抽象行政垄断行为司法审查制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-13 21:07

本文选题：行政垄断 + 抽象行政垄断行为　；参考：《西南财经大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：社会制度的建立和法治秩序的维护都离不开对权利义务规范的创设,离不开对权力的制约和对权利的保护。在行政权力逐步扩张的今天,遏制行政垄断的肆意扩张,加强对抽象行政垄断行为的监督审查力度,维护广大人民群众的根本利益成为了法治建设进程中关键步骤之一。我国现行《行政诉讼法》采用了间接审查的方式对抽象行政垄断行为进行司法监督,即法院在判定具体行政垄断行为是否合法时是可以“参照”规章的,对合法的规章在裁判文书中加以引用,这里的参照即带有间接审理的含义。由于间接审理的非直接性,法院不能直接对违法的抽象行政垄断行为作出裁决,这就意味着法院在参照规章的过程中即使认为据以作出该具体行政垄断行为的行政规章违法,也仍不能就此裁决其无效,该抽象行政行为仍然可以以司法审判的缺位而继续堂而皇之的存在,继续做出更多的具体行政垄断行为,这样的规定也就造成了包括“红头文件”在内的行政规范性文件的持续泛滥。法彦云,一次不公的(司法)判断比多次不平的举动为祸尤烈。因为这些不平的举动不过弄脏了水流,而不公的判断则把水源败坏了。我们可以将现行法律对抽象行政垄断行为的间接审查理解为这里的“不公的判断”,或者说比不公的判断更为不公,因为它直接赋予了抽象行政垄断行为的司法豁免权,它是造成这些“不公裁判”的“水源”。如此一来,变革抽象行政垄断行为的司法审查制度势在必行。2013年12月《行政诉讼法修正(草案)》也顺应了这一态势,按照新增第14条和第66条的规定,行政相对人在提起具体行政垄断行为行政诉讼时可以附带提请法院对抽象行政垄断行为进行审查。同时依据该条文的规定,法院在审理行政案件中,发现行政相对人所提及的规范性文件不合法的,该规范性文件不作为认定具体行政行为合法的依据,并将其转送有管辖权的机关依法处理。这就意味着在《行政诉讼法》排除法院对抽象行政垄断行为直接进行司法审查的23年后,受抽象行政垄断行为损害的行政相对人终于可以通过司法途径获得救济,透过这扇法门,人们对将抽象行政垄断行为纳入到司法审查的范围不再仅仅是怀着期望,而有了更多切实的期待。但是围绕《草案》关于受案范围和诉讼方式的规定,学界的异议声一直未停止过,其现实根源是由于实践中越来越多的存在着抽象行政垄断行为不经具体行政垄断行为而直接对行政行对人产生损害的现象,对于此种情况的司法救济现行法律和《草案》都没有规定。为什么要将纯粹的抽象行政垄断行为排除在司法审查的范围之外,为什么不能直接提起诉讼,只能附带提起诉讼,不被参照的规章的效力如何?等等这一系列问题这也是学界随着《草案》的公布讨论得也越加的激烈的问题。本文也正是以此为契机,围绕《草案》第14条的相关规定,试图从抽象行政垄断行为司法审查的立法和实践现状入手,归纳出我国现阶段对抽象行政垄断行为在司法审查过程中存在的主要问题,指出现有司法审查制度的不足,之后再渐进式的从技术层面上揭示对抽象行政垄断行为有限司法审查的根源所在；接下来再分别从抽象行政垄断行为本身和司法审查方式本身来对抽象行政垄断行为司法审查进行界定,包括了对行政法规、行政规章性质的探讨和行政诉讼法院受案范围、审查方式的讨论；之后从法理、制度和现实依据三方面论述对抽象行政垄断行为司法审查的必要性依据；之后对大陆和英美法系的司法审查制度进行对比,总结出其对抽象行政垄断行为审查的共性以及对我国的借鉴意义,在此基础上从宪法、行政法和反垄断法等方面来考虑如何完善我国对抽象行政垄断行为的司法审查制度,从宏观和微观层面,由立法到技术操作层面来予以规制,希望以此为完善我国抽象行政垄断行为司法审查制度有所帮助。
[Abstract]:The establishment of the social system and the maintenance of the rule of law are inseparable from the creation of the norms of rights and obligations, the restriction of power and the protection of rights. In today's gradual expansion of the administrative power, it is necessary to contain the wanton expansion of administrative monopoly, strengthen the supervision of the supervision of the abstract administrative monopoly and safeguard the fundamental interests of the masses. Yi Cheng is one of the key steps in the process of building the rule of law.
The current law of administrative procedure in our country adopts the way of indirect examination to conduct judicial supervision on abstract administrative monopoly. That is, the court can "refer" to the rules when judging whether the specific administrative monopoly is legal or not, and the legal rules are quoted in the referee's documents. The reference here is with the meaning of indirect hearing. In the case of the non direct hearing, the court can not make a direct decision on the illegal abstract administrative monopoly, which means that the court can not adjudicate it in the process of reference to the rules, even though it considers it illegal to make the specific administrative monopoly. The abstract administrative act can still be judged by the judiciary. The absence and the continuation of the grand existence continue to make more specific administrative monopolies, which have resulted in the continuing overflow of administrative normative documents, including the "red head document". The water, and the unfairness of the judgment, corrupts the water. We can understand the indirect examination of the abstract administrative monopoly by the current law as the "unfair judgment", or more unfair than the unfair judgment, because it directly gives the judicial immunity of the abstract administrative monopoly, which is the cause of these "unjust referees." "Water source". In