行政诉讼立案登记制的理念信守与路径改造
|
摘要
行政诉讼立案登记制实施三年有余,一定程度上缓解了行政诉讼领域长期存在的"立案难"问题。但是,其存在起诉要件的文本逻辑失范、立案审查标准不明确、滥用起诉权行为的防范缺失的现实困境,现行制度仍然无法摆脱行政纠纷立案受理过程中实质审查的窠臼。对此,需要探寻行政诉讼立案登记制的实质意涵,以实现起诉要件的低阶化回归,从正当化改造的可行路径推动立案登记制的规范运行,并构建相对集中审查机制和规制滥用诉权,释放立案登记制度的潜能。
The implementation of the administrative litigation registration system has been implemented for more than three years, which has considerably eased the long-standing problem of "solving the case" in the field of administrative litigation. However,the textual logic of the existence of the prosecution element is out of order; the standard of filing review is not clear and the actual predicament of the abuse of the right to prosecute is existing. The current system is still unable to get rid of the embarrassment of substantive examination in the process of accepting the administrative dispute. In this regard, in order to achieve the low-level return of the prosecution elements, promote the standard operation of the registration system from the feasible path of justification transformation,it is necessary to explore the substantive meaning of the administrative litigation registration system and build a relatively centralized review mechanism and regulate abuse of litigation rights, thus releasing the potential of the registration system.
The implementation of the administrative litigation registration system has been implemented for more than three years, which has considerably eased the long-standing problem of "solving the case" in the field of administrative litigation. However,the textual logic of the existence of the prosecution element is out of order; the standard of filing review is not clear and the actual predicament of the abuse of the right to prosecute is existing. The current system is still unable to get rid of the embarrassment of substantive examination in the process of accepting the administrative dispute. In this regard, in order to achieve the low-level return of the prosecution elements, promote the standard operation of the registration system from the feasible path of justification transformation,it is necessary to explore the substantive meaning of the administrative litigation registration system and build a relatively centralized review mechanism and regulate abuse of litigation rights, thus releasing the potential of the registration system.
引文
[1]贺日开.司法权威的宪政分析[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2004.
[2]胡嘉金,徐丽.行政案件立案登记中存在的几个问题及应对[J].中国应用法学,2018(1):138.
[3]公丕祥.新时代中国法治现代化的战略安排[J].中国法学,2018(3):29
[4]黄先雄,黄婷.行政诉讼立案登记制的立法缺陷及应对[J].行政法学研究,2015(6):21.
[5]杨翔等.落实立案登记制保障当事人诉权--湖南高院关于行政诉讼案件立案登记制实施情况的调研报告[N].人民法院报,2015-7-2(8).
[6]段文波.起诉程序的理论基础与制度前景[J].中外法学,2015(4):893.
[7][德]威廉·冯·洪堡.论国家的作用[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[8]刘荣军.程序保障的理论视角[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[9]季卫东.法治秩序的建构[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[10]梁君瑜.我国行政诉讼立案登记制的实质意涵与应然面向[J].行政法学研究,2016(6):86.
[11]付辉.行政诉权行使的合理限度--诉权保障的逆向思维[J].法学杂志,2018(5):135.
[12]陆永棣.从立案审查到立案登记:法院在社会转型中的司法角色[J].中国法学,2016(2):204-224.
[13]张亚东.试论民事诉讼立案审查制度的必要性[J].人民司法,2005(12):61.
[14]最高人民法院.解决“立案难”的关键性举措--最高法院负责人就《关于人民法院推行立案登记制改革的意见》答记者问[EB/OL].(2015-04-15)[2018-09-15].https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2015/04/id/1585082.shtml.
[15]胡嘉金,徐丽.行政案件立案登记中存在的几个问题及应对[J].中国应用法学,2018(1):141.
[16]江必新.中华人民共和国行政诉讼法理解适用与实务指南[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2015.
[17]杨寅,李晓.行政诉讼立案登记制的成效与完善[J].行政法学研究,2018(2):106.
[18]陈鹏.行政诉讼原告资格的多层次构造[J].中外法学,2017(5):1231.
