我国行政诉讼举证责任研究
摘要
案件事实真伪不明在行政诉讼中是一种常态,使法律无所适用,但法官又必须将案件审理到底,究竟由何方当事人承担诉讼的不利益?这就是举证责任的中心问题。行政诉讼中设定举证责任的目的在于使法院在难于确认事实、辩明是非的情况下,平等息诉,解决争议。任何诉讼当事人为了使自己在诉讼过程中处于有利的地位,总是千方百计地寻找对自己有利的证据,以支持或证明自己的主张。但在诉讼过程中,一定事实是否存在或难辩真假的情况下,无法进行单向的准确认定,又不能放弃审判职责,举证责任制度就是为摆脱这种困境而产生的。举证责任制度旨在建立一种确定胜诉和败诉的规则,它是与一种不利的法律后果相联系的制度,其意义在于确定举证不能所带来的败诉风险由何方当事人承担。这项制度的设计使得法院在案件出现事实真伪不明时得以依据一定规则做出实体判决,从而使所有案件无论事实能否证明,都能够做出判决,确定当事人的权利义务。举证责任作为明确案件事实真伪不明时实体上应该如何处理的规则,是解决当事人之间纠纷的最有力的手段。根据这种规则,即使在事实难以认定的时候,也可以使法院确定谁能胜诉、谁将败诉。文章从举证责任的一般理论出发,探讨了行政诉讼举证责任的性质、举证责任的分配根据、举证责任分配的具体规则以及我国行政诉讼举证责任的价值分析,从而引出了我国行政诉讼举证责任中存在的不足,并对如何完善我国行政诉讼举证责任提出几点建议。
The major objective of administrative lawsuit depends on whether or not legal to administration behavior, and resolves the disputes between the interested parties. The court is hit by what was firmly believed that fact in legal action, was went by the history fact, in fact was that the judge reappears in owing to that all evidence material uses history fact's according to evidence regulation in substance. But because of evidence data, it's hard to avoid ambiguous state that having no way to firmly believe that or there existing in fact happened unavoidably, making the law have no way to apply to. But, the court must make a judge to the disputes between the interested parties. Under this situation, it is inevitably disadvantageous to the litigants, this disadvantageous exertion can not be satisfy from free judge heart certificate, but ought to stipulate that from law. According to this kind of stipulation, even if it's difficult to firmly believe, it's also not bad for the messenger court to ascertain who is able to win the lawsuit, who will lose the lawsuit, this is onus probandi. The responsibility of Proof in administrative procedure is an important part of the rule of administrative evidence. It has great benefits in the protection of the legal rights of the plaintiff, and the Promotion of the responsibility of the administrative organ in their administration according to law, as a result, to realize the legal supervision to the administration activities. Onus probandi system is established by administrative appeal law, it has the active meaning, Also is beneficial to urge an administrative organ to perform official duties according to law. But, coming from actual judicial practice, this one system is hit by the place esteeming existence which leaves much to be desired in being put into effect, it needs investigation and discussion to go a step further and to improve and to be perfect. Our country administrative lawsuit system started later, The first time promulgating in 1989 ,making the system have stipulated the administrative lawsuit onus probandi clearly, .Making an administrative lawsuit have one package evidence system of self characteristic in big legal action have formed three. Administrative lawsuit of our country onus probandi system is embodying the administrative lawsuit characteristic and is protecting the weakers , go after in substance equal spirit of law. Analysing onus probandi in our country administrative lawsuit system, the lawful rights and interests which is protecting the relative people of administration sufficient , effective, superintends , supports an administrative organ to further perfect our country administrative lawsuit system, to perform official duties according to law. The main body of a book is studied trying to comply with much bearing, many visual angles, many individuations to probe out our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi route.
