不履行法定职责行政案件司法审查强度之检讨

发布时间：2018-03-30 01:41

本文选题：不履行法定职责行政案件　切入点：审判基准　出处：《华东政法大学学报》2017年04期

【摘要】：我国法院在不履行法定职责行政案件的司法审查强度方面存在差异,具体体现为"是否存在法定职责""履行法定职责是否可能"以及"是否实质履行了法定职责"这三个审判基准上的不一致。这反映出我国理论上存在秩序性审查模式与合目的性审查模式两种理想类型。从国外的司法实践中看,英、美、法、德四国对不履行法定职责行政案件的司法审查都具有合目的性司法审查模式的制度装置。鉴于我国目前已经基本具备了将不履行法定职责行政案件的合目的性审查模式引入制度的条件,下一步在合目的性司法审查模式的完善上应立足于司法审查标准的细化、区分合理性与专业性审查、完善不同层次的义务来源体系、考量对基本人权的侵犯程度以及进行必要的理论借鉴。
[Abstract]:There are differences in the intensity of judicial review of administrative cases in which the courts do not perform their statutory duties. This is reflected in the inconsistency of the three trial benchmarks of "whether there is a statutory duty", "whether it is possible to perform a statutory duty" and "whether or not the statutory duty has actually been fulfilled". This reflects the existence of an orderly review in theory in our country. There are two ideal types of the model and the mode of purposeful examination. From the perspective of foreign judicial practice, Britain, America, France, The judicial review of administrative cases which do not perform the statutory duties in Germany has the system device of judicial review mode in accordance with the purpose. In view of the fact that our country has basically possessed the purposeful review of administrative cases that will not perform the statutory duties at present. The conditions for the introduction of the inspection model into the system, The next step should be based on the refinement of the standard of judicial review, the distinction between rationality and professional review, and the perfection of the obligation source system at different levels. Consider the degree of violation of basic human rights and the necessary theoretical reference.
【作者单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院;
【分类号】：D920.5;D926.22

【参考文献】