本文選題：行政訴訟法　切入點：跨行政區(qū)域管轄　出處：《遼寧大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2015年頒布實施的新修改的《行政訴訟法》存在著一些沒能解決的舊問題和新的不足。依然將“原告就被告”作為行政訴訟的一般地域管轄規(guī)則,又不能擴(kuò)大行政相對人的管轄選擇權(quán)和異議權(quán),“原告就被告”的一般地域管轄原則曾經(jīng)為我國行政訴訟法的理論發(fā)展和實踐進(jìn)步都發(fā)揮了積極的作用,有其合理性的一面。然而在跨區(qū)域交往頻繁的今天很難顧及到行政相對人的訴訟便利,又為地方干預(yù)司法提供了溫床。新法確立的跨行政區(qū)域管轄制度是正確的是先進(jìn)的,但是就目前而言還缺少詳盡統(tǒng)一的實施辦法和標(biāo)準(zhǔn),路徑的不明確將不利于法制統(tǒng)一;單單就目前跨行政區(qū)域管轄制度的規(guī)定而言也有去地方化不力,提高原告的訴訟成本和增加調(diào)解難度的問題。結(jié)合審判工作的實際情況發(fā)現(xiàn),在今后的探索中,如果既能夠擴(kuò)大行政相對人的管轄選擇權(quán)和異議權(quán)的范圍,又能建立“被告就原告”為原則的一般地域管轄制度(法定管轄),并與跨行政區(qū)域管轄制度對接實施。這樣的制度設(shè)計不但能降低原告的訴訟成本減少訴累,符合方便原告訴訟原則的要求,而且對規(guī)范行政機(jī)關(guān)依法合理行政和遏制行政機(jī)關(guān)干預(yù)法院獨立公正審判也具有重要意義。新修改的《行政訴訟法》中提高了以縣級政府為被告的一審管轄法院的級別,既提升為中級法院。這一新的級別管轄制度只照顧到了 “縣法院不能審理縣政府”的問題,卻有悖于方便原告訴訟的原則,“顧此失彼”,反倒不如建立以基層法院審理行政訴訟一審案件為主的級別管轄制度和三審終審的審級制度。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)在遵循并綜合運用方便原告訴訟原則;保證法院獨立審判和有力執(zhí)行原則;原則性與靈活性相結(jié)合原則的前提下。建立以“被告就原告”的一般地域管轄制度為法定的地域管轄,同時具體落實跨行政區(qū)域管轄制度,適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大行政相對人的管轄選擇權(quán)范圍并賦予一定的管轄異議權(quán)為補充的地域管轄制度。建立基層法院審理行政訴訟一審案件為法定管轄的三審終審制度。
[Abstract]:The new revised Administrative Litigation Law, enacted and implemented in 2015, has some old problems and new deficiencies that have not been resolved. "the plaintiff is the defendant" is still regarded as the general territorial jurisdiction rule in administrative litigation. The general territorial jurisdiction principle of "the plaintiff on the defendant" has played an active role in the theoretical development and practical progress of the administrative procedure law of our country. However, it is difficult to take into account the litigation convenience of the administrative counterpart and provides a hotbed for the local intervention in the administration of justice. The cross-administrative jurisdiction system established by the new law is correct and advanced. However, at present, there is still a lack of detailed and uniform implementation methods and standards, and the lack of clarity in the path will not be conducive to the unification of the rule of law; there is also a lack of regionalization in terms of the provisions of the current system of cross-administrative jurisdiction. The problems of raising the litigation cost of the plaintiff and increasing the difficulty of mediation. Combined with the actual situation of the trial work, it is found that in the future exploration, if the scope of the administrative counterpart's jurisdiction, option and dissent can be expanded, It is also possible to establish a general territorial jurisdiction system (statutory jurisdiction and inter-administrative jurisdiction) based on the principle of "defendant versus plaintiff". Such a system design can not only reduce the litigation costs of the plaintiff, but also reduce the litigation burden. Meeting the requirements of the principle of facilitating the plaintiff's action, Moreover, it is also of great significance to standardize the administration of administrative organs according to law and reasonable administration and to deter administrative organs from interfering in the independent and fair trial of the court. The newly revised Administrative procedure Law has raised the level of the court of first instance where the county government is the defendant. This new level of jurisdiction only takes into account the fact that "the county court cannot hear the county government." However, it is contrary to the principle of facilitating the plaintiff's litigation. "taking care of one side and the other", it is better to establish a hierarchy jurisdiction system based on the first instance cases of administrative litigation in the grass-roots courts and a system of the final instance of the third instance. The author thinks that the system should be followed and followed. Comprehensive application of the principle of convenient plaintiff litigation; Ensuring that the Court will be independent and capable of enforcing the principles; on the premise of the principle of combining principle with flexibility, to establish a legal territorial jurisdiction based on the general system of territorial jurisdiction of "defendant versus plaintiff", and at the same time to concretely implement the system of cross-administrative regional jurisdiction, The system of regional jurisdiction, which is supplemented by a certain right of dissent from jurisdiction, should be extended appropriately to the scope of the administrative counterpart's right of choice, and the third instance final appeal system of the first instance case of administrative litigation in the basic level court should be established.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：遼寧大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葛先園;;我國行政訴訟簡易程序檢視——以新《行政訴訟法》第82條為中心[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2016年02期

2 李杰;張傳毅;;行政案件集中管轄模式初探:理論定位與實踐選擇[J];法律適用;2014年05期

3 付洪林;竇家應(yīng);;行政訴訟提級管轄改革的探索與實踐——以廣東法院提級管轄改革為樣本[J];法律適用;2014年05期

4 江必新;;中國行政審判體制改革研究——兼論我國行政法院體系構(gòu)建的基礎(chǔ)、依據(jù)及構(gòu)想[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2013年04期

5 何海波;;行政法治,我們還有多遠(yuǎn)[J];政法論壇;2013年06期

6 李小萍;;論法院的地方性[J];法學(xué)評論;2013年03期

7 江必新;;完善行政訴訟制度的若干思考[J];中國法學(xué);2013年01期

8 何海波;;困頓的行政訴訟[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2012年02期

9 胡肖華;謝忠華;;論行政訴訟目的的多維性[J];湖湘論壇;2010年05期

10 吳曉;;從行政訴訟管轄改革看行政訴訟的出路[J];政法學(xué)刊;2010年03期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前3條

1 李林;;何謂“獨立審判原則”[N];北京日報;2014年

2 楊建順;;完善管轄制度要注重既有資源[N];檢察日報;2014年

3 楊建順;;行政訴訟法修改應(yīng)多吸收以往研究成果[N];檢察日報;2013年

，

本文編號：1676357