民事诉讼中的行政行为公定力问题研究

发布时间：2018-04-12 20:50

本文选题：行政行为 + 公定力　；参考：《复旦大学》2008年硕士论文

【摘要】： 在大陆法系国家,行政法是作为公法的一个重要法律部门而存在的。在我国,行政法也是作为区别于民商法而存在的一个独立部门法。这种区别是多方面的,其中就行政行为与民事法律行为而言,传统行政法理论认为,“行政行为最重要的特色在于,尽管是有瑕疵的行为,但这种行为也具有公定力,对方仍有服从的义务”。具体而言,行政行为的公定力,是指行政行为一经作出,即对任何人都具有被推定为合法、有效而予以尊重的法律效力,“任何人均不得以自己之判断而否认其拘束力”。然而,在我国行政法学界,对于行政行为公定力的认识仍然存在争议,归纳起来,主要有完全公定力说、公定力否定说和有限公定力说三种观点。笔者认为,有限公定力说由于其逻辑结构的周延性,较好地平衡了现代法治要求下维护行政秩序、效率与保障公民合法权益之间的关系,因而应当予以采纳。但由于我国行政法学起步很晚,在理论上对于行政行为公定力问题长期以来未能予以充分重视,甚至存在着一些对公定力的错误理解,从而导致行政行为效力理论的混乱。反映在立法和司法等实践领域,一则行政行为公定力并没有一个特定的法律规范加以明确规定;二则虽然在不同级别的法律规范中并不乏关于行政行为“无效”的规定,但其用语的外延十分宽泛,既包括行政行为的自始无效,也包括行政行为被撤销、变更或废止而失去效力,因而其涵义与行政法学上的无效行政行为并不等同:三则在司法实践中,从最高人民法院发布的形形色色的批复、解释中,也可以得出一个结论,即人民法院在民事诉讼中可以直接否定某些行政行为的效力,而对这些行政行为是否属于行政法学上的无效行政行为未予明确区分。针对上述情况,本文旨在通过对行政行为公定力理论的内涵和外延加以研究,分析其理论依据,明确行政行为公定力的界限,推而及之于司法实践,进一步分析行政行为因其具有公定力而对民事诉讼产生规范效应的情况及该规范效应的界限,并对目前民事诉讼中涉及行政行为效力的处理方式加以梳理。通过明确界定无效行政行为的标准和范围,以树立在民事诉讼中除无效行政行为外,民事裁判应受既有行政行为拘束,不得与之相抵触的观念,希望对解决上述混乱状况有所助益。
[Abstract]:In civil law countries, administrative law exists as an important legal department of public law.In our country, administrative law is also an independent branch law which is different from civil and commercial law.There are many aspects in this distinction. In terms of administrative act and civil legal act, the traditional administrative law theory holds that "the most important characteristic of administrative act is that, although it is a defective act, this kind of behavior also has the power of public determination."The other party still has the obligation to obey. "Specifically, the public power of administrative act means that once administrative act is made, it has the legal effect of being presumed to be legal, valid and respected for any person. "No one can deny his binding power by his own judgment".However, in the field of administrative law in our country, there are still disputes about the public power of administrative act. In summary, there are three kinds of views: the theory of complete public power, the theory of negation of public power and the theory of limited public power.Reflected in such practical areas as legislation and justice, one administrative act has no specific legal norm to define it; the other is that there is no shortage of provisions on "invalidity" of administrative acts in different levels of legal norms.However, the denotation of its terms is very broad, including the invalidity of the administrative act from the beginning, but also the nullification, alteration or annulment of the administrative act.Therefore, its meaning is not equal to the invalid administrative act in the administrative law. Third, in judicial practice, a conclusion can also be drawn from the various written replies and interpretations issued by the Supreme people's Court.That is, the people's court can directly deny the effectiveness of certain administrative acts in civil proceedings, but it does not clearly distinguish whether these administrative acts belong to the invalid administrative acts in the administrative jurisprudence.In view of the above situation, the purpose of this paper is to study the connotation and extension of the theory of public power of administrative act, to analyze its theoretical basis, to define the limits of the public power of administrative act, and to push it to judicial practice.This paper further analyzes the normative effect of administrative action on civil action because of its public power and the limits of the normative effect, and combs the treatment methods involving administrative action effectiveness in civil litigation at present.By clearly defining the standard and scope of invalid administrative act, the concept that civil judgment should be bound by the existing administrative act and must not conflict with it is established in civil litigation except for invalid administrative act.Hopefully, it will help resolve this mess.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：D925.1

【引证文献】