本文關(guān)鍵詞： 行政程序違法 判決 重構(gòu) 行政訴訟法 修改　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在社會(huì)主義法治建設(shè)進(jìn)程中，程序正義的價(jià)值越來越為人們所關(guān)注和推崇，因?yàn)閷?shí)體正義很大程度上依賴于程序正義。行政程序在行政法的構(gòu)成中占據(jù)著很大分量，理應(yīng)提升到與行政實(shí)體同等重要的位置。但長(zhǎng)期以來，我國(guó)行政領(lǐng)域在“重實(shí)體，輕程序”觀念影響下，行政程序違法現(xiàn)象普遍存在，嚴(yán)重?fù)p害了行政管理秩序和相對(duì)人的合法權(quán)益。隨著“民告官”現(xiàn)象的遍地開花，法官在行政訴訟中不可避免的要遇到大量行政程序違法行為并需要通過判決來確認(rèn)其法律后果。根據(jù)我國(guó)現(xiàn)行《行政訴訟法》及其司法解釋的規(guī)定，關(guān)于程序違法，除了兩種特殊情形下可以判決確認(rèn)違法或無效，一般僅能作出撤銷判決；因程序違法被撤銷，行政機(jī)關(guān)可以重作一模一樣的新行為。撤銷程序違法的行政行為固然是對(duì)程序價(jià)值的重視，但不分情況不顧實(shí)體的一概撤銷可能違背法的效率原則和法的安定性，同時(shí)判決被告重作一個(gè)完全相同的行政行為對(duì)原告來說又毫無意義。現(xiàn)行法的缺陷遭到了各方的質(zhì)疑。 從近些年的司法實(shí)踐來看，法官對(duì)于程序違法的行政行為不再拘泥于撤銷判決，更多的運(yùn)用價(jià)值判斷和法律解釋。學(xué)界的相關(guān)理論成果雖然豐富，但難以為法官在判決時(shí)的選擇提供較為明確的指引。筆者以《行政訴訟法》修改為契機(jī)，試圖提出一個(gè)相對(duì)合理且便于操作的行政程序違法判決模式供參考。本文首先闡述了行政程序違法概念、表現(xiàn)形式及除外情形等相關(guān)的基本原理，對(duì)現(xiàn)行《行政訴訟法》及其司法解釋和修改草案相關(guān)規(guī)定以及司法實(shí)踐情況進(jìn)行評(píng)價(jià)，，分析存在的問題。接下來結(jié)合域外立法、司法經(jīng)驗(yàn)和學(xué)界成果對(duì)影響判決選擇的三組價(jià)值因素作了權(quán)衡，并提出了行政程序違法判決的理想架構(gòu)。筆者建議按程序違法程度輕重和是否可以補(bǔ)正為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，將程序違法行政行為分為嚴(yán)重程序違法、一般程序違法、輕微程序瑕疵三種類型，分別對(duì)應(yīng)“確認(rèn)無效、撤銷+重作、確認(rèn)違法+補(bǔ)正”三種判決模式，同時(shí)將例外情形進(jìn)行了列舉，設(shè)置了重作和補(bǔ)正判決的適用限制條件。最后，筆者在行政訴訟法修正案二次審議稿的基礎(chǔ)上簡(jiǎn)要提出了完善建議。
[Abstract]:In the process of the construction of socialist rule of law, the value of procedural justice is paid more and more attention to and respected by people. Because substantive justice depends on procedural justice to a large extent, administrative procedure occupies a large part in the composition of administrative law, and should be promoted to the same important position as administrative entity. But for a long time. Under the influence of the concept of "attaching importance to substance and neglecting procedure", the illegal phenomenon of administrative procedure exists generally in the administrative field of our country. Seriously damaged the administrative order and the legitimate rights and interests of the relative person. With the phenomenon of "people sue officials" everywhere. Judges will inevitably encounter a large number of administrative procedural violations in administrative proceedings and need to confirm their legal consequences through judgment. According to the current provisions of our country's Administrative procedure Law and its judicial interpretation. With regard to procedural violations, except for two special circumstances in which the violation of the law or invalidity can be confirmed by a judgment, the general decision can only be annulled; Due to the illegal cancellation of the procedure, the administrative organ can do the same new behavior again. The illegal administrative act of revocation procedure is the value of the procedure. However, regardless of the circumstances, the nullification of the entity may violate the principle of efficiency of law and the stability of law. At the same time, it makes no sense for the plaintiff to decide that the defendant should do the same administrative act again. The defects of the existing law have been questioned by all parties. Judging from the judicial practice in recent years, judges no longer stick to annulment of the administrative acts of procedural violations, more use of value judgment and legal interpretation. Although the academic theoretical results are rich. However, it is difficult to provide more clear guidance for judges in the choice of judgment. The author takes the revision of the Administrative procedure Law as an opportunity. Try to put forward a relatively reasonable and easy to operate administrative procedure illegal judgment model for reference. Firstly, this paper describes the concept of administrative procedure violations, manifestations and exceptions and other related basic principles. The current "Administrative procedure Law" and its judicial interpretation and revision of the draft relevant provisions as well as judicial practice evaluation, analysis of the existing problems. Next, combined with extraterritorial legislation. The judicial experience and academic achievements weigh the three groups of value factors that affect the choice of judgment, and put forward the ideal structure of illegal judgment of administrative procedure. The author suggests that according to the severity of illegal procedure and whether it can be corrected as the standard. The administrative behavior of illegal procedure can be divided into three types: serious procedure violation, general procedure violation and minor procedural defect, corresponding to three kinds of judgment modes: "confirming invalidity, revoking redoing, confirming illegal correction". At the same time, the exceptions are listed, and the limitation conditions for remaking and correcting judgments are set up. Finally, the author briefly puts forward some suggestions on the basis of the second review of the amendments to the Administrative procedure Law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.3;D922.11

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 章劍生;;對(duì)違反法定程序的司法審查——以最高人民法院公布的典型案件(1985—2008)為例[J];法學(xué)研究;2009年02期

本文編號(hào)：1487442