我国《行政诉讼法》管辖制度问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-28 12:36

本文选题：行政诉讼法　切入点：跨行政区域管辖　出处：《辽宁大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：2015年颁布实施的新修改的《行政诉讼法》存在着一些没能解决的旧问题和新的不足。依然将“原告就被告”作为行政诉讼的一般地域管辖规则,又不能扩大行政相对人的管辖选择权和异议权,“原告就被告”的一般地域管辖原则曾经为我国行政诉讼法的理论发展和实践进步都发挥了积极的作用,有其合理性的一面。然而在跨区域交往频繁的今天很难顾及到行政相对人的诉讼便利,又为地方干预司法提供了温床。新法确立的跨行政区域管辖制度是正确的是先进的,但是就目前而言还缺少详尽统一的实施办法和标准,路径的不明确将不利于法制统一;单单就目前跨行政区域管辖制度的规定而言也有去地方化不力,提高原告的诉讼成本和增加调解难度的问题。结合审判工作的实际情况发现,在今后的探索中,如果既能够扩大行政相对人的管辖选择权和异议权的范围,又能建立“被告就原告”为原则的一般地域管辖制度(法定管辖),并与跨行政区域管辖制度对接实施。这样的制度设计不但能降低原告的诉讼成本减少诉累,符合方便原告诉讼原则的要求,而且对规范行政机关依法合理行政和遏制行政机关干预法院独立公正审判也具有重要意义。新修改的《行政诉讼法》中提高了以县级政府为被告的一审管辖法院的级别,既提升为中级法院。这一新的级别管辖制度只照顾到了 “县法院不能审理县政府”的问题,却有悖于方便原告诉讼的原则,“顾此失彼”,反倒不如建立以基层法院审理行政诉讼一审案件为主的级别管辖制度和三审终审的审级制度。笔者认为应当在遵循并综合运用方便原告诉讼原则;保证法院独立审判和有力执行原则;原则性与灵活性相结合原则的前提下。建立以“被告就原告”的一般地域管辖制度为法定的地域管辖,同时具体落实跨行政区域管辖制度,适当扩大行政相对人的管辖选择权范围并赋予一定的管辖异议权为补充的地域管辖制度。建立基层法院审理行政诉讼一审案件为法定管辖的三审终审制度。
[Abstract]:The new revised Administrative Litigation Law, enacted and implemented in 2015, has some old problems and new deficiencies that have not been resolved. "the plaintiff is the defendant" is still regarded as the general territorial jurisdiction rule in administrative litigation. The general territorial jurisdiction principle of "the plaintiff on the defendant" has played an active role in the theoretical development and practical progress of the administrative procedure law of our country. However, it is difficult to take into account the litigation convenience of the administrative counterpart and provides a hotbed for the local intervention in the administration of justice. The cross-administrative jurisdiction system established by the new law is correct and advanced. However, at present, there is still a lack of detailed and uniform implementation methods and standards, and the lack of clarity in the path will not be conducive to the unification of the rule of law; there is also a lack of regionalization in terms of the provisions of the current system of cross-administrative jurisdiction. The problems of raising the litigation cost of the plaintiff and increasing the difficulty of mediation. Combined with the actual situation of the trial work, it is found that in the future exploration, if the scope of the administrative counterpart's jurisdiction, option and dissent can be expanded, It is also possible to establish a general territorial jurisdiction system (statutory jurisdiction and inter-administrative jurisdiction) based on the principle of "defendant versus plaintiff". Such a system design can not only reduce the litigation costs of the plaintiff, but also reduce the litigation burden. Meeting the requirements of the principle of facilitating the plaintiff's action, Moreover, it is also of great significance to standardize the administration of administrative organs according to law and reasonable administration and to deter administrative organs from interfering in the independent and fair trial of the court. The newly revised Administrative procedure Law has raised the level of the court of first instance where the county government is the defendant. This new level of jurisdiction only takes into account the fact that "the county court cannot hear the county government." However, it is contrary to the principle of facilitating the plaintiff's litigation. "taking care of one side and the other", it is better to establish a hierarchy jurisdiction system based on the first instance cases of administrative litigation in the grass-roots courts and a system of the final instance of the third instance. The author thinks that the system should be followed and followed. Comprehensive application of the principle of convenient plaintiff litigation; Ensuring that the Court will be independent and capable of enforcing the principles; on the premise of the principle of combining principle with flexibility, to establish a legal territorial jurisdiction based on the general system of territorial jurisdiction of "defendant versus plaintiff", and at the same time to concretely implement the system of cross-administrative regional jurisdiction, The system of regional jurisdiction, which is supplemented by a certain right of dissent from jurisdiction, should be extended appropriately to the scope of the administrative counterpart's right of choice, and the third instance final appeal system of the first instance case of administrative litigation in the basic level court should be established.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3

【参考文献】