The first part introduces administrative lawsuit onus probandi system mainly. Origin from the administrative lawsuit, the fundamental law country of department fixes to two to conceptual boundary of onus probandi, and to conceptually take issue with of in the homeland onus probandi briefing, concept and characteristic reaching administrative lawsuit onus probandi , thereby, composing the quarrel having introduced that theory , differences are that duty or responsibility says , right duty says , risk duty says , law consequence says , law assumes or the law deduces that at the same time also about six kinds of onus probandi character judging that regulation says. And by theory boundary discussion and valuation to onus probandi character, the characteristic summarizing out onus probandi system, drawing fort the main body of a book priority location administrative lawsuit onus probandi thereby.
The second part analysis our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi value mainly, through administrative lawsuit onus probandi concept and characteristic. And the pattern and the connection testifying responsibility, contrasting with legal action, concluding the analysis to the value of administrative lawsuit onus probandi, Administrative Appeal Law's regulation about onus probandi, the benefit have balanced administration legal relation both sides', Now that benefit beneficial to defending self when the relative administration people beneficial to perform official duties according to law method, is infringed upon in right.
The third part introduces and analyses the current situation and hiatus of our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi system legislation go along the factor has been in progress to each that the onus probandi affecting our country administrative lawsuit assigns in culture which has four items analytical, mainly , is that the administrative lawsuit structure , onus probandi in administration procedure , the administrative lawsuit judicial review nature and one side of advocating rights , advocating active fact to bear onus probandi. Briefing once our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi condition to stipulate that in Administrative Appeal Law in our country.And about that regulation, regulation sketches principle and legislation middle that the administrative lawsuit act certificate assigns. And legislation currently in effect's defect about above-mentioned several contents about administrative lawsuit onus probandi system in middle existence gives the condition and upper defects of legislation being the defendants. Plaintiffs pass an imperial examinations to the third people to bear onus probandi expound mainly.
The fourth part talks about theonus probandi system of our country administrative lawsuit how to improve and be perfect. Firstly, is to draw lessons to civil law and some onus probandi theory of abroad, relevance about country administrative lawsuit onus probandi system introducing abroad is stipulated, including the British judicial review act certificate shares responsibility rule mainly, British judicial review puts to the proof sharing regulation, whose base is "who advocates that who puts to the proof, owe to the country and the citizens, if the corporation mentions an administrative lawsuit, onus probandi shifts to the defendants after furnish evidence first testifying an administrative organ to break the law or encroach on whose lawful rights and interests , plaintiffs put to the proof. Comparing with USA judicial review system regulation, United Kingdom is somewhat similar, and from Japan to France , Germany administrative lawsuit onus probandi shares regulation, France and Germany pursue authority of office doctrine legal action structure, France and the Germany administration judge may lean on authority of office investigation of evidence equally , onus probandi of the interested party eases off relatively. And it has introduced the theory pushing forward responsibility and persuading responsibility of this two kinds mainly, it has reached a few perfect administrative lawsuits onus probandi conclusion finally: Administrative lawsuit onus probandi assigns principle is "who advocates that who puts to the proof naturally; The plaintiff ought to share onus probandi in administrative lawsuit rationally ,forbids its behavior to be born onus probandi by plaintiff, if the plaintiff advocates that the defendant makes the law; It not only having made regulation to the third legislation of people in onus probandi currently in effect of administrative lawsuit ,supplementing to respond here; The defendant lifts the clause that certificate responsibility assigns excessively generally ,should be thinly melt; In the administration case, the defendant ought what onus probandi to bear, Administrative Appeal Law has not assumed clear stipulation. Being not the trend that law case has to increase step by step as one kind of administration case. Be inclined to plaintiff not being the law case face to face in Administrative Appeal Law because of the onus probandi, In bringing about actual judicial practice, corresponding condition such as appealing should not to remain inactive as law case or not to put to the proof of defendant appears. To the defendant, the condition being overdue is putting to the proof or is not putting to the proof ought to deal with different people in different ways.
