行政诉讼证明标准研究

发布时间：2018-08-25 19:02

【摘要】：证明标准是证据制度的核心,而证据制度又是诉讼制度的核心,因此行政诉讼证明标准的发展与完善对行政诉讼体制的改革有着深远的影响。目前,我国学术界对行政诉讼证明标准缺乏细致、深入的研究,2002年最高院通过的《最高人民法院关于行政诉讼证据若干问题的规定》虽然肯定了法律真实的理念与自由心证的作用,但因规定过于空泛、缺乏可操作性,因此仍不足以应对司法实践中的各种难题。在实践中常会出现这样一种现象,即明明是相同或类似的案件,却因无明确具体的证明标准可循,使得审判结果千差万别,大大阻碍了我国行政诉讼体制的改革,现实急需对我国行政诉讼证明标准体系进行深入、细致的研究。基于此,本文尝试对我国的行政诉讼证明标准体系做一个较为全面系统的论述。以行政诉讼证明标准的概念作为基点,通过分析两大法系行政诉讼证明标准的体制,结合我国的现实情况,在综合考虑了诸多相关因素之后,提出一些构建我国行政诉讼证明标准体系的具体建议,以期对我国行政诉讼证明标准问题的研究有所裨益。本文共分为四个部分。第一部分是行政诉讼证明标准概述；第二部分是两大法系行政诉讼证明标准的考察；第三部分是我国行政诉讼证明标准的立法现状与问题；第四部分是我国行政诉讼证明标准的重构。第一部分主要介绍了行政诉讼证明标准的概念及特殊性。首先介绍了行政诉讼证明标准的概念。笔者从法律真实、自由心证、举证责任这三个方面对行政诉讼证明标准的概念进行了分析,从而对行政诉讼证明的概念作出了明确的界定。在此基础上,笔者又分析了行政诉讼证明标准的特殊性,主要表现在与民事、刑事诉讼证明标准的差异性上第二部分主要介绍了两大法系的行政诉讼证明标准体系。主要列举了两大法系一些代表性的国家,如英国、美国、德国、法国、日本,通过梳理这些国家的相关法律规定,并在此基础上进一步分析了它们各自的特点与正当性基础,从而探寻有益于我国的启示。第三部分主要是对我国行政诉讼证明标准的立法现状与问题的阐述。通过对我国相关法律规定的梳理,可以看出未来我国行政诉讼证明标准制度的发展趋势,即法律真实正逐步取代客观真实而被社会所认同；此外,自由心证的作用也获得了立法肯定；而后又从四个方面分析了我国行政诉讼证明标准存在的问题,包括：过于单一、不够透明、不受约束与过于严格。第四部分主要是对我国行政诉讼证明标准重构的论述。首先,本文简要介绍了学界关于构建新理论的尝试,建立多元化的证明标准体系已获得普遍共识,其不足之处在于缺乏相关配套制度的研究；然后,本文提出了我国行政诉讼证明标准重构的具体建议,即在考虑诸多相关因素,如行政诉讼的目的、行政诉讼的价值、行政行为的类型与性质、司法权与行政权的关系、案件证明的难易程度之后,在坚持法律真实、自由心证、程序正义理念的基础上,首先,区分原告与被告,适用不同的证明标准,对原告适用合理可能性标准；对被告则区分事实问题与法律问题,适用不同的证明标准,具体来讲：对法律问题,以全面审查标准为一般标准,以优势证据标准或明显优势证据标准为例外标准；对事实问题,区分不同案件类型,适用不同的证明标准,以清楚而有说服力的证明标准为一般标准,以排除合理怀疑标准与优势证据标准为例外标准。然后,通过建立相关配套制度,如举证责任制度、自由心证制度、行政程序制度、法官资格任用制度等,以发展和完善我国的行政诉讼证明标准体系。
[Abstract]:The standard of proof is the core of the evidence system, and the evidence system is the core of the litigation system. Therefore, the development and improvement of the standard of proof in administrative litigation have a far-reaching impact on the reform of the administrative litigation system. The Provisions of the Court on Certain Questions of Evidence in Administrative Litigation affirm the role of the concept of legal truth and free evaluation of evidence, but because the provisions are too vague and lack of maneuverability, they are still insufficient to deal with various difficult problems in judicial practice. Clear and specific standards of proof can be followed, so that the trial results vary greatly, greatly hindering the reform of our administrative litigation system, the reality of the urgent need for our country's administrative litigation system of proof in-depth, detailed study.
Based on this, this paper attempts to make a more comprehensive and systematic exposition of the standard system of proof in administrative litigation in China. Taking the concept of the standard of proof in administrative litigation as the basic point, this paper analyzes the system of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in the two legal systems, and combines the reality of our country, after considering many relevant factors, puts forward some constructions. The concrete suggestions of the standard system of proof in administrative litigation in China are expected to be beneficial to the study of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in China.
This article is divided into four parts. The first part is an overview of the standard of proof in administrative litigation; the second part is an investigation of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in the two legal systems; the third part is the legislative status and problems of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in China; and the fourth part is the reconstruction of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in China.
The first part mainly introduces the concept and particularity of the standard of proof in administrative litigation. First, it introduces the concept of the standard of proof in administrative litigation. On this basis, the author also analyzes the particularity of the standard of proof in administrative litigation, mainly in the differences between the standard of proof in civil and criminal proceedings.
The second part mainly introduces the standard system of proof in administrative litigation of the two legal systems.It mainly lists some representative countries of the two legal systems, such as Britain, the United States, Germany, France and Japan, through combing the relevant legal provisions of these countries, and on this basis further analyzes their respective characteristics and legitimacy basis, so as to explore. It is beneficial to our country's enlightenment.
The third part mainly elaborates the present legislative situation and problems of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in our country.Through combing the relevant laws and regulations in our country,we can see the development trend of the standard of proof system in administrative litigation in our country in the future,that is,the legal truth is gradually replacing the objective truth and is recognized by the society.In addition,the function of free evaluation of evidence is also discussed. It has obtained the legislative affirmation, and then analyzes the problems of the standard of proof in our administrative litigation from four aspects, including: too single, not transparent, unrestrained and too strict.
The fourth part mainly discusses the reconstruction of the standard of proof in administrative litigation in our country. Firstly, this paper briefly introduces the attempt of the academic circles to construct a new theory and the establishment of a diversified standard of proof system, which has been widely accepted. The deficiency lies in the lack of research on relevant supporting systems. Then, this paper puts forward the standard of proof in administrative litigation in China. The concrete suggestion of quasi-reconstruction is to distinguish the plaintiff from the defendant on the basis of persisting in the concept of legal truth, free proof and procedural justice after considering many related factors, such as the purpose of administrative litigation, the value of administrative litigation, the type and nature of administrative acts, the relationship between judicial power and administrative power, and the difficulty of case proof. Different standards of proof are applied to the plaintiff; different standards of proof are applied to the defendant to distinguish between factual and legal issues. Specifically, for legal issues, the general standards are comprehensive review standards, and the exceptional standards are superior evidence standards or obvious superior evidence standards. Different standards of proof should be applied to the same types of cases, with clear and convincing standards of proof as the general standard and with the exception of the standard of excluding reasonable doubt and superior evidence as the exceptional standard. And improve the standard system of administrative litigation in China.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】