINH O VIET NAM] (1995), pp.
89-90; Vu Thu, The legality and the reasonableness of legal documents and solutions to
fixing their defects [Tinh hop phap va hop ly cua van ban phap luat va cac bien phap xu ly
cac khiem khuyet cua no] STATE AND LAW [NHA NUOC VA PHAP LUAT], (January2003), p. 8.
63
Vu Thu, supra, note 61, p. 15. In an attempt to work out the notion of thereasonableness of legal documents including administrative decisions, Thu analyses several
legal provisions under the law of Vietnam which, from his viewpoint, mention thereasonableness of legal documents in general and administrative decisions in particular. In
relation to the judicial control of the exercise of discretionary powers, Thu argues that courts
should not deeply interfere in administration by reviewing the reasonableness ofadministrative decisions.
64

Dao Kim Cuong, supra, note 39. Indeed, in the article, Cuong did not suggest
anything in relation to ‘abuse of power’ and ‘unlawful intention’. Therefore, it is very hard tofind their equivalents under the law of Australia or China.

27

The need for judicially controlling the exercise of discretionary powersof administrators is quite obvious in any legal system where the rule of law isrespected. In order to accept ideas in relation to judicially controlling
discretionary powers in Vietnamese administrative law, it would be helpful torefer to foreign experience. The Chinese experience would suggest that, toimprove laws dealing with the judicial review of administrative action, Vietnam
may be able to learn from the experience of Western countries such as Australia,
where traditional values of the rule of law have been well developed. In regard
to the establishment of grounds for judicially controlling discretionary powers,
there are several related issues that need to be considered for Vietnamese
administrative law. On the one hand, as noted, explicitly defined grounds forreview need to be incorporated. On the other hand, it is important to develop a
set of general administrative law principles regulating the exercise of
discretionary powers, breach of which can constitute grounds for judicial
review. More importantly, it would be useful to understand what the problems
posed by the grounds for judicially challenging the exercise of discretionary
powers in foreign jurisdictions are. Understanding such issues would help
Vietnamese law-makers deal properly with similar issues in the Vietnamesecontext.
2. Failure to perform legal duties
Under the law of Vietnam, both administrative decisions andadministrative acts could be subject to judicial review.65 As interpreted by theSupreme People’s Court of Vietnam, an administrative act refers to an action[‘hanh dong’] or inaction [‘khong hanh dong’] of a state officer or state agency

65See, Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Administrative Cases. Art. 4, s1 of
this Ordinance provides that an administrative act could be subjected to judicial review under
the Ordinance and Art. 4, s2 of this Ordinance gives a general definition of an administrative
act.

28

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

in relation to the performance of legal duties.66 In other words, inaction in
relation to the performance of legal duties which, in nature, is failure to perform
legal duties is a ground upon which an applicant can seek judicial review.67
There seems to be no difference between this ground for review under
the law of Vietnam and that under the laws of Australia and China.68 However,legal rules in relation to this ground for review under the law of Vietnam
appear not to be explicit. Except for few very general provisions mentioned in
the Ordinance on Procedure for Resolving Administrative Cases, no further
details can be found in any legal documents.69 Therefore, it would be very
difficult for any applicant who intends to challenge the legality of an
66

See, The Official Letter No. 39/KHXX dated July 6, 1996 of the Supreme
People’s Court interpreting some provisions of the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving
Administrative Cases], part 1. (b).
67
For example, an authority whose duty is to grant building licenses will bechallenged on this ground if he or she does not to grant an applicant the license within thelegally prescribed time required to grant the license, providing that the applicant completely
complies with all legal requirements.

68
Under the common law of Australia, the applicant can seek an order of mandamus
on the ground of failure to perform legal duties or can seek an order of review on the groundof failure to legal duties in accordance with section 7 of the AD (JR) Act. The same groundfor review is also found in the law of China in which “if a defendant fails to perform or
delays the performance of its statutory duty, a fixed time shall be set by judgment for its
performance of the duty” (article 54, s3 of the ALL).

69
For the content of these legal provisions see, supra, note 64. It should be notedthat the law of Australia contains detailed legal rules in relation to this grounds for review.
For instance, section 7 of the AD (JR) Act specifies two circumstances of failure to perform
legal duties in relation to whether a period of time within which administrators have toperform their legal duties is defined. In the case of China, although the law does not specify
cases falling within this ground for review as seen in the law of Australia, judiciallychallenging such cases seems to be well guided by legal practice. As Chinese legal scholars
suggested if there is no law that sets out the time limit for performing legal duties ofadministrators, courts, on a case by case basis, will normally determine a reasonable periodof time within which the administrator has to perform his or her legal duties. Then the courts
will decide whether the applicant can rely on this ground for challenging the administrator.
See, Comments and interpretation of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People
Republic China [Ming Gong He Gou Xing Zhen Su Song Fa Quain She], 184; Cui Zhenjun“Preliminary study of administrative inaction”, 81-85; Lu Yanming, “A study of several
issues relating to administrative inaction cases”, in COLLECTION OF LEGAL ESSAYS,
1992, Vol.2, pp. 120-122. Those authors are cited in Feng, supra, note 44, p. 243).

29

administrative decision (act) on this ground. It also should be noted that, in fact,
there has been no case in which Vietnam’s courts have reviewed administrative
action on this ground so far.70 One reason for this practice may lie in the lackof details in relation to this ground for review. Although many people have, inpractice, complained about administrators’ failure to perform legal duties which
adversely affected their legitimate rights and interests, without detailed legal
rules they have rarely initiated administrative cases challenging administrative
action.71
3. Error of law
The concept ‘error of law’ is mainly concerned with the erroneous
applications of the law, especially in the case where the law is ambiguous. In
the Vietnamese legal context, erroneous applications of the law appear to be acommon ground for judicial review of administrative action. There are twomain reasons why this ground for review becomes frequently-invoked in thelegal practice of Vietnam.
First, Vietnam has a complicated system of legal normative documents
ranging from legal documents of bodies at the central level to those of bodies atthe local level with different legal effects. This system includes:72

70

See, Tien Minh, People can initiate administrative cases if there is delay to
perform administrative formalities [Cham thu tuc hanh chinh nguoi dan duoc khoi kien],
VIETNAMNET, available at http://vietnamnet.vn/chinhtri/doinoi/2005/06/463465/. In thisarticle, the author cited words of Mr. Dang Quang Phuong as the Vice President of theSupreme People’s Court who confirms that since the establishment of administrative
jurisdiction, there has been no case in which administrators were challenged on this ground.
71

Ibid. The author of this article cited words of Mr. Le Quang Binh as the Head of
the Board for People’s aspirations [‘Ban Dan nguyen’] of the Standing Committee of the
National Assembly who claims that the lack of legal details in relation to the ground ‘failure
to perform legal duties’ becomes a barrier preventing people from bringing action against
administrators on this ground.
72

30

Article 2 of the Law on Enacting Legal Normative Documents 2008.

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

(i)

The Constitution, Laws and Resolutions by the National
Assembly;(ii)

Ordinances and Resolutions by the Standing Committee of the
National Assembly;(iii)

Orders and Decisions by the State President;(iv)

Decrees by the Government; Decisions by the Prime Minister;(v)

Circulars by Ministers and Heads of state agencies at the
Ministerial Rank;(vi)

Resolutions by the Council of Judges of the Supreme People’s
Court; Circulars by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s
Court and the Head of the Supreme People’s Procuracy;(vii)

Decisions by the State Auditor General;(viii)

Joint Resolutions between the Standing Committee of the
National Assembly or the Government and the central levelagencies of socio-political organizations and joint Circulars
between the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court and theHead of the Supreme People’s Procuracy; between the Chief
Justice of the Supreme People’s Court or the Head of theSupreme People’s Procuracy and Ministers and Heads of stateagencies at the Ministerial Rank competent state agencies; andbetween Ministers and Heads of state agencies at the Ministerial
Rank.;(ix)

Legal normative documents by local people’s councils andpeople’s committees.