The major objective of administrative lawsuit depends on whether or not legal to administration behavior, and resolves the disputes between the interested parties. The court is hit by what was firmly believed that fact in legal action, was went by the history fact, in fact was that the judge reappears in owing to that all evidence material uses history fact's according to evidence regulation in substance. But because of evidence data, it's hard to avoid ambiguous state that having no way to firmly believe that or there existing in fact happened unavoidably, making the law have no way to apply to. But, the court must make a judge to the disputes between the interested parties. Under this situation, it is inevitably disadvantageous to the litigants, this disadvantageous exertion can not be satisfy from free judge heart certificate, but ought to stipulate that from law. According to this kind of stipulation, even if it's difficult to firmly believe, it's also not bad for the messenger court to ascertain who is able to win the lawsuit, who will lose the lawsuit, this is onus probandi. The responsibility of Proof in administrative procedure is an important part of the rule of administrative evidence. It has great benefits in the protection of the legal rights of the plaintiff, and the Promotion of the responsibility of the administrative organ in their administration according to law, as a result, to realize the legal supervision to the administration activities. Onus probandi system is established by administrative appeal law, it has the active meaning, Also is beneficial to urge an administrative organ to perform official duties according to law. But, coming from actual judicial practice, this one system is hit by the place esteeming existence which leaves much to be desired in being put into effect, it needs investigation and discussion to go a step further and to improve and to be perfect. Our country administrative lawsuit system started later, The first time promulgating in 1989 ,making the system have stipulated the administrative lawsuit onus probandi clearly, .Making an administrative lawsuit have one package evidence system of self characteristic in big legal action have formed three. Administrative lawsuit of our country onus probandi system is embodying the administrative lawsuit characteristic and is protecting the weakers , go after in substance equal spirit of law. Analysing onus probandi in our country administrative lawsuit system, the lawful rights and interests which is protecting the relative people of administration sufficient , effective, superintends , supports an administrative organ to further perfect our country administrative lawsuit system, to perform official duties according to law. The main body of a book is studied trying to comply with much bearing, many visual angles, many individuations to probe out our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi route.
The first part introduces administrative lawsuit onus probandi system mainly. Origin from the administrative lawsuit, the fundamental law country of department fixes to two to conceptual boundary of onus probandi, and to conceptually take issue with of in the homeland onus probandi briefing, concept and characteristic reaching administrative lawsuit onus probandi , thereby, composing the quarrel having introduced that theory , differences are that duty or responsibility says , right duty says , risk duty says , law consequence says , law assumes or the law deduces that at the same time also about six kinds of onus probandi character judging that regulation says. And by theory boundary discussion and valuation to onus probandi character, the characteristic summarizing out onus probandi system, drawing fort the main body of a book priority location administrative lawsuit onus probandi thereby.
The second part analysis our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi value mainly, through administrative lawsuit onus probandi concept and characteristic. And the pattern and the connection testifying responsibility, contrasting with legal action, concluding the analysis to the value of administrative lawsuit onus probandi, Administrative Appeal Law's regulation about onus probandi, the benefit have balanced administration legal relation both sides', Now that benefit beneficial to defending self when the relative administration people beneficial to perform official duties according to law method, is infringed upon in right.
The third part introduces and analyses the current situation and hiatus of our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi system legislation go along the factor has been in progress to each that the onus probandi affecting our country administrative lawsuit assigns in culture which has four items analytical, mainly , is that the administrative lawsuit structure , onus probandi in administration procedure , the administrative lawsuit judicial review nature and one side of advocating rights , advocating active fact to bear onus probandi. Briefing once our country administrative lawsuit onus probandi condition to stipulate that in Administrative Appeal Law in our country.And about that regulation, regulation sketches principle and legislation middle that the administrative lawsuit act certificate assigns. And legislation currently in effect's defect about above-mentioned several contents about administrative lawsuit onus probandi system in middle existence gives the condition and upper defects of legislation being the defendants. Plaintiffs pass an imperial examinations to the third people to bear onus probandi expound mainly.
