公安机关行政不作为侵权的赔偿责任

发布时间：2018-06-01 15:09

本文选题：公安机关 + 行政不作为侵权　；参考：《大连海事大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：“行政不作为”作为行政主体的一种特殊的行政行为往往会伤害行政相对人的权益,法学界多年来对行政不作为的国家赔偿责任进行了大量研究,但是其研究主体大都是广义的行政机关,很少有对特定的一种类型的行政机关的行政不作为作研究。本文从一个基层民警的视角出发,以公安机关行政不作为侵权的国家赔偿责任为研究对象,对公安机关行政不作为侵权国家赔偿涉及到的理论问题和实践问题做了探讨。文章首先就公安机关行政不作为的概念和表现形式进行了论述,着重介绍了具体的公安机关行政不作为侵权的概念、特征及表现形式等内容,同时简要介绍了抽象的公安机关行政不作为侵权的概念和我国抽象的公安机关行政不作为侵权的现状,以及不将抽象的公安机关行政不作为侵权作为本文研究重点的原因。文章第二部分从《行政诉讼法》的缺陷和我国公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿的现状入手,从立法层面分析了目前我国法制上对公安机关行政不作为侵权的漏洞,继而从实际出发阐述了现目前公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿的依据和方式方法,反映出基层在执行侵权赔偿时的混乱情况,通过立法和执法两方面描述公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿责任规范化的必要性。文章第三部分就公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿责任的归责原则进行了探讨,对常用的过错归责原则、无过错(或危险责任)归责原则和违法归责原则进行比较,结合我国国家法律环境,提出适合我国公安机关行政不作为侵权的赔偿责任的归责原则。文章第四部分主要从主体要件、行为要件、损害事实、因果关系等四个方面论述了公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿责任的构成要件,简要介绍了公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿责任区别于作为侵权赔偿责任的关键之处。文章第五部分是笔者从平时所见所闻中总结的我国目前公安机关行政不作为侵权赔偿责任在司法实践中遇到的难点,包括权益的认定、因果关系的认定、赔偿范围的认定,并辅以案例,对容易产生混淆的部分问题提出了个人的观点。论文最后部分,笔者结合前文的分析,就赔偿程序提出了引入追偿程序,就举证责任引入行政诉讼法的举证倒置机制,就赔偿的范围引入多元比例制,在行政诉讼判决时引入非法定的上级部门监督等进行了一些展望性的思考,并就在现有最高人民法院《公安机关不履行法定行政职责是否承担行政赔偿责任问题的批复》和《行政诉讼法》的基础上如何完善公安机关行政不作为的赔偿责任提出了一些建议。
[Abstract]:As a special administrative act of administrative subject, "administrative omission" often harms the rights and interests of administrative counterpart. However, the main body of its research is mostly administrative organs in a broad sense, and there are few studies on the administrative omission of a particular type of administrative organs. From the perspective of a grass-roots police, this paper discusses the theoretical and practical problems involved in the state compensation for the infringement of administrative omission by public security organs, taking the national liability of compensation for the infringement of administrative omission by public security organs as the research object. The article first discusses the concept and manifestation of the administrative omission of the public security organs, and emphatically introduces the concept, characteristics and forms of expression of the infringement of the administrative omission of the public security organs. At the same time, the paper briefly introduces the concept of the abstract administrative omission tort of public security organs and the present situation of the abstract public security organ administrative omission infringement in our country, and the reasons why the abstract public security organ administrative omission infringement is not regarded as the focal point of this paper. The second part of the article starts with the defects of Administrative procedure Law and the present situation of tort compensation for administrative omission of public security organs in our country, and analyzes the loopholes of infringing on administrative omission of public security organs in the current legal system of our country from the legislative level. Then, from the practical point of view, the paper expounds the basis and method of tort compensation for administrative omission by public security organs at present, which reflects the chaotic situation in the enforcement of tort compensation at the grass-roots level. This paper describes the necessity of standardization of tort liability of public security organs through legislation and law enforcement. The third part of the article discusses the principle of imputation of liability for tort compensation of administrative omission of public security organs, and compares the common principles of fault imputation, no-fault (or dangerous liability) imputation and illegal imputation. Combined with the national legal environment of our country, this paper puts forward the principle of liability imputation suitable for the tort of administrative omission of public security organs in our country. The fourth part of the article mainly discusses the constitutive elements of the liability for tort compensation of administrative omission of public security organs from four aspects: the main elements, the elements of behavior, the facts of damage, the causality, etc. This paper briefly introduces the key points of the difference between the tort liability of administrative omission of public security organs and the liability of tort compensation. The fifth part of the article summarizes the difficulties encountered in the judicial practice of the tort liability of administrative omission of public security organs in our country, including the determination of rights and interests, the identification of causality, the determination of the scope of compensation, which are summarized by the author from what he has seen and heard at ordinary times. With the help of cases, the author puts forward a personal view on some problems which are easy to be confused. In the last part of the paper, the author puts forward the introduction of recovery procedure, the introduction of the burden of proof into the administrative procedure law, the introduction of plural proportional system on the scope of compensation, and the introduction of the compensation procedure in the light of the above analysis. The introduction of non-statutory supervision by higher authorities in administrative litigation decisions was carried out with some forward-looking thinking. And on the basis of the existing Supreme people's Court "whether the public security organ fails to perform the statutory administrative duties or not to bear the administrative compensation liability" and the "Administrative procedure Law", how to perfect the compensation responsibility of the public security organ's administrative omission? Ren made some suggestions.
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.3;D922.1

【参考文献】