基准设定权限不行使在国家赔偿法上的违法性研究

发布时间：2018-03-17 15:34

本文选题：权限不行使　切入点：国家赔偿责任　出处：《山东大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：针对行政机关公务人员不履行或不完全履行其作为义务,怠于履行其职责的行政不作为应当追究其法律责任,本文主要从国家的危险防止责任入手,论证了具体行政机关消极行使其规制权限,没有采取积极有效的措施导致损害结果发生的违法性,从而确定了对被害者的国家赔偿责任。文章具体分为以下五个部分。第一部分从国家赔偿责任的构成要件出发,通过比较国内外关于国家赔偿的范围及归责原则的规定,总结出国家赔偿法上的违法评价标准,应认定相关行政机关具有执行公务的行政权限,而具体工作人员因故意或过错违背其对行政相对人的应尽职责而损害了他人的合法权益,其行为欠缺合理性、违反了法律法规及一般法律原则或法律目的,受到损害的特定公民有权主张国家赔偿。第二部分从理论上探讨了是否可以追究行政机关不行使规制权限的国家赔偿责任,这里的规制权限不行使属于行政不作为的一种,即应当主动行使规制权限防止损害发生却没有采取任何积极有效的措施。由于行政机关基于法律授权对其行使权限具有自由裁量权,如何控制、收缩其裁量权是认定行政机关权限不行使违法性的关键。根据当前流行的裁量权零收缩论、安全性确保义务及裁量权消极滥用理论我们能够认定,国家或公共组织的公务员不行使其规制权限,依照规定这一权限的法令的宗旨、目的及该权限的性质等,在具体情况下,当其不行使超出容许的限度且明显欠缺合理性时,在与因权限不行使而受到损害被害者的关系上,适用国家赔偿法认定其违法。第三部分则在上述理论的支持下,通过比较、分析相关案例整理了判断行政机关权限不行使的违法性的四个基准：首先,被害法益为生命、身体健康等重大法益；其次,存在着危险或危险性,且行政机关能够预见该危险或危险性；第三,若行政机关积极采取措施则具有回避危险结果的可能性；第四,被害人自身无法排除损害,对行政机关具有期待可能性。以上四个要件相互关联,不可分割。第四部分具体讨论基准设定权限不行使在国家赔偿法上的违法性。受立法机关委托制定规章、设定基准的行政机关公务人员,负担为确保行政相对人的生命、身体安全、维持健康而制定变更行政规范的作为义务,在行使权限时,应依照科学技术水平的发展变化,及时制定、修正与科技水平相适应的基准规范。还应考虑所预想的被害的性质、程度及规模,结果回避、减轻的实现可能性等,适时、适当地行使权限。第五部分是对完善我国国家赔偿法上的违法性要件的思考。通过本文的论证,希望借鉴国外经验从三个方面完善我国当前制度：修改现有立法模式,扩大行政诉讼受案范围；对行政行为实质性审查,回溯立法目的及宗旨；发挥行政的事前作用,避免损害结果的发生。
[Abstract]:In view of the fact that the public servants of administrative organs do not perform or not fully fulfill their obligations of action and should be investigated for their legal responsibility if they are not performing their duties, this article mainly starts with the national responsibility of risk prevention. This paper demonstrates that the specific administrative organ passively exercises its regulatory authority and fails to take active and effective measures to lead to the illegality of the result of the damage, and thus determines the national liability for compensation to the victim. The article is divided into the following five parts. In the first part, starting from the constitutive requirements of the national compensation liability, by comparing the scope of the national compensation and the provisions of the principle of imputation at home and abroad, the author summarizes the illegal evaluation standards in the law of state compensation. It should be recognized that the relevant administrative organ has the administrative authority to perform official duties, and that the specific staff member infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of others because of intentional or fault breach of his due diligence to the administrative counterpart, and his behavior is not reasonable, In violation of laws and regulations and general legal principles or legal purposes, a particular citizen who has been injured has the right to claim state compensation. The second part discusses theoretically whether the administrative organs can be investigated for the state compensation responsibility which does not exercise the regulatory authority, which is a kind of administrative omission. That is, we should take the initiative to exercise the regulatory authority to prevent the damage but have not taken any active and effective measures. Because the administrative organ has the discretion to exercise the authority based on the legal authorization, how to control, Contraction of its discretion is the key to determine that the authority of an administrative organ does not exercise illegality. According to the current theory of zero contraction of discretion, the theory of security guarantee obligation and negative abuse of discretion, we can identify, A civil servant of a state or public organization who does not exercise his regulatory authority, in accordance with the purpose, purpose and nature of the decree providing for this authority, in specific circumstances, when he does not exercise the limits of permission and is manifestly lacking in reasonableness, The law of state compensation is applied to determine the violation of the law in relation to the victim who has been injured because his authority is not exercised. The third part is supported by the above theory, through the comparison, analyzed the related cases to sort out the administrative authority authority not to exercise the illegal nature four benchmarks: first, killed the law benefit for the life, the body health and so on important legal interest; secondly, There is a danger or danger, and the agency can foresee it; third, if the agency takes active measures, it is possible to avoid the dangerous result; and 4th, the victim cannot exclude the damage himself. The above four elements are interrelated and indivisible. Part 4th specifically discusses the illegality of not exercising the authority to set standards in the State compensation Law. The public servants of the administrative organs entrusted by the legislature to formulate rules and regulations to set standards shall bear the burden of ensuring the life and physical safety of the administrative counterpart. The duty to make changes in administrative norms while maintaining health shall, when exercising the authority, be timely formulated and revised in accordance with the development and changes in the level of science and technology, and shall also take into account the nature of the harm envisaged, Degree and scale, result avoidance, reduce the possibility of realization, timely, appropriate exercise of authority. The 5th part is to perfect the illegal elements in the state compensation law of our country. Through the argumentation of this article, I hope to perfect the current system of our country from three aspects: to modify the existing legislative model and to expand the scope of accepting cases in administrative litigation; Reviewing the administrative act, retroactively reviewing the legislative object and purpose, giving full play to the prior function of the administration, avoiding the occurrence of the injurious result.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】