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 8:42:32 Draft amendment to the law court may be reviewed with government red tape
Xinhuanet, Beijing, December 23 (reporters Yang Weihan and and Chen Fei and and Shi Jingnan)-23rd drew attention to the 12 session of the national people's Congress, the sixth meeting consideration of the draft amendments to the administrative procedure law intended to increase the provision, the Court may, under the regulations of the Government "red tape" collateral review.
Interview experts told reporters, existing administrative procedure can only be performed on specific administrative acts of the executive authorities, which sued the Administration issued "red tape," this kind of abstract administrative act non-litigious. Therefore increase provisions, relevant major.
Court rules Government "red tape" collateral review
Draft amendment adds: citizens, legal persons or other organizations consider that the specific administrative act is based on the departments under the State Council and local people's Governments and their departments to develop rules of normative documents are not valid, to institute proceedings for a specific administrative actions, can be requested to review the normative documents.
Meanwhile, the Bill provides that, the people's Court to hear administrative cases, such regulatory documents illegal, not legal basis for determining the specific administrative behavior, and should be transferred to the duly empowered authorities, in accordance with law.
Beijing University Professor Jiang Mingan introduced "regulations the following normative document" is what we usually call "red tape" is the kind of abstract administrative action by the Executive. The so-called "right" refers to the law on "red tape," the right to review, remove, or change permissions.
Peking University Law School Professor Shen kui said, this requirement makes sense. Regulatory documents low status in the legal system, but now some regional administrative bodies in social or market through regulatory documents management, sometimes even against the upper law provisions or the spirit of normative documents.
"In this case the Executive tends to use normative documents to specific administrative actions such as fines, revoke its business license, instead of using the upper law. Such provisions are more in favour of a party claiming rights using the normative documents of the upper law. "Shen kui said.
To experts, such provisions are consistent with China's Constitution and laws relating to the national people's Congress on the Government, government departments as well as lower levels of Government oversight of basic principles also helps to correct violations of the relevant normative documents.
Court, why not just to deny "red tape"
Judging from the collateral review articles, of course, one would suspect--why would the Court not directly make "red tape" is illegal, ruling, or directly in the decision to deny "red tape"?
Jiang Mingan believes that this is based on two considerations. First, for the consideration of the State Division of develop, alter or annul "red tape" is the administrative authority of the categories, review of "red tape" legitimacy is the area of competence of the Court.
Second, will the executive authorities with administrative expertise and experience, and the "red tape" are mostly involving policy issues rather than a legal issue, alter or annul by the executive authorities themselves "red tape" may be more appropriate than by the courts to alter or annul.
"Of course, during the trial, the Court shall not apply to the ' red tape ', which are essentially denying it. Executive actually had to have a problem of ' red tape ' to vary or rescind. Otherwise, if the private party to court for specific administrative act is guilty of an offence, it will lose. "Jiang Mingan said.
"Red tape" alone can be taken
Draft amendment proposed shall be owned by the "red tape" collateral review, the "red tape" alone can be taken?
Jiang Mingan and other administrative law experts have suggested the "red tape" may "limited direct litigation", that is, in normal circumstances, administrative counterpart for abstract administrative acts can only "incidental litigation", but if the corresponding normative documents, without a specific administrative act causing harm to the relative's legal rights relative person may initiate proceedings directly to the abstract administrative behavior.
Experts cite a case description: sth cartons in both English and Chinese languages, the English font somewhat bigger than the Chinese font. One day, an administrative body released "red tape", 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 act, if the "incidental litigation" approach, only after the shops buy goods to sell their goods found by the Executive on its packaging box is greater than the English fonts when Chinese font and be fined, store is defined for the prosecution of the regulatory documents. If, however, the normative documents, once published, all the stores that use this box of merchandise not purchased, resulting in production of this commodity businesses large amounts of goods piling up in warehouses, sold out and had to complete demolition and boxes of these goods, rework and replacement, its huge losses.
