论行政撤销诉讼证明责任之分配

发布时间：2018-03-12 20:24

本文选题：行政撤销诉讼　切入点：证明责任　出处：《西南政法大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在行政诉讼领域学者对证明责任分配理论的讨论主要围绕着撤销诉讼进行。我国现行《行政诉讼法》及司法解释对原被告应当承担证明责任的事项已有规定，但法条的内容片面单一，对原被告之间承担证明责任的范围规定不清，法官依照立法作出的裁判缺乏足够的说服力，错案冤案时有发生。因此，必须在行政撤销诉讼案件中合理地分配证明责任，保证裁判的正确性，才能促进司法权威的树立，最终实现司法正义。文章第一部分主要介绍本文讨论行政撤销诉讼证明责任分配的必要性。当前我国行政诉讼有关证明责任分配的立法存在较大缺陷，鉴于行政撤销诉讼在行政诉讼类型划分体系下的重要地位，以讨论行政撤销诉讼证明责任的分配为切入点，为如何在整个行政诉讼领域合理分配证明责任提供新的视角，提高案件裁判结果的正确性。首先，本部分将行政撤销诉讼的对象限定在相对人请求法院撤销行政机关作出的具有处分性的行政行为，对行政撤销诉讼在行政诉讼体系占有极为重要的地位进行介绍，阐明本文将证明责任分配理论的讨论限定在行政撤销诉讼领域的缘由。其次，通过对证明责任的概念的介绍，分析主观证明责任与客观证明责任的区别，将本文讨论的证明责任的范围限定为客观证明责任，并对行政撤销诉讼证明责任分配讨论的原因作出说明：有助于当事人明晰自身应当承担证明责任的范围，使得法官裁判更具准确性，维护当事人之间的实质公平；有利于当事人保存证据，，促进依法行政；遏制行政恣意，避免原告滥诉等。文章第二部分对德国、日本等学者对行政诉讼证明责任分配理论的主要观点进行梳理和评析，同时介绍我国之前盛行的行政诉讼证明责任分配的观点。德国行政诉讼证明责任分配理论众多，具有代表性的是合法推定说、消极事实说、规范说、修正规范说、自由裁量说、期待理论等，现阶段德国学界仍将“规范说”作为行政诉讼证明责任分配的通说，在法院判例中多有体现。在明治维新时期日本继受了德国的行政法理论，在二战后又学习了英美法系国家的相关理论，因此其行政法理论独具特色。日本行政诉讼证明责任分配学说不断演变，从公定力根据说到法治主义根据说，从法律要件分类说到宪法秩序归纳说，从调查义务说到实质说，各种学说百花齐放，为证明责任理论不断注入新鲜血液。日本现阶段仍以“法律要件分类说”为通说，“宪法秩序归纳说”也越来越得到学界与实务界的肯定。我国行政诉讼证明责任分配的观点主要集中于行政诉讼证明责任分配是民事诉讼“谁主张，谁举证”的投影和行政机关必须对其作出的行政行为承担所有责任等。文章第三部分通过剖析我国现阶段行政诉讼证明责任立法的缺陷，对德、日与我国行政诉讼证明责任分配理论进行比较，综合优劣，为我国行政诉讼证明责任理论提供借鉴方向然后尝试对我国行政撤销诉讼领域证明责任该如何分配进行探讨，寄望于确立以成文化规则为主的行政撤销诉讼证明责任的分配模式。同时，引用一起案例，分析各种证明责任学说在具体案例中适用的优缺点，并以荣昌法院作出的裁定或判决为典型，例举实务界已经将“法律要件分类说”适用至具体案件中的事实，提出应当坚持以“法律要件分类说”为主导，“宪法秩序归纳说”和“实质说”为补充的分配规则。最后，以是否依职权作出的标准将行政行为划分为依职权作出的行政行为和依申请作出的行政行为，将“法律要件分类说”运用至具体实体法中，最终对我国行政诉讼证明责任立法提出了期许和展望。
[Abstract]:In the field of administrative litigation of scholars to discuss the burden of proof of the revocation proceedings. Around the main current "administrative procedure law" and the judicial interpretation of the plaintiff and the defendant shall bear the burden of proof of the matters stipulated in the law, but the content of single one-sided, between the plaintiff and the defendant bear the burden of proof of the scope provisions is not clear. The judge in accordance with the legislation of the referee made the lack of convincing, misjudged cases have occurred unjust case. Therefore, we must have a reasonable allocation of the burden of proof in administrative repeal litigation cases, to ensure the validity of judgment, in order to promote the establishment of the judicial authority, and ultimately to achieve judicial justice.
The first part mainly introduces the necessity to discuss administrative revocation of the distribution of burden of proof in litigation. The current administrative litigation concerning the distribution of burden of proof of the legislative shortcomings, in view of the important position in the system of administrative repeal litigation administrative litigation type division, to discuss the distribution of burden of proof of administrative revocation litigation as the starting point, how to distribute that provides a new perspective in the field of administrative litigation responsibility reasonably, to improve the accuracy of the judgment of cases. First of all, this part of the object of administrative repeal litigation is defined in the relative people request the court to revoke an administrative punishment of administrative behavior, carries on the introduction to the administrative repeal litigation in administrative litigation system occupies a very important this paper will discuss status, clarify proof responsibility distribution theory is limited in the administrative litigation revocation reason. Secondly, based on the proof The responsibility of the introduction of the concept, analysis the difference between the subjective burden of proof and objective burden of proof, the scope of the burden of proof is defined as the objective burden of proof, and explain the reasons for the allocation of the burden of proof of administrative revocation proceedings discussed: to help the parties should clarify their scope of burden of proof, the judge has more accuracy and maintain substantive fairness between the parties; to help parties to preserve evidence, promote administration according to law; to curb administrative arbitrariness, avoid excessive litigation plaintiff.
