行政诉讼交叉集中管辖制度研究
发布时间：2018-07-16 07:46
【摘要】：行政干预司法,妨碍司法公正一直是行政诉讼中的一个“老大难”问题。自2013年1月4日起,最高人民法院发布《关于开展行政案件相对集中管辖试点工作的通知》》,各地积极开展对行政诉讼交叉集中管辖模式的试点,至今为止,试点工作已进行了4年有余,到目前为止,行政诉讼交叉集中管辖仍处于试点过程中,各地方法院试点的具体方案相异,全国绝大部分地方法院都没有被选为试点法院,仍采用法定的地域管辖、级别管辖的行政诉讼管辖模式。一方面,各地管辖模式的不统一,给当事人寻求行政司法救济尤其是跨地区的行政司法救济带来困扰;另一方面,行政诉讼案件管辖制度的长期“悬而未决”,不利于司法权威的树立和公信力的维护以及法治中国的建设。本文通过对各地试点法院实施的行政诉讼案件交叉集中管辖制度的特点进行归纳和对比,发现各地方法院的试点可以划分为全面试点和局部试点,完全集中和相对集中,相互对应集中模式、自我管辖集中模式以及指定管辖集中模式,总结其具体模式的特点及利弊,得出结论:现行的行政诉讼交叉集中管辖模式在一定程度上虽然消减了地方政府对司法机关的干预,但仍没有遏制住行政干预司法的源动力,且造成了诉讼成本成倍增长以及新型行政干预司法手段的产生等问题。要从根本上解决司法独立问题,完成法院人、财、物的真正独立,应分两步走,第一步,实现行政诉讼异地交叉集中管辖;第二步,建立行政诉讼专门法院。
[Abstract]:Administrative interference in the administration of justice and obstruction of judicial justice has always been an old problem in administrative litigation. Since January 4, 2013, the Supreme people's Court has issued the Circular on the pilot work of relatively centralized jurisdiction in Administrative cases. The pilot work has been carried out for more than four years. Up to now, the cross-centralized jurisdiction of administrative proceedings is still in the process of trial, and the specific plans of the local courts are different. The vast majority of local courts in the country have not been selected as pilot courts. The administrative litigation jurisdiction mode of legal jurisdiction and level jurisdiction is still adopted. On the one hand, the disunity of jurisdiction mode in various places brings difficulties to the parties seeking administrative judicial relief, especially the administrative judicial relief across regions; on the other hand, the jurisdiction system of administrative litigation cases has been "unresolved" for a long time. It is not conducive to the establishment of judicial authority and the maintenance of public trust and the construction of China under the rule of law. By summarizing and comparing the characteristics of the cross-centralized jurisdiction system of administrative litigation cases implemented by the trial courts in various localities, this paper finds that the pilot units of the local courts can be divided into comprehensive and partial trials, complete concentration and relative concentration. This paper summarizes the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the corresponding centralized mode, the self-jurisdiction centralized model and the designated jurisdiction centralized mode. It is concluded that the current mode of cross-centralized jurisdiction in administrative litigation has to a certain extent reduced the local government's intervention in the judiciary, but still has not restrained the source of the administrative intervention in the judiciary. And caused the double increase of litigation cost and the emergence of new administrative intervention judicial means and so on. In order to fundamentally solve the problem of judicial independence and complete the real independence of court personnel, property and property, we should take two steps, the first step is to realize the administrative litigation in different places and centralized jurisdiction; the second step is to establish a special court of administrative litigation.
【学位授予单位】：广西大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3
[Abstract]:Administrative interference in the administration of justice and obstruction of judicial justice has always been an old problem in administrative litigation. Since January 4, 2013, the Supreme people's Court has issued the Circular on the pilot work of relatively centralized jurisdiction in Administrative cases. The pilot work has been carried out for more than four years. Up to now, the cross-centralized jurisdiction of administrative proceedings is still in the process of trial, and the specific plans of the local courts are different. The vast majority of local courts in the country have not been selected as pilot courts. The administrative litigation jurisdiction mode of legal jurisdiction and level jurisdiction is still adopted. On the one hand, the disunity of jurisdiction mode in various places brings difficulties to the parties seeking administrative judicial relief, especially the administrative judicial relief across regions; on the other hand, the jurisdiction system of administrative litigation cases has been "unresolved" for a long time. It is not conducive to the establishment of judicial authority and the maintenance of public trust and the construction of China under the rule of law. By summarizing and comparing the characteristics of the cross-centralized jurisdiction system of administrative litigation cases implemented by the trial courts in various localities, this paper finds that the pilot units of the local courts can be divided into comprehensive and partial trials, complete concentration and relative concentration. This paper summarizes the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the corresponding centralized mode, the self-jurisdiction centralized model and the designated jurisdiction centralized mode. It is concluded that the current mode of cross-centralized jurisdiction in administrative litigation has to a certain extent reduced the local government's intervention in the judiciary, but still has not restrained the source of the administrative intervention in the judiciary. And caused the double increase of litigation cost and the emergence of new administrative intervention judicial means and so on. In order to fundamentally solve the problem of judicial independence and complete the real independence of court personnel, property and property, we should take two steps, the first step is to realize the administrative litigation in different places and centralized jurisdiction; the second step is to establish a special court of administrative litigation.
【学位授予单位】：广西大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3
【相似文献】
相关硕士学位论文 前6条
1 杨伟萍;行政诉讼交叉集中管辖制度研究[D];广西大学;2017年
2 付杨;论我国的行政诉讼政策[D];郑州大学;2017年
3 董晓U，
本文编号：2125722
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shoufeilunwen/shuoshibiyelunwen/2125722.html