In such a complicated system of legal documents, it is understandable
that inconsistency amongst legal documents that adjust social relations in thesame area, but are enacted by different bodies, occasionally occurs in practice.
Without clear interpretations, the application of such legal documents may beerroneous. In addition, administrators sometimes fail to determine whether thelegal normative document, on which their decision is made, still remains legally31effective at the time of the decision. This is particularly true in the applicationof legal normative documents by Ministries, as such documents are likely to beamended or revised or prevailed in correspondence with changes in the socioeconomic life.73
Second, during the course of application of the law, Vietnamese
administrators always expect to be instructed by relevant statutory
interpretation documents by competent bodies, as lawmakers cannot make very
detailed legal provisions covering all related issues. 74 Such interpretation
documents, however, are not always available. Therefore, in practice,administrators sometimes have to rely on overly general principles mentioned
in the legal normative documents for solving their problems. In thosecircumstances, it is difficult to avoid erroneous application of the law.
Vietnam’s courts, generally, will take any error of law into
consideration when reviewing the legality of an administrative decision (act).
This is different from the Australian legal practice. Under the law of Australia,
not all errors of law can be used for seeking an order of review. An error of law
for reviewability under the AD (JR) Act must be material to the impugned
decision “in the sense that it contributes to it so that, but for the error, thedecision would have been, or might have been, different”. 75

73

As state bodies are responsible for managing certain areas of public administration,
Ministries annually enact a big number of legal normative documents. To assist
administrators to avoid applying a legal normative document which no longer is legallyeffective, recently, many Ministries in Vietnam have passed lists of their legal normative
documents which are no longer legally effective. For example, the Ministry of Trade passed
the Decision 1107/2005/QD-BTM dated April 20, 2005 stating the list of legal normative
documents enacted in the period from 2000 to 2004 that are no longer legally effective.
74

For more details about ‘legal interpretation’ in the Vietnamese legal context, see,supra, Part I.B.2.
75

Mason CJ.

32

See, Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 353 per

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

In the Vietnamese legal practice, administrative decisions are usuallychallenged on this ground in several circumstances.76 Administrative decisions
which were based on the application of an insufficient piece of legislation can
be challenged on the errors of law ground. ‘An insufficient piece of legislation’
could be that provisions of an enactment that were no longer in force or had not
yet come into force at the time of the making of the impugned administrativedecision. It also could be provisions of an enactment which was consistent withthe one that has a higher legal effect at the time of the making of the impugned
administrative decision. In Official Letter No.39/KHXX of the Supreme
People’s Court interpreting some provisions of the Ordinance on Procedures for
Resolving Administrative Cases, 77 the Court gave an example instructing
inferior courts on how to decide a case in this circumstance. Similarly, themanual for resolving administrative cases of the Administrative Division of theSupreme People’s Court also gave a specific example to illustrate the case as
follows:
Supposedly, there is a Tax Law which provides that the maximum
tax rate applied in an area of business activities is 2% of the total
gained benefit. The decree of the Government and the circular of the
Ministry of Finance interpreting this Tax Law both provide the same
maximum tax rate. The people’s committee of province X whichargued that a higher maximum tax rate should be applied in its local
area enacted a regulation that provides the maximum tax rate of 3%of the total gained benefit. Applying the regulation of the local
committee, a local tax officer made a decision to impose tax at therate of 2.5%. This decision was judicially challenged on the groundof application of an insufficient piece of legislation. The decision
then would be held as illegal on the ground of application of an76

Dao Kim Cuong, supra, note 39, p. 19.

77

See, Official Letter No.39/KHXX, supra, note 65.

33

insufficient piece of legislation. The court would quash this decisionand request the tax office to make a new decision based onprovisions of the Tax Law.78

The “error of law” ground for review is also used for challenging
administrative decisions that were based on the application of legal provisionsof the correct legislation that are inconsistent with the facts of the case. Cases
where the administrative decision is challenged on the ground of application ofwrong legal provisions are quite common in the legal practice of Vietnam.
Given the facts of the case, other legal provisions of the legislation should beapplied and the decision which was made based on wrong legal provisions
would be quashed. The case Mr. Thai Viet Phuong v Tax Office of Sa Dec Town
reported by Vu Khac (2001) below is an example demonstrating thiscircumstance.79
The tax office of Sa Dec Town made a decision imposing on Mr.
Phuong a fine of 1,000,000 VND for his wrong doing in relation to registrationof business activities, and a fine of 19, 898, 385 VND for income tax fraud andcollecting income tax arrears of 19, 898, 335 VND. The case challenging thisdecision was first heard by the people’s court of the Sa Dec Town where Mr.
Phuong’s application was dismissed. The court of appeal then amended thedecision of the court of first instance quashing part of the decision of the tax
office of Sa Dec Town in relation to a fine of 1,000, 000 VND imposed on Mr.
Phuong. Mr. Phuong then appealed to the Supreme People’s Court. The Court

78
THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION OF THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT[TOA HANH CHINH – TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO], supra, note 17, p. 11.
79
See, Vu Khac, An administrative case in relation to tax was heard by procedure ofreview and supervision [Mot vu an hanh chinh ve thue da duoc giam doc tham],
DEMOCRACY & LAW [DAN CHU & PHAP LUAT] [Special issue on Administrative
Courts and Resolving Complaints of Institutions and Citizens], (December 2001), pp. 98-102.
In this article the case Mr. Thai Viet Phuong v Tax Office of Sa Dec Town, Dong Thap
Province was reported.

34

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

held that in accordance with the Law on Income Tax,80 Mr. Phuong’s enterprise
fell within the category of newly operated enterprises which are entitled toenjoy an income tax free period of two years, commencing on the first day theenterprise earned an income. This fact did not support the tax office of Sa Dec
Town’s application of article 27(1) (b) of the Law on Income Tax 1990 andarticle 3 of the Decree 22/CP dated April 17, 1996. Therefore, the part of thedecision of the tax office of Sa Dec Town was quashed on the ground of
application of wrong legal provisions.
4. No sufficient reason to justify the making of the decision
In the Vietnamese language, the words like reason, ground [‘ly do’ or‘can cu’] and evidence [‘chung cu’ or ‘bang chung’] can be usedinterchangeably. Thus, in the Vietnamese legal context, ‘no sufficient reasons’
can be understood as ‘no evidence’.81 To determine whether there is sufficientreason to justify the making of the decision, it is necessary for the court tocomprehensively assess all the relevant facts of the case that are supported by
the evidence.
In resolving administrative cases, the law of Vietnam sets out legal
provisions in relation to the responsibility of the burden of proof. 82 The
responsibility for providing evidence and materials to justify an administrativedecision belongs to the respondent. The appellant is responsible for providing
evidence and other material for protecting their own legitimate rights andinterests. Courts, where needed will collect evidence or request parties and80

Article 25 of the Law Amending and Revising Some Articles of Law on Income
Tax (July 6, 1993).
81

Therefore, the difference between this ground for review with the grounds forreview “no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision” (or “no evidenceor other material to justify the making of the proposed decision”) set out by s 5 (1) (h) and s
6(1) (h) of the AD (JR) Act or by the Australian common law appears to be merely inwording.
82

See, article 15 of the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Administrative Cases.

35

concerned bodies to provide evidence for resolving administrative cases.
Administrative decisions (acts) will be held as illegal if no sufficient reason tojustify the making of the decision is proven. The case Mr. Nguyen Van Doan v
the People’s Committee of EaH’leo District, Dac Lak province reported by
Khac Vu (2001) below is an example to illustrate this ground for review.83
Mr. Nguyen Van Doan was allocated two lots of ground in accordancewith the decision People’s Committee of EaH’leo District. Then, for public
interest reasons the Committee issued another decision reclaiming an area ofland of 750 m2 that had been allocated to Mr. Doan and required him to remove
all his properties located on that land. Mr. Doan initiated the case in the
People’s Court of Dak Lak Province where it was held that the decision of theCommittee reclaiming the land area of Mr. Doan was unlawful; this decision
was quashed and the right to use the land of Mr. Doan was reaffirmed. The
Committee then appealed to the Division of Appeal of the Supreme People’s
Court. The Court of appeal agreed with the court of first instance on quashingthe decision of the Committee on the ground that the Committee did not haveadequate reasons to support the making of its decision. First, the Committee did
not have sufficient reasons to support that there was the need for using land of
individual households for public interests. Second, since the land area waslegally used by Mr. Doan, in order to reclaim it, the Committee was required bylaw to have a plan for using this land area; but no such plan had been made by
the Committee. Third, there were no sufficient reasons to support that the landarea of Mr. Doan, but not that of other household, had to be reclaimed.

