复议机关与原行政机关作共同被告败诉的法律责任研究

发布时间：2018-04-23 20:16

本文选题：共同被告 + 法律责任　；参考：《华东政法大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：2015年修改的《行政诉讼法》对经复议的行政诉讼案件被告资格作了新的规定。这缘于在修改前的旧法运行过程中,行政复议机关为了避免成为被告,往往对申请事项采取回避的态度,导致复议案件大多以维持决定结案,使得行政复议维持率常年处于高位,也降低了行政相对人通过申请行政复议的方式解决行政纠纷的积极性。因而,为了促使复议机关认真履行复议职责,实现行政复议制度设计之初应有的功能,新法对行政诉讼案件的被告资格作了修正。其中明确了复议维持的情况下,复议机关须与原行政机关作共同被告,相比之前复议机关仅在作出改变决定的情况下方作被告的规定,其作被告的概率大大增加。然而,随着行政复议工作的不断深入,对于行政诉讼败诉情况下复议机关与原行政机关的法律责任承担问题,现有的法律、法规对其规定过于笼统粗略,具体的责任追究制度还存在空白,这就导致行政诉讼法对被告资格的这一制度设计仍然面临行政复议高维持率这一现状。尤其是,行政复议机关与作出原行政机关作为共同被告在诉讼法学上不同于一般共同被告,这就使得经复议的行政诉讼案件共同被告成为一种独特的法律现象,研究两者之间的责任追究制度有了自身独立的价值和实践意义。本文主要采用理论分析、实证分析等方法进行以下各部分的阐述。第一部分阐述经复议案件共同被告法律责任的基础理论,清晰界定概念是进行相关研究的前提和基础。第二部分是就我国经复议行政诉讼案件败诉的实践现状入手,通过案例的形式对原行政行为与复议行为的各种违法类型进行分类讨论,在具体的梳理过程中发现问题,并对相关行政机关的法律责任进行论证。第三部分则是对于经复议行政诉讼案件共同被告败诉承担法律责任的制度构建。这部分主要基于前两部分的理论分析、实践现状等,结合我国与外国行政机关法律责任承担理论构成差异,提出复议机关与作出原行政行为的行政机关之间的责任认定以及相关责任追究体系,填补制度空白,进一步规范行政复议过程中的复议行为,使得行政复议制度发挥其应有的功能与效用。
[Abstract]:The revised Administrative Litigation Law in 2015 makes new provisions on the qualification of defendants in administrative litigation cases after reconsideration. This is due to the fact that in the course of the operation of the old law before the amendment, in order to avoid becoming an accused, the administrative review organs often take an evasive attitude towards the application matters, leading to the majority of cases being reviewed to maintain the decision to close the case. It makes the maintenance rate of administrative reconsideration high all year round and reduces the enthusiasm of administrative counterpart to solve administrative disputes by applying for administrative reconsideration. Therefore, in order to urge the administrative review organ to perform the duty of reconsideration seriously and realize the function that the administrative reconsideration system should have at the beginning of the design, the new law has amended the qualification of the defendant in the administrative lawsuit case. It is clear that if the reconsideration is maintained, the reconsideration organ should be a co-defendant with the former administrative organ. Compared with the previous provision that the reconsideration organ only acted as the defendant under the circumstances of making a change of decision, the probability of being a defendant has increased greatly. However, with the deepening of the administrative reconsideration work, the existing laws and regulations on the legal liability of the review organ and the former administrative organ in the case of administrative litigation failure are too general and rough. There is still a gap in the specific accountability system, which leads to the administrative procedure law to the defendant qualification of this system design still faces the administrative review of the high maintenance rate of the status quo. In particular, the administrative review organs and the former administrative organs are different from the common co-defendants in procedural law, which makes the reviewed administrative cases co-defendants become a unique legal phenomenon. The study of the accountability system between the two has its own independent value and practical significance. This paper mainly uses theoretical analysis, empirical analysis and other methods to elaborate the following parts. The first part expounds the basic theory of the legal liability of co-defendants in the case of reconsideration, and clearly defines the concept is the premise and foundation of relevant research. The second part is to start with the current situation of the practice of losing the case of administrative litigation after reconsideration in our country. Through the form of case, the author classifies the original administrative act and the illegal type of reconsideration behavior, and finds out the problems in the concrete combing process. And to the relevant administrative organ legal responsibility carries on the demonstration. The third part is about the system construction of the legal liability of the co-defendant in the administrative litigation case after reconsideration. This part is mainly based on the first two parts of the theoretical analysis, practice, and so on, combined with our country and foreign administrative organs to bear the legal responsibility of theoretical differences, Proposing the responsibility determination and related accountability system between the review organ and the administrative organ that made the original administrative act, filling in the gaps in the system, and further standardizing the reconsideration act in the administrative reconsideration process, To make the administrative review system play its due function and effectiveness.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】