[19]Louis Kaplow,Steven Shavell.Fairness Versus Welfare[M].Harvard Law Review,2001(4).
[20]段文波.起诉程序的理论基础与制度前景[J].中外法学,2017(5):891.
[21][德]奥特马·尧厄尼希.民事诉讼法[M].周翠译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[22]罗重海,张坤世.行政案件起诉审查制度之检计与重构[J].法律适用,2012(2):21.
[23]张越.英国行政法[M].中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[24]张卫平.重复诉讼规制研究:兼论“一事不再理”[J].中国法学,2015(2):49.
[25]张卫平.诉的利益:内涵、功用与制度设计[J].法学评论,2017(4):7.
[26]Rosenberg,Schwab/Gottwald,Zivilprozessrecht[M].Muenchen:C.H.Beck 2010,§2 Rn.16 f.
(1)五种不可诉的行为:不产生外部法律效力的行为、过程性行为、协助执行行为、内部层级监督行为和信访办理行为.
[2]胡嘉金,徐丽.行政案件立案登记中存在的几个问题及应对[J].中国应用法学,2018(1):138.
[3]公丕祥.新时代中国法治现代化的战略安排[J].中国法学,2018(3):29
[4]黄先雄,黄婷.行政诉讼立案登记制的立法缺陷及应对[J].行政法学研究,2015(6):21.
[5]杨翔等.落实立案登记制保障当事人诉权--湖南高院关于行政诉讼案件立案登记制实施情况的调研报告[N].人民法院报,2015-7-2(8).
[6]段文波.起诉程序的理论基础与制度前景[J].中外法学,2015(4):893.
[7][德]威廉·冯·洪堡.论国家的作用[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社,1998.
[8]刘荣军.程序保障的理论视角[M].北京:法律出版社,1999.
[9]季卫东.法治秩序的建构[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999.
[10]梁君瑜.我国行政诉讼立案登记制的实质意涵与应然面向[J].行政法学研究,2016(6):86.
[11]付辉.行政诉权行使的合理限度--诉权保障的逆向思维[J].法学杂志,2018(5):135.
[12]陆永棣.从立案审查到立案登记:法院在社会转型中的司法角色[J].中国法学,2016(2):204-224.
[13]张亚东.试论民事诉讼立案审查制度的必要性[J].人民司法,2005(12):61.
[14]最高人民法院.解决“立案难”的关键性举措--最高法院负责人就《关于人民法院推行立案登记制改革的意见》答记者问[EB/OL].(2015-04-15)[2018-09-15].https://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2015/04/id/1585082.shtml.
[15]胡嘉金,徐丽.行政案件立案登记中存在的几个问题及应对[J].中国应用法学,2018(1):141.
[16]江必新.中华人民共和国行政诉讼法理解适用与实务指南[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2015.
[17]杨寅,李晓.行政诉讼立案登记制的成效与完善[J].行政法学研究,2018(2):106.
[18]陈鹏.行政诉讼原告资格的多层次构造[J].中外法学,2017(5):1231.
[19]Louis Kaplow,Steven Shavell.Fairness Versus Welfare[M].Harvard Law Review,2001(4).
[20]段文波.起诉程序的理论基础与制度前景[J].中外法学,2017(5):891.
[21][德]奥特马·尧厄尼希.民事诉讼法[M].周翠译.北京:法律出版社,2003.
[22]罗重海,张坤世.行政案件起诉审查制度之检计与重构[J].法律适用,2012(2):21.
[23]张越.英国行政法[M].中国政法大学出版社,2004.
[24]张卫平.重复诉讼规制研究:兼论“一事不再理”[J].中国法学,2015(2):49.
[25]张卫平.诉的利益:内涵、功用与制度设计[J].法学评论,2017(4):7.
[26]Rosenberg,Schwab/Gottwald,Zivilprozessrecht[M].Muenchen:C.H.Beck 2010,§2 Rn.16 f.
(1)五种不可诉的行为:不产生外部法律效力的行为、过程性行为、协助执行行为、内部层级监督行为和信访办理行为.