83
See, Khac Vu, An unlawful decision reclaiming lands was quashed by the court[Mot quyet dinh thu hoi dat trai phap luat bi Toa an tuyen huy], DEMOCRACY & LAW[DAN CHU & PHAP LUAT] [Special issue on Administrative Courts and Resolving
Complaints of Institutions and Citizens], (December 2001), pp. 88-91. In this article, the case
Mr. Nguyen Van Doan v the People’s Committee of EaH’leo District, Dac Lak province wasreported.

36

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

B. Grounds for review involving compliance with procedural
requirements
There have been many criticisms of a bureaucratic system ofadministrative procedures as normally seen in any system based on
administrative subsidies like Vietnam’s.84 On the one hand, there was a lack ofdetailed procedural provisions in many areas of public administration. On theother hand, in some other areas, there were prescribed procedures which
overlapped with, and contradicted other procedures. The compliance withadministrative procedures heavily relied on the exercise of discretion ofadministrators and there was no effective legal mechanism to assure thecompliance with administrative procedures. In recent years, there has been
extensive Vietnamese legal literature devoted to the importance of a system oftransparent and just administrative procedures and compliance with such asystem of procedures. This is specially emphasized in the context of theongoing Public Administration Master Program 2001-2010 for the purposes ofsocio-economic developments, cooperation and integration.85
In the process of making administrative decisions or conducting
administrative acts, Vietnamese administrative law generally requires
administrators to comply with legally prescribed administrative procedures.
This can be inferred from both the constitutional principle of legality, as notedin the previous section, which requires the administrator to comply with legal
rules both substantively and procedurally and specific provisions set out by thelaw of Vietnam. Failure to comply with administrative procedures,
84
See, generally, Dinh Van Mau and Pham Hong Thai, Administrative Procedures[Thu tuc hanh chinh ] in TRAN MINH HUONG (ed.), TEXTBOOK ON THEMES OF
VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW [GIAO TRINH LUAT HANH CHINH VIET
NAM ] (2004), supra, note 25, pp. 177- 81.
85
For more details, see, generally MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIR AND
UNDP VIETNAM, PAR MASTER PROGRAMME, RESULT & LEARNING: 20012002 FROM STEP BY STEP TO A LEAP FORWARD, available at<http://www.undp.org.vn/undp/docs/2002/parmp/index.htm>.

37

consequently, is one amongst many grounds for review under the law ofVietnam. This common view can be seen in most administrative law systems.86
In regard to procedural requirements for administrative decision
making, it is noted that rules for ‘natural justice’ (or ‘procedural fairness’ or‘due process’) are set out in the law of developed countries and ‘denial ofprocedural fairness’ is treated as separate ground for review. In the case ofVietnam, the issue that whether rules for ‘procedural fairness’ have been
incorporated in the law as a common procedural standard for administrativedecision making remains unclear. Procedural requirements for administrativedecision making under Vietnamese administrative law mainly fall within somecertain categories such as ‘standard time periods for making decision’, ‘legallyprescribed

forms

of

administrativedecisions’or‘inter-departmental

administrative formalities’. In fact, Vietnam has not passed a general law (orcode) of administrative procedures setting out procedural requirements foradministrative decision making. This, in many cases, causes difficulties forcourts to judicially challenge administrative actions which affect legitimate
rights and interests of citizens due to the failure to procedural requirements.
1. Failure to comply with administrative procedures
Essentially, Vietnam’s courts strictly follow the rule that an
administrative decision will be held invalid if it does not comply with any
procedural requirement regardless whether it is a minor or substantial or
insubstantial error.87 The case Lan Huong and Thanh Nam Enterprises v the86

See, e.g., s 5(1) (a) and s 6(1) (a) of the AD (JR) Act (providing that a person may
challenge the legality of a decision or conduct (to which the Act applies) on the ground “thatprocedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making were notobserved” or “ that procedures that are required by law to be observed in respect of the
conduct have not been, are not being, or are likely not to be, observed”); article 54, s 2.3 of
the ALL (providing that a concrete administrative act may be quashed if there is violation oflegal procedures).
87

See, ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION – THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT[TOA HANH CHINH -TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO], supra, note 17.

38

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

People’s Committee of Hochiminh City below is an example illustrating theabove strict rule. 88
Lan Huong and Thanh Nam enterprises were granted licenses to
produces cosmetics. However, these enterprises used the legally registeredtrade mark “Miss” of the Saigon Cosmetics Company for labeling theircosmetics products. On August 11, 2003, the People’s Committee of
Hochiminh City passed Decision No. 3272 imposing a fine of 150,000,000
VND on the two enterprises on the ground that they committed anadministrative wrong in relation to intellectual property. Lan Huong and Thanh
Nam enterprises initiated the case at the Administrative Division of thePeople’s Court of Hochiminh City challenging Decision No. 3272 of thePeople’s Committee of Hochiminh City on the ground that the Committee
failed to comply with the requirement of time limit.89 The court of first instanceheld that as all substantive issues of the administrative decision were totally
legal despite it having been made late, the administrative decision was upheld.
Thanh Huong and Thanh Nam then appealed the Appeals Division of theSupreme People’s Court based on the view that compliance with time limit isrequired by the law and administrators must strictly follow them and held thatthe impugned decision was invalid.90
88See, H. Thanh, Hearing the case in which the People’s Council of Hochiminh
City is challenged by the two enterprises [Xet xu vu UBND TP HCM bi hai doanh nghiepkien], VNNEXPRESS (July 21, 2005) available at <http://vnexpress.net/Vietnam/Phapluat/2005/07/3B9E054E/>.
89

Article 56 of the Ordinance for Handling Administrative Violations 2002 sets out
the time limit for the making of an administrative decision imposing administrative penalties
as “within 10 days or 30 days in cases of complication since the day a report ofadministrative offence is made, the competent officer has a duty to make an administrativedecision imposing administrative penalties on the offender”. This Ordinance also states thatin cases of need the competent officer may ask for a permission to extend the time to makedecision provided that the extended time is not over 30days; the competent officer is notallow to make decisions imposing fines if he or she fails to comply with time limit
requirements. , however, is silent in relation to the validity of decisions which fail to comply
with the time limit requirement in particular and all procedural requirements in general.
90

See, H.Thanh, supra, note 8 7.

39

Admittedly, the strict compliance with administrative procedures needs
to be emphasized and one may argue that the decision of the Supreme People’s
Court in Lan Huong and Thanh Nam Enterprises v the People’s Committee of
Hochiminh City is convincing as the law applicable to the case clearly
determines the validity of the decision in case of failure to comply withprocedural rules. However, a rigid opinion about the validity of administrativedecisions (acts) that fail to observe procedural requirements, especially when
the law is silent to the validity of such decisions (acts) are fairly debatable.91 In
fact, breaches of administrative procedures vary from case to case; some may
be substantial, whereas others may be minor and insubstantial to the quality ofan administrative decision (act). For example, one of the procedural
requirements the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam construed as anadministrative decision must be shown in a legally prescribed written form.92
However, the question of whether the court should quash a decision of wrongly
written form whose substantive contents are legal is arguable. It seems to be
somewhat impractical if the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam opined thatany breach of procedures in relation to the making of an administrative decision
could make the administrative decision in question fatal. This viewpoint isstrongly supported by reference to the law and legal practice of Australia andChina.
In Australia, the validity of a judicially challenged administrativedecision (behavior) failing to comply with prescribed procedures is treateddifferently depending on whether or not there is a legislative intention that to91
See, Le Xuan Than, Some viewpoints regarding the organisation and functioningof administrative courts [Mot so y kien ve to chuc va hoat dong cua Toa hanh chinh, STATE& LAW [ NHA NUOC VA PHAP LUAT ], (July 2002), p. 33; see, also Nguyen Thanh Binh,
Concept of the People’s Courts’ Jurisdiction to Resolve Administrative Law Complaints[Khai niem tham quyen cua toa an nhan dan trong giai quyet cac khieu kien hanh chinh cua
cong dan], JURISPRUDENCE REVIEW [LUAT HOC], (October 2001), pp. 25-27.
92See, ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION – THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT[TOA HANH CHINH-TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO], supra, note 17.

