摘要
现实生活中大量的行政不作为案件发人深省,理论的研究成为指导实践的必须。笔者正是从行政不作为诉讼救济理论入手,对行政不作为问题进行深入的研究。首先分析不作为一词在不同语境下的内涵,进而对各种概念学说进行分析界定出我国行政法学行政不作为的概念。行政不作为除了具备行政行为一般构成要件之外还需要有特殊的构成要件。行政不作为依照不同的标准还可以划分为不同的类型。其次分析行政不作为得以诉讼救济的理论基础和我国的现实基础。再次分析我国行政不作为诉讼救济制度存在的缺陷。最后借鉴国外的一些先进经验,进而完善我国行政不作为诉讼救济制度。
Being one of the time-honored legal terms,“Omission”has different meanings in different contexts, and in the field of administrative jurisprudence, has been called“Administrative Omission”. As one of variety means of administrative activities, Administrative Act can be divided into two categories: Administrative Feasance and Administrative Omission. With the continuous expansion of administrative power, Administrative Act has been in many aspects affecting people’s daily life. Proper exercise of the Administrative Act will effectively protect the basic rights of citizens, while abusement thereof will by all means endanger the interests of citizens and even the whole nation. Administrative Omission is one of such abusement of Administrative Acts. The judicial remedy is of the first importance among all other remedies of Administrative Omission. The author will hereby elaborate the judicial remedy system of Administrative Omission from the following four perspectives, using both comparative and empirical analysis methods.
The first part shall be the foundational theories. The author has explored the concept of Administrative Omission in different contexts, foreign and domestic. When came to the definition of Administration Omission in China, there are also different voices. By development of those different theories regarding to the definition, the author concludes that the Administrative Omission shall mean failure of the Administrative Agency to perform its legal obligations within the statute of limitation, provided that such performance is possible. Other than general requirements for Administrative Act, Administrative Omission has its special requirements, including the prescriptive duties as premise, the possibility of feasance as subject requirement, and the overdue statute of limitation as object requirement. According to different classifications, the Administrative Omission can be sorted as: Administrative Omission in accordance with ex officio and application, abstract and concrete Administrative Omission, Administrative Omission infringing on private and public interests, actionable and non-actionable Administrative Omission, etc.
The second part contains two topics, which are theoretical and practical bases for judicial remedies for Administrative Omission. The development of modern capitalism has experienced the conversion from freedom under rule of law to community under rule of law. During the time of freedom under rule of law, the protection of citizens’liberty right was emphasized, thus, the Administrative Agency functioned in a negative way. As a result, there is no basis for the existence of Administrative Omission. In the period of community under rule of law, there is demand for the Administrative Agency to actively protect the social rights of the citizens. The judicial remedy for Administrative Omission had been realized. As the legal status of social rights has been enhanced, the social rights of citizen have been completely protected and realized from different levels, from the legislative to the administrative, and then judiciary. The right of action in accordance with the public law was granted to citizens in the time of administrative supply with the development of the theory of rights under public law. In case of the Administrative Agency being omission, the citizens are entitled the rights to appeal to the judicial organ for protection by its ruling that requesting the Administrative Agency to perform its obligations. Shifting from direct victims to interested parties in fact, the theory of public law right has protected the right of action entitled by the third parties. The protection of legal rights has been developed to the protection of legal interests and interests as a matter of fact. On the other hand, the theory of public law right has in procedure achieved the judgment in form of assuming obligation, providing a theoretical basis for Administrative Omission Judiciary Relieve entitled by citizens. In socialist nation such as our country, the Constitutional Law has entitled to citizens the comprehensive basic rights which are protected from all levels. The advanced theory of right of action has established the protection system for both the third party and legal interest at the beginning of the formation of administrative proceedings. In fact, there are certain reliable legal bases for Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy accompanied by the improvement of State Compensation as a way of remedy.
The third part shall be the analysis of current status. In accordance with the valid laws and regulations in current China, the author believes that there are certain defects in the Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy System. Not clearly stated by law, Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy has been stipulated by the Administrative Law based on the protection of Administrative Feasance. The function of Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy System is vulnerable for the Court only has the power to examine the Administrative Omission in procedure. The Court’s decision regarding non-performance often reverts to the Administrative Agency itself, which at times results in waste of judicial resources. Thus, the counterpart’s legal rights and interests are not substantially protected. Also, the narrow scope of Administrative Omission Litigation cases and the limitation on plaintiff’s competency are the barriers for the protection of such counterpart’s legal rights and interests. Further regarding the way of judgment, namely, the compensation ruling, one of the most important ways of recovering the losses suffered by the counterpart, has not been explicitly stipulated by law and merely protected in form of judicial interpretation in certain areas. All those facts listed above are defects of current Administrative Proceeding System in our country.
The fourth part is dealing with the improvements of Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy System. Based on the analysis above, many defects of Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy System need to be further refined and the followings are selected: The scope of Administrative Omission Litigation cases shall be enlarged step by step and the abstract Administrative Omission Judicial Remedy System needs to be established. Accompanied by the development of legal system, the counterpart, the social group, the procuratorial organ shall be counted as competency plaintiff in the administrative proceedings regarding public welfare, based on which the administrative counterparts are able to be completely protected. The time limit for commencement of action shall apply the Administrative Ripeness Principle, that is, the administrative proceeding can only be instituted when the administrative procedure has developed to a certain degree. Specifically speaking, the time limit for commencement of such action shall be determined as Three (3) months upon the ripeness period expires, provided that the counterpart has no knowledge about the right to action, or such time limit shall not exceed Two (2) years. The defendant shall bear the burden of proof, which shall not release the plaintiff from the obligations to providing evidences. The form of Administrative Omission judgment shall refer to the successful experiences of civil law counties to make further progress. The Court shall be entitled certain power of discretion regarding the specific performance, such as determining the content and time limit of such specific performance by Administrative Agency. The illegal confirmation judgment shall be issued when performance is nonsense or impossible. To proper guide the administrative counterpart in administrative proceedings, the specific performance judgment shall be prior to the confirmation judgment. It is greatly suggested that we further consummate our State Compensation Law and clearly approve the Administrative Omission Judgment as a way of compensation to better protect the legal rights and interests of the administrative counterpart.
