非诉行政执行研究
摘要
作为我国行政强制执行的主要模式,非诉行政执行始于上世纪80年代,是伴随着改革开放逐渐形成的。在当今世界,存在两大行政强制执行模式,即以行政为主导的行政强制执行模式和以司法为主导的行政强制执行模式。由行政机关与司法机关共享强制执行权是当今世界行政强制执行制度的发展趋势,各国都力图兼顾行政效率和行政相对人合法权利的保护。在我国,由于现行法律法规对非诉行政执行作出的规制很少,而且很不明确,甚至法律条文之间还存在相互矛盾的问题;另外,由于我国非诉行政执行发展历程较短,因此该制度还存在理论研究滞后、制度本身以及相关配套制度不完备等诸多方面的不足,所有这些因素导致非诉行政执行成为我国司法实务中比较混乱的领域,并且在运行中出现了各种各样的问题。为解决上述非诉行政执行所存在的问题,应当在保留非诉行政执行的基础之上实行审执分立的原则,即由法院继续承担审查职能,执行职能回归行政主体。同时确定合理的和解范围和建立行政公诉制度,并确定非诉行政执行权与行政机关自行执行权的划分标准和制定非诉行政执行中对行政相对人权益的保障和救济的措施。
According to the administrative law, the administrative subject requests the administrative counterpart fulfill the certain public law duty mainly based on the administrative law to realize the effective social management. To this, the counterpart usually has three kinds of manner. The first is fulfilling the duty on his own initiative. The second is proposing objection. The third is neither fulfilling nor proposing objection. To achieve the administrative goal, maintain the normal management order, according to legal rule, if the counterpart does not fulfill his duty nor propose the administrative proceedings, the administrative subject may enforce the duty on the counterpart by applying for the People's Court. This is the subject of my thesis, non-litigious administrative execution.
Nowadays in our country the cases of non-litigious administrative execution have exceeded the ones of administrative lawsuit largely, so non-litigious administrative execution is an important component of the administrative compulsory execution system in our country. Now the phenomenon of judicial confusion has come into being because of many reasons, such as, there are less laws and regulations which can regulate the non-litigious administrative execution; the regulations on it is not clear; furthermore, the articles contradict with each other. Facing such situations the experts shoud begin a deeper theoretical reserch which will make the completion and perfection of law system. Based on the current research fruits and practical experiences, this article will have a further analysis and discussion and propose the methods in order to provide some useful ideas for the completion of the non-litigious administrative execution. This article contains five parts and the following are the detailed contents of them:
The first part mainly illustrates the concept,characteristics and quality of the non-litigious administrative execution. The non-lawsuit administrative execution refers to an action that the court, according to the application of the administrative subject or the person who has the rights, compels administrative relative person to perform the obligation determined by the specific administrative acts performed by administrative subject . If, in the legal term, administrative relative person neither prosecute nor perform their obligations. The non-litigious administrative execution takes on some features as administrativeness of executive basis, universality of executive object, compulsoriness of executive manner and so on. There are two completely different views about the nature of the non-lawsuit administrative execution between the theorists. One view considers that, the non-lawsuit administrative execution is an administrative action; the other holds that, the non-lawsuit administrative execution is a judicial action. In my opinion, the scholars holding different ideas, actually come to a conclusion by analyzing the non-lawsuit administrative execution from different perspectives and in different stages. The author considers that we cannot make a single cognition to the character of the non-lawsuit administrative execution. The non-lawsuit administrative execution actually includes two stages, i.e. deciding stage of execution and concrete operating stage of execution. In the former stage, the non-lawsuit administrative execution has the character of administrative nature, and in the latter stage, it has the character of judicial nature.
The second part is mainly about the basic theories of the non-litigious administrative executive legal and institutionalized means to unlegal compulsory powers. "Without relief equals no rights" is the essence of the rights protection. It is the existent basic of the public rights to protect the civil rights. So the government excutive department should provide the effective ways to cilil rights'relief.
The third part is about research on the non-litigious administrative execution of the two law systems. In contemporary world, there are two large modes of compulsory execution, that is , theory of separation of powers, thoery of the basic human rights protection and theory of rights relief. It is the essence of theory of separation of powers that the state power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers which restraint and corporate with each other. Whether or not to be recognized the human rights are rights belonging to all in any time or any situation. Regardless of any differences any human being can possess it.Theory of human rights protection can provide execution: one with execution of administrative subject as the dominant and the other with judicature as the dominant. The former has two representatives such as Germany and Japan, and the latter has three as America, England and France. Generally examining the two large modes of compulsory execution, harmony and balance of democracy and efficiency is the theme of a country under the rule of law. Every country tries to give attention to both sides and unite them as possible as they can.