40

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

comply with prescribed administrative procedures is a legal precondition to theexercise of a power. Generally speaking, if the breach of procedural
requirements clearly affected the quality of the decision in question, thoserequirements should be mandatory, and therefore, the impugned decision
should be held invalid; where the breach is minor and insubstantial, the validityof the decision in question should not be affected. 93
China’s courts also have the same approach to that of Australia
regarding the issue of the validity of an administrative decision that does notcomply with procedural requirements. Although it has been suggested as a“long-term” goal that courts will treat all administrative decisions that do notcomply with legal procedural requirements as invalid ones, the validity of thosedecisions is currently assessed by Chinese people’s courts based on the natureof procedural errors.94 Basically, Chinese legal scholars divide administrative
procedures

into

non-legal

administrative

procedures(orcustomaryadministrative procedures) and legal administrative procedures. The former
refers to the administrative procedures formulated by administrative organs
themselves as long as they are not contradictory to general legal principles.
Compliance with non-legal administrative procedures is non-compulsory;
therefore, the breach of these procedures does not affect the validity ofadministrative decisions. The latter refers to the administrative procedures set
out by legislation and compliance with them is compulsory. However, minor
breaches of legal administrative procedures, which are usually construed as theones that do not cause any harm to the substantive rights and interests, are notfatal to the impugned administrative decisions. Administrative decisions which
violate compulsory legal procedures will otherwise be held invalid.
93
See, Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355;
153 ALR 490 at CLR 390, [93] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ.
94Feng, supra, note 44, p. 190. Feng mainly cited LUO HAO CAI, JUDICCIAL
REVIEW SYSTEM IN CHINA [ZHONG GOU SI FA SHEN CA ZHI DU] (1993) for his
discussions about procedural errors in relation to the making of administrative decisions.

41

2. Rules of ‘procedural fairness’ (‘natural justice’) under Vietnam’s law?
In developed legal systems, denial of ‘procedural fairness’ or ‘natural
justice’ is set out as a ground for judicial review of administrative action.95 The
term “natural justice” which stemmed from the Romans refers to situations
where audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in parte sua(no person may judge their own case) apply”.96 The principles of natural justiceprimarily govern all judicial making processes by judges and then quasijudicial decision processes by tribunals for guaranteeing that those processes
must be just and fair. More recently, the rule of natural justice has extended its
scope of application to the administrative decision making process due to thegrowth of administrative decisions in both quantity and their importance.
In principle, one can establish denial of natural justice as a ground forjudicial review of administrative action by demonstrating the breach of either orboth of the two fundamental rules: (i) in the decision-making process, thedecision-maker must hold a hearing for a person whose legitimate rights andinterests will be affected by the decision; (ii) in the course of making thedecision, the decision-maker must not be or appear to be biased. An
administrative decision that fails to comply with the ‘natural justice’ (or‘procedural fairness’) principle will be quashed.
Under the law of Vietnam, as noted above, what are called rules of‘procedural fairness’ or ‘natural justice’ in the making of administrative95

In the US law, the term that is analogous to ‘natural justice’ or ‘procedural
fairness’ is ‘due process’. In Australia, ‘natural justice’ and ‘procedural fairness’ are now
interchangeably used in administrative law. Mason J pointed out in Kioa v West (1985) 159
CLR 550; 62 ALR 321 at 346 that as ‘natural justice’ is mostly used in the context ofprocedures of the courts of law, many judges prefer using the term ‘procedural fairness’ inrelation to the making of administrative decisions. It is noted that in Australian jurisdictions,the duties to observe natural justice and the rules of natural justice generally come from
common law. Rules of natural justice, therefore, are flexibly applied on a case by case basis.
Although this common law ground for review was subsequently codified by the AD (JR) Act,
understanding rules of natural justice requires a great deal of detail that only can be foundby reference to case law.
96
See, DUHAIME’S ONLINE LEGAL
http://www.duhaime.org/dictionary/dict-no.aspx ac.

42

DICTIONARY,

availableatCALE Discussion Paper No.3

decisions have not been comprehensively developed. This practice is easily
understandable in the context of a transitional legal system. In many fields ofadministration, procedural rules for protection of individuals and organizations
whose legitimate rights and interests may be affected by the administrativedecision making process such as ‘fair hearing’, ‘right to reasons’ or‘information disclosure’ have been almost all absent in Vietnamese
administrative law. For example, although the making of an administrativedecision imposing administrative penalties on administrative law offenders
directly involves restrictions on the rights, interests, freedom, property, andmoney of offenders, no rules in relation to procedural fairness can be seen in
the current Ordinance for handling administrative offences of Vietnam. That is
to say, almost all administrative law offenders do not have opportunities for
explanation and rebuttal, or opportunities to know reasons for decision making
before administrative decisions imposing penalties on them are made.
It should, however, be noted that rules of procedural fairness, though
limited, are able to be found in some recent laws of Vietnam. These laws
require decision makers to comply with some particular procedural
requirements in order to ensure that their decisions will not adversely affectlegitimate rights and interests of individuals and institutions. For example, tomake a decision to reclaim land for public interest, before reaching the final
decisions, decision makers are required by Land Law 2003 to inform users of
the reasons for reclaiming, as well as the time and plan to execute the decisionand their possible compensation.97 In a similar vein, the Law on Complaints
and Denunciations 1998 (amended in 2005) requires that in the course ofdecision making, decision makers must directly communicate with the97

See, article 39 of the Land Law [Luat Dai Dai] 2003.

43

respondent and the appellant in order to clarify the case and to propose possible
resolutions to the case.98
To some extent, those kinds of procedural requirements also express theideas of natural justice or procedural fairness under Vietnamese administrativelaw. An administrative decision or act that fails to comply with thoserequirements can be challenged on the ground of failure to comply withprocedural requirements. However, given the importance of rules forprocedural fairness, serious consideration should be given to the issue inquestion by Vietnamese lawmakers. On the one hand, rules for procedural
fairness need to be fully incorporated in Vietnamese administrative law. On theother hand, if Vietnamese administrative law were to adopt a flexible approachto the effects of procedural errors as above suggested, the procedural errors
which adversely affect legitimate rights and interests of individuals andinstitutions (denial of procedural fairness) would need to be treated as fatal toadministrative decisions.

98

See, article 37 of the Law on Complaints and Denunciations [Luat Khieu nai, To
cao] 1998 (amended in 2005).

44

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

III. Improving the law of Vietnam in relation to
grounds for judicial review
After more than ten years since the people’s courts officially exercised
their administrative jurisdiction, judicial review of administrative action in
Vietnam has graduated from the ‘experimental’ period. In practice, a great dealof inadequacy of legal bases for a well-functioning judicial mechanism
controlling public power in Vietnam has been revealed. 99 This requires animprovement of legal rules with regard to the exercise of administrative
jurisdiction of Vietnam’s people’s courts. The task seems to be more urgent in
the context of the process of judicial reform and Vietnams pursuit of building arule-of-law state. 100 Amongst many legal issues in relation to administrative
adjudication is the need to build up and improve legal grounds for judicial
review of administrative action. The above analysis of grounds for review
under the law of Vietnam suggests practical reasons why Vietnam needs to do
so. It also helps to map out some solutions to building up and improving legal
grounds for judicial review of administrative action in the legal context ofVietnam, in which learning from legal experiences of foreign countries appears
to be a practical suggestion.

