论比例原则在行政处罚裁量中的适用

发布时间：2018-04-10 18:49

本文选题：比例原则 + 过罚相当原则　；参考：《南京师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：比例原则是行政裁量的统一审查基准。在行政处罚中,过罚相当原则是约束行政处罚实体裁量的法定原则。从适用地位上,在处罚实体裁量中,比例原则可以成为过罚相当性的判断标准之一;在处罚程序裁量中,比例原则是过罚相当原则的有益补充。从适用方法上,比例原则的三阶理论、审查强度、举证责任和法律后果均可适用于行政处罚裁量之中。具体而言:第一部分梳理了比例原则的发展历程和中国的引入。比例原则萌芽于合比例思想,起源于德国警察法,借由欧洲一体化推广于欧洲,并为日本、台湾等大陆法系国家或地区所借鉴。自1988年比例原则第一次引入中国,比例原则备受青睐,不仅被学界广泛讨论,在立法、行政和司法实践中愈发重要。第二部分分析了行政处罚裁量的成文法规范。《中华人民共和国行政处罚法》第4条第2款规定的过罚相当原则是约束行政处罚裁量的法定原则。但是过罚相当原则法定要素无法囊括违法行为的全部考量因素,同时其本身无法提供相当性的判断标准,从而存在约束行政处罚裁量的固有局限。第三部分明确了比例原则在行政处罚裁量中的地位。在行政处罚实体裁量中,比例原则是过罚相当性的判断标准之一。在行政处罚程序裁量中,比例原则可以对其加以约束,从而成为过罚相当原则的有益补充。第四部分将比例原则的相关法律规范具体适用于行政处罚裁量之中。比例原则的适当性、必要性和均衡性三个子原则在行政处罚实体裁量和行政处罚程序裁量中的考量因素各不相同。在行政处罚裁量司法审查时,行政处罚主体应当负有处罚行为适当性和必要性的举证责任,相对人可以提出相应的反证。法院根据行政处罚作出时的状态和行政处罚对相对人权利限制程度,分别适用宽松、中度和严格的审查强度。法院可以依据《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第70条第6项和第77条第1款规定的“明显不当”条款对行政处罚裁量进行审查和裁判。最后是结论。本文认为,比例原则是约束行政处罚裁量的基准之一。在现有的成文法体系中,比例原则可以作为过罚相当原则的判断标准之一约束行政处罚实体裁量,可以作为独立的判断标准规制行政处罚程序裁量。比例原则的子原则、举证责任和审查强度理论在行政处罚中得以展开。法院可以依据“明显不当”条款对违反比例原则的行政处罚行为进行撤销或变更。
[Abstract]:The principle of proportion is the standard of administrative discretion.In administrative punishment, the principle of excessive punishment is the legal principle of restricting the discretion of administrative punishment entity.In terms of applicable position, the principle of proportionality can be one of the criteria for judging the equivalence of overpunishment in the discretion of punishment entity, and the principle of proportionality is a useful supplement to the principle of excessive punishment in the discretion of punishment procedure.In terms of applicable methods, the third order theory of the principle of proportionality, the intensity of examination, the burden of proof and the legal consequences can be applied to the discretion of administrative punishment.Specifically, the first part combs the development of the principle of proportionality and the introduction of China.The principle of proportionality originates in the thought of proportionality and originates from the police law of Germany. It is popularized in Europe by European integration and is used for reference by Japan, Taiwan and other civil law countries or regions.Since the principle of proportion was introduced into China for the first time in 1988, the principle of proportionality has attracted much attention. It has not only been widely discussed in academic circles, but also has become more and more important in legislative, administrative and judicial practice.The second part analyzes the statutory norms of administrative penalty discretion. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Administrative penalty Law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that the principle of excessive penalty equivalence is the legal principle that binds the administrative penalty discretion.However, the legal elements of the principle of excessive punishment can not include all the factors considered in the illegal act, and at the same time, it can not provide the criterion of equivalence, which leads to the inherent limitation of restricting the discretion of administrative punishment.The third part clarifies the proportion principle's position in the administrative penalty discretion.In the discretion of administrative punishment entity, the principle of proportionality is one of the judgment standards of excessive penalty equivalence.In the discretion of administrative punishment procedure, the principle of proportionality can restrict it, thus becoming a beneficial supplement to the principle of excessive punishment.The fourth part applies the relevant legal norms of the principle of proportionality to the discretion of administrative punishment.The three sub-principles of proportionality necessity and balance are different in the discretion of administrative punishment entity and the discretion of administrative punishment procedure.In the judicial review of administrative penalty discretion, the subject of administrative punishment should bear the burden of proof of the appropriateness and necessity of the punishment, and the relative party may put forward the corresponding counter-proof.According to the state of administrative punishment and the restriction degree of administrative punishment, the court applies lenient, moderate and strict examination intensity respectively.The court may review and adjudicate the discretion of administrative punishment in accordance with the "manifestly improper" provisions of Article 70, item 6, and Article 77, paragraph 1, of the Administrative procedure Law of the people's Republic of China.Finally is the conclusion.This paper holds that the principle of proportionality is one of the benchmarks for restricting the discretion of administrative punishment.In the existing statutory law system, the principle of proportionality can be used as one of the judgment criteria of the principle of excessive punishment to restrict the discretion of the entity of administrative punishment, and it can be used as an independent judgment standard to regulate the discretion of the procedure of administrative punishment.The sub-principle of the principle of proportionality, the burden of proof and the theory of examination intensity can be carried out in administrative punishment.The court may rescind or change the administrative punishment in violation of the principle of proportionality according to the "manifestly improper" clause.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】