發(fā)布時間：2018-05-06 21:40

  本文選題：指導案例 + 類型�。� 參考：《重慶大學學報(社會科學版)》2017年06期

【摘要】：行政訴訟指導案例具有統(tǒng)一司法尺度、明確法律規(guī)范的含義等作用。目前,最高法院遴選的行政訴訟指導存在裁判要點提煉水平較低、"帶病"入選情況嚴重、輕視權(quán)利救濟的思維嚴重以及重復或變相重復法律法規(guī)和司法解釋等四大弊端,從而使得指導案例與其應有功能相去甚遠。為此,可考慮就以下四方面從深度和廣度上進行改進,以體現(xiàn)指導案例的應有功能:(1)加強對指導案例的研究以提高裁判要點的提煉水平;(2)建立指導案例公示制度以防止"帶病"入選;(3)堅持權(quán)利救濟導向以糾正偏重權(quán)力監(jiān)督的目標偏好;(4)突出裁判要點的先導功能以避免重復或變相重復法規(guī)和司法解釋。
[Abstract]:The guiding cases of administrative litigation have the function of unifying the judicial yardstick and clarifying the meaning of legal norms. At present, there are four disadvantages in the guidance of administrative litigation selected by the Supreme Court, such as the low level of abstracting judgment points, the serious selection of "ill", the serious thinking of despising the right relief, the repeated or disguised repetition of laws and regulations and the judicial interpretation. Thus, the guiding case is far from its proper function. To this end, consideration could be given to improving the depth and breadth of the following four areas: (1) strengthen the research on guiding cases to improve the refining level of judgment points / 2) establish a system of publicity of guiding cases to prevent "disease" from being selected to 3) insist on the right relief guide to correct the bias of power The objective preference of force supervision is to emphasize the leading function of judgment points in order to avoid repetition of laws and judicial interpretations.
【作者單位】： 重慶工商大學重慶廉政研究中心;
【基金】：重慶市社科規(guī)劃(博士)項目(2014BS044) 2015年度中國博士后科學基金項目(2015M582510) 2016年度重慶市博士后特別資助項目(Xm2016100)
【分類號】：D925.3

【相似文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前7條

1 付楊;論我國的行政訴訟政策[D];鄭州大學;2017年

2 楊偉萍;行政訴訟交叉集中管轄制度研究[D];廣西大學;2017年

3 董曉U，

本文編號：1854008