99
The inadequacy of legal bases for administrative adjudication in Vietnam has been
generally or specifically discussed in various articles by Vietnamese legal scholars. See, e.g.,
Nguyen Anh Tuan, Resolving Administrative Cases - Difficulties and Solutions [Giai quyet
khieu kien hanh chinh - Nhung vuong mac va giai phap], STATE MANAGEMNTJOURNAL [TAP CHI QUAN LY NHA NUOC ], (August 2001), pp. 15-18 ; Vu Thu, Some
issues on the enhancement of the efficiency of administrative courts in hearing
administrative cases [Mot so khia canh nang cao hieu suat hoat dong cua toa hanh chinh
trong viec giai quyet cac khieu kien hanh chinh], STATE AND LAW [NHA NUOC VA
PHAP LUAT, (August 2003), pp. 25-31; Le Xuan Than, supra, note 90; Nguyen Van Quang,
supra, note 7.
100

Judicial reform is one amongst many important current goals set by theCommunist Party of Vietnam (the CPV), in which reforming the court system is a central
task. Recently, the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of Vietnam issued the
Resolution of the Political Bureau No 49-NQ/TW dated June 02, 2005 on “Strategy on for
Judicial Reform by the Year 2020” [Nghi quyet so 49-NQ/TW ngay 02-6-2005 cua Bo Chinh
tri ve “Chien luoc cai cach tu phap den nam 2020”] which confirms that the reform of theVietnamese court system is a central task.

45

A. Framework legal provisions for grounds for review
Framework legal provisions determining all grounds for reviewing thelegality of an administrative decision (act) need to be incorporated in the
Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Administrative Cases. Such legal
provisions, on the one hand, provide judges with a common legal base toreview the legality of administrative decisions (acts). On the other hand, they
set out criteria which guide decision makers in order to improve the quality of
their decision making process. They also suggest grounds on which anyone
who is adversely affected by an administrative decision (act) will feel more
confident to initiate an administrative case to protect his or her legitimate rights
and interests.
To fulfill that task, learning from the legislative experience of foreigncountries like Australia or China is worthwhile. Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the AD(JR) Act of Australia or article 54 (2) (3) (4) of the ALL of China may suggest
to Vietnamese legislators some useful ideas to build up their own legal
provisions. Obviously, borrowing legislative experience from other countries
requires Vietnamese legislators to have a critical view for selecting relevant
factors that will apply in the legal context of Vietnam. However, while some
aspects of administrative jurisdiction (such as models of administrative
adjudication bodies) seem to be strongly influenced by socio-political factors,
legal requirements regarding the legality of administrative decisions appear to
be commonly accepted by laws of different countries. Determination of detailed
categories of grounds for review is a matter of legal techniques that do not
require taking fully into consideration socio-political factors. Consequently,
there seems to be a strong ground to support the idea that Vietnamese
legislators should learn from the legislative experiences of foreign countries tobuild up and improve legal provisions in this area.

46

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

It is noted that amending the current legislation of Vietnam by simply
adding legal provisions that define grounds for judicial review ofadministrative action as seen in administrative law of other foreign countries
would not seem to be a difficult task. However, a desired result would beachieved only if administrative law reformers seriously considered what sort ofgrounds for review should or should not be incorporated in the law of Vietnam
in its current condition. Given that judicial control of the exercise of
discretionary powers of administrative decision-makers is a complicated task
for courts, adoption of the ground of unreasonableness, one of grounds forchallenging the legality of exercising discretionary powers of administrators,
would require careful analysis in the current Vietnamese legal context.
There are some reasons for the above suggestion. Since it can be difficult toclearly define what is entailed in ‘unreasonableness’ in statutes, in order toeffectively use this ground to challenge the validity of administrative action,
courts could take full advantage of this broad ground to challenge the validityof administrative actions and they could do this by interpreting what amounts tounreasonableness in each particular case. However, this is not the case ofVietnamese courts. Traditionally, Vietnamese courts are rather passive in
exercising their discretionary powers to resolve their cases. Particularly, in ajurisdiction where courts have a rather weak role, where judicial
professionalism is under-developed, and where judges have a ‘close
relationship’ with bureaucrats, 101 it would be difficult to expect Vietnamesecourts to be active in developing a broad ground for review like‘unreasonableness’ for challenging the exercise of discretion of administrativedecision-makers. When the law is ambiguously or broadly stated,interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam is usually expected,
101
For a discussion of these issues, see, Nguyen Van Quang, A model ofadministrative tribunals for Vietnam? in Clauspeter Hill/Jochen Hoerth (eds.), Administrative
Law and Practice from South to East Asia, Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Foundation 2008,
pp. 277-83.

47

which are presented in the form of legal normative documents. Even using thisform to interpret ‘unreasonableness’, it would be hardly successful because
those legal normative documents could not fully cover what is entailed in‘unreasonableness’. Moreover, if the Court would not have clear and precise
interpretations of ‘unreasonableness’, courts could easily interfere deeply in theexercise of the executive powers in cases where they ought not to. Challenging
the validity of administrative action on this ground, therefore, would cost time,money and seem to be too expensive to the Vietnamese conditions. For thesereasons, it would be desirable to suggest that a ground of unreasonablenessshould not be included in Vietnamese administrative law.

B. Enhancing the role of the People’s Supreme Court in making
judicial interpretations
As a body that has an important role in instructing inferior courts how
to apply the law and summarizing adjudicative experience, the Supreme
People’s Court should be more active in enacting legal documents interpreting
grounds for reviewing the legality of administrative decisions (acts). It should
be noted that in the context of the judicial reform process including the reformof the court system, there is a call from reformers for enhancing the role of theSupreme People’s Court in instructing inferior courts on how to apply thelaw.102 This is because the Court for a long time has concentrated heavily on
the task of adjudication while spending insufficient time on fulfilling the taskof a body that has functions to instruct inferior courts how to apply the law andsummarize adjudication experience.103 Suggesting that the Court issues more
102

See, Nguyen Dinh Quyen, Some opinions about judicial reform [Mot so quandiem ve cai cach tu phap], LEGISLATIVE STUDIES SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 4 [TAP CHINGHIEN CUU LAP PHAP DAC SAN SO 4], (March 2003), p.17.
103

See, ibid. p. 15; see, also Le Thi Nga, Organizing regional people’s courts –theory and practice [To chuc Toa an Nhan dan khu vuc – nhung van de ly luan va thuc tien],
LEGISLATIVE STUDIES SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 4 [TAP CHI NGHIEN CUU LAP PHAPDAC SAN SO 4] (March 2003), p. 54.

48

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

legal documents interpreting the law in relation to administrative adjudication,
therefore, seems to be quite reasonable in the current context.
Unlike framework legal provisions, judicial interpretations with regard
to grounds for review need to specify detailed grounds and their implications incertain circumstances. The more specific those judicial interpretations are, themore precisely and uniformly the law will be applied in administrative
adjudication. To successfully issue such judicial interpretations, the Court
needs to take into account all adjudicative experience and exchanged opinions
of judges and legal scholars about grounds for review.

C. Call for the adoption of a doctrine of precedent
Although statutory law can easily enumerate a list of grounds, finding whatis exactly entailed in each ground is not an easy task and usually needs
reference to cases in which legal rules in this regard are specifically interpreted
and consistently applied. Thus, the issue of adopting a case law system ought tobe raised.
It should be noted that there are various doctrines of precedent, ranging
from the ‘strict’ doctrine which governed England and Australia until the 1960s
through to ‘de facto’ doctrines which treat precedents as illustrative andpersuasive in the absence of reasons for disregarding them.104 It is particularly
necessary to distinguish between ‘binding’ precedent and ‘guiding’ precedenthere. Adopting a ‘binding’ precedent system means that inferior courts shouldtake account of decisions of superior courts when hearing similar cases. This
form of precedent has governed courts in common law jurisdictions deciding
legal issues. Meanwhile, ‘guiding’ precedent implies that decisions of superior

104

For a discussion of a ‘strong’ doctrine of precedent and a ‘relaxed’ doctrine ofprecedent, see, R Dworkin, Law’s Empire (1986), 24-6.

