行政诉讼案例指导制度:问题与出路

发布时间：2018-05-06 21:40

本文选题：指导案例 + 类型　；参考：《重庆大学学报(社会科学版)》2017年06期

【摘要】：行政诉讼指导案例具有统一司法尺度、明确法律规范的含义等作用。目前,最高法院遴选的行政诉讼指导存在裁判要点提炼水平较低、"带病"入选情况严重、轻视权利救济的思维严重以及重复或变相重复法律法规和司法解释等四大弊端,从而使得指导案例与其应有功能相去甚远。为此,可考虑就以下四方面从深度和广度上进行改进,以体现指导案例的应有功能:(1)加强对指导案例的研究以提高裁判要点的提炼水平;(2)建立指导案例公示制度以防止"带病"入选;(3)坚持权利救济导向以纠正偏重权力监督的目标偏好;(4)突出裁判要点的先导功能以避免重复或变相重复法规和司法解释。
[Abstract]:The guiding cases of administrative litigation have the function of unifying the judicial yardstick and clarifying the meaning of legal norms. At present, there are four disadvantages in the guidance of administrative litigation selected by the Supreme Court, such as the low level of abstracting judgment points, the serious selection of "ill", the serious thinking of despising the right relief, the repeated or disguised repetition of laws and regulations and the judicial interpretation. Thus, the guiding case is far from its proper function. To this end, consideration could be given to improving the depth and breadth of the following four areas: (1) strengthen the research on guiding cases to improve the refining level of judgment points / 2) establish a system of publicity of guiding cases to prevent "disease" from being selected to 3) insist on the right relief guide to correct the bias of power The objective preference of force supervision is to emphasize the leading function of judgment points in order to avoid repetition of laws and judicial interpretations.
【作者单位】：重庆工商大学重庆廉政研究中心;
【基金】：重庆市社科规划(博士)项目(2014BS044) 2015年度中国博士后科学基金项目(2015M582510) 2016年度重庆市博士后特别资助项目(Xm2016100)
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】