本文選題：共同被告 + 法律責(zé)任　； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：2015年修改的《行政訴訟法》對經(jīng)復(fù)議的行政訴訟案件被告資格作了新的規(guī)定。這緣于在修改前的舊法運行過程中,行政復(fù)議機關(guān)為了避免成為被告,往往對申請事項采取回避的態(tài)度,導(dǎo)致復(fù)議案件大多以維持決定結(jié)案,使得行政復(fù)議維持率常年處于高位,也降低了行政相對人通過申請行政復(fù)議的方式解決行政糾紛的積極性。因而,為了促使復(fù)議機關(guān)認(rèn)真履行復(fù)議職責(zé),實現(xiàn)行政復(fù)議制度設(shè)計之初應(yīng)有的功能,新法對行政訴訟案件的被告資格作了修正。其中明確了復(fù)議維持的情況下,復(fù)議機關(guān)須與原行政機關(guān)作共同被告,相比之前復(fù)議機關(guān)僅在作出改變決定的情況下方作被告的規(guī)定,其作被告的概率大大增加。然而,隨著行政復(fù)議工作的不斷深入,對于行政訴訟敗訴情況下復(fù)議機關(guān)與原行政機關(guān)的法律責(zé)任承擔(dān)問題,現(xiàn)有的法律、法規(guī)對其規(guī)定過于籠統(tǒng)粗略,具體的責(zé)任追究制度還存在空白,這就導(dǎo)致行政訴訟法對被告資格的這一制度設(shè)計仍然面臨行政復(fù)議高維持率這一現(xiàn)狀。尤其是,行政復(fù)議機關(guān)與作出原行政機關(guān)作為共同被告在訴訟法學(xué)上不同于一般共同被告,這就使得經(jīng)復(fù)議的行政訴訟案件共同被告成為一種獨特的法律現(xiàn)象,研究兩者之間的責(zé)任追究制度有了自身獨立的價值和實踐意義。本文主要采用理論分析、實證分析等方法進(jìn)行以下各部分的闡述。第一部分闡述經(jīng)復(fù)議案件共同被告法律責(zé)任的基礎(chǔ)理論,清晰界定概念是進(jìn)行相關(guān)研究的前提和基礎(chǔ)。第二部分是就我國經(jīng)復(fù)議行政訴訟案件敗訴的實踐現(xiàn)狀入手,通過案例的形式對原行政行為與復(fù)議行為的各種違法類型進(jìn)行分類討論,在具體的梳理過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)問題,并對相關(guān)行政機關(guān)的法律責(zé)任進(jìn)行論證。第三部分則是對于經(jīng)復(fù)議行政訴訟案件共同被告敗訴承擔(dān)法律責(zé)任的制度構(gòu)建。這部分主要基于前兩部分的理論分析、實踐現(xiàn)狀等,結(jié)合我國與外國行政機關(guān)法律責(zé)任承擔(dān)理論構(gòu)成差異,提出復(fù)議機關(guān)與作出原行政行為的行政機關(guān)之間的責(zé)任認(rèn)定以及相關(guān)責(zé)任追究體系,填補制度空白,進(jìn)一步規(guī)范行政復(fù)議過程中的復(fù)議行為,使得行政復(fù)議制度發(fā)揮其應(yīng)有的功能與效用。
[Abstract]:The revised Administrative Litigation Law in 2015 makes new provisions on the qualification of defendants in administrative litigation cases after reconsideration. This is due to the fact that in the course of the operation of the old law before the amendment, in order to avoid becoming an accused, the administrative review organs often take an evasive attitude towards the application matters, leading to the majority of cases being reviewed to maintain the decision to close the case. It makes the maintenance rate of administrative reconsideration high all year round and reduces the enthusiasm of administrative counterpart to solve administrative disputes by applying for administrative reconsideration. Therefore, in order to urge the administrative review organ to perform the duty of reconsideration seriously and realize the function that the administrative reconsideration system should have at the beginning of the design, the new law has amended the qualification of the defendant in the administrative lawsuit case. It is clear that if the reconsideration is maintained, the reconsideration organ should be a co-defendant with the former administrative organ. Compared with the previous provision that the reconsideration organ only acted as the defendant under the circumstances of making a change of decision, the probability of being a defendant has increased greatly. However, with the deepening of the administrative reconsideration work, the existing laws and regulations on the legal liability of the review organ and the former administrative organ in the case of administrative litigation failure are too general and rough. There is still a gap in the specific accountability system, which leads to the administrative procedure law to the defendant qualification of this system design still faces the administrative review of the high maintenance rate of the status quo. In particular, the administrative review organs and the former administrative organs are different from the common co-defendants in procedural law, which makes the reviewed administrative cases co-defendants become a unique legal phenomenon. The study of the accountability system between the two has its own independent value and practical significance. This paper mainly uses theoretical analysis, empirical analysis and other methods to elaborate the following parts. The first part expounds the basic theory of the legal liability of co-defendants in the case of reconsideration, and clearly defines the concept is the premise and foundation of relevant research. The second part is to start with the current situation of the practice of losing the case of administrative litigation after reconsideration in our country. Through the form of case, the author classifies the original administrative act and the illegal type of reconsideration behavior, and finds out the problems in the concrete combing process. And to the relevant administrative organ legal responsibility carries on the demonstration. The third part is about the system construction of the legal liability of the co-defendant in the administrative litigation case after reconsideration. This part is mainly based on the first two parts of the theoretical analysis, practice, and so on, combined with our country and foreign administrative organs to bear the legal responsibility of theoretical differences, Proposing the responsibility determination and related accountability system between the review organ and the administrative organ that made the original administrative act, filling in the gaps in the system, and further standardizing the reconsideration act in the administrative reconsideration process, To make the administrative review system play its due function and effectiveness.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D925.3

