论行政诉讼中的确认无效判决

发布时间：2018-12-23 10:17

【摘要】：确认无效之诉具有事实上备位性,对此特性的疏忽将间接影响确认无效判决的制度设计。我国新《行政诉讼法》第75条引入"重大且明显违法"的无效标准并加以例示,但因标准过于抽象、例示失当、起诉期限的特殊设计阙如,确认无效判决的独立价值难以彰显。第75条中的"实施主体不具有行政主体资格"可能游走于行政行为不存在、有效或无效之间,需再作细化;而本条的"没有依据"则因表述过于简略,无法凸显其在程序与实体两方面之判定标准。完善确认无效判决需从理论、立法、司法三个维度加以突破,即以事实上备位性来形塑确认无效之诉的制度定位、以概念阐释及规范修补来达致确认无效判决的适用明晰与价值独立、以司法经验之审慎提取及反思来勾勒"重大且明显违法"的客观化界域。
[Abstract]:The negligence of confirmation of invalidity will indirectly affect the system design of the confirmation of invalidity. Article 75 of the new Administrative procedure Law of our country introduces the invalid standard of "significant and obvious illegal" and gives an example. However, because the standard is too abstract and the example is improper, the special design of the time limit for prosecution is absent, and the independent value of confirming the invalid judgment is difficult to manifest. In Article 75, "the implementing subject does not have the qualification of the administrative subject" may wander between the non-existence of the administrative act and the validity or invalidity of the administrative act, which needs to be further refined; The "no basis" of this article is too brief to highlight its procedural and substantive criteria. It is necessary to break through the three dimensions of theory, legislation and judicature in order to perfect the confirmation of invalid judgment, that is, to shape the system orientation of the action of confirmation of invalidity with the character of factual reserve. By means of conceptual interpretation and normative repair, the applicable clarity and value independence of confirming invalid judgment can be achieved, and the objective boundary of "significant and obvious illegal" can be delineated by careful extraction and reflection of judicial experience.
【作者单位】：武汉大学法学院;
【基金】：司法部项目“不当行政行为救济研究”(09SFB2017) 中荷合作项目“中国行政诉讼制度改革的理论与实践”(106-239067) 国家“2011计划”司法文明协同创新中心资助项目的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.3

【参考文献】