49

courts are regarded only as ‘a source of reference’ which could suggest ways toresolve similar cases to inferior courts. Nevertheless, ‘guiding’ precedent plays
a role in ensuring the consistent application of laws in the course of resolvingcases.
Being strongly influenced by the Soviet legal school, the law of Vietnam
has not accepted a doctrine of precedent.105 This means that legal normative
documents are the only source of law that Vietnam’s courts can formally referto in their decisions. While no detailed legal provisions and judicial
interpretations explicitly state grounds for review, Vietnam’s judges cannot citeprevious judgments as a source of law for making their decisions. This tension
leads to a great deal of difficulty in reviewing the legality of administrativedecisions (acts) in Vietnam’s judicial practice.
In the climate of judicial reform, the question whether or not Vietnam
accepts the doctrine of precedent is being currently debated in several legal
forums. Professor Le Minh Tam (2004) argues that case law is not regarded asa typical source of socialist law as its application very likely leads toarbitrariness and this, in turn, is inconsistent with the principle of socialist
legality. He admits, however, to some extent, this doctrine has been applied in
Vietnam through the role of the Supreme People’s Court in instructing inferior
courts how to apply the law in special cases by issuing guidelines in different
forms as mentioned above.106
On the contrary, some argue that accepting the doctrine of precedent willassist judges to precisely and uniformly apply the law as they can formally referto previous court decisions that deal with similar cases for making their own
105

See, Le Minh Tam, Nature, characteristics, roles, types and sources of law [Banchat, dac trung, vai tro, cac kieu va hinh thuc phap luat] in LE MINH TAM (ed.), TEXTBOOK ON THEMES OF STATE AND LAW [GIAO TRINH LY LUAN NHA NUOC VA
PHAP LUAT], p. 84.
106

See, Le Minh Tam, supra, note 24, p. 394. For the forms of guideline issued by
the Supreme People’s Court, see, supra, Part I.B.2.

50

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

decisions.107 They also stress that although guidelines issued by the Supreme
People’s Court are a good source for reference, they still are in the nature ofgeneral rules and do not include legal reasoning of judges relating to eachparticular case. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that to some extent, thedoctrine of precedent has been applied in Vietnam.108 Analyzing advantages ofcase law, some Vietnamese legal scholars and lawyers have made a call for
considering the application of the doctrine of precedent or at least its relevant
elements in the legal context of Vietnam.109 They particularly emphasize thatthe adoption of the doctrine of precedent is an important task that Vietnam
needs to fulfill in the course of the judicial reform and international
integration.110
As a country in transition whose legal system is strongly influenced by
the Soviet law school, Vietnam would obviously face many difficulties inregards to both theoretical and practical aspects in adopting a doctrine ofprecedent. This requires much discussion within the Vietnamese jurist circles
and Chinese experience in this regard would be worthwhile considering. In
China where the legal tradition is almost identical to that of Vietnam, someelements of the doctrine of precedent have been applied. In recent years,

107
See, Pham Duy Nghia, Confucianism in the future of Vietnam's law [Nho giao
trong tuong lai phap luat Viet Nam], SCIENCE JOURNAL [TAP CHI KHOA HOC],
SPECIAL ISSUE ON LAW AND ECOMOMICS [CHUYEN SAN LUAT-KINH TE](2004) available at <http://www.vnu.edu.vn/dhqg/contents/index.php?ID=769#bai1>.
Looking back at the Vietnamese legal history, Nghia pointed out that the relevant elementsof the doctrine of precedent used to be applied in Vietnam during the French colonialism andended in the 1950s due to the import of the Soviet legal school.

108
Ibid. See, also, Vo Tri Hao, The role of courts in legal interpretation [Vai tro giai thichphap luat cua toa an], JOURNAL OF LEGAL SCIENCE [TAP CHI KHOA HOC PHAP LY],
No. 3, 2003, available at http://www.hcmulaw.edu.vn/hcmulaw/index.php?option=
com_content&view=article&id=237:tc2003so3vttagt&

109

See, Pham Duy Nghia, supra, note 106; Vo Tri Hao, supra, note 106. Hao andNghia argue for the application of a doctrine of precedent in the Vietnamese legal context.
110See, Dinh, supra, note 106.

51

Chinese legal scholars have been attracted by the debate about whether or towhat degree the doctrine of precedent should be adopted in China. 111 Since
1985, the Supreme People’s Court of China has in fact published ‘selectedcases’ including administrative cases in its official gazette as a source ofreference for the whole Chinese court system.112 Those ‘selected cases’ are notlegally binding on the Chinese courts but play an important role in legal
education not only for judges, but for the public in general. In fact, they are
regarded as ‘de facto precedents’ of China. 113

To follow the Chineseexperience, it seems to be premature to suggest the adoption of a case law
system as seen in common law countries in the current conditions of Vietnam.
What Vietnam should do is to adopt elements of the doctrine of precedent
relevant to its current legal context. In other words, a ‘guiding’ precedentsystem, as above mentioned, would be desirable for Vietnam.
The publication of the first volumes of court judgments of the Supreme
People’s Court in Vietnam is a good point to support those who argue for the
adoption of relevant elements of a case law system in Vietnam.114 It should be

111
For detailed current discussions about the adoption of the doctrine of precedent in
China, see, Chris X. Lin, 'A Quiet Revolution: An Overview of China's Judicial Reform'(2003) 4 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal 256 <http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/pdfs/v4lin.pdf>, 299-312. In this article, Lin introduced the decision to adopt the precedent system
of Zhongyuan District and analyzed the recent opposing views of scholars on the issue of
whether China should apply the doctrine of precedent as it has been applied in countries ofcommon law tradition. He concluded that ‘[a]ll the controversies notwithstanding, some kindof precedent system will eventually take root in China because it serves the importantfunction of promoting uniformity of litigation outcome - a critical [sic] to China’s judicial
reform’.

112

See, N Liu, Opinions of the Supreme People's Court Judicial Interpretation in
China (1997), 38-44.
113
114

Ibid. p. 44.

See, THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT [TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO],
supra, note 42. To publish the first volumes of cases, the Supreme People’s Court ofVietnam has received the technical assistance of many foreign organizations, in whichsignificant contribution to this technical assistance belongs to the STAR Project funded by
USAID. In other efforts, Japan also has assisted Vietnam in developing the system of
judicial precedents, see, Supreme People’s Court [Toa An Nhan Dan Toi Cao], Vietnam-

52

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

noted that publishing cases has become very common in many civil law
tradition countries such as Germany, 115 France, 116 Japan 117 and China118 as afeature of a transparent legal system. The first publication of selected cases ofVietnam has been marked as a special event of its current judicial reform
process. The Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam expects that this publication
will become a good source of reference for judges in the course of resolvingcases which are similar to published cases. 119 The Court also hopes thatpublished cases will play an important role in legal education and more broadly
assist Vietnam to build up a transparent legal system.120
Publishing cases, however, is only a primary attempt to apply relevant
elements of the doctrine of precedent in the legal context of Vietnam. Towards
a successful adoption of relevant elements of the case law system, much work
is required to be performed, firstly within the Vietnamese court system. One ofobvious concerns is the content and the form of published judgments that are
expected to be ‘pattern judgments’ for reference in the course of hearing cases.
Essentially, the content of published judgments of the Supreme People’s Courtof Vietnam appears to be simple, especially in comparison with cases publishedin Law Reports of common law jurisdictions like Australia. Despite a brief
Japan joint research on the development of judicial precedent in Vietnam (available inVietnamese, English and Japanese languages) (2008).
115
See, <http://www.llrx.com/features/germanlaw.htm#court > for further information
about the case law in Germany.
116

See, <http://www.llrx.com/features/french.htm#Case> for further information
about the case law in France.
117

See, < http://www.worldlii.org/catalog/2574.html> for further information about
the case law in Japan.
118

See, Zhai Jianxiong, Judicial Information of the People’s Republic of China: aSurvey (2002) <http://www.llrx.com/features/chinajudicial.htm - Official Publication >.
119
See, THE SUPREME PEOPLE’S COURT [TOA AN NHAN DAN TOI CAO],
supra, note 42, pp.19-20.
120

Ibid.

