行政行为未援引法律条款问题的判决研究

发布时间：2018-01-27 08:36

本文关键词： 行政行为未援引法律条款正当程序豁免补正　出处：《华东政法大学》2016年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：一个行政决定的完整做出往往包括事实认定和法律适用两方面。而根据依法行政原理的要求,行政机关作出行政行为必须具有法律依据,并将所依据的法律规范作为行政行为理由之一告知行政相对人,进而保障行政相对人的知情权和监督权,减少不必要的争议。但在行政实践中,由于计划经济时代陈旧执法经验等的影响导致我国行政机关存在法律依据援引失范的现象:有的行政机关完全未就行政行为援引任何法律条款,有的仅有法律规范之名而无具体条文,还有的仅援引到决定本应适用法律的上一层次。然对此问题,目前我国立法仅具有原则性规定,行政法学研究也可能无法全面地为问题的解决指明方向。基于此,笔者企图通过诸多法院判决的分析发现法院对未援引法律条款问题的理解和认识:不同的法院在不同的时期对“未援引”问题的认识会有显著不同,即使是针对同一类“未援引”问题法院也表现出多种判决的可能性。判决观点的不同必然导致判决思路的不同,主要归纳为不明确式、“单刀直入”式、简单判决式、分层次论证式四种。而不管哪一种判决思路都缺乏适用的全面性。面对司法判决的乱象,从问题产生背景上挖掘影响司法判决的本质原因成为关键。由于我国程序法治化起步较晚、发展进程缓慢,说明理由制度经历了一个从无到有的过程。这一曲折漫长的发展过程影响了司法机关在不同时期对“未援引”问题的判断。在明确问题本质的基础上,对于各个法院出现“合法”判决与“违法”判决的冲突、程序违法判决的萎缩与实体违法判决的扩张以及“瑕疵”判决与程序违法判决的重叠适用也就有了明确的答案。而将视线放之域外,对域外国家说明理由制度的规范模式考察也为本文回答以下问题提供了有益借鉴:在审判逻辑上,是否应该引入援引豁免的例外,是否应当认可行政机关的瑕疵治愈行为?案例研究终极目标是旨在提升出某些具有普遍意义的经验和规律以促进制度的完善和理论的发展。为了进一步发挥司法的制度功效,确保行政权正当行使,防止说明理由制度流于形式,应对“未援引”问题的判决进行如下完善:在肯定指导案例参照价值的基础上,明确法官裁判该类案件的原则与例外:以准确援引为原则,以法定豁免为例外;进一步完善有条件补正审查的程序条件,包括确定补正所针对的对象,设置补正的时间限制,赋予行政相对人补正程序启动权;确定不同审判观点的适用情形;形成一套相对全面的判决思路,即优先审查法定豁免援引、次优审查补正行为、最终作出宽严相济的裁判。
[Abstract]:The complete making of an administrative decision often includes two aspects: the fact cognizance and the application of the law. According to the requirement of the principle of administration according to law, the administrative act of the administrative organ must have the legal basis. And will be based on the legal norms as one of the reasons for administrative acts to inform the administrative counterpart, and then protect the right to know and supervision of the administrative counterpart, reduce unnecessary disputes. But in the administrative practice. Due to the influence of the old law enforcement experience in the planned economy era, there is a phenomenon that the legal basis of the administrative organs in our country is abnormal: some administrative organs have not invoked any legal provisions on the administrative acts at all. Some only have the name of legal norms without specific provisions, and others only invoke the decision to apply the law to the previous level. However, to this issue, the current legislation of our country only has the principle of provisions. The study of administrative law may not be able to point out the direction of solving the problem comprehensively. The author attempts to find out the understanding and understanding of the issue of not invoking the provisions of law by the court through the analysis of many court decisions: different courts will have significant different understanding of the issue of "not invoking" at different times. Even for the same kind of "not invoked" the court also shows the possibility of a variety of judgments. Different judgment views will inevitably lead to different judgment ideas, mainly summarized as unclear, "straight into" type. There are four types of simple judgment and hierarchical argumentation. However, no matter which kind of judgment is lacking in the comprehensiveness of application, it faces the confusion of judicial decision. It is the key to excavate the essential reasons that influence the judicial decision from the background of the problem. Because of the late start of the procedure rule of law in our country, the development process is slow. The system of explaining the reasons has experienced a process from nothing to existence. This tortuous and long development process has influenced the judicial organs' judgment on the question of "not invoking" in different periods, and on the basis of defining the nature of the problem. There is a conflict between "lawful" and "illegal" decisions in various courts. The atrophy of procedural illegal judgment and the expansion of substantive illegal judgment, as well as the overlapping application of "defective" judgment and procedural illegal judgment, also have a clear answer. The study of the normative model of the system of explanation of reasons for foreign countries also provides a useful reference for this article to answer the following questions: in the trial logic, whether the exception of invoking immunity should be introduced. Should it be recognized that the administrative organs should cure the defects? The ultimate goal of case study is to promote some universal experiences and laws to promote the improvement of the system and the development of theory. In order to further exert the effectiveness of the judicial system to ensure the proper exercise of administrative power. To prevent the system of justification from becoming a mere formality, the judgment of "not invoked" should be perfected as follows: on the basis of affirming the reference value of guiding cases. It is clear that the principle and exception of judges' adjudication of this kind of cases: the principle of accurate invocation and the exception of statutory immunity; Further improve the procedural conditions of conditional correction review, including the determination of the object of correction, set up the time limit of the correction, and give the administrative counterpart the right to start the correction procedure; (B) to determine the application of the different points of view of the trial; A set of relatively comprehensive judgment thinking is formed, that is, to review the invocation of statutory immunity first, to examine the act of compensation and correction in the second best, and finally to make a decision of combining leniency and severity.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D922.1

【相似文献】