本文選題：查封 + 扣押��； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 目前我國(guó)正在制定統(tǒng)一的《中華人民共和國(guó)行政強(qiáng)制法》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱《行政強(qiáng)制法》)。由于一直沒(méi)有統(tǒng)一的法律規(guī)范,致使行政機(jī)關(guān)執(zhí)法時(shí),存在濫用行政強(qiáng)制手段的現(xiàn)象,尤其是查封、扣押等財(cái)產(chǎn)方面的強(qiáng)制措施,更是用得過(guò)多、過(guò)濫,缺乏立法上、行政上和司法上的監(jiān)督和規(guī)制,可以說(shuō)立法滯后于實(shí)踐的需要,給行政相對(duì)人的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利造成很大侵害。這不利于我國(guó)社會(huì)主義法治的進(jìn)步和依法行政的實(shí)施。 行政強(qiáng)制措施是查封、扣押的上位概念。要對(duì)查封、扣押有深入的認(rèn)識(shí)就必須首先弄清行政強(qiáng)制措施的性質(zhì)。由于理論界對(duì)于行政強(qiáng)制措施的概念眾說(shuō)紛紜,劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn)也不統(tǒng)一,造成對(duì)查封、扣押強(qiáng)制措施的性質(zhì)認(rèn)識(shí)不明。本文第一部分從行政強(qiáng)制措施概念的演變說(shuō)起,闡述行政強(qiáng)制措施的性質(zhì)、特點(diǎn)及與相關(guān)概念的區(qū)別。查封、扣押是行政強(qiáng)制措施的具體表現(xiàn)形式,不僅符合行政強(qiáng)制措施的性質(zhì),還具有自身的一些特點(diǎn)。在明確了行政強(qiáng)制措施性質(zhì)的基礎(chǔ)上,筆者將對(duì)查封、扣押的概念進(jìn)行分別論述,并總結(jié)出它們的共同特點(diǎn)。 查封、扣押在我國(guó)的實(shí)踐中存在著許多亟待解決的問(wèn)題,如立法上,缺乏統(tǒng)一性、科學(xué)性的規(guī)定,執(zhí)法過(guò)程中,行政機(jī)關(guān)的查封、扣押行為極為混亂等。本文第二部分就從立法和執(zhí)法兩個(gè)方面分別闡釋查封、扣押存在的問(wèn)題。 它山之石,可以攻玉。本文第三部分將對(duì)其他國(guó)家或地區(qū)行政法中關(guān)于查封、扣押的規(guī)定予以介紹。筆者選取了英美法系的代表國(guó)家英國(guó),大陸法系的代表國(guó)家德國(guó)和結(jié)合了英美法系與大陸法系特點(diǎn)的日本這三個(gè)典型國(guó)家加以論述,從中汲取這些國(guó)家在查封、扣押立法和制度上的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。 查封、扣押制度的構(gòu)建是一個(gè)系統(tǒng)工程。查封、扣押統(tǒng)一立法的構(gòu)建包括查封、扣押應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的原則、適用條件、期限、行政主體的義務(wù)和相對(duì)人的權(quán)利、法律救濟(jì)等多方面的內(nèi)容。本文第四部分就將針對(duì)查封、扣押在現(xiàn)實(shí)中存在的問(wèn)題和《行政強(qiáng)制法》(征求意見(jiàn)稿)的規(guī)定,提出相應(yīng)的解決辦法和立法建議,希望能對(duì)《行政強(qiáng)制法》的制定有所幫助。
[Abstract]:At present, our country is making the unified Administrative compulsory Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the Administrative compulsory Law). Since there has been no uniform legal norm, the phenomenon of abuse of administrative coercive measures, especially in the areas of seizure and seizure of property, has been found in the enforcement of law by administrative organs, which is even more excessive, excessive and lacking in legislation. Administrative and judicial supervision and regulation, it can be said that legislation lags behind the needs of practice, to the property rights of administrative counterpart caused great infringement. This is not conducive to the progress of our socialist rule of law and the implementation of administration by law. Administrative coercive measures are the upper concept of seizure and seizure. In order to have a deep understanding of seizure, we must first understand the nature of administrative coercive measures. There are different opinions on the concept of administrative coercive measures and the standard of division is not uniform in the theoretical circle, which results in an unclear understanding of the nature of the compulsory measures of seizure and seizure. The first part of this paper begins with the evolution of the concept of administrative coercive measures, expounds the nature, characteristics and differences between administrative coercive measures and related concepts. Seizure and seizure are the concrete forms of administrative coercive measures, which not only accord with the nature of administrative coercive measures, but also have their own characteristics. On the basis of defining the nature of administrative coercive measures, the author will discuss the concepts of seizure and seizure, and summarize their common characteristics. In the practice of our country, there are many problems that need to be solved urgently, such as the lack of unity in legislation, the scientific regulation, the seizure of administrative organs and the extremely chaotic behavior in the course of law enforcement. The second part explains the problems of sequestration and seizure from the aspects of legislation and law enforcement. The stone of the mountain can attack jade. The third part of this paper will introduce the provisions of the administrative law of other countries or regions on seizure and seizure. The author chooses the representative country of Anglo-American law system, Britain, the representative country of civil law system, Germany and Japan, which combines the characteristics of Anglo-American law system and civil law system, to discuss, and draw lessons from these countries to seize the seal. Experience in seizure legislation and institutions. The construction of sequestration and seizure system is a systematic project. The construction of uniform legislation of seizure and seizure includes the principles of seizure, conditions of application, time limit, obligations of administrative subject, rights of relative parties, legal relief and so on. The fourth part of this article will aim at the problems existing in the reality of the seizure and the provisions of the Administrative compulsory Law (draft for soliciting opinions), and put forward the corresponding solutions and legislative suggestions, hoping to be helpful to the formulation of the Administrative compulsory Law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D922.1

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 蔣山花;舒小亮;;論行政扣押行為的執(zhí)法困境與化解思路[J];法治論壇;2010年03期

2 黃懷權(quán);張建偉;;論中國(guó)反興奮劑賽外檢查強(qiáng)制措施的法律屬性及規(guī)制[J];廣州體育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2013年02期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 胡素琴;論工商行政強(qiáng)制措施的現(xiàn)狀與完善[D];安徽大學(xué);2010年

2 杜瑩;論公安行政扣押中的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)保障[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

3 張鵬;試論電子證據(jù)在保密行政執(zhí)法中的作用和運(yùn)用[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

4 王榮;稅收行政強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：1803736