The fourth part mainly analyses the causes of the non-litigious administrative execution and outlines the problems existing in its operation. The author illustrates the six causes in the following: 1.Cognition regarding the executive power as the judicail power. 2.The continuous improvement of the judicial functions and the inevitable requirements of the law ruling consturction. 3.The comparison of executive effects between the administrative department and the court. 4.Worries about the administrative department's implementing the executive power. 5.The effects brought out by the principle of separation between trial and execution. 6.Implementing non-litigious administrative execution's benefits to focusing the administrative compulsory executing power and lowering cost of the compulsory execution. There are five main problems in the operating of the non-administrative execution cited as the follows: 1.Lacking the clear,unified and rational criteria classifying the executive authority's own implementing and applying for the court's executing. 2.Dissatisfactory effects of judicial control's rights. 3.Confused situation of compromising. 4.Lacking the relief means of the administrative authority's not handling the problems. 5.Being not conducive to the administrative counterparts' rights protection and relief.
The fifth part proposes some ideas promoting the further completion of the non-litigious of administrative execution. 1.Determining the criteria classifying the non-litigious administrative executing and the administrative authority's own implementing. 2.Enforcing the separation of the rights of decisive and executive implementing. 3.Determining the rational scope of the compromising. 4.Establishing the administrative system of public prosecution. 5.Regulating means of protecting and relieving the administrative counterparts's rights in operating the non-litigious administrative execution. There are the detailed ways as follows: establishing the administrative hearing system and new reviewing standard in its operating; relief of the administrative counterparts' rights in the non-litigious administrative execution.
According to the administrative law, the administrative subject requests the administrative counterpart fulfill the certain public law duty mainly based on the administrative law to realize the effective social management. To this, the counterpart usually has three kinds of manner. The first is fulfilling the duty on his own initiative. The second is proposing objection. The third is neither fulfilling nor proposing objection. To achieve the administrative goal, maintain the normal management order, according to legal rule, if the counterpart does not fulfill his duty nor propose the administrative proceedings, the administrative subject may enforce the duty on the counterpart by applying for the People's Court. This is the subject of my thesis, non-litigious administrative execution.
Nowadays in our country the cases of non-litigious administrative execution have exceeded the ones of administrative lawsuit largely, so non-litigious administrative execution is an important component of the administrative compulsory execution system in our country. Now the phenomenon of judicial confusion has come into being because of many reasons, such as, there are less laws and regulations which can regulate the non-litigious administrative execution; the regulations on it is not clear; furthermore, the articles contradict with each other. Facing such situations the experts shoud begin a deeper theoretical reserch which will make the completion and perfection of law system. Based on the current research fruits and practical experiences, this article will have a further analysis and discussion and propose the methods in order to provide some useful ideas for the completion of the non-litigious administrative execution. This article contains five parts and the following are the detailed contents of them:
The first part mainly illustrates the concept,characteristics and quality of the non-litigious administrative execution. The non-lawsuit administrative execution refers to an action that the court, according to the application of the administrative subject or the person who has the rights, compels administrative relative person to perform the obligation determined by the specific administrative acts performed by administrative subject . If, in the legal term, administrative relative person neither prosecute nor perform their obligations. The non-litigious administrative execution takes on some features as administrativeness of executive basis, universality of executive object, compulsoriness of executive manner and so on. There are two completely different views about the nature of the non-lawsuit administrative execution between the theorists. One view considers that, the non-lawsuit administrative execution is an administrative action; the other holds that, the non-lawsuit administrative execution is a judicial action. In my opinion, the scholars holding different ideas, actually come to a conclusion by analyzing the non-lawsuit administrative execution from different perspectives and in different stages. The author considers that we cannot make a single cognition to the character of the non-lawsuit administrative execution. The non-lawsuit administrative execution actually includes two stages, i.e. deciding stage of execution and concrete operating stage of execution. In the former stage, the non-lawsuit administrative execution has the character of administrative nature, and in the latter stage, it has the character of judicial nature.
The second part is mainly about the basic theories of the non-litigious administrative executive legal and institutionalized means to unlegal compulsory powers. "Without relief equals no rights" is the essence of the rights protection. It is the existent basic of the public rights to protect the civil rights. So the government excutive department should provide the effective ways to cilil rights'relief.