this way, the judicial review system for the reform of abstract administrative monopoly is imperative in December.2013, the amendment of the administrative procedure law (Draft) also conforms to this situation. According to the provisions of the new fourteenth and sixty-sixth articles, the administrative counterpart can be brought to the court when the administrative lawsuits of the specific administrative monopoly act are brought to the court. At the same time, according to the provisions of this provision, the court finds that the normative documents mentioned by the administrative relative are illegal in the trial of administrative cases. The normative documents do not act as the basis for the identification of the legal administrative actions and transfer them to the competent authorities to deal with them according to law. After 23 years of judicial review of the abstract administrative monopoly, the administrative counterpart, which is damaged by the abstract administrative monopoly, can finally get the relief through judicial channels. Through this way, people are no longer only expecting the scope of the abstract administrative monopoly into the judicial review. There are more practical expectations. But around the provisions of the draft on the scope of the case and the way of litigation, the dissenting voices of the academic circles have not ceased. The real root of this is that there are more and more abstract administrative monopolies without specific administrative monopolies. There are no provisions in the current law and the draft of the judicial relief. Why should we exclude pure abstract administrative monopoly from the scope of judicial review; why can we not bring the lawsuit directly, only incidental to the litigation, the effectiveness of the rules that are not referred to? And so on, this series of issues is also with the "draft >" The issue of the discussion is more and more intense.
This article also takes this opportunity as an opportunity to start with the relevant provisions of the fourteenth article of the draft, trying to conclude the main problems of abstract administrative monopoly in the process of judicial review from the present situation of the legislation and practice of judicial review of abstract administrative monopoly. From the technical level, it reveals the origin of the limited judicial review of the abstract administrative monopoly, and then defines the judicial review of abstract administrative monopoly from the abstract administrative monopoly and the judicial review itself, including the administrative regulations, the administrative rules and regulations and the administrative litigation court. After the discussion of the scope of the case and the way of examination, the necessity basis for the judicial review of abstract administrative monopoly is discussed from three aspects of jurisprudence, system and reality, and then the comparison of the judicial review system between the mainland and the Anglo American legal system is made, and the generality and reference significance for the review of the abstract administrative monopoly are summarized. On this basis, from the constitution, the administrative law and the antitrust law, we should consider how to improve our judicial review system of abstract administrative monopoly, from the macro and micro level, from the legislative to the technical operation level, hoping to improve the judicial review system of the abstract administrative monopoly behavior in our country.

【学位授予单位】：西南财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.294;D925.3

【参考文献】