行政诉讼中确认违法但不撤销行政行为判决形式研究
发布时间：2018-11-26 06:55
【摘要】：行政诉讼中确认违法但不撤销行政行为判决形式自新《行政诉讼法》出台后,具有了更为宽泛的实用域界与适用条件,有利于督导行政机关依法履职,对维护相对人权益提供了更多的操作可能性。本文以该判决形式的内涵、特征、价值为基点,明确该判决形式与其他类型判决形式的界限。通过对实践案例的具体分析,概括出其弱救济性、重“公益”而轻“私益”以及补救措施不明确等缺陷,进而分析其缺陷的源头来自于司法权在行政权下的弱势表现、行政诉讼宗旨的口号化等现实因素。从而,试图从域外,以德国与英国为代表的先进判决制度寻求弥补缺陷,完善我国确认违法判决形式的方法。提出立法与判决后衔接的补救措施两方面的完善建议。立法上,将私人利益纳入确认违法判决所权衡的利益序次,明确程序轻微违法的界定标准等,衔接制度上,明确补偿与赔偿措施的具体内容与具体时限,并对作出违法行政行为的行政机关与相关负责人的追责提出建制化的要求。
[Abstract]:After the new Administrative procedure Law was issued, which confirmed the violation of the law but did not revoke the judgment form of administrative act, it has a broader scope of application and applicable conditions, which is conducive to supervising administrative organs to carry out their duties in accordance with the law. For the protection of the rights and interests of the counterpart to provide more operational possibilities. Based on the connotation, characteristics and value of the judgment form, this paper clarifies the boundary between the judgment form and other types of judgment forms. Through the concrete analysis of practical cases, this paper summarizes its weak relief, emphasizing "public good" rather than "private benefit", and so on, and analyzes that the source of its defects is the weak performance of judicial power under the executive power. The purpose of administrative litigation such as the slogan of the actual factors. Thus, this paper tries to seek to make up for the defects of the advanced judgment system, which is represented by Germany and Britain, and perfect the method of confirming the illegal judgment form in our country. The author puts forward two suggestions on how to perfect the remedial measures of the link between legislation and judgment. In legislation, private interests are included in the order of interests weighed by the recognition of illegal judgments, and the defining criteria for minor procedural violations are defined. In connection with the system, the specific contents and specific time limits of compensation and compensation measures are clearly defined. And put forward the system request to the administrative organ and the related responsible person who make the illegal administrative act.
【学位授予单位】：南昌大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3
本文编号：2357678
[Abstract]:After the new Administrative procedure Law was issued, which confirmed the violation of the law but did not revoke the judgment form of administrative act, it has a broader scope of application and applicable conditions, which is conducive to supervising administrative organs to carry out their duties in accordance with the law. For the protection of the rights and interests of the counterpart to provide more operational possibilities. Based on the connotation, characteristics and value of the judgment form, this paper clarifies the boundary between the judgment form and other types of judgment forms. Through the concrete analysis of practical cases, this paper summarizes its weak relief, emphasizing "public good" rather than "private benefit", and so on, and analyzes that the source of its defects is the weak performance of judicial power under the executive power. The purpose of administrative litigation such as the slogan of the actual factors. Thus, this paper tries to seek to make up for the defects of the advanced judgment system, which is represented by Germany and Britain, and perfect the method of confirming the illegal judgment form in our country. The author puts forward two suggestions on how to perfect the remedial measures of the link between legislation and judgment. In legislation, private interests are included in the order of interests weighed by the recognition of illegal judgments, and the defining criteria for minor procedural violations are defined. In connection with the system, the specific contents and specific time limits of compensation and compensation measures are clearly defined. And put forward the system request to the administrative organ and the related responsible person who make the illegal administrative act.
【学位授予单位】：南昌大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 李拥军;;司法改革中的体制性冲突及其解决路径[J];法商研究;2017年02期
2 杨登峰;;行政行为程序瑕疵的指正[J];法学研究;2017年01期
3 柳砚涛;;认真对待行政程序“瑕疵”——基于当下行政判决的实证考察[J];理论学刊;2015年08期
4 江必新;;完善行政诉讼制度的若干思考[J];中国法学;2013年01期
5 邓刚宏;;我国行政诉讼诉判关系的新认识[J];中国法学;2012年05期
6 赵永红;;论程序瑕疵的认定及对死刑适用的影响[J];中国检察官;2011年22期
7 郑春燕;;论“基于公益考量”的确认违法判决——以行政拆迁为例[J];法商研究;2010年04期
8 杨珍;;浅谈法治与正义[J];法制与社会;2009年20期
9 卢靖;;行政诉讼确认判决的反思与完善[J];韶关学院学报;2009年04期
10 张峰振;;论违法行政行为的治愈[J];政治与法律;2007年06期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 田勇军;行政判决既判力扩张问题研究[D];武汉大学;2011年
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 周旭;论城管执法的法治化[D];中国政法大学;2010年
2 米久松;论行政判决类型的优化[D];湘潭大学;2009年
，本文编号：2357678
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/shoufeilunwen/shuoshibiyelunwen/2357678.html
