發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-17 15:34

  本文選題：權(quán)限不行使　切入點(diǎn)：國家賠償責(zé)任　出處：《山東大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：針對(duì)行政機(jī)關(guān)公務(wù)人員不履行或不完全履行其作為義務(wù),怠于履行其職責(zé)的行政不作為應(yīng)當(dāng)追究其法律責(zé)任,本文主要從國家的危險(xiǎn)防止責(zé)任入手,論證了具體行政機(jī)關(guān)消極行使其規(guī)制權(quán)限,沒有采取積極有效的措施導(dǎo)致?lián)p害結(jié)果發(fā)生的違法性,從而確定了對(duì)被害者的國家賠償責(zé)任。文章具體分為以下五個(gè)部分。 第一部分從國家賠償責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件出發(fā),通過比較國內(nèi)外關(guān)于國家賠償?shù)姆秶皻w責(zé)原則的規(guī)定,總結(jié)出國家賠償法上的違法評(píng)價(jià)標(biāo)準(zhǔn),應(yīng)認(rèn)定相關(guān)行政機(jī)關(guān)具有執(zhí)行公務(wù)的行政權(quán)限,而具體工作人員因故意或過錯(cuò)違背其對(duì)行政相對(duì)人的應(yīng)盡職責(zé)而損害了他人的合法權(quán)益,其行為欠缺合理性、違反了法律法規(guī)及一般法律原則或法律目的,受到損害的特定公民有權(quán)主張國家賠償。 第二部分從理論上探討了是否可以追究行政機(jī)關(guān)不行使規(guī)制權(quán)限的國家賠償責(zé)任,這里的規(guī)制權(quán)限不行使屬于行政不作為的一種,即應(yīng)當(dāng)主動(dòng)行使規(guī)制權(quán)限防止損害發(fā)生卻沒有采取任何積極有效的措施。由于行政機(jī)關(guān)基于法律授權(quán)對(duì)其行使權(quán)限具有自由裁量權(quán),如何控制、收縮其裁量權(quán)是認(rèn)定行政機(jī)關(guān)權(quán)限不行使違法性的關(guān)鍵。根據(jù)當(dāng)前流行的裁量權(quán)零收縮論、安全性確保義務(wù)及裁量權(quán)消極濫用理論我們能夠認(rèn)定,國家或公共組織的公務(wù)員不行使其規(guī)制權(quán)限,依照規(guī)定這一權(quán)限的法令的宗旨、目的及該權(quán)限的性質(zhì)等,在具體情況下,當(dāng)其不行使超出容許的限度且明顯欠缺合理性時(shí),在與因權(quán)限不行使而受到損害被害者的關(guān)系上,適用國家賠償法認(rèn)定其違法。 第三部分則在上述理論的支持下,通過比較、分析相關(guān)案例整理了判斷行政機(jī)關(guān)權(quán)限不行使的違法性的四個(gè)基準(zhǔn)：首先,被害法益為生命、身體健康等重大法益；其次,存在著危險(xiǎn)或危險(xiǎn)性,且行政機(jī)關(guān)能夠預(yù)見該危險(xiǎn)或危險(xiǎn)性；第三,若行政機(jī)關(guān)積極采取措施則具有回避危險(xiǎn)結(jié)果的可能性；第四,被害人自身無法排除損害,對(duì)行政機(jī)關(guān)具有期待可能性。以上四個(gè)要件相互關(guān)聯(lián),不可分割。 第四部分具體討論基準(zhǔn)設(shè)定權(quán)限不行使在國家賠償法上的違法性。受立法機(jī)關(guān)委托制定規(guī)章、設(shè)定基準(zhǔn)的行政機(jī)關(guān)公務(wù)人員,負(fù)擔(dān)為確保行政相對(duì)人的生命、身體安全、維持健康而制定變更行政規(guī)范的作為義務(wù),在行使權(quán)限時(shí),應(yīng)依照科學(xué)技術(shù)水平的發(fā)展變化,及時(shí)制定、修正與科技水平相適應(yīng)的基準(zhǔn)規(guī)范。還應(yīng)考慮所預(yù)想的被害的性質(zhì)、程度及規(guī)模,結(jié)果回避、減輕的實(shí)現(xiàn)可能性等,適時(shí)、適當(dāng)?shù)匦惺箼?quán)限。 第五部分是對(duì)完善我國國家賠償法上的違法性要件的思考。通過本文的論證,希望借鑒國外經(jīng)驗(yàn)從三個(gè)方面完善我國當(dāng)前制度：修改現(xiàn)有立法模式,擴(kuò)大行政訴訟受案范圍；對(duì)行政行為實(shí)質(zhì)性審查,回溯立法目的及宗旨；發(fā)揮行政的事前作用,避免損害結(jié)果的發(fā)生。
[Abstract]:In view of the fact that the public servants of administrative organs do not perform or not fully fulfill their obligations of action and should be investigated for their legal responsibility if they are not performing their duties, this article mainly starts with the national responsibility of risk prevention. This paper demonstrates that the specific administrative organ passively exercises its regulatory authority and fails to take active and effective measures to lead to the illegality of the result of the damage, and thus determines the national liability for compensation to the victim. The article is divided into the following five parts. In the first part, starting from the constitutive requirements of the national compensation liability, by comparing the scope of the national compensation and the provisions of the principle of imputation at home and abroad, the author summarizes the illegal evaluation standards in the law of state compensation. It should be recognized that the relevant administrative organ has the administrative authority to perform official duties, and that the specific staff member infringes on the legitimate rights and interests of others because of intentional or fault breach of his due diligence to the administrative counterpart, and his behavior is not reasonable, In violation of laws and regulations and general legal principles or legal purposes, a particular citizen who has been injured has the right to claim state compensation. The second part discusses theoretically whether the administrative organs can be investigated for the state compensation responsibility which does not exercise the regulatory authority, which is a kind of administrative omission. That is, we should take the initiative to exercise