53

description of facts and court rulings, a typical judgment of Vietnam provides
little legal reasoning. Typically, a court judgment of Vietnam’s courts includes
three parts: Part 1 titled ‘Nhan thay’ (literally, perceiving) gives a briefprescription of facts relating to the case; Part 2 titled ‘Xet thay’ (literally,
considering) states rather simple legal reasoning which mainly points to legal
provisions applicable to the case; Part 3 titled ‘Quyet dinh’ (literally, deciding)states the court’s rulings. 121 Without sufficient legal reasoning to justify the
court rulings, it would be very hard for other courts which intend to refer to the
published judgment for their decisions. Therefore, detailed requirements of acourt judgment need to be worked out for improving the quality of publishedjudgments, which, in turn, promotes advantages of the publication of selectedcases.

121

For a typical content of judgment of an administrative case see, Supreme People’s
Court of Vietnam, supra, note 38.

54

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Conclusion
The establishment of an administrative law jurisdiction of the court
system has been marked as a major objective of Vietnam to create a set of tools
protecting the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and organizations.
For the purposes of building up a socialist rule-of-law state and international
integration, this objective has great worth. However, there still is much work to
be done to improve the relatively new judicial mechanism controlling public
power in Vietnam. Amongst a range of much needed tasks is the need to build
up and improve transparent legal rules for the administrative adjudication
system of which are rules of grounds for review. Although several basis rulesof grounds for review have been adopted in the Vietnamese administrative law
system, applicants have still confronted many difficulties during the course of
establishing grounds for challenging an administrative decision (action) inquestion. All the limitations in the law relating to grounds for review which
affect the effectiveness and quality of administrative adjudication as revealed inthis paper provide examples that indicate the need for improving theVietnamese administrative law system.
To fulfill the above task, studying foreign experiences is one practicalsuggestion. Given this approach, this paper suggests that Vietnam needs toincorporate in its laws several rules that state grounds for review in astraightforward manner. To be sure, making these rules is not sufficient foreffectively reviewing an administrative decision (action) in question. What ismore important, as this paper has noted, is to strengthen the role of the Supreme
People’s Court of Vietnam in legal interpretation. Furthermore, this paper, tosome extent, also raises the issue of adopting case law in the Vietnamese legal
context. However, each country, regardless of its legal tradition, adapts thelegal system to suit its own local conditions. Therefore, to achieve desired
results in regard to application of any foreign experiences in Vietnam, all its
specific political, socio-economic, and legal conditions need to be taken into

55

consideration. Given this concern, this paper, to some extent, puts forward
several challenges, both theoretical and practical during the course of applying
foreign experiences in this field.

56

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

57

Selected bibliography:
Aronson, Mark, Dyer, Bruce and Groves, Matthew, Judicial Review of
Administrative Action (3rd ed, 2004), Lawbook Co., Pyrmont, N.S.W.
Brown, Lionel Neville and Bell, John S., French Administrative Law (4th ed,1993), Clarendon Press, Oxford; Oxford University Press, New York.
Cuong, Dao Kim, 'Mot so can cu huy quyet dinh hanh chinh bi khieu kien, coquan nha nuoc ban hanh quyet dinh hanh chinh trai phap luat boi thuong thiet hai
cho cong dan (Some Grounds for Annulling Challenged Administrative Decisions
and Paying Compensation for Citizens in Case State Agencies Issue Illegal
Administrative Decisions)' (2001) Issue No 4 Tap chi Toa an Nhan dan (People's
Court Review) 18.
Cong, Le, 'Phan quyet cua toa hanh chinh ve hanh vi trai phap luat trong quanly dat dai cua UBND xa Tay Luong - Tien Hai - Thai Binh (The Judgment of the
Administrative Court about the Illegal Act of the People's Committee at Tay Luong
Commune – Tien Hai District- Thai Binh Province)' (2001) (Special Issue, 122001) Dan chu & Phap Luat (Democracy & Law) 103.
Douglas, Roger, Douglas and Jones's Administrative Law (4th ed, 2002),
Federation Press, Annandale, N.S.W.
Dworkin, R.M., Law’s Empire (1986), Fontana, London.
Enright, Christopher, Judicial Review of Administrative Action (1985),
Branxton Press, Sydney.
Feng, Lin, Administrative Law Procedures and Remedies in China (1996),
Sweet & Maxwell, Hong Kong.

58

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

Hawkins, K, The Uses of Discretion (1992), Clarendon Press, Oxford; Oxford
University Press, New York.
Hien, Tran Thi, Nguyen Manh Hung, and Pham Hong Quang, Khoa hoc Luat
To tung Hanh chinh va Luat To tung Hanh chinh Viet Nam (Administrative
Procedural Law Studies and Vietnamese Administrative Procedural Law) in Hoang
Van Sao, Nguyen Phuc Thanh (eds.), Giao trinh luat to tung hanh chinh (Textbook
on Themes of Vietnamese Administrative Procedural Law), Nha xuat Tu phap (The
Justice Publisher), 7.
Hao, Vo Tri, Vai tro giai thich phap luat cua toa an (The role of courts in legal
interpretation), Tap chi khoa hoc phap ly ( Journal of legal science), 2003 (No.3),
Dai hoc Luat Thanh pho Ho Chi Minh (Hochiminh City University of Law).
H. Thanh, Xet xu vu UBND TP HCM bi hai doanh nghiep kien (Hearing theCase in Which the People’s Council of Ho Chi Minh City is Challenged by the
TwoEnterprises)(2005),

VnExpress,<http://vnexpress.net/Vietnam/Phap-

luat/2005/07/3B9E054E/ >.
Huong, Tran Minh, Nhung van de chung cua Luat Hanh chinh (General Issuesof Administrative Law) in Tran Minh Huong (ed.), Giao trinh Luat hanh chinh Viet
Nam (Textbook on Themes of Vietnamese Administrative Law) (2004), Nha xuat
ban cong an nhan dan (The People Policemen Publisher), Hanoi, 8.
Jianxiong, Zhai Judicial Information of the People’s Republic of China: a Survey(2002) <http://www.llrx.com/features/chinajudicial.htm#Official%20Publication >Lin, Chris X., 'A Quiet Revolution: an Overview of China's Judicial Reform' (2003)
4 Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, <http://www.hawaii.edu/aplpj/pdfs/v4-lin.pdf>,
256.

59

Linh, Ngoc, 'Qua xet xu giam doc tham mot so vu an hanh chinh ve dat dai (OnHearing Some Administrative Cases in Relation to Land Management by
Procedures of Supervision and Review)' (2001) So chuyen de ve Toa hanh chinh va
viec giai quyet khieu kien cua to chuc, cong dan (Special Issue on Administrative
Courts and Resolving Complaints of Institutions and Citizens) Dan chu & Phap
Luat (Democracy & Law) 76.
Liu, Nanping, Opinions of the Supreme People's Court Judicial Interpretationin China, the China Law Series (1997), Sweet & Maxwell Asia, Hong Kong.
Luu, Uong Chung, 'Procedures for Reviewing Administrative Decisions in
Vietnam' in John Gillespie (ed.), Commercial Legal Development in Vietnam:
Vietnam and Foreign Commentaries (1997), Butterworths Asia, Singapore, 461.
Mau, Dinh Van and Thai, Pham Hong, Tai phan hanh chinh o Viet Nam(Administrative Jurisdiction in Vietnam) (1995), Ho Chi Minh City Publisher, Ho
Chi Minh.
Mau, Dinh Van and Thai, Pham Hong, Thu tuc hanh chinh (Administrative
Procedure) in Tran Minh Huong (ed.), Giao trinh Luat hanh chinh (Textbook on
Themes of Vietnamese Administrative Law) (2004), Nha xuat ban cong an nhandan (The People Policemen Publisher), Hanoi, 177.
Ministry of Home Affair and UNDP Vietnam, PAR Master Plan Programme,
Result &Learning: 2001-2002 from Step by Step to a Leap Forward<http://www.undp.org.vn/undp/docs/2002/parmp/index.htm > (2002).
Nghia, Pham Duy, 'Nho giao trong tuong lai phap luat Viet Nam(Confucianism in the future of Vietnam's law)' (2004) (1) Tap chi Khoa hoc

