《政府信息公开条例》中“特殊需要”的解释与适用——以中华环保联合会案为例

发布时间：2018-03-20 21:13

本文选题：信息公开　切入点：特殊需要　出处：《公法研究》2015年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：《政府信息公开条例》的"特殊需要"条款,在实践中往往被行政机关利用,成为不予公开的理由。这使得信息公开的立法宗旨失去了意义,也无法保障公民的知情权。"特殊需要"的解释与适用应当以信息公开的立法理念为原则——最大限度地保障公开,对于生产、生活、科研等"特殊需要"的解释应当放宽。法院在适用《政府信息公开条例》第十三条的过程中,不能将"特殊需要"作为原告资格要件,而应当作有限度的审查。在现有法律框架内无法得到解决时,可以引进案例指导的方法,以公报案例为契机,逐渐转变观念与思路,实现司法公平与公正。本文的第一部分对"特殊需要"进行理论梳理,前半部分从规范层面讨论"特殊需要",运用文义解释、体系解释和目的解释手段,对"特殊需要"的含义、适用情形以及在其他法律条文中的表现形式等进行了分析。后半部分总结理论界对于特殊需要相关问题的研究现状,揭示了理论界对于"特殊需要"及其条款的解释与定位并未形成统一意见。第二部分则转换视角,从典型案例入手,分析论证实务界对解释与适用"特殊需要"的思路的转变。首先,分析该案之前相关案件的裁判逻辑,指出地方法院在对待"特殊需要"的问题上并没有统一,需要权威机构给出指导性意见。然后,对中华环保联合会案的裁判思路进行梳理,总结出最高法院对"特殊需要"的"官方"的、更具指导性的解释意见。最后,根据环保联合会案后出现的几个案例,分析了环保联合会案所没有解决的两个问题:特殊需要的审查方向和审查程度。第三部分主要是与"特殊需要"相关的两个问题,首先是由环保联合会案引发的再思考,从环境信息公开的视角探寻特殊需要的非必要性。则提供了未来解决"特殊需要"相关问题的两条路径。第四部分是结语,主要是对全文论点的整理和总结。
[Abstract]:In practice, the "special needs" clause of the "Government Information Disclosure regulations" is often used by the administrative authorities as a reason not to be made public. This makes the legislative purpose of information disclosure meaningless. Nor can we guarantee citizens' right to know. The interpretation and application of "special needs" should be based on the legislative concept of information disclosure as the principle-to maximize the protection of openness, for production and life, The interpretation of "special needs", such as scientific research, should be relaxed. In the course of applying section 13th of the regulations on the publicity of Government Information, the court should not regard "special needs" as the qualification requirements of the plaintiff. It should be regarded as a limited review. When it cannot be resolved within the existing legal framework, it can introduce the method of case guidance and take the bulletin case as an opportunity to gradually change ideas and ideas. In the first part of this paper, the author makes a theoretical analysis of "special needs". The first part discusses "special needs" from the normative level, and uses the means of textual interpretation, system interpretation and purpose interpretation. This paper analyzes the meaning of "special needs", its application and the forms of expression in other legal provisions. The second part summarizes the current research situation of special needs related problems in the theoretical circle. It is revealed that the interpretation and orientation of "special needs" and its terms have not formed a unified opinion in the theoretical circle. The second part is to change the angle of view and start with typical cases. First of all, by analyzing the decision logic of the relevant cases before the case, the author points out that the local courts have not unified the treatment of "special needs". We need an authoritative body to give us a guiding opinion. Then, we comb the thinking of the decision in the China Environmental Protection Federation case, and summarize the Supreme Court's "official" and more instructive interpretation of "special needs." finally, According to several cases that appeared after the EPF case, this paper analyzes two problems that have not been solved in the EPF case: the direction and the degree of examination of special needs. The third part is mainly concerned with two problems related to "special needs". The first is rethinking caused by the Environmental Protection Federation case, exploring the non-necessity of special needs from the angle of environmental information disclosure. It provides two ways to solve the problems related to "special needs" in the future. 4th is the conclusion. The main point is the collation and summary of the full text of the argument.
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】