The third part is about research on the non-litigious administrative execution of the two law systems. In contemporary world, there are two large modes of compulsory execution, that is , theory of separation of powers, thoery of the basic human rights protection and theory of rights relief. It is the essence of theory of separation of powers that the state power is divided into legislative, executive and judicial powers which restraint and corporate with each other. Whether or not to be recognized the human rights are rights belonging to all in any time or any situation. Regardless of any differences any human being can possess it.Theory of human rights protection can provide execution: one with execution of administrative subject as the dominant and the other with judicature as the dominant. The former has two representatives such as Germany and Japan, and the latter has three as America, England and France. Generally examining the two large modes of compulsory execution, harmony and balance of democracy and efficiency is the theme of a country under the rule of law. Every country tries to give attention to both sides and unite them as possible as they can.
The fourth part mainly analyses the causes of the non-litigious administrative execution and outlines the problems existing in its operation. The author illustrates the six causes in the following: 1.Cognition regarding the executive power as the judicail power. 2.The continuous improvement of the judicial functions and the inevitable requirements of the law ruling consturction. 3.The comparison of executive effects between the administrative department and the court. 4.Worries about the administrative department's implementing the executive power. 5.The effects brought out by the principle of separation between trial and execution. 6.Implementing non-litigious administrative execution's benefits to focusing the administrative compulsory executing power and lowering cost of the compulsory execution. There are five main problems in the operating of the non-administrative execution cited as the follows: 1.Lacking the clear,unified and rational criteria classifying the executive authority's own implementing and applying for the court's executing. 2.Dissatisfactory effects of judicial control's rights. 3.Confused situation of compromising. 4.Lacking the relief means of the administrative authority's not handling the problems. 5.Being not conducive to the administrative counterparts' rights protection and relief.
The fifth part proposes some ideas promoting the further completion of the non-litigious of administrative execution. 1.Determining the criteria classifying the non-litigious administrative executing and the administrative authority's own implementing. 2.Enforcing the separation of the rights of decisive and executive implementing. 3.Determining the rational scope of the compromising. 4.Establishing the administrative system of public prosecution. 5.Regulating means of protecting and relieving the administrative counterparts's rights in operating the non-litigious administrative execution. There are the detailed ways as follows: establishing the administrative hearing system and new reviewing standard in its operating; relief of the administrative counterparts' rights in the non-litigious administrative execution.
引文
