Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)aaapublished in(发表于) 2013/12/24 8:41:18 Administrative procedure law changes： people wish to complain of red tape， legitimacy
"Jurisdiction" is also a major problem of the current administrative proceedings, draft amendments to the administrative procedure law of the environment changes, including normative documents system of collateral review, evidence, civil disputes and administrative dispute handling mechanism of the cross, which intends to require administrative action may be collateral review "red tape", is undoubtedly a major breakthrough.
1
-Highlights
Court to collateral review regulatory documents
Xin Chunying, Deputy Director of the NPC Legislative Affairs Committee mentioned yesterday, in practice, some of the specific administrative act violated the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons or other organizations, local governments and their departments to develop normative documents such as ultra vires the wrong rules.
To radically reduce the illegal concrete administrative behavior, by the courts in reviewing the specific administrative act should be a citizen, legal person or other organization review applications that ship with the normative documents of the following regulations, illegal, transferred power to authorities.
To this end, the draft adds: a citizen, legal person or other organizations believe that a specific administrative act is based on the regulations of the departments under the State Council and local people's Governments and their departments to develop outside of normative documents is not legitimate, when the instituted proceedings against concrete administrative action, may be requested to review the normative documents. Second, the people's courts in the adjudication of administrative cases, found the above-mentioned normative documents illegal, no legitimate basis for determining the specific administrative act, and shall transmit the duly empowered authorities, in accordance with law.
≫> interpretation
Court cannot directly revoke red tape
Jiang Mingan introduction, mentioned in the revised "regulations the following normative document" is what we usually call the "red tape" is a class of abstract administrative behavior.
Why the Court could not directly make "red tape" breaches the ruling? On this, Jiang Mingan said, this is for two a consider, a is for State Division of consider, developed, and change or revoked "red tape" is administrative terms of category, review "red tape" legitimacy is Court terms of category; II is for policy of consider, administrative organ has administration of specifically knowledge, and specifically experience, and "red tape" mostly involves of is policy problem and non-legal problem, by administrative organ themselves change or revoked "red tape", may than by court change or revoked more appropriate.
≫> recommends
Red tape should be able to separate the responding
The revised version proposed, to normative documents (abstract administrative act) together with the specific administrative act prosecutions. Jiang Mingan, which means "red tape" alone cannot be sued.
Jiang Mingan said, there is such a case, the Executive issued a normative document, English fonts must be provided on the packaging box is less than the Chinese font, otherwise, every product a fine number.
For this kind of abstract administrative acts, in accordance with the revised version, only after the shops buy goods sold when it was discovered and fined the executive authorities, shop the normative documents can be prosecuted. But the reality is that the normative document once it is published, all stores that do not use this package of goods, resulting in the production of the enterprise a lot of goods piling up in warehouses, don't sell, and costly. But the enterprise is not subject to administrative penalties (no specific administrative act) without being able to bring an administrative action, unable to defend their rights.
In his view, if the abstract administrative act without a specific administrative act is likely to cause damage to the counterpart of the legitimate rights and interests, should be filed directly to the abstract administrative behavior, request the people's Court to remove the abstract administrative act or confirm the abstract administrative act against the law, to avoid the occurrence of actual damage.
2
Civil and administrative disputes with trial
Under practice of administrative dispute and civil dispute to consider in practice, the draft adds: one is in the administrative proceedings, client application to resolve specific administrative acts affecting civil rights and obligations arising from a civil dispute, the people's Court may consider. People's court decide to consider, no party may file a civil action against the civil dispute and then.
Two parties to decisions made by the executive authorities to contest the civil appeals from the institution of administrative proceedings, the people's Court by application for civil disputes with trial. Third, in administrative proceedings, the people's Court considers the administrative cases based on the decision of the hearing shall be made in civil litigation, ruling that suspended administrative proceedings.
3
□亮点
Improving the evidence system clearly the burden of proof
Spring Hawk describes, from five aspects of the draft improving the evidence system: clearly fails the consequences of proof of the accused, improving the system of proof of the accused, specifically the plaintiff's burden of proof, perfect the system of people's Court to obtain evidence, clear evidence of the applicable rules.
Of proof against the accused without proof or delay, the draft adds: defendants do not provide or overdue to give evidence without proper reason, as there is no evidence. But complained against specific administrative acts related to the legitimate rights and interests of a third party, provide evidence of a third party or the people's Court of taking evidence by law are excluded.
Current provisions of the administrative procedure law in the proceedings, the defendants to the plaintiffs and witnesses, to collect evidence in his own. For facts, adds: in both cases, by the people's court permits, additional evidence by the defendant, is accused in the specific administrative act has been collecting evidence, but due to force majeure cannot provide; that the plaintiff or a third person in the administrative procedure without reason or evidence.
