作为行政裁量影响因素的政策及其司法审查

发布时间：2018-05-15 03:17

本文选题：行政裁量 + 政策　；参考：《浙江工商大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：行政裁量在行政法学理论和实践中具有十分重要的地位。戴维斯教授曾在其《裁量正义》一书中说过：行政裁量是“行政过程的生命之源”。在理论上,近年来有大量学者对行政裁量进行了大量深入的研究,对裁量的研究早已不仅仅限于概念之争,而且深入到各个领域,并出现了众多行政裁量理论的权威学者。就我国的行政实践而言,行政机关制定的大量执法政策是裁量权行使过程中最重要的规则性影响因素之一。行政法学的主要研究对象是法律规范,但对于行政过程中的其他规则要素也应当给予相当的关注。本文着重通过对政策与法的形式的分析,研究了行政法学上所说的政策是指什么。政策科学上所说的政策,包含了所有法律规范及国家机关制定的其他行为规则。法理学上将政策视作法的资源性要素,经过法的进路性要素而转化为法。除此之外的政策,仍然仅仅是政策,政策不是法,同时,行政机关总有一个执法政策。一项执法政策的提出,意味着原来的执法政策不能满足于现状。从这些意义上而言,政策是相对独立于法之外的另一种规则要素存在,政策不仅是一个描述性概念,而且建构行政机关的行动,具有工具理性价值。也是在这个意义上,政策不仅仅指一种指导思想,而且包括政策中的具体措施。在行政法上,具有行政立法权的行政机关对其自身制定的法律规范的解释,具有与法律规范同等的效力,同属于法律规范性文件,本文将其排除在政策范围之外。具有行政立法权的行政机关所制定的除对其自身制定的法律规范的解释以外的解释性文件,以及没有行政立法权的机关制定的对法律、法规和规章的解释文件都属于非法定解释,其对行政机关的效力来自于行政组织的权威,而非来自该文件自身；但这种效力不当然推及行政相对人及司法机关,对司法机关没有强制拘束力,因而不属于属法律规范性文件。因而本文将这些为执行法律而制定的非法律规范属性的其他规范性文件归入政策范围内。当然,除了其他规范性文件外,政策还包括行政机关以其他形式制定、发布的针对不特定公众的文件本文通过对学者们关于裁量概念论述的梳理,采纳了统一裁量论的观点,即对不确定法律概念的解释也属于行政裁量。基于依法行政原则的要求,行政机关不可能依政策行政。但是行政裁量为行政机关透过法律的屏障达成行政任务提供了通道。行政机关的政策,其重要作用有两个方面：其一,解决政策问题,实现行政任务；其二,建构和约束法律规范赋予的行政裁量权及其行使,在实践中政策的作用可能会有不同的侧重点。这两个作用的发挥,都在某种程度上依赖于政策所具有的工具性、权威性、一致性与专业知识(经验)性,并通过政策目标的宣示、解释法律概念、规定法律效果而对行政裁量产生影响。通过一个案例和基于该案例的假设,分析了政策在影响行政裁量权的过程中,最有可能产生的两个问题：裁量怠惰和政策规避。因为行政机关自上而下的组织体系,下级行政机关很有可能僵化的适用政策而忽视了裁量的应有之义,缺乏对案件具体情况和行政相对人个体情形的考量,从而造成非正义,尤其当政策本身就是一个僵化的政策时。但另一方面,如果行政机关在裁量权行使的过程中,没有正当理由的背离政策,从严作出裁量决定,则会违背平等对待原则,更加可能会违背合法预期保护原则损害相对人的利益。包括合法预期保护在内的一般法律原则构成行政权行使的内在边界,超出这一边界会构成一种权利滥用情形,在裁量领域,可以称作裁量滥用。在司法审判中,司法机关对行政裁量进行的是有限审查,即审查是否存在瑕疵而违法。而对受政策影响的行政裁量之审查,其实质在于审查政策是否提供了充分的、合理的正当性理由。因此不可避免的要深入政策,考察政策的内在构造、内容是否合法或者合理。我国最高人民法院在《关于审理行政案件适用法律规范问题的座谈会纪要》明确了对抽象行政行为的审查标准是合法性与合理性。但是本文在写作过程中通过对司法判决文书的阅读,发现在司法实践中往往仅仅考察其合法性,而且对合法性的适用尺度仅仅是不得与法律规范的明确规定相抵触。司法实践中对政策在内的行政规范性文件的审查标准降低为合法性,其原因一方面可能在给予知识、能力及职权分工的司法尊重；另一方面也可能是因为法院在我国宪政实践中的实际地位导致的,尤其在强调能动主义司法的背景下,法院更有可能将行政政策内化为司法政策。
[Abstract]:Administrative discretion has a very important position in the theory and practice of administrative law. Professor Davies once said in his book of discretion: administrative discretion is the source of the life of administrative process. In theory, in theory, a large number of scholars have done a lot of in-depth research on administrative discretion in recent years, and the research on discretion has long been limited. In terms of the dispute of concept, and deep into various fields, there are many authoritative scholars of administrative discretion. As far as the administrative practice of our country is concerned, a large number of law enforcement policies formulated by the administrative organs are one of the most important and regular factors affecting the exercise of discretion. The main object of the study of administrative law is the legal norm, but it is for administration. Other elements of the process should also be given considerable attention.
This article, through the analysis of the form of policy and law, has studied what the policy of administrative law refers to. The policy in the science of policy includes all the legal norms and other rules of conduct formulated by the state organs. In addition, the policy is still only a policy, and the policy is not a law. At the same time, the administrative organs always have a law enforcement policy. A law enforcement policy suggests that the original law enforcement policy is not satisfied with the status quo. In these sense, the policy is a relatively independent rule outside the law, and the policy is not only a sketch. It is also in this sense that policy not only refers to a kind of guiding ideology, but also includes specific measures in the policy. In administrative law, the administrative organs with administrative legislative power explain their own legal norms with the same effect as the legal norms. Force, which belongs to the legal normative documents, is excluded from the scope of the policy. The interpretative documents other than the interpretation of the legal norms formulated by the administrative organs of administrative legislation, and the interpretive documents formulated by the organs without administrative legislative power to the laws, regulations and regulations are illegal solutions. Its effect on the administrative organization is derived from the authority of the administrative organization, not from the document itself; but this effect does not certainly push the administrative counterpart and the judiciary, and does not have compulsory restraint to the judiciary, and therefore does not belong to the legal normative document. Therefore, this article puts these non legal norms for the implementation of the law. Other normative documents are included in the policy scope. Of course, in addition to other normative documents, the policy also includes documents formulated by the administrative organs in other forms and published for the non specific public.