[1]皮宗泰:《对人民法院菲诉行政执行的思考》,《现代法学》 1996年第1期,第118页。
[1]林莉红:《行政诉讼法学》,武汉大学出版社 1999年版,第271页。
[2]郑小泉:《略论非诉讼行政执行权的划分》,《中国行政法学研究会》 2000年第4期,第24页。
[1]张文显:《法理学》,北京法律出版社 1997年版,第119页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第336页。
[2]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第336页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第336页。
[2]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第337页。
[3]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第338页。
[1]于安:《德国行政法》,清华大学出版社,1999年版,第161页。
[2]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第326页。
[1][日]室井力著,吴微译:《日本现代行政法》,中国政法大学出版社 1995年版,第168页。
[1]张步洪:《中国行政法学前沿问题报告》,中国法制出版社 1999年版,第258页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年第1版,第303页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年第1版,第304页。
1.[法]孟德斯鸠著,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆1961年版。
2.罗豪才:《行政审判问题研究》,北京大学出版社1990年版。
3.罗豪才:《中国司法审查制度》,北京大学出版社1993年版。
4.王名扬:《美国行政法》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
5.张树义:《行政法学》,中国政法大学出版社1995年版。
6.刘全德:《西方法律思想史》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版。
7.朱新力:《行政违法研究》,杭州大学出版社1999年版。
8.宋冰编:《程序正义与现代化》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
9.郭道晖:《法的时代精神》,湖南出版社1997年版。
10.叶必丰:《行政法的人文精神》,湖北人民出版社1999年版。
11.[美]E·博登海默著,邓正来译:《法理学---法律哲学与法律方法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
12.皮纯协:《行政程序法比较研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2000年版。
13.周佑勇:《行政法原论》,方正出版社2000年版。
14.傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
15.陈新民:《中国行政法学原理》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
16.马怀德:《行政诉讼原理》,法律出版社2003年版。
17.胡建淼:《行政强制法研究》,法律出版社2003年版。
18.马长山:《国家、市民社会与法治》,商务印书馆2002年版。
19.姜明安:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
20.方世荣、石佑启:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社2005年第1版。
21.杨小君:《行政诉讼问题研究及制度改革》,中国人民公安大学出版社2007年第1版。
1.应松年:《论行政强制执行》,《中国法学》1998年第3期。
2.李季:《重构行政执行制度之思考》,《行政法学研究》1999年第3期。
3.吴国强:《论非诉行政执行》,《行政法学研究》1999年第3期。
4.杨海坤、刘军:《论行政强制执行》,《法学论坛》2000年第3期。
5.秦平:《“官告民”背后的法治意义》,《安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版)》2000年第4期。
6.杨建顺:《关于行政执行权力配置的思考》,《人民法院报》2002年8月12日第1版。
7.马怀德:《我国行政强制执行制度及立法构想》,《天津市政法管理干部学院学报》2002第4期。
8.汪习根:《公法法治论》,《中国法学》2002年第5期。
9.艾军:《完善非诉行政执行的几点设想》,《湖北行政学院学报》2003年第1期。
10.高鸿钧:《现代法治的困境及其出路》,《法学研究》2003年第3期。
11.李桂英:《执行诉讼的法律思考》,《本化师范大学学报(哲社版)》2004年第1期。
12.罗豪才、宋功德:《和谐社会的公法建构》,《中国法学》2004年第6期。
13.欧仁山:《非诉行政执行司法审查标准问题及对策》,《学术论坛》2004年第5期。
14.翟新明:《论非诉行政执行制度的缺陷及其完善》,载《行政法研究》2005年第3期。
15.赵德铸:《浅析非诉执行模式的选择及其执行诉讼》,《黑河学刊》2005年第4期。
16.黄勇斌:《对非诉行政执行的重新审视》,《浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版)》2005年第5期。
17.张海斌:《非诉行政执行案件之司法审查》,《行政论坛》2006年第1期。
18.吴丘林:《非诉行政审查的可诉性探析》,《政府法制》2006年第7期。
19.赵剑锋:《非诉行政案件的执行》,《江苏法制报》2007年第6期。
20.张剑、骐亚:《非诉行政执行案件中执行不应和解》,《江苏法制报》2006年第4期。
21.颜龙:《非诉行政执行制度存在的必要性分析》,《大学时代论坛》2006年第1期。
22.杨逸强:《非诉行政执行制度的理论和实践》,《法律适用》2006年第242期。
23.尤春媛、赵文瑜:《浅论非诉行政案件执行制度》,《山西财经大学学报(高等教育版)》2006年第1期。
24.贾庆霞:《行政非诉执行案件审查与执行若干问题》,《法律适用》2006年第244期。
25.庄绪义:《非诉行政执行案件能否准予撤销》,《人民法院报》2007年第6版
26.郭百顺、曹书瑜:《非诉行政执行之法律定位》,《人民法院报》2007年第6期。
1.Ernest Gellhom & Ronald N.levin,Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell,1997.
2.Ranls John,A theory of Justices Cambridge,Mass,Harvard University Press,1971.
3.Jean-Jacques Rousseau,The Social Contract,Penguin Books Ltd,1974.
4.Breen v.Amalgamated Engineering Union,1971.
5.J.F.Gamer,L.N.Brown,French Adminstrative Law,1983.