The second part of Germany, Japan and other scholars theory of the allocation of burden of proof in administrative review and analysis, and introduces the administrative litigation in China before the prevailing view. The distribution of burden of proof in administrative litigation in Germany, the distribution of burden of proof theory, is representative of the legal presumption that the negative fact that standard said. Correct specification said, discretion, expectation theory, current German scholars will still be "standard" as the administrative litigation proof responsibility distribution theory, in the jurisprudence of the court had reflected. In Meiji Japan has influenced by the theory of administrative law in Germany after World War II, and learning theory the countries of Anglo American law system, so the theory of administrative law. The unique Japanese administrative litigation proof responsibility distribution theory has evolved from the public power according to the rule of law according to said that from a legal requirement classification When it comes to the constitutional order concluded, from the investigation of duty said in real terms, various theories as the theory of burden of proof All flowers bloom together., constantly inject fresh blood. Japan at this stage is the "law classification said" for the pass, "concluded the constitutional order" is getting more and more academic and practice the responsibility view the distribution of affirmation. Mainly in the administrative litigation of distribution of burden of proof in civil litigation is "who advocates that China's administrative litigation, administrative behavior and administrative organ projection whoproof" must be made to the bear all the responsibility.
In the third part, through analyzing the defects liability legislation that at this stage in China's administrative litigation in Germany, Japan and China's administrative litigation proof responsibility distribution theory, comprehensive quality, provide a reference for the direction of responsibility theory and then try to our country administrative litigation of burden of proof in the field of revocation of the allocation of proof in administrative litigation hope to establish, based on cultural rules of the administrative revocation distribution mode of lawsuit proof. At the same time, citing a case, analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of various proof theory applicable in specific case, and the ruling or judgment made by a court in Rongchang as a typical examples of practice will have "law classification" applicable to the specific case facts, we should adhere to the "theory of classification of legal requirement", "constitutional order induction" and "substantive" complementary distribution The rules. Finally, in order to make the standard whether under the authority of administrative behavior is divided into administrative authority and made in accordance with the application made by administrative behavior, the theory of classification of legal requirement "to use specific substantive law, the final responsibility for the legislation of expectations and prospects of proof in administrative litigation of our country.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.3

【参考文献】