The fourth part talks about theonus probandi system of our country administrative lawsuit how to improve and be perfect. Firstly, is to draw lessons to civil law and some onus probandi theory of abroad, relevance about country administrative lawsuit onus probandi system introducing abroad is stipulated, including the British judicial review act certificate shares responsibility rule mainly, British judicial review puts to the proof sharing regulation, whose base is "who advocates that who puts to the proof, owe to the country and the citizens, if the corporation mentions an administrative lawsuit, onus probandi shifts to the defendants after furnish evidence first testifying an administrative organ to break the law or encroach on whose lawful rights and interests , plaintiffs put to the proof. Comparing with USA judicial review system regulation, United Kingdom is somewhat similar, and from Japan to France , Germany administrative lawsuit onus probandi shares regulation, France and Germany pursue authority of office doctrine legal action structure, France and the Germany administration judge may lean on authority of office investigation of evidence equally , onus probandi of the interested party eases off relatively. And it has introduced the theory pushing forward responsibility and persuading responsibility of this two kinds mainly, it has reached a few perfect administrative lawsuits onus probandi conclusion finally: Administrative lawsuit onus probandi assigns principle is "who advocates that who puts to the proof naturally; The plaintiff ought to share onus probandi in administrative lawsuit rationally ,forbids its behavior to be born onus probandi by plaintiff, if the plaintiff advocates that the defendant makes the law; It not only having made regulation to the third legislation of people in onus probandi currently in effect of administrative lawsuit ,supplementing to respond here; The defendant lifts the clause that certificate responsibility assigns excessively generally ,should be thinly melt; In the administration case, the defendant ought what onus probandi to bear, Administrative Appeal Law has not assumed clear stipulation. Being not the trend that law case has to increase step by step as one kind of administration case. Be inclined to plaintiff not being the law case face to face in Administrative Appeal Law because of the onus probandi, In bringing about actual judicial practice, corresponding condition such as appealing should not to remain inactive as law case or not to put to the proof of defendant appears. To the defendant, the condition being overdue is putting to the proof or is not putting to the proof ought to deal with different people in different ways.
引文
[1]李浩:《民事举证责任研究》,中国政法大学出版社1993年版,第1页。
[2]陈一云:《证据学》,法律出版社2000年版,第151页。
[3]薛刚凌:《行政诉讼法学》,华文出版社1998年版,第172页。
[1]杨海坤:《跨入21世纪的中国行政法学》,中国人事出版社2000年5月版,第269页。
[1]张树义:《中国行政诉讼法学》,时事出版社1990年版,第1页。
[2]姜明安:《行政诉讼法学》,时事出版社1990年版,第199页。
[3]张树义:《中国行政诉讼法学》,时事出版社1990年版,第1页。
