【摘要】：行政征收是國家權(quán)力的一種表現(xiàn)形式，它是國家為了公共利益的需要，無須經(jīng)財(cái)產(chǎn)所有人同意而取得公民私人財(cái)產(chǎn)或?qū)ζ溥M(jìn)行限制的具體行政行為。司法審查是司法機(jī)關(guān)對行政機(jī)關(guān)作出的行政行為進(jìn)行合法性和合理性審查，并作出相應(yīng)裁決的法律制度，是推進(jìn)依法行政、維護(hù)社會公平正義的重要手段。本文以司法審查對行政征收權(quán)的控制為基礎(chǔ)，借鑒兩大法系關(guān)于司法審查強(qiáng)度的理論和實(shí)踐，，從對法律問題、事實(shí)問題和行政裁量等方面的司法審查入手，對我國行政征收司法審查強(qiáng)度的現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析討論，并對我國應(yīng)采取的行政征收司法審查強(qiáng)度提出建議。 本文共分三章。第一章為概述。首先，明確了本文所研究的行政征收的定義，即“行政主體依據(jù)法律規(guī)定，以社會公共利益為目的，以強(qiáng)制方式取得公民、法人或其他組織的財(cái)產(chǎn)所有權(quán)或?qū)λ袡?quán)進(jìn)行限制，并給予公平補(bǔ)償?shù)木唧w行政行為”。隨后，以比較分析兩大法系的司法審查強(qiáng)度理論為基礎(chǔ)，對司法審查強(qiáng)度的涵義、涉及的主要方面和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行詳細(xì)論述。 第二章主要介紹分析我國行政征收司法審查強(qiáng)度的現(xiàn)狀和存在的問題。在對法律問題的審查上，存在外部體制沒有理順、法院對法律問題的解釋權(quán)偏弱以及判例法律淵源地位未確立等問題。在對事實(shí)問題的審查上，存在法律審和事實(shí)審的爭議，并重點(diǎn)分析了法院對事實(shí)問題的調(diào)查權(quán)力。在對行政裁量問題的審查上，存在將行政裁量與不確定法律概念混淆以及對濫用行政裁量權(quán)的監(jiān)督不力等問題。 第三章對我國行政征收司法審查應(yīng)采取的審查強(qiáng)度提出了建議。針對征收目的、征收程序和征收補(bǔ)償?shù)膶彶閺?qiáng)度提出改進(jìn)意見，認(rèn)為對三者應(yīng)分別采取全面審查、合法性審查及合理性審查的強(qiáng)度標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。
[Abstract]:Administrative expropriation is a form of state power. It is a specific administrative act in which the state acquires or restricts the private property of citizens without the consent of the owner of the property for the needs of the public interest. Judicial review is a legal system in which the judicial organs review the legitimacy and rationality of the administrative acts made by the administrative organs and make corresponding rules. it is an important means to promote the administration according to law and maintain social fairness and justice. Based on the control of administrative collection power by judicial review, drawing lessons from the theory and practice of judicial review intensity in the two legal systems, starting with the judicial review of legal issues, factual problems and administrative discretion, this paper analyzes and discusses the present situation of the judicial review intensity of administrative expropriation in our country, and puts forward some suggestions on the judicial review intensity of administrative expropriation that should be taken in our country. This paper is divided into three chapters. The first chapter is an overview. First of all, it clarifies the definition of administrative expropriation studied in this paper, that is, "according to the provisions of the law, the administrative subject acquires the property ownership of citizens, legal persons or other organizations by compulsory means for the purpose of social and public interests, or restricts the ownership of property, and gives fair compensation." Then, based on the comparative analysis of the theory of judicial review intensity in the two legal systems, the meaning of judicial review intensity, the main aspects and standards involved are discussed in detail. The second chapter mainly introduces and analyzes the present situation and existing problems of the judicial review intensity of administrative expropriation in our country. In the examination of legal issues, there are some problems, such as the external system has not been straightened out, the power of interpretation of legal issues by the court is weak and the status of the legal source of the case has not been established. In the examination of the factual problem, there are disputes between the legal trial and the factual trial, and the power of the court to investigate the factual issue is analyzed in detail. In the examination of the problem of administrative discretion, there are some problems, such as confusing the concept of administrative discretion with uncertain legal concepts and weak supervision of the abuse of administrative discretion. The third chapter puts forward some suggestions on the intensity of judicial review of administrative expropriation in our country. In view of the purpose of expropriation, the paper puts forward some suggestions for improving the intensity of expropriation procedure and expropriation compensation, and holds that the intensity standards of comprehensive review, legitimacy review and reasonableness review should be taken for the three purposes respectively.
【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】：2012
【分類號】：D922.181;D921

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 姜玉琴;;德國行政征收制度探析[J];決策與信息(財(cái)經(jīng)觀察);2008年05期

2 沈開舉;;論征收征用權(quán)[J];理論月刊;2009年02期

3 王洪平;房紹坤;;論征收中公共利益的驗(yàn)證標(biāo)準(zhǔn)與司法審查[J];法學(xué)論壇;2006年05期

4 王靜;;中美土地征收和土地糾紛解決機(jī)制研討會綜述[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2008年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 楊偉東;行政行為司法審查強(qiáng)度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2001年

2 趙保慶;行政行為的司法審查[D];中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院;2002年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉媛媛;行政征收補(bǔ)償法律規(guī)則之探討[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年

本文編號：2509464