行政诉讼被告逾期举证效力认定的二元标准

发布时间：2018-03-28 08:41

本文选题：行政诉讼　切入点：逾期举证　出处：《行政论坛》2013年04期

【摘要】：现行被告举证期限规则下,关于被告逾期举证效力的认定标准是一元的,即期限。一元标准适用过程中存在的主要问题是:仅以被告逾期举证为由撤销被诉行政行为,还可能损及公共利益或第三人合法权益。导致一元标准适用困境的原因:一是没有区分行为意义上的举证责任抑或结果意义上的举证责任;二是制裁方式选择的价值取向有误;三是采用推定方式不尽合适。因此,行政诉讼被告违反举证期限规则,不能一概视为被诉具体行政行为没有相应的证据。认定行政诉讼被告逾期举证的效力,应当同时考虑被告举证是否逾期以及该证据是否在被告作出行政行为时已经收集。适用被告逾期举证效力认定的二元标准时,应当改变现行"视为被诉具体行政行为没有相应的证据"的单一制裁方式,增加训诫、罚款、作出确认举证违法判决或提出司法建议等。
[Abstract]:Under the current rules of the defendant's time limit of proof, the criterion of determining the validity of the defendant's late proof is monistic, that is, the main problem in the application of the standard of one element is that the administrative act of the accused is revoked only on the grounds of the defendant's late proof. It may also harm the public interest or the legitimate rights and interests of the third party. The reasons that lead to the dilemma of the application of the unitary standard are as follows: first, the burden of proof in the sense of behavior or the burden of proof in the sense of result; second, the wrong value orientation of the choice of sanctions; The third is that it is not appropriate to use the presumption. Therefore, the defendant in administrative litigation violates the rule of the time limit of proof, and can not always be regarded as having no corresponding evidence for the specific administrative act being sued. The validity of determining the late proof of the defendant in administrative proceedings is determined. It should also be considered whether the defendant's proof is overdue and whether the evidence has been collected at the time of the defendant's administrative act. When the dualistic criterion for the determination of the defendant's late evidentiary effect is applied, It is necessary to change the existing single sanction of "no corresponding evidence for the specific administrative act charged", to increase admonitions, fines, to make a judgment of confirming the violation of the proof or to put forward judicial suggestions, and so on.
【作者单位】：安徽省社会科学院;
【基金】：最高人民法院司法调研重大课题“关于行政诉讼证据规则有关问题的调研”(2012)
【分类号】：D925.3

【共引文献】