發(fā)布時間：2019-05-30 06:46

【摘要】：在行政給付中，行政機關根據(jù)一定的標準行使調(diào)查權，根據(jù)具體情況進行裁量，相對人被貼上“合格”或“不合格”的標簽，沒有獲得“合格證”的相對人，便不能獲得行政給付。因此，行政給付的受益人資格對于受益人來說，，意義重大。 行政給付的受益人資格，主要有三個比較重要的問題：其一，是該資格的具體樣態(tài)，即實踐中有哪些類型的資格標準，以及這些標準是否存在問題；其二，是如何確定相對人符合既定的資格和標準，以及此種確定之方式是否合法、合理及適當；最后，是行政機關在確定此種資格之后的裁量權問題，即面對符合某些標準的相對人的事實條件時進行裁量選擇的問題。 對于第一個問題，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)，我國現(xiàn)行的標準，主要的形式是經(jīng)過層層授權的行政法規(guī)、行政規(guī)章（包括部門規(guī)章和地方政府規(guī)章）和行政規(guī)范性文件。其中所包含的標準主要有三類，即戶籍與工作所在地標準、財產(chǎn)收入與低收入原因標準，以及遵守誠實信用原則標準。這些標準具有具體化、細化、更加靈活和更具有可操作性的優(yōu)勢，但是同時也可能存在違反上位法或是行政法基本原則的可能。對于第二個問題，筆者認為，行政給付具有授益性，這決定了行政調(diào)查是其中必不可少的過程，但是縱觀各國的歷史和現(xiàn)實中的立法例，在進行調(diào)查時，往往會損害受益人的某些利益，如人格尊嚴、隱私權等。因此，需要尋找一種合適的判斷標準。筆者通過比對法益衡量、價值位階理論和比例原則，認為比例原則是較好的標準，可以通過對比例原則的使用，在行政給付中發(fā)起調(diào)查行為時，在行政調(diào)查的目的、調(diào)查可能侵犯的法益和所要保護的利益之間找到平衡。最后，筆者簡要敘述了行政給付中行政裁量權對于相對人的重要性，并根據(jù)既有的理論，列舉了我國對行政給付中裁量權的控制方式，并提出了從內(nèi)部和外部完善行政給付領域制度、控制行政裁量權的相關建議。 與此相對應，本文從給付中受益人資格的設定標準、受益人資格調(diào)查以及裁量三部分進行論述。第一部分，論及受益人資格的一般標準，嘗試通過對大量相關規(guī)定的梳理發(fā)現(xiàn)我國受益人資格標準的主要類型，并進而論述這些標準的優(yōu)點與不足；第二部分從福利資格中的行政調(diào)查、受益人資格的調(diào)查主體及程序、給付資格調(diào)查中的權利保障四個方面討論行政給付中的調(diào)查權，第三部分系關于行政給付中的行政裁量權，及其未來可資借鑒的控權方式。
[Abstract]:In the course of administrative payment, the administrative organ exercises the power of investigation in accordance with certain standards and makes discretion according to the specific circumstances. The relative person is affixed with the label of "qualified" or "unqualified", and the relative person who has not obtained the "qualification certificate". You can't get an administrative payment. Therefore, the beneficiary qualification of administrative payment is of great significance to the beneficiary. There are three important problems in the qualification of the beneficiary of administrative payment: first, the specific pattern of the qualification, that is, what types of qualification standards exist in practice, and whether there are problems with these standards; Second, how to determine whether the relative person meets the established qualifications and standards, and whether the method of such determination is legal, reasonable and appropriate; Finally, it is the discretion of the administrative organ after the determination of this qualification, that is, the discretion selection in the face of the factual conditions of the counterpart who meet some criteria. For the first problem, the author finds that the main forms of the current standards in our country are administrative regulations, administrative rules (including departmental rules and local government regulations) and administrative normative documents. There are three main standards, namely, the standard of household registration and place of work, the standard of property income and low income, and the standard of abiding by the principle of good faith. These standards have the advantages of concrete, detailed, more flexible and more operable, but at the same time, there may also be the possibility of violating the basic principles of upper law or administrative law. With regard to the second question, the author believes that administrative payment is beneficial, which determines that administrative investigation is an indispensable process, but throughout the history and reality of various countries, when conducting the investigation, It often damages some interests of beneficiaries, such as human dignity, privacy and so on. Therefore, it is necessary to find a suitable criterion. Through the comparison of legal interests, the theory of value rank and the principle of proportion, the author holds that the principle of proportion is a better standard, which can be used to initiate the investigation behavior in the administrative payment, and the purpose of the administrative investigation. Find a balance between the legal interests that may be infringed and the interests to be protected. Finally, the author briefly describes the importance of administrative discretion in administrative payment to the relative person, and according to the existing theory, enumerates the control mode of discretion in administrative payment in our country. Some suggestions are put forward to perfect the administrative payment domain system and control the administrative discretion from the inside and outside. Accordingly, this paper discusses the establishment standard of beneficiary qualification, beneficiary qualification investigation and discretion in payment. The first part discusses the general standards of beneficiary qualification, tries to find out the main types of beneficiary qualification standards in our country by combing a large number of relevant provisions, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these standards. The second part discusses the investigation power in administrative payment from four aspects: the administrative investigation in welfare qualification, the main body and procedure of beneficiary qualification investigation, and the protection of rights in the investigation of payment qualification. The third part is about the administrative discretion in administrative payment. And its future can be used for reference in the way of power control.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 王貴松;;行政裁量權收縮的法理基礎——職權職責義務化的轉(zhuǎn)換依據(jù)[J];北大法律評論;2009年02期

2 胡敏潔;;福利行政調(diào)查權與受益人權利保障[J];當代法學;2008年02期

3 周佑勇;;作為過程的行政調(diào)查——在一種新研究范式下的考察[J];法商研究;2006年01期

4 鄭智航;;中國適當生活水準權制度反思——以中國的廉租房制度為例[J];法商研究;2010年06期

5 王貴松;;行政裁量的內(nèi)在構造[J];法學家;2009年02期

6 譚兵;社會救助的理念與功效——關于香港綜援制度與內(nèi)地低保制度的思考[J];廣東社會科學;2005年03期

7 任喜榮;;“社會憲法”及其制度性保障功能[J];法學評論;2013年01期

8 于立深;劉東霞;;行政訴訟受案范圍的權利義務實際影響條款研究[J];當代法學;2013年06期

9 崔卓蘭;;行政自制理論的再探討[J];當代法學;2014年01期

10 高秦偉;;論行政裁量的自我拘束[J];當代法學;2014年01期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 吳蘭;法治政府中行政裁量的功能與治理[D];吉林大學;2010年

本文編號：2488614