引文
[1][德]马克思、恩格斯:《马克思恩格斯全集》,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局译,人民出版社2008年第2版第一卷,第16页。
[2]参见张文显主编:《法理学》,高等教育出版社2003年第1版,第109页,第128页。
[3]皮纯协、胡建淼主编:《中外行政诉讼法词典》,东方出版社1989年第1版,第172页。
[4]姜明安:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社1999年第1版,第146页。
[5]胡建淼主编:《行政违法问题探究》.法律出版社2000年第1版,第243页。
[6]黄志强:《行政不作为相关法律问题探析》,《现代法学》2001年第2期,第30页。
[7]参见姚锐敏:《论行政失职》,《河北法学》2001年第5期,第52页。
[8]林莉红:《行政诉讼法概论》,武汉大学出版社1992年第1版,第67页。
[9]陈小君、方世荣:《具体行政行为几个疑难问题的识别研析》,《中国法学》1996年第1期,第21页。
[10]参见黎宏:《不作为犯研究》,武汉大学出版社1997年第1版,第140页。
[11]张文显:《法学基本范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社1993年第1版,第134页。
[12]参见王和雄《:论行政不作为之权利保护》,台湾三民书局1994年第1版,第279页。
[13]参见周佑勇:《行政不作为判解》,武汉大学出版社2000年第1版,第112、113页。
[14]贺荣主编:《行政执法与行政审判实务·5·行政裁决与行政不作为》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版,第297页。
1.邓剑光、黎军:《法治政府视野下的行政行为研究》,中国社会科学出版社2007年版。
2.贺荣主编:《行政执法与行政审判实务·5·行政裁决与行政不作为》,人民法院出版社2005年版。
3.黄曙海主编:《行政诉讼法100问》,法律出版社1989年版。
4.胡建淼主编:《行政违法问题探究》,法律出版社2000年版。
5.胡建淼主编:《行政行为基本范畴研究》,浙江大学出版社2005年版。
6.姜明安主编:《行政法与行政诉讼法》,北京大学出版社1999年版。
7.杨建顺:《日本行政法通论》,中国法制出版社1998年版。
8.罗豪才主编:《行政法学》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
9.罗豪才主编:《中国司法审查制度》,北京大学出版社1993年版。
10.罗豪才主编:《行政法论丛》(第6卷),法律出版社2003年版。
11.马怀德:《国家赔偿法的理论与实务》,中国法制出版社1994年版。
12.皮纯协、胡建淼主编:《中外行政诉讼法词典》,东方出版社1989年版。
13.王名扬:《美国行政法》,中国法制出版社1995年版。
14.王名扬:《英国行政法》,中国政法大学出版社1987年版。
15.王名扬:《法国行政法》,中国政法大学出版社1988年版。
16.王和雄:《论行政不作为之权利保护》,台湾三民书局1994年版。
17.王世涛:《行政侵权研究》,中国人民公安大学出版社2005年版。
18.应松年主编:《行政行为法》,人民出版社1993年版。
19.应松年:《国家赔偿立法探索》,中国方正出版社1998年版。
20.于安:《德国行政法》,清华大学出版社1999年版。
21.周佑勇:《行政不作为判解》,武汉大学出版社2000年版。
22.周佑勇:《行政法原论》,中国方正出版社2000年版。
23.张文显:《法学基本范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
24.张文显主编:《法理学》,高等教育出版社2003年版。
25.[德]马克思、恩格斯:《马克思恩格斯全集》,中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局译,人民出版社2008年版。
26.龚向和:《作为人权的社会权-社会权法律问题研究》,人民出版社2007年版。
27.胡肖华主编:《权利与权力的博弈》,中国法制出版社2005年版。
28.马怀德、杨惠基主编:《中国行政法学新理念》,中国方正出版社1997年版。
29.罗豪才主编:《行政法论丛》(第2卷),法律出版社1999年版。
1.陈小君、方世荣:《具体行政行为几个疑难问题的识别研析》,《中国法学》1996年第1期。
2.冯慧:《行政不作为浅析》,《研究生法学》1998年第4期。
3.石东坡:《论中关村条例违法行政不作为法律责任设定》,载“中关村法律服务网”,http://www.zparklaw.cn/。
4.熊菁华:《论行政不作为的救济》,中国政法大学研究生院博士学位论文。
5.熊菁华:《试论行政不作为的责任》,《行政法学研究》1999年第2期。
6.叶必丰:《行政不作为略论》,《法制社会发展》1996年第5期。
7.姚锐敏:《论行政失职》,《河北法学》2001年第5期。
8.朱新力:《论行政不作为违法》,《法学研究》1998年第2期。
9.周佑勇:《行政不作为构成要件的展开》,《中国法学》2001年第5期。
10.周佑勇:《论行政不作为的救济和责任》,《法商研究》1997年第4期。
11.周佑勇:《论行政作为与行政不作为的区别》,《法商研究-中南政法学院学报》1996年第5期。
12.黄志强:《行政不作为相关法律问题探析》,《现代法学》2001年第2期。