發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-05-31 16:44

【摘要】：2014年11月《行政訴訟法》的修改,明確了規(guī)范性文件的附帶審查制度,但是僅限于國(guó)務(wù)院部門(mén)和地方各級(jí)人民政府及其部門(mén)制定的規(guī)范性文件,即規(guī)章以下的行政規(guī)范性文件。因其非立法性1,只是政策性規(guī)范性文件,而不是法律性規(guī)范性文件,可稱為“法外規(guī)范性文件”。本文所稱行政規(guī)范性文件(以下簡(jiǎn)稱“規(guī)范性文件”),指所有規(guī)范與調(diào)整國(guó)家行政事務(wù)的具有普遍約束力的文件,包括法律、行政法規(guī)、地方性法規(guī)、規(guī)章和法外規(guī)范性文件。因?yàn)閷?duì)規(guī)范性文件的合法性審查和沖突審查是正確適用法律的前提,在個(gè)案中對(duì)規(guī)范性文件的審查也是法院應(yīng)該有的權(quán)力,規(guī)章及其以上的規(guī)范性文件在適用之前也要進(jìn)行審查,以保證正確適用。司法實(shí)踐中也一直存在著這種審查,但是,我國(guó)目前只明確規(guī)定了法外規(guī)范性文件的審查。目前僅法外規(guī)范性文件的審查適用有明確規(guī)定,其他規(guī)范性文件沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定,另外,規(guī)范性文件的審查依附于個(gè)案。種種原因,使得規(guī)范性文件的司法適用常常很隱蔽,基本路徑不明。有學(xué)者做過(guò)調(diào)查法:法官在遇到下位法抵觸上位法時(shí),常常直接選擇適用,并不在判決書(shū)中表述。2規(guī)范性文件審查適用基本都靠法官的經(jīng)驗(yàn),審查的流程很不明晰。所以,很有必要對(duì)規(guī)范性文件的審查適用的基本路徑進(jìn)行梳理。行政規(guī)范性文件司法適用的基本進(jìn)路,也即審查適用的流程,主要分為四個(gè)階段:啟動(dòng)、審查、適用與相關(guān)配套措施。第一:啟動(dòng),分為法院主動(dòng)啟動(dòng)和當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)啟動(dòng)兩種方式。當(dāng)事人申請(qǐng)啟動(dòng)僅限于法外規(guī)范性文件的審查適用。法院可以對(duì)所有規(guī)范文件啟動(dòng)審查,但是必須進(jìn)行一個(gè)初步的判斷,判斷規(guī)范文件的性質(zhì):(1)如果是法律,則不啟動(dòng)任何審查;(2)如果是行政法規(guī)、地方性法規(guī),則不能啟動(dòng)合法性審查,僅審查其是否抵觸上位法;(3)如果是規(guī)章和法外規(guī)范性文件,則啟動(dòng)合法性審查,并審查其是否抵觸上位法。第二:審查,審查分為合法性審查和相抵觸審查。根據(jù)《立法法》的第96條的規(guī)定,合法性審查主要審查是否超越權(quán)限、程序是否合法。相抵觸審查,根據(jù)規(guī)范語(yǔ)句的要素,主要從適用條件、權(quán)利義務(wù)和法律后果三方面是否沖突進(jìn)行審查;第三,適用,法院根據(jù)審查結(jié)果做出適用決定:合法則予以適用,不合法則拒絕適用;抵觸上位法則必須選擇適用上位法。第四,相關(guān)配套措施,如果審查認(rèn)為規(guī)范性文件不合法,還需要向有關(guān)機(jī)關(guān)提交司法建議,并將審查適用決定通過(guò)某種方式予以公告。
[Abstract]:In November 2014, the amendment to the Administrative Procedure Law defines the system of the accompanying review of the normative documents, but is limited to the normative documents formulated by the people's governments at the State Council and the local people's governments at various levels and their departments, that is, the administrative normative documents under the rules. Because of its non-legislative nature, it is only a policy-oriented document, not a normative document, which can be referred to as a "Extrajudicial normative documents". The administrative normative documents referred to herein (hereinafter referred to as" "Normative documents" ") refer to all documents that are generally binding to the adjustment of the administrative affairs of the State, including laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, regulations and extra-legal normative documents. Because the review of the legitimacy of the normative document and the review of the conflict are the prerequisite for the proper application of the applicable law, the review of the normative documents in a case is also the power, regulation and the normative documents that the court should have before it is applied, in order to ensure the correct application. This review has also been in the practice of the administration of justice, but only the review of the legal normative documents is currently being set out in my country. At present, only the review of the legal normative documents is applicable, and the other normative documents are not clearly defined, and the review of the normative documents is attached to the case. For various reasons, the judicial application of the normative documents is often concealed and the basic path is unknown. Some scholars have done a survey: when the judge is in conflict with the upper-level law, the judge often chooses the application directly, and is not stated in the judgment. The review of the normative documents is applicable to the experience of the judge, and the process of the review is not clear. Therefore, it is necessary to comb the basic path applicable to the review of the normative documents. The basic route for judicial application of administrative normative documents, that is, to review the applicable process, is mainly divided into four stages: start-up, review, application and relevant supporting measures. First: Start-up, divided into two ways: the active start-up of the court and the application of the party's application. The application of a party's application was limited to the application of the review of the legal normative documents. The court may initiate a review of all normative documents, but a preliminary judgement must be made to determine the nature of the normative document: (1) if it is a law, no review is initiated; (2) if it is an administrative, local, regulatory, legal review cannot be initiated, Review only whether it is in conflict with the upper-level law; (3) if it is a regulatory and extra-legal document, initiate a review of the legality and review whether it is in conflict with the upper-level law. Second, the review and review are divided into the legality review and the phase-conflict review. In accordance with the provisions of article 96 of the United Nations Law on the Law of the Sea, the validity of the review is to examine whether it is beyond the authority, and that the procedure is legal. In case of a conflict review, according to the elements of the specification statement, whether or not the conflict should be examined from the three aspects of applicable conditions, rights and obligations and legal consequences; and thirdly, if applicable, the court shall make the applicable decision according to the examination result: the legality is applicable, and the application is not lawful; The applicable position method must be selected if the upper-level method is in conflict with the above-mentioned method. Fourth, relevant supporting measures, if the review considers that the normative document is not legal, it is also necessary to submit a judicial recommendation to the relevant authorities and to make a public announcement in a way that the application of the review applies.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：河南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葉霖;;論新《行政訴訟法》的規(guī)范性文件附帶審查制度再完善[J];法制與社會(huì);2016年19期