Existing administrative procedural law does not provide for the plaintiff's burden of proof, but in some cases, if the plaintiff is not proof, it is difficult to ascertain the facts and make the right decisions. Therefore need to bear some of the burden of proof for the plaintiff, adds: in the prosecution fails to perform the statutory duties of the accused in the case, the plaintiff shall provide evidence of its apply to the defendant. In executive compensation and executive compensation according to law in cases, the plaintiff should provide evidence for damage caused by a specific administrative act. Because the defendant caused the plaintiff was unable to testify, the defendant the burden of proof.
For specification Court according to applications adjustable take evidence acts, increased provides: and this case about of following evidence, plaintiffs or third people cannot themselves collection of, can applications court adjustable take, a is by State save and must by court adjustable take of evidence; II is involves national secret, and commercial secret and personal privacy of evidence; three is does due to objective causes cannot themselves collection of other evidence.
Evidence for specification, enhance the impartiality of judgement and conviction, adds: the evidence shall be produced in court and by the parties cross each other. Involving State secrets, business secrets and personal privacy, evidence, may not show in closed session. The people's Court shall, in accordance with legal procedures, to examine and verify evidence comprehensively and objectively. Did not accept the evidence should explain the reasons. Evidence obtained by illegal means, it may not be found that the facts of the case under.
Added "electronic evidence" type
The revised to better complement the administrative lawsuit evidence system. Jiang Mingan, is of great significance. "Like in the kind of evidence, adding ' electronic data ', which was adapted to the needs of the modern information age, adapted to the needs of e-Government. "Jiang Mingan said, in evidence rules in the, increased has" accused not provides or no due reason late provides evidence, considered no corresponding evidence "of rules, this is settlement practice in the some accused not tie Court, deliberately not provides or delay provides evidence, caused Court cannot referee of difficult of a items effective should measures," you deliberately not provides or delay provides evidence, on sentenced you loses. ”
In addition, the revised version stipulates that "evidence obtained by illegal means, it may not be found the facts of the case based on", said Jiang Mingan, this is bound to all parties, and just resolution of administrative disputes according to law, it is necessary to effectively maintain the legitimate rights and interests of the parties.
4
Add summary to increase trial efficiency
