行政诉讼中确认无效判决研究

发布时间：2018-01-10 02:09

本文关键词：行政诉讼中确认无效判决研究　出处：《中共重庆市委党校》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：行政诉讼中的确认无效判决作为新修改的《行政诉讼法》新增的一种判决方式,扩大行政诉讼中的判决种类,加强法院对相对人权利救济的充分性和对行政权监督的力度。确认无效判决是指原告请求法院对具有重大且明显瑕疵的行政行为进行审查,法院在原告申请的基础之上对行政行为效力的有无进行认定,并依法作出判决。确认无效判决的适用对象是无效行政行为,无效行政行为是存在重大且明显的瑕疵行政行为,不具有公定力并且是自始、确定、当然无效。这就决定了无效行政行为和不成立的行政行为以及一般违法的行政行为是有明显区别的,根本性的区别就在于是否具有公定力。它们之间的区别使得确认无效判决和撤销判决以及确认违法判决之间不能完全适用统一的诉讼程序。在较早构建确认无效之诉的德国、日本和我国台湾地区基本都有一套区别于撤销之诉的特殊诉讼程序。尽管德国和日本的确认无效之诉的定位不一样,但是他们的特殊程序基本都包括区别于撤销之诉的起诉期限、前置程序、原告资格、举证责任等。我国的确认无效判决的司法实践起步比较晚,但是其却有不可替代的作用。目前我国确认无效判决在立法上存在行政实体法中对行政行为“无效”的滥用、确认无效判决适用情形的问题、确认无效判决特殊程序的缺失等问题,导致司法实践中对确认无效判决没有形成统一的标准和统一的程序,影响法院在行政诉讼中对确认无效判决的使用。无效行政行为概念及特征需要在将来的行政程序法中明确规定,为确认无效判决提供一个明确的适用对象。在确认无效判决的特殊程序中,不受起诉期限的限制是基本的前提,对于原告资格的限制、前置程序的设置和具有中止执行的效力还不适用于我国的确认无效判决。对于特殊的举证责任应该是这样的:在法定的起诉期限内,由原告承担证明行政行为存在重大且明显瑕疵的责任,由被告承担证明承担行政行为合法的责任;在法定起诉期限以外,由原告承担证明行政行为存在重大且明显瑕疵的责任。在法定的起诉期限外,确认无效判决的审理对象的特殊性决定其可以适用简易程序来进行审理。
[Abstract]:The confirmation of invalid judgment in administrative litigation, as a new way of judgment in the newly amended Administrative procedure Law, expands the types of judgments in administrative litigation. The confirmation of invalid judgment means that the plaintiff requests the court to review the administrative act with significant and obvious defects. On the basis of the plaintiff's application, the court determines the validity of the administrative act and makes a judgment according to the law, and confirms that the applicable object of the invalid judgment is the invalid administrative act. Invalid administrative act is an administrative act with significant and obvious defects, which has no public determination and is determined from the beginning. Of course it is invalid. This determines that there are obvious differences between invalid administrative acts and unestablished administrative acts as well as general illegal administrative acts. The fundamental difference lies in whether or not there is public power. The difference between them makes it impossible to fully apply the uniform procedure between the confirmation of invalidity and the annulment of the judgment and the confirmation of the violation of the law. Germany. Japan and Taiwan basically have a set of special procedures that are different from the action of revocation, although the confirmation of invalidity in Germany and Japan is not the same. But their special procedures basically include the time limit of suit, the pre-procedure, the qualification of plaintiff, the burden of proof and so on. The judicial practice of confirming invalid judgment in our country started relatively late. However, it has an irreplaceable role. At present, there exists the problem of the abuse of "invalid" administrative act and the application of invalid judgment in the legislation of our country's confirmation of invalidity. Due to the lack of special procedure for confirming invalid judgment, there is no uniform standard and procedure in judicial practice. The concept and characteristics of invalid administrative act need to be clearly stipulated in the future administrative procedure law. In the special procedure of confirming invalid judgment, the limitation of non-prosecution period is the basic premise, and the limitation of plaintiff's qualification. The setting of pre-procedure and the effect of suspending execution are not applicable to the confirmation of invalidation judgment in our country. For the special burden of proof should be like this: within the legal time limit for prosecution. The plaintiff shall bear the responsibility to prove that the administrative act has significant and obvious defects, and the defendant shall bear the responsibility of proving that the administrative act is lawful; In addition to the statutory time limit for prosecution, the plaintiff shall bear the responsibility to prove that the administrative act has significant and obvious defects. The particularity of the object that confirms the invalid judgment determines that it can be tried by summary procedure.
【学位授予单位】：中共重庆市委党校
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】