对未送达行政行为作出撤销判决还是确认未生效——基于第38号指导案例及相关案例的思考

发布时间：2018-03-05 02:13

本文选题：行政行为　切入点：未送达　出处：《政治与法律》2016年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：在我国法律实践中,未送达的行政行为通常被认定为违反法定程序的行为,且往往以此为由予以撤销。但撤销这种行政行为与行政行为送达后生效的效力制度相抵牾,且有时会给行政相对人、利害关系人带来不利影响,同时还会增加行政成本。其实,行政行为未送达的,可视为行政程序的中止,即行政机关不愿使其生效。由此,应将未送达的行政行为确认为未生效的行政行为,给行政机关预留一个继续送达的空间。如果行政机关再行送达的,可以使行政行为产生效力;如果行政机关不送达的,则可视为行政机关终止了该行政行为。不过,基于法律秩序安定性的考虑,在法律制度设计上,应当对再送达的期限有所限制,最多以不得超过法定期限六个月为宜。
[Abstract]:In the legal practice of our country, the unserved administrative act is usually regarded as the act of violating the legal procedure, and it is often revoked on the basis of it. However, the revocation of this administrative act contradicts the effective system that comes into effect after the service of the administrative act. And sometimes it will bring adverse effects to the administrative counterpart and the interested person, and at the same time will increase the administrative cost. In fact, if the administrative act is not served, it can be regarded as the suspension of the administrative procedure, that is, the administrative organ is unwilling to make it effective. An administrative act that has not been served shall be recognized as an administrative act that is not effective, and a space for continued service shall be reserved for the administrative organ. If the administrative organ serves again, it may make the administrative act effective; if the administrative organ does not serve, However, due to the consideration of the stability of the legal order, the legal system should be designed to limit the period of reservice, which should not exceed the statutory period of six months at most.
【作者单位】：南京师范大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金后期资助项目“瑕疵行政行为的多元矫正制度”(项目编号:15FFX025) “江苏省高校优势学科建设工程资助项目”(英文缩写为PAPD)的中间成果
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】