Existing administrative procedural law does not provide for a simple procedure, the amendment is added to the summary, to increase trial efficiency, reduce the cost of litigation. Draft adds: Court hearing of the facts are clear, the rights and obligations between clear, less controversial at first instance administrative cases, summary procedure may be applied, first sued specific administrative act is made on the spot according to law; is the second case involving amounts of less than 1000; third, the parties agree to apply summary procedure. Remand, in accordance with the procedure for trial supervision retrial case does not apply to summary proceedings. Also provides that applying summary proceedings of administrative cases heard by a single judge alone, and shall conclude the case within 45 days of the date of disposition. Jinghua times, Shangxi Chen Qiao
(Original title: people to be actionable, "red tape" legitimacy)
“审理难”也是当前行政诉讼的一大症结，行政诉讼法修正案草案对此作出多方面修改，包括对规范性文件的附带审查、证据制度、民事争议和行政争议交叉的处理机制等，其中拟规定行政诉讼可附带审查“红头文件”，无疑是一大突破。
法院可附带审查规范性文件
全国人大常委会法制工作委员会副主任信春鹰昨天提到，实践中，有些具体行政行为侵犯公民、法人或者其他组织的合法权益，是地方政府及其部门制定的规范性文件中越权错位等规定造成的。
为从根本上减少违法具体行政行为，可以由法院在审查具体行政行为时应公民、法人或者其他组织的申请对规章以下的规范性文件进行附带审查，不合法的，转送有权机关处理。
为此，草案增加规定：一是公民、法人或者其他组织认为具体行政行为所依据的国务院部门和地方人民政府及其部门制定的规章以外的规范性文件不合法，在对具体行政行为提起诉讼时，可以一并请求对该规范性文件进行审查。二是人民法院在审理行政案件中，发现上述规范性文件不合法的，不作为认定具体行政行为合法的依据，并应当转送有权机关依法处理。
>>解读
法院不可直接撤销红头文件
姜明安介绍，修改稿里提到的“规章以下的规范性文件”就是大家平时所说的“红头文件”，是抽象行政行为的一类。
为什么法院不能直接作出“红头文件”是否违法的裁定？对此，姜明安说，这是出于两个考虑，一是出于国家机关分工的考虑，制定、改变或者撤销“红头文件”是行政职权的范畴，审查“红头文件”合法性是法院职权的范畴；二是出于政策的考虑，行政机关具有行政管理的专门知识、专门经验，且“红头文件”大多涉及的是政策问题而非法律问题，由行政机关自己改变或者撤销“红头文件”，可能比由法院改变或者撤销更为适当。
>>建议
红头文件应能单独被诉
此次修改稿提出，对规范性文件（抽象行政行为的一种）须与具体行政行为一并起诉。姜明安表示，这意味着对“红头文件”不能单独被诉。
姜明安说，有这样一个案例，行政机关发布一规范性文件，规定商品包装箱上的英文字体必须小于中文字体，否则，每件商品罚款若干。
对于这种抽象行政行为，按照修改稿，只有当商店购买商品后出售被行政机关发现并处罚款时，商店方可对该规范性文件起诉。但实际情况是，该规范性文件一经发布，所有商店即不进使用这种包装箱的商品了，致使生产该商品的企业大量商品积压在仓库，卖不出去，损失巨大。但是该企业却因没有受到行政处罚（没有具体行政行为）而不能提起行政诉讼，无法维护自己权益。
他认为，如果抽象行政行为不经具体行政行为就可能造成对相对人合法权益的损害，相对人应该可直接对该抽象行政行为提起诉讼，请求人民法院撤销该抽象行政行为或确认该抽象行政行为违法，以避免实际损害的发生。
民事和行政争议一并审理
根据实践中行政争议与相关民事争议一并审理的做法，草案增加规定：一是在行政诉讼中，当事人申请一并解决因具体行政行为影响民事权利义务关系引起的民事争议的，人民法院可以一并审理。人民法院决定一并审理的，当事人不得对该民事争议再提起民事诉讼。
二是当事人对行政机关就民事争议所作的裁决不服提起行政诉讼的，人民法院依申请可以对民事争议一并审理。三是在行政诉讼中，人民法院认为该行政案件审理须以民事诉讼的裁判为依据的，裁定中止行政诉讼。
完善证据制度明确举证责任
信春鹰介绍，草案从五方面完善了证据制度：明确被告逾期不举证的后果、完善被告的举证制度、明确原告的举证责任、完善人民法院调取证据制度、明确证据的适用规则。
针对被告不举证或者拖延举证的情况，草案增加规定：被告不提供或者无正当理由逾期提供证据，视为没有相应证据。但是被诉具体行政行为涉及第三人合法权益，第三人提供证据或者人民法院依法调取证据的除外。
现行行政诉讼法规定在诉讼过程中，被告不得自行向原告和证人收集证据。为查明事实，增加规定：在两种情形下，经人民法院准许，被告可以补充证据，一是被告在作出具体行政行为时已经收集了证据，但因不可抗力等正当事由不能提供的；二是原告或者第三人提出了其在行政处理程序中没有提出的理由或者证据的。
现行行政诉讼法没有规定原告的举证责任，但在有些情况下，如果原告不举证，就难以查清事实，作出正确的裁判。因此需要原告承担一定的举证责任，增加规定：在起诉被告未履行法定职责的案件中，原告应当提供其向被告提出申请的证据。在行政赔偿和行政机关依法给予补偿的案件中，原告应当对具体行政行为造成的损害提供证据。因被告的原因导致原告无法举证的，由被告承担举证责任。
为规范人民法院依申请调取证据行为，增加规定：与本案有关的下列证据，原告或者第三人不能自行收集的，可以申请人民法院调取，一是由国家机关保存而须由人民法院调取的证据；二是涉及国家秘密、商业秘密和个人隐私的证据；三是确因客观原因不能自行收集的其他证据。
为规范证据使用，增强判决的公正性和说服力，增加规定：证据应当在法庭上出示，并由当事人互相质证。对涉及国家秘密、商业秘密和个人隐私的证据，不得在公开开庭时出示。人民法院应当按照法定程序，全面、客观地审查核实证据。对未采纳的证据应当说明理由。以非法手段取得的证据，不得作为认定案件事实的根据。
新增“电子证据”种类
此次修改稿还对行政诉讼证据制度进行了较多补充完善。这在姜明安看来，具有非常大的意义。“比如说在证据种类中，增加了‘电子数据’，这是适应现代信息化时代的需要，适应电子政务的需要。”姜明安说，在证据规则中，增加了“被告不提供或无正当理由逾期提供证据，视为没有相应证据”的规则，这是解决实践中一些被告不配合法院，故意不提供或拖延提供证据，造成法院无法裁判的困难的一项有效应对措施，“你故意不提供或拖延提供证据，就判你败诉。”
另外，修改稿规定“以非法手段取得的证据，不得作为认定案件事实的根据”，姜明安表示，这是对所有诉讼当事人的约束，对于依法、公正解决行政争议，有效维护双方当事人的合法权益是非常必要的。
增加简易程序提高审判效率
现行行政诉讼法未规定简易程序，修正案草案增加简易程序，以提高审判效率，降低诉讼成本。草案增加规定：人民法院审理事实清楚、权利义务关系明确、争议不大的第一审行政案件，可以适用简易程序，一是被诉具体行政行为是依法当场作出的；二是案件涉及款额一千元以下的；三是当事人各方同意适用简易程序的。发回重审、按照审判监督程序再审的案件不适用简易程序。同时规定，适用简易程序审理的行政案件，由审判员一人独任审理，并应当在立案之日起四十五日内审结。京华时报记者商西陈荞
（原标题：百姓拟可诉“红头文件”合法性）
赞