摘要
面对行政行为"明显不当"作为一项独立的行政裁量审查标准而在司法判定上存在的模糊性难题,经由我国法院裁判实践发展出了"同案对比"的事实审、"规则适用"的法律审以及"利益均衡"的原则审等三种判定技术。据此,"明显不当"审查标准在内涵上,不仅意味着行政裁量决定不能在"事实"上存在"偏私",也意味着其在"规范"上要符合"法律的规定",并在"价值"上还要"实质合理且利益均衡"。作为主观面向的"滥用职权"审查标准与作为客观面向的"明显不当"审查标准,分别代表了行政裁量的"行为无价"与"结果无价"两个方面,由此并列成为两种相互独立的行政裁量审查标准。主观过失乃至于客观上的不当,仅构成"明显不当"而非"滥用职权"。就程序裁量权的司法审查而言,仍然需要与实体利益的衡量相牵连,只有客观上严重影响实体内容或相对人合法利益的程序瑕疵,才构成"明显不当"。
To overcome the ambiguity of the criterion of"obviously inappropriate",which is an independent criterion on administrative discretion in judicial decision,three critical techniques,namely comparison of similar cases in factual review,application of rule in legal review and balance of interests in principle review,have been developed in Chinese judicial practice.Therefore,in terms of its connotation,the criterion of"obviously inappropriate"means not only impartiality in fact,but also compliance with legal provisions in norms and rational substance and balanced interest in value.The subjective criterion of"misuse of authority"and the objective criterion of"obviously inappropriate"represent the principle of"anti-value acts"and the principle of"anti-value results",respectively,in administrative discretion,and accordingly constitute two independent and coordinated criteria in judicial review.Subjective negligence or objective misconduct may only constitute"obviously inappropriate conduct"but not"misuse of authority".As far as judicial review of procedural discretion is concerned,it is necessary to consider its connection to the consideration of substantive interests.The"obviously inappropriate"criterion can be met only when a substantive or legitimate interest is impaired by a procedural flaw.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第3期23-38,共16页
Global Law Review
