Go homepage(回首页) Upload pictures (上传图片) Write articles (发文字帖)
The author:(作者)delvpublished in(发表于) 2014/1/10 8:25:00 Professor detailed criminal procedure law law programme
Legal evening news (reporter Ji Xin), administrative procedure Act, commonly known as "mingaoguan". The end of 2013, the amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act (draft) submitted to the national people's Congress, which is the law enacted more than 20 years after the first overhaul. How to amend the law in order to address the widely criticized case hard, tried hard and difficult to enforce this "three-pronged" problem?
A few days ago, at Beijing University, "Burson-Marsteller public law forum", Professor Jiang Mingan, a detailed analysis of the four options for Dharma. In his view, conducive to get rid of local interventions and reform taking into account several levels, such as lower cost, promotion programmes appear to be preferable to the jurisdiction. Legal evening news as media supporters are invited to attend.
Experts ' opinions
Professor Jiang Mingan said, the debate over exactly how to modify of the administrative procedural law, civil and official discussion for seven or eight years, all aspects of the debate, and in the game so far. To sum up, there are four main options for lawmakers to choose.
Jurisdiction of the relative concentration of the programme
The NPC Law Committee drafting the amendments to the Administrative Procedure Act (draft) is the program that you select, the higher people's Court can determine the number of grass-root administrative area of cross-jurisdiction of the courts of first instance over administrative cases.
For example, the designation of the Court of Haidian District in Beijing's High Court can handle cases of Xicheng District, Chaoyang District, as a way to reduce local interference with administrative cases.
Cross-administrative jurisdiction to adjudicate cases and increase the administrative agencies on cases more difficult, but also substantial institutional changes will not occur.
Programme II mode of administrative court
This model can be divided into two forms: one is administrative tribunals come off of the ordinary courts, to administrative courts, enhance its authority. This not only improves the position of administrative courts, also contribute to accumulation of administrative trial experience. But this approach cannot solve the problem of local interventions.
Second form was broken up the locale, and Division of secession. Three districts, five counties are grouped together, and set up a grass-roots administrative court; three cities, five municipalities are grouped together, and set up a mid-level administrative court superior court unchanged. Such an administrative court procedure established jointly by several local, breaking the administrative intervention, can also be grouped together with the administrative law judge. However, the disadvantage of this approach is the reform of costs will be a big one, because you want to reset, such as office buildings.
Professor Jiang Mingan said, although this mode of Administrative Court Act well, but the possibility is very low, the current conditions for establishment of administrative courts is not yet mature.
Programme III promoted jurisdiction
Promotion programme refers to the first instance of jurisdiction jurisdiction of administrative cases referred to by the intermediate people's Court, revoke the grass-roots Administrative Chamber of the Court.
Professor Jiang Mingan expressed more in favour of this programme. He set out for the following reasons: first, the district and County in which the district level court, involving the Government and its departments (such as the departments of public security, finance, land, education) of the case particularly difficult to get rid of regional intervention, to justice.
Second, the intermediate court jurisdiction as courts of first instance over administrative cases, directly by the provincial High Court of second instance. Just got rid of in the first instance by the county-level intervention, can also get rid of the second trial, municipal intervention.
Professor Jiang Mingan says, this is the amendment (draft) in the "determining the number of grass-root administrative area of cross-jurisdiction of the courts of first instance over administrative cases" programmes fail to do.
Thirdly, grass-roots courts too few administrative cases (average per year per primary court case about 30 per month on average less than 3). This is neither conducive to conserving judicial resources, nor to judge administrative trial experience accumulated.
At the same time, too few administrative cases in the basic courts, administrative law judge without a job and was seconded to non-lawsuit implementation, such as expropriation, demolition, etc, which makes private party to lose trust and confidence in mingaoguan proceedings.
IV, the establishment of administrative courts. Such a significant reform of the administrative judicial system programme is difficult to achieve in the short term.
Of course, the implementation of intermediate programme of the jurisdiction of the courts of first instance over administrative cases, some people may worry about inconvenience to litigants. This fear is not necessary because the intermediate people's Court in the future if they focus on jurisdiction of first instance administrative cases, you can set more than one circuit. At the same time, provides circuit case, when they are located mainly in districts in lower courts, even located at Township, town, and village in which the plaintiff, so that litigant.
Programme four established Supreme Law Branch
The programme was made by the Supreme People's Court, which is the Supreme law in various regions of the country (Northeast, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest and so on) to establish branch or send administrative litigation court administrator of the Supreme Court at the same time, administrative litigation system to a system of three of the second instance.
At the grass-roots Court of first instance, the Intermediate Court of second instance, and branch or send three first instance to the Supreme Court. Case to the regional administrative court (branch or send Tribunal of the Supreme Court), not to mention the counties and cities can't interfere, intervention at the provincial level all of the time.
Professor Jiang Mingan pointed out that administrative action from the fact of talk right now, there are three, four, or even five. Because the parties case was never closed, it will continue to appeal, the Court must constantly re-. If the system provides no longer receiving complaints after three, you can better safeguard the unity of Justice and efficiency.
1949-1979 no administrative proceedings, so there are no administrative judicial system.
1980-1982 began to have a seed of administrative litigation: ordinary administration cases before the courts under a single law, but there was no uniform administrative procedure, without establishing a unified system of administrative litigation, several provisions of a single law alone.
1982-1986 with the enactment of the code of civil procedure (provisional), 3rd of the Act provides that, where the law provided for administrative cases accepted by the Court, in accordance with the civil procedure. In this way, during that period provided for administrative cases accepted by the Court of the laws and regulations of the food sanitation law, the forestry law, the law on drug management, expropriation Ordinance dozens of items.