[1]高家伟:《行政法论丛》第一卷,中国法制出版社1995年版,第205页。
[1]吕立秋:《行政诉讼举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第75页。
[1]刘金友:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第225页。
[1]李浩:《民事证明责任研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第60页。
[1]吕立秋:《行政诉讼举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第55页。
[1][日]谷口安平,刘荣军译:《程序的正义与诉讼》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版,第24页。
1.刘善春:《行政诉讼原理及名案解析》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
2.应松年:《行政诉讼法学》,中国政法大学出版社1994年版。
3.王能干:《浅析行政诉讼中的举证责任》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
4.毕可志:《论完善行政诉讼的举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社1994年版。
5.高家伟:《论行政诉讼举证责任》,法律出版社2000年版。
6.杨海坤:《跨入21世纪的中国行政法学》,中国人事出版社2001年版。
7.罗豪才:《行政发论丛》,法律出版社1998年版。
8.樊崇义:《证据法学》,法律出版社2001年版。
9.吕立秋:《行政诉讼举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
10.张树义:《寻求行政诉讼制度发展的良性循环》,中国政法大学出版2001年版。
11.甘文:《行政诉讼司法解释之评论》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
12.江必新:《中国行政诉讼制度之发展》,金成出版社2001年版。
13.曾繁正:《西方国家行政法和行政诉讼法》,红旗出版社2001年版。
14.陈光中:《刑事诉讼法实施问题研究》,法制出版社2000年版。
15.姜明安:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社1999年版。
16.张步洪、王万华:《行政诉讼法律解释与判例述评》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
1.余凌云、周云川:《对行政诉讼举证责任分配理论的再思考》,中国民商法律网(http://www.civiallaw.com.cn),登陆时间:2006-4-10。
2.姜小川、袁瑞玲:《论行政诉讼中的举证》,《河北法学》1992年第3期。
3.姜小川:《行政诉讼举证制度若干问题之探讨》,《行政论坛》1996年第4期。
4.马怀德、葛波蔚:《WTO与中国行政诉讼制度的发展-兼论对现行行政诉讼法》的修改》,《政法论坛》2002年第2期。
5.王羽红:《关于民事诉讼中举证责任的转移的探讨》,《法律适用》2001年第2期。
6.皮宗太、洪其亚:《违法行为能否推定:对一起公安行政赔偿案件的分析》,《行政 法学研究》1998年第3期。
7.沈岿:《行政诉讼举证责任个性化研究之初步》,《中外法学》2000年第4期。
8.强世功:《乡村社会的司法实践:知识、技术与权力》,《战略与管理》1997年第4期。
9.沈世娟、陆冬英:《论确定行政诉讼举证责任分配规则时应考虑的因素》,《吉林公安高等转科学校学报》2004年第4期。
10.陈燕华、肖辉煌:《交通行政诉讼举证责任问题调试》,《社科纵横》2005年4月。
11.郝新、韩涛:《论行政诉讼举证责任》,《民主与法制》2006年第8期。
12.王新艳:《论行政诉讼举证责任的分配》,《南都学坛》2004年5月第3期。
13.张婉霞、叶慧:《论行政诉讼举证责任的分配规则》,《法制与社会》2006年第6期。
14.郑高键:《论行政诉讼举证责任的完善》,《甘肃农业》2005年第4期。
15.刘山益、骆河安:《不作为行政案件举证责任初探》,《政法论坛》1995年第2期。
1.George S.Jackson,The Burden of Proof in Tax Controversies,German Law Journal,Vol.08 No.08.
2.Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz,The burden of proof in nonjudicial punishment:why beyond a reasonable doubt makes sense,AmericanPolitical Science Review,vol.56,1998.
3.Mariano-Florentino Cuellar,"Rethinking Regulatory Democracy",Papers Presented in the Center for the Study of Law and Society Bag Lunch Speaker Series,2006.
4.Harlow,Carol&Rawlings,Richard:LawandAdministration,2nded,London:Butterworths,1997.
5.Taggart,Michael(ed):The Province of Administrative Law,Oxford:Hart,1997.
6.Carol Harlow:Law and Administration,2nd.,London:Butterworths,1997.
7.Paul P.Craig:Administrative,4 th ed.,Sweet Maxwell,1999.
8.Schuck,PeterH :Foundations of Adiministrative Law ,2 nd ed,New York: Foundation Press,2003
9.Pierce,Richard J: Adiministrative Law Treatise,4 th ed, New York:Aspen Law & Business,2002
10.Brown,L.Neville &Bell,John S:French, Adiministrative Law ,5 th ed, New York:Oxford University , Press, 1998
[2]陈一云:《证据学》,法律出版社2000年版,第151页。
[3]薛刚凌:《行政诉讼法学》,华文出版社1998年版,第172页。
