行政事实行为的法律救济问题研究

发布时间：2018-07-12 20:04

本文选题：行政事实行为 + 行政法律行为　；参考：《河南大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着社会不断发展，服务型政府的建设，政府行为模式也出现了多元化。原先的行政行为理论已经不能适用于新型行政行为的研究，新型行政行为也同样需要得到法律规制和相应救济，行政事实行为在这样的背景下应运而生。行政事实行为是近年来侵害行政相对人合法权益较多的行政行为类型，特别是由于部分行政事实行为是在没有法律依据的情况下实施的，或者是虽有法律依据，但为了更有效地实现行政目的，而作为行政法律行为的辅助性、沟通性行为实施的。鉴于此，，通过法律救济制度的设置，加大对行政事实行为的监督和约束，将行政事实行为纳入法律救济范围，形成比较完善的监督救济机制，对维护行政相对人或其他利益相关人的合法权益和督促行政机关依法履行职责，实现行政行为法制化，具有重大的理论价值与实践意义。在国外，美国、英国、德国、日本已经将行政事实行为纳入司法、行政救济的受案范畴，而目前我国对行政事实行为的概念仍然没有统一的理论，如何将行政事实行为纳入行政、司法救济也众说纷纭。为了填补行政事实行为的救济真空，本文从行政事实行为的概念入手，研究国外相关制度，对行政事实行为的法律救济提出完善的方案。本文的第一部分阐述了行政事实行为的相关理论。该部分首先对国内外有关行政事实行为的研究成果进行了罗列和综述，并总结出四种有代表性的观点加以评析。在此基础上集中讨论了行政事实行为的概念的界定和基本特征以及分类，并对行政事实行为与准行政行为、行政法律行为、假行政行为、行政侵权行为等相关概念进行区别。最后介绍了界定行政事实行为的必要性。第二部分主要是介绍了域外行政事实行为法律救济制度比较。以英美法系的英国和美国，以及大陆法系的德国、法国以及我国的台湾地区为重点分析了各国的行政事实行为救济制度，然后相比分析了我国在行政事实行为救济方面存在的急需完善之处。第三部分从我国目前行政事实行为的相关规定和行政事实行为的制度运行上介绍了我国行政事实行为救济制度的现状和缺陷；比如行政诉讼受案范围狭窄，行政诉讼门槛过多，国家赔偿制度的不完善，行政补偿制度的不健全。提出了我国现在行政事实行为所存在的问题。第四部分是在前述缺陷的基础上提出了关于完善行政事实行为法律救济的基本构想。如扩大行政诉讼受案范围，减少行政诉讼门槛，完善国家赔偿制度，健全行政补偿制度。在当代中国依法治国理念的指导下，任何行政机关的行政行为都应该纳入法律规制，在此背景下行政事实行为也要像法律行为一样受法律调整。所以本文试图界定行政事实行为概念，以及完善对行政事实行为的法律救济。
[Abstract]:With the development of the society and the construction of the service-oriented government, the behavior pattern of the government has been diversified. The original theory of administrative act can no longer be applied to the study of new administrative act, and the new administrative act also needs legal regulation and corresponding relief. Administrative factual behavior emerges as the times require under such a background. Administrative factual acts are the types of administrative acts that infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterpart in recent years, especially because some administrative factual acts are carried out without legal basis, or even though there is a legal basis, But in order to realize the administrative purpose more effectively, as the auxiliary and communication behavior of the administrative legal act. In view of this, through the establishment of the legal relief system, we should strengthen the supervision and restraint of the administrative factual acts, bring the administrative factual acts into the scope of legal relief, and form a relatively perfect supervisory relief mechanism. It is of great theoretical value and practical significance to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart or other stakeholders, to urge the administrative organs to perform their duties according to law, and to realize the legalization of administrative acts. In foreign countries, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan have brought administrative factual acts into the category of judicial and administrative relief cases. However, at present, there is still no unified theory on the concept of administrative factual acts in our country. There are different opinions on how to bring administrative factual behavior into administration. In order to fill the relief vacuum of administrative factual act, this paper starts with the concept of administrative factual act, studies the relevant systems abroad, and puts forward a perfect scheme for the legal relief of administrative factual act. The first part of this article elaborated the administrative fact behavior related theory. This part firstly lists and summarizes the research results of administrative factual behavior at home and abroad, and summarizes four representative viewpoints. On this basis, it focuses on the definition, basic characteristics and classification of the concept of administrative factual act, and distinguishes between administrative factual act and quasi-administrative act, administrative legal act, false administrative act, administrative tort and other related concepts. Finally, it introduces the necessity of defining administrative factual behavior. The second part mainly introduces the legal relief system comparison of the extraterritorial administrative factual acts. Based on the Anglo-American law system of the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the continental law system of Germany, France and China's Taiwan region as the focus of the analysis of the administrative factual acts of relief systems in various countries. Then compared with the analysis of our country in the administrative fact of the existence of relief in urgent need of improvement. The third part introduces the current situation and defects of the relief system of administrative factual acts in our country from the relevant provisions of the current administrative factual acts and the system operation of administrative factual acts. For example, the scope of administrative litigation is narrow and the threshold of administrative litigation is too high. The state compensation system is not perfect, and the administrative compensation system is not perfect. This paper puts forward the existing problems of administrative factual behavior in our country. The fourth part puts forward the basic conception of perfecting the legal remedy of administrative factual act on the basis of the above mentioned defects. Such as expanding the scope of administrative litigation, reducing the threshold of administrative litigation, perfecting the national compensation system, and perfecting the administrative compensation system. Under the guidance of the concept of ruling the country according to law in contemporary China, the administrative behavior of any administrative organ should be regulated by law, and under this background, the administrative factual behavior should be adjusted by law just as the legal act. So this paper tries to define the concept of administrative fact act and perfect the legal remedy to administrative fact act.
【学位授予单位】：河南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】