1986-1990 administrative judicial system to start moving the two-track system, in some places began to establish specialized administrative tribunals to hear administrative cases, there are still Civil Chamber of the administrative tribunals established to hear administrative cases.
1990-present formulated the administrative procedure law, harmonization of the administrative judicial system, all administrative cases by the Administrative Chamber of the Court as inadmissible.
Text/reporter Hsing Chi
(Original title: mingaoguan direct to home more viable)
法制晚报讯 (记者 纪欣)行政诉讼法，俗称“民告官法”。2013年底，《行政诉讼法修正案(草案)》提交全国人大常委会审议，这也是该法在颁布实施二十多年后的首次大修。如何修法才能解决广受诟病的立案难、审理难和执行难这“三难”问题？
日前，在北京大学“博雅公法论坛”上，姜明安教授详细分析了修法的四种可选方案。他认为，从有利于摆脱地方干预及改革成本较低等几个层面考虑，提级管辖的方案似乎可取。法制晚报作为媒体支持单位受邀参加。
专家观点
姜明安教授表示，有关《行政诉讼法》究竟该如何修改的争论，民间和官方讨论了七八年，至今各方面还在争论和博弈中。归纳起来，主要有四种方案可供立法者选择。
●方案一相对集中管辖
由人大法工委起草的《行政诉讼法修正案(草案)》选取的就是这个方案，即高级人民法院可以确定若干基层法院跨行政区域管辖第一审行政案件。
例如，海淀区法院依北京市高级法院的指定，可以受理西城区、朝阳区的案件，以此来减少地方对行政案件的干预。
跨行政区域管辖审案，增大了行政机构干预案件的难度，同时也不会产生大的体制变动。
●方案二行政法院模式
该模式又可分为两种形式：一种是将行政庭从普通法院分出来，改为行政法院，提高它的权威性。这样不仅提高了行政法院的地位，也有利于积累行政审判经验。但这种做法不能解决地方干预的问题。
第二种形式是打破行政区域设置，与行政区划脱离。将三个县、五个县组合在一起，设一个基层行政法院；将三个市、五个市组合在一起，设一个中级行政法院；高级法院不变。这种由几个地方共同设一个行政法院的做法，打破了行政干预，也可以把行政法官集中在一起。但是，这种做法的缺点是改革的成本会大一点，因为要重新设置办公用楼等。
姜明安教授表示，这种行政法院模式的修法方案虽然好，但实现的可能性是非常低的，目前设立行政法院的条件还不成熟。
●方案三提级管辖
提级管辖方案指的是将一审行政案件提到由中级法院管辖，撤销基层法院的行政庭。
姜明安教授明确表示更赞成这种修法方案。他阐述理由如下：第一，区县级法院审理涉及所在区县级政府及其部门(如公安、财政、国土、教育等部门)的案件特别难于摆脱地方干预，难以公正。
第二，中级法院管辖第一审行政案件，二审直接由省高院审理。这样就直接摆脱了一审中的县级地方干预，也可摆脱二审中的地、市级干预。
姜明安教授表示，这也正是修正案(草案)中“确定若干基层法院跨行政区域管辖第一审行政案件”的方案做不到的。
第三，基层法院行政案件太少(平均每个基层法院每年受案约30件，平均每月不到3件)。这既不利于节约司法资源，也不利于审判人员积累行政审判经验。
同时，由于基层法院行政案件太少，一些行政法官因无活儿干而被借调去搞非诉执行，如征收、拆迁等，这使行政相对人对民告官诉讼失去信任和信心。
第四，建立行政法院。这种对行政审判体制做重大改革的方案在短期内很难实现。
当然，实行中级法院管辖第一审行政案件的方案，有人会担心给诉讼当事人带来不便。这种担心不必要，因为今后中级法院如集中管辖一审行政案件，可设置多个巡回审判庭。同时，规定巡回审判庭受案、审案时主要设在区县基层法院，甚至可设在原告所在的乡、镇、村，以便于当事人诉讼。
●方案四最高法设分院
这个方案是最高人民法院提出的，其内容就是由最高法在全国各大区(东北、西北、东南、西南等)设立最高法院分院或者派出法庭主管行政诉讼，同时，将行政诉讼二审制改为三审制。
在基层法院一审，中级法院二审，然后可到最高法院分院或者派出法庭三审。案子到了大区的行政法院(最高法院分院或者派出法庭)，不要说县市干预不了，省级干预都很难。
姜明安教授指出，现在的行政诉讼从事实上讲，是有三审、四审，甚至五审的。由于当事人案结不了，就会不断申诉，法院也就要不断再审。如果从制度上就规定三审后不再受理申诉，可以更好地保障公正与效率的统一。
1949-1979年没有行政诉讼，所以也不存在行政审判体制。
1980-1982年开始有了行政诉讼的萌芽：普通法院按照单行法受理行政案件，不过当时没有统一的行政诉讼法，没有建立统一的行政诉讼制度，仅靠几个单行法的规定。
1982-1986年制定了《民事诉讼法(试行)》，该法第3条规定，凡是法律规定法院受理的行政案件，按照民事诉讼程序审理。这样，那个时期规定法院受理的行政案件的法律法规有《食品卫生法》、《森林法》、《药品管理法》、《征用土地条例》等几十项。
1986-1990年行政审判体制开始转向双轨制，有的地方开始设立专门行政庭审理行政案件，没有设行政庭的仍在民事庭审理行政案件。
1990年-至今制定了《行政诉讼法》，统一了行政审判体制，所有行政案件都由法院行政庭受理。
文/记者 纪欣
(原标题：民告官直接到中院更可行)
赞