[1]杨海坤:《跨入21世纪的中国行政法学》,中国人事出版社2000年5月版,第269页。
[1]张树义:《中国行政诉讼法学》,时事出版社1990年版,第1页。
[2]姜明安:《行政诉讼法学》,时事出版社1990年版,第199页。
[3]张树义:《中国行政诉讼法学》,时事出版社1990年版,第1页。
[1]高家伟:《行政法论丛》第一卷,中国法制出版社1995年版,第205页。
[1]吕立秋:《行政诉讼举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第75页。
[1]刘金友:《证据法学》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第225页。
[1]李浩:《民事证明责任研究》,法律出版社2003年版,第60页。
[1]吕立秋:《行政诉讼举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版,第55页。
[1][日]谷口安平,刘荣军译:《程序的正义与诉讼》,中国政法大学出版社1996年版,第24页。
1.刘善春:《行政诉讼原理及名案解析》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
2.应松年:《行政诉讼法学》,中国政法大学出版社1994年版。
3.王能干:《浅析行政诉讼中的举证责任》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
4.毕可志:《论完善行政诉讼的举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社1994年版。
5.高家伟:《论行政诉讼举证责任》,法律出版社2000年版。
6.杨海坤:《跨入21世纪的中国行政法学》,中国人事出版社2001年版。
7.罗豪才:《行政发论丛》,法律出版社1998年版。
8.樊崇义:《证据法学》,法律出版社2001年版。
9.吕立秋:《行政诉讼举证责任》,中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
10.张树义:《寻求行政诉讼制度发展的良性循环》,中国政法大学出版2001年版。
11.甘文:《行政诉讼司法解释之评论》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
12.江必新:《中国行政诉讼制度之发展》,金成出版社2001年版。
13.曾繁正:《西方国家行政法和行政诉讼法》,红旗出版社2001年版。
14.陈光中:《刑事诉讼法实施问题研究》,法制出版社2000年版。
15.姜明安:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社1999年版。
16.张步洪、王万华:《行政诉讼法律解释与判例述评》,中国法制出版社2000年版。
1.余凌云、周云川:《对行政诉讼举证责任分配理论的再思考》,中国民商法律网(http://www.civiallaw.com.cn),登陆时间:2006-4-10。
2.姜小川、袁瑞玲:《论行政诉讼中的举证》,《河北法学》1992年第3期。
3.姜小川:《行政诉讼举证制度若干问题之探讨》,《行政论坛》1996年第4期。
4.马怀德、葛波蔚:《WTO与中国行政诉讼制度的发展-兼论对现行行政诉讼法》的修改》,《政法论坛》2002年第2期。
5.王羽红:《关于民事诉讼中举证责任的转移的探讨》,《法律适用》2001年第2期。
6.皮宗太、洪其亚:《违法行为能否推定:对一起公安行政赔偿案件的分析》,《行政 法学研究》1998年第3期。
7.沈岿:《行政诉讼举证责任个性化研究之初步》,《中外法学》2000年第4期。
8.强世功:《乡村社会的司法实践:知识、技术与权力》,《战略与管理》1997年第4期。
9.沈世娟、陆冬英:《论确定行政诉讼举证责任分配规则时应考虑的因素》,《吉林公安高等转科学校学报》2004年第4期。
10.陈燕华、肖辉煌:《交通行政诉讼举证责任问题调试》,《社科纵横》2005年4月。
11.郝新、韩涛:《论行政诉讼举证责任》,《民主与法制》2006年第8期。
12.王新艳:《论行政诉讼举证责任的分配》,《南都学坛》2004年5月第3期。
13.张婉霞、叶慧:《论行政诉讼举证责任的分配规则》,《法制与社会》2006年第6期。
14.郑高键:《论行政诉讼举证责任的完善》,《甘肃农业》2005年第4期。
15.刘山益、骆河安:《不作为行政案件举证责任初探》,《政法论坛》1995年第2期。
1.George S.Jackson,The Burden of Proof in Tax Controversies,German Law Journal,Vol.08 No.08.
2.Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz,The burden of proof in nonjudicial punishment:why beyond a reasonable doubt makes sense,AmericanPolitical Science Review,vol.56,1998.
3.Mariano-Florentino Cuellar,"Rethinking Regulatory Democracy",Papers Presented in the Center for the Study of Law and Society Bag Lunch Speaker Series,2006.
4.Harlow,Carol&Rawlings,Richard:LawandAdministration,2nded,London:Butterworths,1997.
5.Taggart,Michael(ed):The Province of Administrative Law,Oxford:Hart,1997.
6.Carol Harlow:Law and Administration,2nd.,London:Butterworths,1997.
7.Paul P.Craig:Administrative,4 th ed.,Sweet Maxwell,1999.
8.Schuck,PeterH :Foundations of Adiministrative Law ,2 nd ed,New York: Foundation Press,2003
9.Pierce,Richard J: Adiministrative Law Treatise,4 th ed, New York:Aspen Law & Business,2002
10.Brown,L.Neville &Bell,John S:French, Adiministrative Law ,5 th ed, New York:Oxford University , Press, 1998