2 姜明安;;對(duì)新《行政訴訟法》確立的規(guī)范性文件審查制度的反思[J];人民法治;2016年07期

3 胡建淼;;法律規(guī)范之間抵觸標(biāo)準(zhǔn)研究[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2016年03期

4 余軍;張文;;行政規(guī)范性文件司法審查權(quán)的實(shí)效性考察[J];法學(xué)研究;2016年02期

5 袁勇;;規(guī)范與事實(shí)之間的行政爭(zhēng)議解決機(jī)制:現(xiàn)狀、問(wèn)題及對(duì)策[J];廣西社會(huì)科學(xué);2016年01期

6 武芳;;規(guī)章以下行政規(guī)范性文件制定主體研究——基于新《行政訴訟法》第五十三條的分析[J];江漢學(xué)術(shù);2015年06期

7 王紅衛(wèi);廖希飛;;行政訴訟中規(guī)范性文件附帶審查制度研究[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2015年06期

8 楊士林;;試論行政訴訟中規(guī)范性文件合法性審查的限度[J];法學(xué)論壇;2015年05期

9 程琥;;新《行政訴訟法》中規(guī)范性文件附帶審查制度研究[J];法律適用;2015年07期

10 鄭磊;盧煒;;“舊”下位法的適用性——以第5號(hào)指導(dǎo)性案例、第13號(hào)行政審判指導(dǎo)案例為焦點(diǎn)[J];政治與法律;2014年07期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 張雨梅;高宏亮;;回歸與再造:規(guī)范性文件司法審查強(qiáng)度研究——以105則行政訴訟案例為分析樣本[A];尊重司法規(guī)律與刑事法律適用研究（上）——全國(guó)法院第27屆學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)撐募痆C];2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：2489857