我国行政诉讼规范性文件附带审查的模式与效力难题

发布时间：2019-06-29 23:01

【摘要】：2014年修改的我国《行政诉讼法》建立了规范性文件附带审查制度。它可分解为六个依次序相连的环节,即审查请求、合法性审查、不予适用、选择适用、公开评述、处理建议。可以用"不予适用"概括附带审查的模式,法院只可以在个案中"不予适用"非法的规范性文件并提出处理建议,但无权撤销。由于制定机关可能不予回应甚至拒绝接受法院的处理建议,这就会导致法院认定为非法的规范性文件依然有效存在这一难题。法院在我国《行政诉讼法》2014年修改前可依职权主动审查规范性文件,但采用的是"选择适用"上位法模式,不在裁判理由部分评判规范性文件,不存在效力难题。行政复议附带审查也不同于诉讼中的附带审查,复议机关先中止具体行政行为的审查,然后将规范性文件转送有权机关处理,等有了处理结果后再恢复复议程序,因此无需面对效力难题。应当借鉴国外司法审查经验,建立规范性文件的案例指导制度、相对集中审查、增加有权机关及时反馈环节等,以解决此种效力难题。
[Abstract]:The Administrative procedure Law of China, as amended in 2014, has established a system of collateral examination of normative documents. It can be divided into six sequential links, that is, review request, legitimacy review, not applicable, choose to apply, public comment, deal with suggestions. The mode of "not applicable" can be used to generalize the mode of collateral review, and the court can only "not apply" illegal normative documents and make suggestions to deal with them in individual cases, but it has no right to rescind them. Since the enacting authorities may not respond or even refuse to accept the court's handling recommendations, this will lead to the difficulty that the normative documents that the court finds illegal remain valid. Before the revision of the Administrative procedure Law of our country in 2014, the court can take the initiative to review the normative documents according to its functions and powers, but it adopts the mode of "choosing to apply" the superior law, and does not judge the normative documents in the part of adjudication reasons, so there is no problem of effectiveness. The collateral review of administrative reconsideration is also different from the collateral review in litigation. The reconsideration organ first suspends the examination of specific administrative acts, then transmits the normative documents to the competent organ for processing, and then resumes the reconsideration procedure after the processing results are available, so there is no need to face the difficult problem of effectiveness. In order to solve this problem, we should draw lessons from the experience of foreign judicial review, establish the case guidance system of normative documents, focus on the review, and increase the timely feedback links of the competent organs.
【作者单位】：山东大学法学院;
【基金】：山东大学青年团队项目“中国社会主义法律体系的现状、问题和完善”(项目编号:IFYT12084)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】