the regulatory authority to prevent the damage but have not taken any active and effective measures. Because the administrative organ has the discretion to exercise the authority based on the legal authorization, how to control, Contraction of its discretion is the key to determine that the authority of an administrative organ does not exercise illegality. According to the current theory of zero contraction of discretion, the theory of security guarantee obligation and negative abuse of discretion, we can identify, A civil servant of a state or public organization who does not exercise his regulatory authority, in accordance with the purpose, purpose and nature of the decree providing for this authority, in specific circumstances, when he does not exercise the limits of permission and is manifestly lacking in reasonableness, The law of state compensation is applied to determine the violation of the law in relation to the victim who has been injured because his authority is not exercised. The third part is supported by the above theory, through the comparison, analyzed the related cases to sort out the administrative authority authority not to exercise the illegal nature four benchmarks: first, killed the law benefit for the life, the body health and so on important legal interest; secondly, There is a danger or danger, and the agency can foresee it; third, if the agency takes active measures, it is possible to avoid the dangerous result; and 4th, the victim cannot exclude the damage himself. The above four elements are interrelated and indivisible. Part 4th specifically discusses the illegality of not exercising the authority to set standards in the State compensation Law. The public servants of the administrative organs entrusted by the legislature to formulate rules and regulations to set standards shall bear the burden of ensuring the life and physical safety of the administrative counterpart. The duty to make changes in administrative norms while maintaining health shall, when exercising the authority, be timely formulated and revised in accordance with the development and changes in the level of science and technology, and shall also take into account the nature of the harm envisaged, Degree and scale, result avoidance, reduce the possibility of realization, timely, appropriate exercise of authority. The 5th part is to perfect the illegal elements in the state compensation law of our country. Through the argumentation of this article, I hope to perfect the current system of our country from three aspects: to modify the existing legislative model and to expand the scope of accepting cases in administrative litigation; Reviewing the administrative act, retroactively reviewing the legislative object and purpose, giving full play to the prior function of the administration, avoiding the occurrence of the injurious result.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：山東大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D922.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 王貴松;;行政裁量權(quán)收縮的法理基礎(chǔ)——職權(quán)職責(zé)義務(wù)化的轉(zhuǎn)換依據(jù)[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2009年02期

2 周佑勇;論行政不作為的救濟(jì)和責(zé)任[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));1997年04期

3 王貴松;;行政裁量權(quán)收縮之要件分析——以危險(xiǎn)防止型行政為中心[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年03期

4 周漢華;論國家賠償?shù)倪^錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則[J];法學(xué)研究;1996年03期

5 許曉波;略論行政不作為違法的國家賠償問題[J];南京財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

6 薛專,張建華,張豪;行政不作為損害賠償問題淺探[J];山東審判;2001年04期

7 曾祥瑞;日本國家賠償特別領(lǐng)域要論[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2004年01期

8 胡建淼;杜儀方;;依職權(quán)行政不作為賠償?shù)倪`法判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)——基于日本判例的鉤沉[J];中國法學(xué);2010年01期

9 朱新力;行政不作為違法之國家賠償責(zé)任[J];浙江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2001年02期

，

本文編號(hào)：1625355