60

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

(Science Journal) Chuyen san Luat-Kinh te (Special issue on Law and Economic)
Dai hoc Quoc gia Ha Noi (Ha Noi National University).
Pei, Minxin, Citizens v. Mandarins: Administrative Litigation in China (1997),
Issue No 152 The China Quarterly 832.
Quang, Nguyen, 'The Organization and Operation of Administrative Courts in
Vietnam' in R Cribb (ed.), Asia Examined: Proceedings of the Biennial Conferenceof the ASAA, 2004, Canberra, Australia (2004).
Quang, Nguyen Van, 'Ve xac dinh cac can cu danh gia tinh hop phap cua quyet
dinh hanh chinh trong xet xu cac vu an hanh chinh (On Determining Grounds toReview the Legality of Administrative Decisions in Resolving Administrative
Cases)' (2004) 5 Luat hoc (Jurisprudence Review), 46.
Quang, Nguyen Van, Cac nguyen tac co ban trong quan ly hanh chinh nha
nuoc (Basic Principles in State Administration) in Tran Minh Huong (ed.), Giao
trinh Luat hanh chinh Viet Nam (Textbook on Themes of Vietnamese
Administrative Law) (2004), Nha xuat ban cong an nhan dan (The People
Policemen Publisher), Hanoi, 61.
Quang, Nguyen Van, A model of administrative tribunals for Vietnam? inClauspeter Hill/Jochen Hoerth (eds.), Administrative Law and Practice from Southto East Asia, Singapore: Konrad Adenauer Foundation 2008, 248.
Quyen, Nguyen Dinh, 'Mot so quan diem ve cai cach tu phap (Some Opinions
about Judicial Reform)' (2003) 3 Tap chi Nghien cuu Lap phap (Legislative
Studies) 15.
Tam, Le Minh, 'Ban chat, dac trung, vai tro, cac kieu va hinh thuc phap luat
(Nature, Characteristics, Roles, Types and Sources of Law)' in Le Minh Tam (ed.),61

Giao trinh ly luan nha nuoc va phap luat (2005) (Textbook on Themes of Theory
on State and Law), Nha xuat ban Tu Phap (Justice Publisher), Hanoi, 63.
Tam, Le Minh, 'Hinh thuc phap luat xa hoi chu nghia (Source of Socialist
Law)' in Le Minh Tam (ed.), Giao trinh ly luan nha nuoc va phap luat (Textbook
on Themes of Theory on State and Law) (2005), Nha xuat ban Tu Phap (Justice
Publisher), Hanoi, 353.
Tam, Le Minh, He thong phap luat xa hoi chu nghia (The Socialist Legal
System) in Le Minh Tam (ed.), Giao trinh ly luan nha nuoc va phap luat (Textbook
on Themes of State and Law) (2005), Nha xuat ban Tu Phap (Justice Publisher),Hanoi, 399.
Than, Le Xuan, 'Mot so y kien ve to chuc va hoat dong cua Toa hanh chinh(Some viewpoints regarding the organization and functioning of administrative
courts)' (2002) Issue No 7 Nha nuoc va Phap luat (State and Law) 31.
Thanh, Nguyen Phuc, Quyet dinh hanh chinh (Administrative Decision) in
Tran Minh Huong (ed.), Giao trinh Luat hanh chinh Viet Nam (Textbook on
themes of Vietnamese Administrative Law) (2004), Nha xuat ban cong an nhan dan(The People Policemen Publisher), Hanoi,181.
Thu, Vu, 'Thu tuc to tung hanh chinh (Administrative procedures)' in Dao Tri
Uc (ed.), He thong tu phap va cai cach tu phap o Viet Nam hien nay (The Judicial
System and Judicial Reform in Vietnam at Present) (2002), Nha xuat ban khoa hoc
xa hoi (Social Sciences Publishing House), Hanoi, 340.
Thu, Vu, 'Mot so khia canh cua viec nang cao hieu suat hoat dong cua toa hanhchinh trong viec giai quyet cac khieu kien hanh chinh (Some Issues on Promoting

62

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

the Efficiency of Administrative Courts Regarding Hearing Administrative Cases)'(2003) Issue No 8 Nha nuoc va Phap luat (State and Law) 25.
Thu, Vu, 'Tinh hop phap va hop ly cua van ban phap luat va cac bien phap xu
ly cac khiem khuyet cua no (The Legality and Reasonableness of Legal Documents
and Solutions to Fixing Their Defects)' (2003) Issue No 1 Nha nuoc va Phap luat
(State and Law) 8.
Tien Minh, Cham thu tuc hanh chinh nguoi dan duoc khoi kien (People Can Initiate
Administrative Cases if There Is Delay in Performing Administrative Procedures)(2005), VietnamNet, <http://vietnamnet.vn/chinhtri/doinoi/2005/06/463465/ >.
Toa An Nhan Dan Toi Cao (Supreme People’s Court), Cassation Decisions of
the Justice Council of the Supreme People’s Court 2006 (Quyet dinh giam doc
tham cua Hoi dong tham phan toa an nhan dan toi cao 2006) (2008).
Toa An Nhan Dan Toi Cao (Supreme People’s Court), Vietnam-Japan joint
research on the development of judicial precedent in Vietnam (available inVietnamese, English and Japanese languages) (2008), Nha xuat ban thanh nien
(Youth Publishing House).
Toa An Nhan Dan Toi Cao (Supreme People’s Court), Benchbook online (So tay
tham phan) (2006) <http://www.sotaythamphan.gov.vn/index.php?hidLang=en>.
Toa hanh chinh -Toa an dan nhan toi cao (Administrative Division of theSupreme People’s Court), So tay trao doi nghiep vu giai quyet an hanh chinh (TheManual for Resolving Administrative Cases) (2001), Hanoi.
Tuan, Nguyen Anh, 'Giai quyet khieu kien hanh chinh - Nhung vuong mac va
giai phap (Resolving Administrative Cases - Difficulties and Solutions)' (2001)
Issue No 8 Tap chi Quan ly Nha nuoc (State Management Review) 15.

63

Vu, Khac, 'Mot quyet dinh thu hoi dat trai phap luat bi Toa an tuyen huy (AnUnlawful Decision Reclaiming Lands Was Quashed by the Court)' (2001) Special
issue on Administrative Courts and Resolving

Complaints of Institutions andCitizens Dan chu & Phap Luat ( Democracy & Law) 88.
Ying, S., 'Administrative Litigation in China' in Yong Zhang (ed.),Comparative Studies on the Judicial Review System in East and South-East Asia
(1997), Kluwer Law International, The Hague; Boston, 45.

64

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

65

Nguyen Van Quang
Nguyen Van Quang obtained his PhD in Law
from La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia in 2007
and currently is Deputy Head of International Cooperation
Department

and

Chair

of

Administrative

Law(Postgraduate Studies) at Hanoi Law University, Vietnam.
Dr. Nguyen Van Quang’s research interests include
Vietnamese administrative law and comparative administrative law and his
various works have been published in Vietnam and abroad. From May to August
2009 Dr. Nguyen Van Quang was invited to Center for Asian Legal Exchange(CALE), Nagoya University as a Visiting Research Fellow to collaborate withProfessor Aikyo Masanori in conducting research on “Comparing Japanese andVietnamese Administrative Procedural Law”.

CALE Discussion Paper No.3
GROUNDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVEACTION:AN ANALYSIS OF VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
AuthorDr. Nguyen Van Quang

Published byCenter for Asian Legal Exchange (CALE)
Nagoya University464-8601 Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, JAPAN
Tel: +81 (0)52-789-2325
Fax: +81 (0)52-789-4902
http://cale.law.nagoya-u.ac.jp/

Issue date

15, January, 2010

Printed by

Nagoya University Co-operative Association© All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval systemor transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or

66

CALE Discussion Paper No.3

otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

67

C ALE Discussion Paper No.3
January, 2010

GROUNDS FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION:
AN ANALYSIS OF
VIETNAMESE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Dr. Nguyen Van Quang

Nagoya University
C e n t e r for Asian Legal Exchange

C A L E D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r No.3 (January, 2010)
Nagoya University
C e n t e r f o r A s i a n L egal Exchange