Through the combing of the scholars' discussion on the concept of discretion, this paper adopts the viewpoint of unified discretion, that is, the interpretation of the uncertain legal concept is also administrative discretion. Based on the requirements of the principle of administration according to law, the administrative organs can not depend on the policy administration. But the administrative discretion provides the administrative organ to provide the administrative task through the barrier of law. The policy of the administrative organ has two aspects: first, to solve the policy problems and to realize the administrative task; secondly, to construct and restrain the administrative discretion and its exercise by the legal norms, the role of the policy in practice may have different emphasis. The play of these two functions depends to some extent on the government. The policy has the tools, authority, consistency and professional knowledge (experience), and through the declaration of policy goals, explain the concept of law, regulate the effect of the law and influence the administrative discretion.
Through a case and the hypothesis based on the case, this paper analyzes the two most likely problems that are likely to arise during the process of influencing the power of administrative discretion: discretion and laziness and policy avoidance. The consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and the individual situation of the administrative relative will lead to injustice, especially when the policy itself is a rigid policy. On the other hand, if the administrative organs do not deviate from the policy in the process of exercising the right of discretion, they will go against the principle of equal treatment and are more likely to go against the principle of equal treatment. It can violate the principle of legal expected protection to damage the interests of the relative people. The general legal principles, including the legal expected protection, constitute the internal boundary of the exercise of the administrative power. Beyond this boundary will constitute a kind of abuse of rights. In the field of discretion, it can be called the abuse of discretion.
In judicial trial, the judicial organ conducts a limited review of the administrative discretion, namely, the examination of the existence of defects and the violation of the law. The essence of the review of the administrative discretion influenced by the policy lies in whether the examination policy provides sufficient and reasonable justifiable reasons. Therefore, the internal structure of the policy should not be avoided and the internal structure of the policy is examined. Whether it is legitimate or reasonable. In the summary of the Forum on the application of legal norms for administrative cases, the Supreme People's Court of our country clearly defines the standard of examination of abstract administrative acts as legitimacy and rationality. However, in the process of writing, this article finds that the judicial practice is often only examined in the judicial practice by reading the judicial judgment documents. Inspection of its legitimacy, and the application of the legitimacy of the standard is only not inconsistent with the clear provisions of the legal norms. In judicial practice, the standard of the administrative normative documents, including the policy, is reduced to legality. On the one hand, it may be given the judicial respect of knowledge, ability and division of labor; on the other hand, it may also be a cause. In the context of the actual status of the court in the practice of constitutional government in our country, especially in the context of the emphasis on activism, the court is more likely to internalize administrative policy into judicial policy.

【学位授予单位】：浙江工商大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D925.3;D926

【参考文献】