[1]林莉红:《行政诉讼法学》,武汉大学出版社 1999年版,第271页。
[2]郑小泉:《略论非诉讼行政执行权的划分》,《中国行政法学研究会》 2000年第4期,第24页。
[1]张文显:《法理学》,北京法律出版社 1997年版,第119页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第336页。
[2]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第336页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第336页。
[2]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第337页。
[3]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第338页。
[1]于安:《德国行政法》,清华大学出版社,1999年版,第161页。
[2]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年版,第326页。
[1][日]室井力著,吴微译:《日本现代行政法》,中国政法大学出版社 1995年版,第168页。
[1]张步洪:《中国行政法学前沿问题报告》,中国法制出版社 1999年版,第258页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年第1版,第303页。
[1]傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社 2001年第1版,第304页。
1.[法]孟德斯鸠著,张雁深译:《论法的精神》,商务印书馆1961年版。
2.罗豪才:《行政审判问题研究》,北京大学出版社1990年版。
3.罗豪才:《中国司法审查制度》,北京大学出版社1993年版。
4.王名扬:《美国行政法》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
5.张树义:《行政法学》,中国政法大学出版社1995年版。
6.刘全德:《西方法律思想史》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版。
7.朱新力:《行政违法研究》,杭州大学出版社1999年版。
8.宋冰编:《程序正义与现代化》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
9.郭道晖:《法的时代精神》,湖南出版社1997年版。
10.叶必丰:《行政法的人文精神》,湖北人民出版社1999年版。
11.[美]E·博登海默著,邓正来译:《法理学---法律哲学与法律方法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
12.皮纯协:《行政程序法比较研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2000年版。
13.周佑勇:《行政法原论》,方正出版社2000年版。
14.傅士成:《行政强制研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
15.陈新民:《中国行政法学原理》,中国政法大学出版社2002年版。
16.马怀德:《行政诉讼原理》,法律出版社2003年版。
17.胡建淼:《行政强制法研究》,法律出版社2003年版。
18.马长山:《国家、市民社会与法治》,商务印书馆2002年版。
19.姜明安:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社2005年版。
20.方世荣、石佑启:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社2005年第1版。
21.杨小君:《行政诉讼问题研究及制度改革》,中国人民公安大学出版社2007年第1版。
1.应松年:《论行政强制执行》,《中国法学》1998年第3期。
2.李季:《重构行政执行制度之思考》,《行政法学研究》1999年第3期。
3.吴国强:《论非诉行政执行》,《行政法学研究》1999年第3期。
4.杨海坤、刘军:《论行政强制执行》,《法学论坛》2000年第3期。
5.秦平:《“官告民”背后的法治意义》,《安徽农业大学学报(社会科学版)》2000年第4期。
6.杨建顺:《关于行政执行权力配置的思考》,《人民法院报》2002年8月12日第1版。
7.马怀德:《我国行政强制执行制度及立法构想》,《天津市政法管理干部学院学报》2002第4期。
8.汪习根:《公法法治论》,《中国法学》2002年第5期。
9.艾军:《完善非诉行政执行的几点设想》,《湖北行政学院学报》2003年第1期。
10.高鸿钧:《现代法治的困境及其出路》,《法学研究》2003年第3期。
11.李桂英:《执行诉讼的法律思考》,《本化师范大学学报(哲社版)》2004年第1期。
12.罗豪才、宋功德:《和谐社会的公法建构》,《中国法学》2004年第6期。
13.欧仁山:《非诉行政执行司法审查标准问题及对策》,《学术论坛》2004年第5期。
14.翟新明:《论非诉行政执行制度的缺陷及其完善》,载《行政法研究》2005年第3期。
15.赵德铸:《浅析非诉执行模式的选择及其执行诉讼》,《黑河学刊》2005年第4期。
16.黄勇斌:《对非诉行政执行的重新审视》,《浙江师范大学学报(社会科学版)》2005年第5期。
17.张海斌:《非诉行政执行案件之司法审查》,《行政论坛》2006年第1期。
18.吴丘林:《非诉行政审查的可诉性探析》,《政府法制》2006年第7期。
19.赵剑锋:《非诉行政案件的执行》,《江苏法制报》2007年第6期。
20.张剑、骐亚:《非诉行政执行案件中执行不应和解》,《江苏法制报》2006年第4期。
21.颜龙:《非诉行政执行制度存在的必要性分析》,《大学时代论坛》2006年第1期。
22.杨逸强:《非诉行政执行制度的理论和实践》,《法律适用》2006年第242期。
23.尤春媛、赵文瑜:《浅论非诉行政案件执行制度》,《山西财经大学学报(高等教育版)》2006年第1期。
24.贾庆霞:《行政非诉执行案件审查与执行若干问题》,《法律适用》2006年第244期。
25.庄绪义:《非诉行政执行案件能否准予撤销》,《人民法院报》2007年第6版
26.郭百顺、曹书瑜:《非诉行政执行之法律定位》,《人民法院报》2007年第6期。
1.Ernest Gellhom & Ronald N.levin,Administrative Law and Process in a Nutshell,1997.
2.Ranls John,A theory of Justices Cambridge,Mass,Harvard University Press,1971.
3.Jean-Jacques Rousseau,The Social Contract,Penguin Books Ltd,1974.
4.Breen v.Amalgamated Engineering Union,1971.
5.J.F.Gamer,L.N.Brown,French Adminstrative Law,1983.