林业行政处罚裁量基准制度研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 23:04

  本文选题：行政裁量基准 + 林业行政处罚　； 参考：《中南林业科技大学》2016年硕士论文

【摘要】：行政裁量基准是指行政机关在其法定职权范围内,遵循行政法律、法规所规定的原则,结合行政相对人的违法事实、情节、性质、社会危害程度等情况,对行政法律、法规所设定的行政自由裁量权进行细化、量化的一种内部规则。将行政裁量基准制度引入林业行政处罚,有利于进一步规范林业行政执法行为,解决现阶段我国林业行政执法工作中存在的执法尺度不一问题,减少自由裁量权滥用现象,增强林业行政执法工作的公正性,提高执法质量,有效化解社会矛盾。我国地方林业行政处罚裁量基准的出台,主要集中在2009年至2013年。江西、四川、河南早在2009年就率先制定了地方林业行政处罚裁量基准,随后云南、湖南、重庆、陕西、河北、贵州、广东、宁夏、山东、福建等地均相继出台了地方基准。整体上看,地方林业行政处罚裁量基准大致可分为三种类型：一是只发布林业行政处罚裁量的基准、标准；二是在发布林业行政处罚指导性文件的适用规则或者实施办法的同时,发布具体的裁量基准或者实施标准；三是在制定一个总则性文件的基础上,与相关法律、法规的具体条款一一对应制定细化的指导标准。地方林业行政处罚裁量基准主要表现为文本和表格两种形式,文本便于运用规范性语言对裁量基准进行细化,而表格则便于执法人员查询。在地方裁量基准实践中,尚存在许多问题需要解决。例如,目前存在省、市、县三级裁量基准,制定主体呈现多元化乱象。适用范围也相对狭窄,除个别地方外,基本上只适用于行政处罚,林业行政许可等存在自由裁量的其他领域基本未涉及。在设定技术上,对违法情节和处罚幅度的细化也远未达成行业共识。从世界范围来看,德国的裁量控制、法国的裁量指示、日本的裁量基准所覆盖的范围、美国对裁量基准的司法审查等方面的经验,对完善我国林业行政处罚裁量基准的制定主体、制定程序、覆盖范围、控制方式均具有一定的借鉴意义。根据我国地方实践并借鉴域外经验,应当明确林业行政处罚裁量基准的制定主体,由国务院林业行政部门统一制定裁量基准总则、省级林业主管部门根据各地实际制定具体的裁量标准。同时,应完善林业行政处罚裁量基准的设定技术,提高林业行政执法人员的职业素质,加强林业行政处罚裁量基准配套制度建设,适当拓展裁量基准的适用范围。
[Abstract]:The administrative discretion standard means that the administrative organ shall, within the scope of its statutory functions and powers, comply with the principles prescribed by the administrative laws and regulations, and combine the facts, circumstances, nature and social harm of the administrative counterpart with the administrative law, An internal rule in which administrative discretion is specified and quantified. Introducing the standard system of administrative discretion into forestry administrative punishment will help to further standardize forestry administrative law enforcement behavior, solve the problems of different standards of enforcement in forestry administrative law enforcement work in China at present, and reduce the abuse of discretion. Enhance the fairness of forestry administrative law enforcement, improve the quality of law enforcement, and effectively resolve social contradictions. China's local forestry administrative penalty discretion benchmark, mainly concentrated in 2009-2013. Jiangxi, Sichuan and Henan took the lead in formulating local forestry administrative penalty discretion standards in 2009, and then Yunnan, Hunan, Chongqing, Shaanxi, Hebei, Guizhou, Guangdong, Ningxia, Shandong, Fujian and other places have successively issued local benchmarks. On the whole, local forestry administrative penalty discretion benchmark can be roughly divided into three types: first, only the release of forestry administrative penalty discretion benchmark, standards; Second, while issuing the applicable rules or implementing measures of the guiding documents on forestry administrative penalties, they should issue specific discretion benchmarks or implementation standards; third, on the basis of formulating a general document, with relevant laws, Specific provisions of the statute one-to-one corresponding to the formulation of detailed guidelines. The local forestry administrative penalty discretion benchmark is mainly in the form of text and form. The text is convenient to use normative language to refine the discretion benchmark, and the form is convenient for law enforcement personnel to inquire. In the practice of local discretion benchmark, there are still many problems to be solved. For example, at present, there are provincial, municipal, county three-level discretion benchmark, the main body presents diversified chaos. The scope of application is also relatively narrow, except for a few places, basically only applicable to administrative penalties, forestry administrative licensing and other areas of discretion are basically not involved. In the setting of technology, the extent of the violation of the fine and punishment is far from reaching an industry consensus. From the world perspective, the experience of Germany's discretion control, France's discretion instruction, the scope covered by Japan's discretion benchmark, the judicial review of the U.S. discretion benchmark, and so on, It can be used for reference to perfect the main body, procedure, coverage and control mode of forestry administrative penalty standard in our country. According to the local practice of our country and drawing lessons from the overseas experience, we should make clear the main body of the forestry administrative penalty discretion standard, and the forestry administrative department under the State Council shall uniformly formulate the general rules of the discretion benchmark. Provincial forestry competent departments in accordance with the actual formulation of specific discretion standards. At the same time, we should perfect the setting technology of forestry administrative penalty discretion benchmark, improve the professional quality of forestry administrative law enforcement personnel, strengthen the construction of forestry administrative penalty discretion benchmark matching system, and expand the scope of application of the discretion standard.
【学位授予单位】：中南林业科技大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D922.11;D922.63
，

本文编号：1831387