“排除合理怀疑”在行政诉讼中的适用

发布时间：2018-03-20 07:07

本文选题：行政诉讼　切入点：证明标准　出处：《上海师范大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：证明标准是诉讼制度的核心,对当事人和司法机关都具有重大的理论及实践意义。行政诉讼中的证明标准,主要包括两方面内容,分别是当事人主要是被告的说服责任标准,以及法院的审查标准。一直以来我国行政诉讼法都因以“事实清楚,证据确实、充分”为证明标准而备受诟病,主要是因为“事实清楚,证据确实、充分”此标准过于单一、严格不利于操作。因此,理论界一直以来都在批评中探讨构建新的行政诉讼证明标准。目前虽然理论界对行政诉讼证明标准的多元化构建已经达成了共识,即根据不同案件或者案件的不同性质适用不同的证明标准,但由于学者们出发点的迥异,对具体的构建方案众说纷纭,未形成统一认识。比如有的学者认为应当根据案件的不同类型适用不同的证明标准,有的学者却认为应当根据案件的不同性质来适用不同的证明标准。本文的重点不在于探讨对行政诉讼证明标准的构建,而是主要讨论有关排除合理怀疑标准在行政诉讼中的适用问题。在刑事诉讼中,排除合理怀疑标准通常被视作有罪证明的唯一标准,因此不存在类型化探讨的需要。与之不同的是,行政诉讼中证明标准是一个多元化的结构,排除合理怀疑只是多元化的标准之一。由于目前相关成文法规的缺位,以及学理讨论的细致化程度不够,排除合理怀疑在多元化结构中的地位、适用类型等尚待进一步澄清。因此,本文主要探讨理论界关于在行政诉讼中适用排除合理怀疑标准的争议,即来源于刑事诉讼中的排除合理怀疑标准是否可以适用于行政诉讼;如果可以适用,那应当适用于哪几种类型的案件。虽然目前理论界已对构建多元化的行政诉讼证明标准达成共识,但对于应将哪一种标准作为最为严格的标准来适用仍存在着争议,比如有观点认为应将重新审查标准或严格证明标准作为最严格的标准来适用。对此,本文的观点是应当将排除合理怀疑标准作为行政诉讼中最严格的证明标准,主要原因在于排除合理怀疑有利于确保法律真实、保证法官心证的客观化、弥补行政程序的不完善以及能够满足行政诉讼的立法目的等。关于如何在行政诉讼中适用排除合理怀疑标准,需要探寻科学合理且行之有效的适用标准完成对不同事实认定的类型化。本文主要从理论和实践两方面进行了分析。理论中学者们观点各异,有些观点认为在行政诉讼中,适用排除合理怀疑的案件类型应当包括限制人身自由、责令停产停业以及吊销营业执照等案件;有些观点则认为应当包括限制人身自由、较大数额罚款以及其他关系到人身权、财产权的案件等等;对于实践中法院的适用,通过对案例网上所有适用了排除合理怀疑标准的案例进行梳理,得出以下结论:实践中法院适用排除合理怀疑标准的案件类型包括限制人身自由案件、工伤类案件、与当事人诉权有关案件、强制拆迁案件等等。虽然法院并没有对适用排除合理怀疑标准有统一的解释,但通过对案件类型和法院判决的梳理总结,并结合理论观点,可得出结论:对于涉及公民人身自由、重大财产权利、法人的生产经营权以及其他涉及基本权益的案件,应当适用相当于刑事诉讼中的证明标准,即排除合理怀疑标准。
[Abstract]:The standard of proof is the core of the litigation system, has great theoretical and practical significance for the parties and the judicial organs. The standard of proof in administrative litigation, mainly includes two aspects, which are the main parties is the defendant's burden of persuasion standard, and the judicial examination standard. Since the administrative litigation law in our country are due to the fact "clearly, the evidence is reliable and sufficient" is the standard of proof has been heavily criticized, mainly because of "clear facts, evidence really, fully" this standard is too simple, is not conducive to the strict operation. Therefore, the theory has been criticized in the construction of the standard of proof in administrative litigation. Although the new diversification theory to the standard of proof of administrative the construction procedure has reached a consensus, according to different properties of different cases or cases of the different standards of proof, but because the scholars point out the different The construction scheme of Public opinions are divergent. body, not formed a unified understanding. For example, some scholars believe that according to the different types of cases of the different standards of proof, some scholars think it should apply different proof standards according to the different nature of the case. The focus of this article is not to discuss construction of standard of proof on administrative litigation, it mainly discusses about the exclusion of for the problem of reasonable doubt standard in administrative litigation. In criminal proceedings, beyond a reasonable doubt standard is usually regarded as the only standard of proof of guilt, so there is no need for the type of discussion. In contrast, in the standard of proof in administrative litigation is a diversified structure, beyond reasonable doubt is one of the criteria of diversification because of the absence of relevant statute. At present, as well as the theoretical discussion and meticulous enough beyond reasonable doubt in the diversified structure of the A type of application remains to be further clarified. Therefore, this paper mainly discusses the theory about the application in administrative litigation beyond reasonable doubt standard dispute, is excluded from the criminal proceedings in the standard of reasonable doubt whether it can be applied in administrative litigation; if applicable, it shall apply to which of several types of cases. Although the theory has been to build a diversified standard of proof in administrative litigation to reach a consensus, but for what should be a standard as the most stringent standards to apply is still controversial, such as the idea that should be re examination standards or strict standard of proof as the most stringent standards to apply. In this regard, this view should be the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard as the most stringent in the administrative litigation, the main reason is that beyond reasonable doubt is to ensure that the law is true, that judges guest View, make up the administrative procedure is not perfect and can satisfy the legislative purpose of administrative litigation. On how to apply beyond reasonable doubt standard in administrative litigation, we need to explore the applicable standards of scientific and rational and effective to complete the identification of different types of facts. This paper mainly analyzes from two aspects of theory and practice of scholars. The theory is different, some people believe that in the process of administrative litigation is beyond reasonable doubt the case type should include the restriction of personal freedom, ordered to cease and revocation of business licenses and other cases; some point of view is that should include the restriction of personal freedom, the larger the amount of fines and other related to personal rights, property rights case suitable for and so on; in judicial practice, through combing the case beyond reasonable doubt standard on the case of all applicable, conclusions are as follows: In practice the courts beyond reasonable doubt standard types of cases including the restriction of personal freedom cases, work-related injury cases, and the right of the case, forced relocation and so on. Although the court cases did not exclude reasonable doubt standard unified explanation to apply, but the type of case and the court review, and combined with the theory and we can draw the conclusion: for the personal freedom of citizens, major property rights, legal rights and other related to the production and operation of the basic rights of the case, shall be equivalent to the standard of proof of criminal proceedings, that is beyond reasonable doubt.

【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】