摘要
通过对基层司法裁判的观察,裁量基准的司法审查已经获致一些尝试并有所突破,但同时也存有正当性瑕疵。基于裁量基准作为行政自制规范而同时兼具规则主义和行政自制双重品格,其在司法过程中亦呈现出作为"审查依据"与"审查对象"的双重现象。在规则主义层面,法院需要衡量基准作为审查依据是否能够成立,检讨基准的法律效力是否及于外部,从而确定其是否具有法源地位。对此,法院尽管一般并不受基准拘束,但缘于专业性不足,依旧有参考基准的必要。另一方面,裁量基准作为行政自制的外在形式,亦需澄清司法权与寓于基准之中的裁量权之间的关系,尤其是对其中自制成分的尊重态度。对此,法院在审查标准上应主要围绕合法性而展开,在诸如公开性、设定义务等具体内容上,亦应保持对裁量基准自制属性的基本尊重。
The judicial review of discretion standard has been tested and has made a breakthrough through exploring judicial adjudication at a basic level, but justifiability defects also exist. Based on the dual character of doctrine of rules and administrative self-restriction of the discretion standard as an administrative self-restric- tion norm, it can be regarded as ＂basis of review＂ and ＂objective of review＂ in judicial process. With regard to the doctrine of rules, a court needs to decide whether a standard can be regarded as the basis of review or not and review whether the legal effect of a standard can still exist in external or not in order to confirm whether the standard has the status of the origin of laws or not. For these reasons, although a court is not subject the restriction of the standard, it is necessary to use the standard for reference because of the lack of expertise. On the other hand, as discretion standard is the external form of administrative self-restriction, it is also necessary to clarify the relationship between jurisdiction and adjudication embodied in the standard and the attitude to- wards respecting the element of self-restriction in the standard in particular, In this regard, a court should fo- cus on the legality of standard review and should also keep the basic respect for the self-restriction attribute of discretion standard in concrete contents such as publicity, setting obligations and etc.
出处
《中国法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第6期166-179,共14页
China Legal Science
基金
国家社会科学基金项目<行政裁量基准制度研究>(项目编号:08BFX020)的成果之一
作者简介
东南大学法学院教授，博士生导师。
