行政规范性文件附带审查制度研究

发布时间：2018-04-10 15:21

本文选题：行政规范性文件 + 法律规制　；参考：《浙江财经大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：当政府从“守夜人”的角色转变为“公共服务的提供者”,为满足日常行政管理的需要和遵循依法行政的原则,行政机关逐渐拥有行政立法权,可以制定行政法规、行政规章以及行政规范性文件来作为行政执法的依据。行政规范性文件具有弥补法律空白和满足执行法律法规需要的优点。与此同时,若是滥用行政规范性文件制定权,将会破坏法制统一,侵害公民基本权利,降低行政效率,阻碍法治政府的建设。目前,我国法律、法规规定了四种规制行政规范性文件的方式,即:人大常委会备案审查制度,行政机关备案审查制度,行政复议附带审查制度,以及《行政诉讼法》修改之后新增的行政规范性文件附带审查制度。相比较而言,行政规范性文件附带审查制度具有权利救济性、程序启动的回应性、审查程序的公开性等优势。在审视行政规范文件附带审查制度的同时,梳理了附带审查制度建立的理论基础和历史沿革。《行政诉讼法》第53条、第64条以及2015年4月公布的《适用解释》第20-21条是行政规范性文件附带审查制度的法条规范。考察附带审查制度立法现状主要以诉讼要件为分析对象,分别从原告资格、诉讼标的、请求提起时限、被告资格等方面展开论述。行政规范性文件附带审查制度的立法现状也并非尽善尽美,审查标准、审理程序、审查结论的效力等问题仍存在着较大争议。论文这部分的分析为行政规范性文件附带审查制度的实证考察和展望等做了铺垫。行政规范性文件附带审查制度的实证考察,主要以案例为素材。个案分析选取了“华源公司案”和“陈爱华案”,两个案例分别发生在《行政诉讼法》修改的一前一后且都具有示范作用。通过这两个案例的比较,得出附带审查制度给行政审判实践带来的变化并不十分显著。案例统计分析收集了公开在“中国裁判文书网”上有关附带审查制度的案例。一共收集到308个案例,整理、归纳后得到140个案例。有22个案例进入了合法性审查环节,合法性审查之后最终被认定为不合法的案例只有5件。新增附带审查制度在实践中并没有统一裁判规则,审查门槛高,法院的态度也较为拘谨和保守。欲从完善司法建议、遵循附带审查结论“普遍不予适用说”等入手,使之真正成为解决行政规范性文件肆意生长,蔓草难除的一剂良方。
[Abstract]:When the government changed from the role of "night watchman" to "provider of public service", in order to meet the needs of daily administration and abide by the principle of administration according to law, the administrative organ gradually possessed administrative and legislative power and could formulate administrative laws and regulations.Administrative regulations and administrative normative documents as the basis for administrative law enforcement.Administrative normative documents have the advantages of filling the gaps in law and meeting the needs of implementing laws and regulations.At the same time, if the administrative normative document is abused, it will destroy the unity of the legal system, infringe on the basic rights of citizens, reduce the administrative efficiency and hinder the construction of the government ruled by law.At present, the laws and regulations of our country stipulate four ways of regulating administrative normative documents, that is, the standing Committee of the National people's Congress (NPC) standing Committee, the administrative organ's record examination system, the administrative reconsideration incidental examination system,And the Administrative procedure Law after the revision of the new administrative normative documents attached to the review system.In contrast, the system of administrative normative documents collateral review has the advantages of right relief, procedure initiation responsiveness, examination procedure openness and so on.While examining the system of incidental examination of administrative standard documents, this paper combs the theoretical basis and historical evolution of the establishment of incidental review system. Article 53 of the Administrative procedure Law,Article 64 and articles 20-21, published in April 2015, are the legal norms of the system of appended examination of administrative normative documents.The present situation of the legislation of incidental examination system is mainly analyzed from the aspects of plaintiff qualification, subject matter of litigation, time limit for filing request, qualification of defendant and so on.The analysis of this part paves the way for the empirical investigation and prospect of the system of administrative normative documents.The empirical investigation of the system of administrative normative document collateral review mainly takes the case as the material.The case study selected Huayuan Company case and Chen Aihua case, the two cases occurred before and after the revision of the Administrative procedure Law, respectively, and both of them played an exemplary role.Through the comparison of these two cases, it is concluded that the changes brought about by the system of incidental review to the practice of administrative trial are not very remarkable.Case statistics and analysis collected the cases on the China judgment documents Network about the system of incidental examination.A total of 308 cases were collected, collated, summed up 140 cases.Twenty-two cases entered the legality examination, and only 5 cases were found to be illegal after the legitimacy review.In practice, the new system of incidental review has not unified the rules of adjudication, the threshold of examination is high, and the attitude of the court is more rigid and conservative.In order to perfect the judicial suggestion and follow the conclusion of "universal inapplicability", it will become a good prescription to solve the problem of administrative normative documents growing wantonly and trailing grass.
【学位授予单位】：浙江财经大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.1

【参考文献】