行政诉讼中对行政程序违法的判决问题研究

发布时间：2018-02-03 12:54

本文关键词： 行政程序违法判决重构行政诉讼法修改　出处：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在社会主义法治建设进程中，程序正义的价值越来越为人们所关注和推崇，因为实体正义很大程度上依赖于程序正义。行政程序在行政法的构成中占据着很大分量，理应提升到与行政实体同等重要的位置。但长期以来，我国行政领域在“重实体，轻程序”观念影响下，行政程序违法现象普遍存在，严重损害了行政管理秩序和相对人的合法权益。随着“民告官”现象的遍地开花，法官在行政诉讼中不可避免的要遇到大量行政程序违法行为并需要通过判决来确认其法律后果。根据我国现行《行政诉讼法》及其司法解释的规定，关于程序违法，除了两种特殊情形下可以判决确认违法或无效，一般仅能作出撤销判决；因程序违法被撤销，行政机关可以重作一模一样的新行为。撤销程序违法的行政行为固然是对程序价值的重视，但不分情况不顾实体的一概撤销可能违背法的效率原则和法的安定性，同时判决被告重作一个完全相同的行政行为对原告来说又毫无意义。现行法的缺陷遭到了各方的质疑。从近些年的司法实践来看，法官对于程序违法的行政行为不再拘泥于撤销判决，更多的运用价值判断和法律解释。学界的相关理论成果虽然丰富，但难以为法官在判决时的选择提供较为明确的指引。笔者以《行政诉讼法》修改为契机，试图提出一个相对合理且便于操作的行政程序违法判决模式供参考。本文首先阐述了行政程序违法概念、表现形式及除外情形等相关的基本原理，对现行《行政诉讼法》及其司法解释和修改草案相关规定以及司法实践情况进行评价，，分析存在的问题。接下来结合域外立法、司法经验和学界成果对影响判决选择的三组价值因素作了权衡，并提出了行政程序违法判决的理想架构。笔者建议按程序违法程度轻重和是否可以补正为标准，将程序违法行政行为分为严重程序违法、一般程序违法、轻微程序瑕疵三种类型，分别对应“确认无效、撤销+重作、确认违法+补正”三种判决模式，同时将例外情形进行了列举，设置了重作和补正判决的适用限制条件。最后，笔者在行政诉讼法修正案二次审议稿的基础上简要提出了完善建议。
[Abstract]:In the process of the construction of socialist rule of law, the value of procedural justice is paid more and more attention to and respected by people. Because substantive justice depends on procedural justice to a large extent, administrative procedure occupies a large part in the composition of administrative law, and should be promoted to the same important position as administrative entity. But for a long time. Under the influence of the concept of "attaching importance to substance and neglecting procedure", the illegal phenomenon of administrative procedure exists generally in the administrative field of our country. Seriously damaged the administrative order and the legitimate rights and interests of the relative person. With the phenomenon of "people sue officials" everywhere. Judges will inevitably encounter a large number of administrative procedural violations in administrative proceedings and need to confirm their legal consequences through judgment. According to the current provisions of our country's Administrative procedure Law and its judicial interpretation. With regard to procedural violations, except for two special circumstances in which the violation of the law or invalidity can be confirmed by a judgment, the general decision can only be annulled; Due to the illegal cancellation of the procedure, the administrative organ can do the same new behavior again. The illegal administrative act of revocation procedure is the value of the procedure. However, regardless of the circumstances, the nullification of the entity may violate the principle of efficiency of law and the stability of law. At the same time, it makes no sense for the plaintiff to decide that the defendant should do the same administrative act again. The defects of the existing law have been questioned by all parties. Judging from the judicial practice in recent years, judges no longer stick to annulment of the administrative acts of procedural violations, more use of value judgment and legal interpretation. Although the academic theoretical results are rich. However, it is difficult to provide more clear guidance for judges in the choice of judgment. The author takes the revision of the Administrative procedure Law as an opportunity. Try to put forward a relatively reasonable and easy to operate administrative procedure illegal judgment model for reference. Firstly, this paper describes the concept of administrative procedure violations, manifestations and exceptions and other related basic principles. The current "Administrative procedure Law" and its judicial interpretation and revision of the draft relevant provisions as well as judicial practice evaluation, analysis of the existing problems. Next, combined with extraterritorial legislation. The judicial experience and academic achievements weigh the three groups of value factors that affect the choice of judgment, and put forward the ideal structure of illegal judgment of administrative procedure. The author suggests that according to the severity of illegal procedure and whether it can be corrected as the standard. The administrative behavior of illegal procedure can be divided into three types: serious procedure violation, general procedure violation and minor procedural defect, corresponding to three kinds of judgment modes: "confirming invalidity, revoking redoing, confirming illegal correction". At the same time, the exceptions are listed, and the limitation conditions for remaking and correcting judgments are set up. Finally, the author briefly puts forward some suggestions on the basis of the second review of the amendments to the Administrative procedure Law.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.3;D922.11

【参考文献】