But the manufacturers are not subject to administrative penalties (no specific administrative acts) and not the institution of administrative proceedings. Although the normative documents in manifest violation of--its entry into force does not allow people to sell the original product, violating legal principles of regulatory documents shall not be retroactive, which causes huge losses relative to a person.
"This situation should provide a remedy for relative: If the corresponding abstract administrative act without a specific administrative act is likely to cause harm to the relative's legal rights relative person may initiate proceedings directly to the abstract administrative behavior, request the people's Court to withdraw the abstract administrative acts or confirm the abstract administrative action against the law, in order to avoid the occurrence of actual damage. "Jiang Mingan says," now the draft amendment is an instance, hope that the legislature will further learn from expert advice. ”
新华网北京12月23日电（记者杨维汉、陈菲、史竞男）23日提请十二届全国人大常委会第六次会议审议的行政诉讼法修正案草案拟增加规定，法院可对规章以下的政府“红头文件”进行附带审查。
接受采访的专家向记者表示，现行行政诉讼法只能对行政机关的具体行政行为提起诉讼，而对行政机关下发的“红头文件”这样的抽象行政行为不可诉。因此增加这样的规定，现实意义重大。
法院对规章以下政府“红头文件”可附带审查
修正案草案增加规定：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。
同时，草案规定，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。
北京大学教授姜明安介绍，“规章以下的规范性文件”就是我们平时所说的“红头文件”，是行政机关抽象行政行为的一类。所谓“有权机关”是指依法对这些“红头文件”享有审查、撤销或改变权限的机关。
北京大学法学院教授沈岿表示，这样规定很有意义。规范性文件在法律体系中位阶较低，但现在一些地方行政机关是在运用规范性文件管理社会或影响市场，有时甚至违反上位法的规定或者精神制定规范性文件。
“在这种情况下行政机关往往会利用规范性文件来作出了罚款、吊销营业执照等具体行政行为，而不是运用上位法。所以这样规定更有利于当事人运用规范性文件的上位法来主张权利。”沈岿说。
专家介绍，这样规定符合我国宪法和法律有关人大对政府、政府对其部门以及下级政府进行监督的基本原则，也有利于纠正相关规范性文件的违法问题。
法院为何不直接否定“红头文件”
从附带审查条款来看，人们自然会产生疑问——为什么法院不直接作出“红头文件”是否违法的裁定，或者直接在判决中否定“红头文件”？
姜明安认为这是基于两个考虑。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。
二是行政机关具有行政管理的专门知识和经验，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。
“当然，法院在审判过程中不适用相应的‘红头文件’，实质上就是否定它。行政机关事实上必须对有问题的‘红头文件’予以改变或撤销。否则，如果行政相对人再以具体行政行为违法而告到法院，它还要败诉。”姜明安说。
“红头文件”能否单独被诉
修正案草案拟增加的规定属于对“红头文件”的附带性审查，那么“红头文件”是否能单独被诉？
姜明安等多位行政法学专家曾经建议对“红头文件”可以“有限直接诉”，即在一般情形下，行政相对人对抽象行政行为只能“附带诉”，但如果相应规范性文件不经具体行政行为即可造成对相对人合法权益的损害，相对人则可直接对该抽象行政行为提起诉讼。
专家举出一个案例予以说明：某商品包装箱有中英两种文字，其英文字体稍大于中文字体。某日，一行政机关发布“红头文件”，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，如果采用“附带诉”的方式，只有当商店购买商品后出售商品被行政机关发现其商品包装箱上的英文字体大于中文字体并对之予以罚款时，商店才能对该规范性文件起诉。但是，如果该规范性文件一经发布，所有商店即不购进使用这种包装箱的商品，致使生产该商品的企业大量商品积压在仓库，卖不出去，不得不把这些商品的包装箱全部拆除、重做和更换，其损失巨大。
但是该生产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。尽管该规范性文件明显违法——其没有让相对人卖掉原有商品就生效，违反了规范性文件不得溯及既往的法律原则，从而导致相对人的巨大损失。
“对这种情形应为相对人提供一个救济途径：如果相应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。”姜明安说，“现在修正案草案是一审，希望立法机关能够进一步吸取专家意见。”
赞