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 ;變更適用法律后復(fù)議機關(guān)當(dāng)被告[J];政治與法律;1993年05期

2 ;復(fù)議機關(guān)能否作為被告?[J];中國土地;1997年11期

3 ;關(guān)于貫徹實施中華人民共和國行政復(fù)議法推進(jìn)依法行政工作的通知[J];勞動保障通訊;1999年09期

4 ;行政委托[J];工商行政管理;2000年07期

5 李鳳鳴;;復(fù)議機關(guān)的復(fù)議行為必須合法[J];發(fā)展;2008年08期

6 金國民;對縣級政府復(fù)議機關(guān)無案可復(fù)的思索[J];政府法制;1996年01期

7 ;關(guān)于貫徹實施中華人民共和國行政復(fù)議法推進(jìn)依法行政工作的通知[J];勞動理論與實踐;1999年11期

8 楊君培;;復(fù)議機關(guān)應(yīng)維護(hù)行政機關(guān)合法行政行為[J];發(fā)展;2008年11期

9 曾照旭;王鋒;;復(fù)議機關(guān)不能徑行作出確權(quán)決定[J];人民司法;2012年22期

10 席小俐;;訴訟期間復(fù)議機關(guān)作出的復(fù)議決定應(yīng)視為無效行為[J];法律適用;1993年09期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 袁文報;對復(fù)議機關(guān)不作為的起訴期限應(yīng)為二年[N];檢察日報;2006年

2 本報記者 陳麗平;復(fù)議機關(guān)應(yīng)否當(dāng)被告有不同意見[N];法制日報;2014年

3 卞文斌;復(fù)議機關(guān)應(yīng)為行政訴訟第三人[N];檢察日報;2003年

4 江蘇省徐州市云龍區(qū)人民法院 祁貴明;非被告的復(fù)議機關(guān)或原行政機關(guān)訴訟地位探析[N];人民法院報;2010年

5 本報記者 李立;復(fù)議機關(guān)該不該坐上被告席[N];法制日報;2010年

6 焦玉珍;復(fù)議機關(guān)決定不予受理時只能起訴該決定[N];人民法院報;2006年

7 中國土地礦產(chǎn)法律事務(wù)中心 翟國徽;起訴復(fù)議機關(guān)不予受理決定,以誰為被告[N];中國國土資源報;2013年

8 安徽省馬鞍山市工商局 趙蕓;地方人民政府能否作為復(fù)議機關(guān)需要區(qū)別對待[N];中國工商報;2010年

9 安徽省利辛縣國土資源局 趙濤;正確選擇復(fù)議前置案件中的起訴對象[N];中國國土資源報;2008年

10 江蘇省常熟市人民法院 徐正龍　鄧志萍;特殊情況下行政訴訟被告資格之界定[N];人民法院報;2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 袁天水;復(fù)議機關(guān)與原行政機關(guān)作共同被告敗訴的法律責(zé)任研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號：1793477