摘要
信用行政评价是信用行政惩戒制度中的关键环节,其合法性对后续惩戒措施的合法性具有决定作用。关于其行为性质与可诉性,理论上存在行政处罚、行政确认、主动信息公开和行政事实行为四种认识。司法实践中,法院虽然通过严格的规范演绎推理否定了信用行政评价的行政处罚属性,但是未能就其行为性质与可诉性达成肯定而统一的认识。后果解释在信用评价案件中具有可适用性,通过澄清隐藏在司法判决中的后果考量,并以后果权衡的均衡性为标准,应当将信用评价定性为行政确认和政府主动的信息公开。在审查进路上,法院应进行独立审查和分类审查,根据不同的行为定性采取不同的审查强度,建构不同的审查标准。
Administrative credit evaluation is a key link in the administrative credit-related punishment system,and its legitimacy has a decisive effect on the legitimacy of subsequent punitive measures.In theory,there are four understandings on its legal attributes and suability,including administrative penalty,administrative confirmation,active information disclosure and administrative real act.In judicial practice,although the courts have denied its attribute as the administrative penalty through strict normative deduction,they fails to reach a positive and uniform understanding on its legal attribute and the suability.Consequence-oriented interpretation is applicable in administrative credit evaluation cases.By clarifying the consequence-oriented consideration hidden in judicial judgments and taking the equilibrium of balancing consequences as the standard,administrative credit evaluation should be determined as administrative confirmation and active information disclosure by the government.Regarding the review approach,the court should conduct independent review and classification review,adopt different review levels and standards according to different attributes.
出处
《政治与法律》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第2期76-89,共14页
Political Science and Law
基金
国家社科基金重点项目“大数据时代政府信息公开制度变革研究”(项目编号:18AFX007)
2018年江苏省研究生科研创新计划项目(项目编号:KYCX18_0214)的阶段性成果
关键词
信用行政评价
后果解释
行为性质
可诉性
司法审查
Administrative Credit Evaluation
Consequence-oriented Interpretation
Legal Attributes
Suability
Judicial Review
