行政规范性文件附带司法审查制度研究

发布时间：2018-03-21 11:31

本文选题：法院　切入点：规范性文件　出处：《上海师范大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：新《行政诉讼法》2015年5月1日起正式开始实施,修法增加的法院附带审查制度成为新法的亮点之一,但新修改的内容对这一制度还规定的比较模糊和原则,法院仅凭法条和司法解释不能将这一制度很好的运用到实际案件中,首例附带审查案件的裁判仍存在很多需要完善的地方。新法实施后,要求法院附带审查规范性文件的案件已经陆续诉至法院,法院审查的内容是什么,行政机关如何举证该规范性文件的合法性,法院认为规范性文件存在合法性问题又如何向制定机关提出建议并督促建议的落实等等一系列问题都需要法院直接面对并一一解决。本文通过对比附带审查制度实施前,对规范性文件审查的其他监督方式存在的缺陷进行介绍,从而得出法院附带审查制度的特点及其必要性。法院在对规范性文件进行审查时,需要先对是否是规范性文件进行初判断与确定,笔者认为主要应该从行政规范性文件与行政立法的区别和行政规范性文件与具体行政行为的区别两个方面对需要审查的文件进行初步的判断,做好对规范性文件审查的基础性工作。确定为规范性文件后,法官对其应该再从制定主体的范围、制定主体职权权限、制定内容三方面进行合法性审查,本人认为程序性是否合法并不在审查范围之内。本文还针对规范性文件附带审查的提出时间进行分析讨论,得出当事人只能在第一审开庭前提出审查请求,在二审或者审判监督阶段都不能再针对规范性文件向法院提出附带审查申请。同时,法院应该采取附带审、开庭审、书面审的审理方式,附带审查制度并不允许法院依职权进行审查。最后,笔者分合法、不合法、终止审理三种不同的情况,对法院对规范性文件附带审查后的处理方式进行分类讨论分析。从而弥补学术上对这一制度的研究缺陷,对制度在实践中的运用提供参考。
[Abstract]:The new Administrative procedure Law has been formally implemented since May 1st 2015. The additional system of court review has become one of the highlights of the new law. The court can't apply this system to the actual cases by merely relying on the articles of law and judicial interpretation. There are still a lot of things that need to be perfected after the implementation of the new law. The cases requiring the court to review the normative documents have been brought to the court one after another. What is the content of the court review? how does the administrative organ prove the legality of the normative document? The court thinks that the legality of normative documents exists, and how to put forward suggestions to the formulating organs and urge the implementation of the recommendations, and so on, a series of problems need to be directly faced by the court and solved one by one. This paper introduces the defects of other ways of supervision in the examination of normative documents, so as to obtain the characteristics and necessity of the system of incidental review of the court. It is necessary to first judge and determine whether it is a normative document, The author thinks that we should make a preliminary judgment on the documents that need to be examined from two aspects: the difference between administrative normative documents and administrative legislation and the differences between administrative normative documents and specific administrative acts. To do a good job in the basic work of examining normative documents. After being defined as normative documents, judges should review their legitimacy from three aspects: the scope of the main body, the formulation of the authority and authority of the subject, and the formulation of the content. In my opinion, whether the procedure is lawful or not is not within the scope of the review. This article also analyzes and discusses the time when the subsidiary review of normative documents is put forward, and concludes that the parties can only submit a request for examination before the first instance hearing. At the stage of second instance or trial supervision, no application for incidental examination should be made to the court against the normative documents. At the same time, the court should adopt the trial mode of incidental trial, court hearing, and written trial. The system of incidental review does not allow the court to review ex officio. Finally, the author divides the trial into legal, illegal, and terminating the trial in three different situations. In order to make up for the defects of the academic research on this system and to provide a reference for the application of the system in practice, this paper discusses and analyzes the treatment methods of the court after the incidental examination of the normative documents.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.3;D926

【参考文献】