论规范性文件司法审查中的“抵触”标准被引量：4

On the Standard of “Contradiction” in the Judicial Reviewof Normative Documents

导出

摘要抵触标准是一项权限合法前提下的内容审查标准,其在规范性文件司法审查中内涵的确定,需要在明确规范性文件整体权限的基础上,对具体抵触判断方法进行合理设定。过去法院在肯定规范性文件创设性的同时,仅进行明显字面冲突的审查,导致了抵触标准内涵的过度简化。为实现行政现实需要与司法审查职责有效履行之间的平衡,有必要在部分承认规范性文件创设功能的同时,引入间接抵触审查来丰富抵触标准的规范内涵,这一做法在我国具有法律依据且能获得司法实践的支撑。结合我国立法与司法现状,可在考虑事项性质、上位法授权情况、所涉公民权利类型等因素的基础上,形成“宽松-中等-严格”三种不同强度的抵触标准。在宽松抵触标准下,法院仅进行形式上的抵触审查;中等抵触标准包含对合理性的初步审查,要求规范性文件不存在明显不合理之处,且有助于达成正当行政目的;严格抵触标准包含对合理性的深入审查,法院需要进行更为审慎的利益衡量,并要求行政机关承担更多的说理义务。 Standard of contradiction is a standard of review on contents of rules based on the precondition of lawful authority,and its connotation in judicial review of normative documents needs to be defined by clarifying the authority of normative documents as a whole and setting judgment methods appropriately.Former courts approved normative documents’creativity function while reviewing,review only for obvious literal conflicts,leading to an overly simplified standard of contradiction.In order to achieve a balance between administrative reality and substantive judicial review,it's necessary to introduce indirect contradiction review to enrich the connotation of the standard,while partly admit the creativity function of normative documents.This approach shall have legal bases and has been sustained by judicial practice.Judging on China's legislation and judicial system,this article proposals a three-leveled standard of contradiction divided by intension of loose,moderate and rigorous,based on factors such as the attribution of sued affairs,the authority in upper laws,and the type of involved citizen's rights.Under loose contradiction standard,courts only conduct formal contradiction reviews.Moderate contradiction standard includes a preliminary review of rationality,requiring that normative documents do not contain obvious irrationality and contribute to achieving legitimate administrative purposes.Rigorous contradiction standard includes in-depth examination of reasonableness,and courts need to conduct more cautious weighing of interests and require administrative agencies to provide more thorough reasoning.

作者戴杕 DAI Di(Institute of Law of China Academy of Social Sciences,Beijing 100009)

机构地区中国社会科学院法学研究所

出处《行政法学研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2023年第6期123-133,共11页 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW

基金 2019年中国社会科学院创新工程重大科研规划项目“国家治理体系和治理能力现代化研究”(项目编号:2019ZDGH014)。

关键词规范性文件附带审查抵触审查标准 Normative Documents Incidental Review Contradiction Standards of Review

分类号 D922.1 [政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D925.3 [政治法律—诉讼法学]

作者简介戴杕,助理研究员。