本文選題：比例原則 + 過罰相當(dāng)原則��； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：比例原則是行政裁量的統(tǒng)一審查基準(zhǔn)。在行政處罰中,過罰相當(dāng)原則是約束行政處罰實體裁量的法定原則。從適用地位上,在處罰實體裁量中,比例原則可以成為過罰相當(dāng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之一;在處罰程序裁量中,比例原則是過罰相當(dāng)原則的有益補充。從適用方法上,比例原則的三階理論、審查強度、舉證責(zé)任和法律后果均可適用于行政處罰裁量之中。具體而言:第一部分梳理了比例原則的發(fā)展歷程和中國的引入。比例原則萌芽于合比例思想,起源于德國警察法,借由歐洲一體化推廣于歐洲,并為日本、臺灣等大陸法系國家或地區(qū)所借鑒。自1988年比例原則第一次引入中國,比例原則備受青睞,不僅被學(xué)界廣泛討論,在立法、行政和司法實踐中愈發(fā)重要。第二部分分析了行政處罰裁量的成文法規(guī)范。《中華人民共和國行政處罰法》第4條第2款規(guī)定的過罰相當(dāng)原則是約束行政處罰裁量的法定原則。但是過罰相當(dāng)原則法定要素?zé)o法囊括違法行為的全部考量因素,同時其本身無法提供相當(dāng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn),從而存在約束行政處罰裁量的固有局限。第三部分明確了比例原則在行政處罰裁量中的地位。在行政處罰實體裁量中,比例原則是過罰相當(dāng)性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之一。在行政處罰程序裁量中,比例原則可以對其加以約束,從而成為過罰相當(dāng)原則的有益補充。第四部分將比例原則的相關(guān)法律規(guī)范具體適用于行政處罰裁量之中。比例原則的適當(dāng)性、必要性和均衡性三個子原則在行政處罰實體裁量和行政處罰程序裁量中的考量因素各不相同。在行政處罰裁量司法審查時,行政處罰主體應(yīng)當(dāng)負(fù)有處罰行為適當(dāng)性和必要性的舉證責(zé)任,相對人可以提出相應(yīng)的反證。法院根據(jù)行政處罰作出時的狀態(tài)和行政處罰對相對人權(quán)利限制程度,分別適用寬松、中度和嚴(yán)格的審查強度。法院可以依據(jù)《中華人民共和國行政訴訟法》第70條第6項和第77條第1款規(guī)定的“明顯不當(dāng)”條款對行政處罰裁量進(jìn)行審查和裁判。最后是結(jié)論。本文認(rèn)為,比例原則是約束行政處罰裁量的基準(zhǔn)之一。在現(xiàn)有的成文法體系中,比例原則可以作為過罰相當(dāng)原則的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之一約束行政處罰實體裁量,可以作為獨立的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)規(guī)制行政處罰程序裁量。比例原則的子原則、舉證責(zé)任和審查強度理論在行政處罰中得以展開。法院可以依據(jù)“明顯不當(dāng)”條款對違反比例原則的行政處罰行為進(jìn)行撤銷或變更。
[Abstract]:The principle of proportion is the standard of administrative discretion.In administrative punishment, the principle of excessive punishment is the legal principle of restricting the discretion of administrative punishment entity.In terms of applicable position, the principle of proportionality can be one of the criteria for judging the equivalence of overpunishment in the discretion of punishment entity, and the principle of proportionality is a useful supplement to the principle of excessive punishment in the discretion of punishment procedure.In terms of applicable methods, the third order theory of the principle of proportionality, the intensity of examination, the burden of proof and the legal consequences can be applied to the discretion of administrative punishment.Specifically, the first part combs the development of the principle of proportionality and the introduction of China.The principle of proportionality originates in the thought of proportionality and originates from the police law of Germany. It is popularized in Europe by European integration and is used for reference by Japan, Taiwan and other civil law countries or regions.Since the principle of proportion was introduced into China for the first time in 1988, the principle of proportionality has attracted much attention. It has not only been widely discussed in academic circles, but also has become more and more important in legislative, administrative and judicial practice.The second part analyzes the statutory norms of administrative penalty discretion. Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Administrative penalty Law of the people's Republic of China stipulates that the principle of excessive penalty equivalence is the legal principle that binds the administrative penalty discretion.However, the legal elements of the principle of excessive punishment can not include all the factors considered in the illegal act, and at the same time, it can not provide the criterion of equivalence, which leads to the inherent limitation of restricting the discretion of administrative punishment.The third part clarifies the proportion principle's position in the administrative penalty discretion.In the discretion of administrative punishment entity, the principle of proportionality is one of the judgment standards of excessive penalty equivalence.In the discretion of administrative punishment procedure, the principle of proportionality can restrict it, thus becoming a beneficial supplement to the principle of excessive punishment.The fourth part applies the relevant legal norms of the principle of proportionality to the discretion of administrative punishment.The three sub-principles of proportionality necessity and balance are different in the discretion of administrative punishment entity and the discretion of administrative punishment procedure.In the judicial review of administrative penalty discretion, the subject of administrative punishment should bear the burden of proof of the appropriateness and necessity of the punishment, and the relative party may put forward the corresponding counter-proof.According to the state of administrative punishment and the restriction degree of administrative punishment, the court applies lenient, moderate and strict examination intensity respectively.The court may review and adjudicate the discretion of administrative punishment in accordance with the "manifestly improper" provisions of Article 70, item 6, and Article 77, paragraph 1, of the Administrative procedure Law of the people's Republic of China.Finally is the conclusion.This paper holds that the principle of proportionality is one of the benchmarks for restricting the discretion of administrative punishment.In the existing statutory law system, the principle of proportionality can be used as one of the judgment criteria of the principle of excessive punishment to restrict the discretion of the entity of administrative punishment, and it can be used as an independent judgment standard to regulate the discretion of the procedure of administrative punishment.The sub-principle of the principle of proportionality, the burden of proof and the theory of examination intensity can be carried out in administrative punishment.The court may rescind or change the administrative punishment in violation of the principle of proportionality according to the "manifestly improper" clause.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉權(quán);;適當(dāng)性原則的適用困境與出路[J];政治與法律;2016年07期

2 楊登峰;;從合理原則走向統(tǒng)一的比例原則[J];中國法學(xué);2016年03期

3 楊登杰;;執(zhí)中行權(quán)的憲法比例原則 兼與美國多元審查基準(zhǔn)比較[J];中外法學(xué);2015年02期

4 劉權(quán);;目的正當(dāng)性與比例原則的重構(gòu)[J];中國法學(xué);2014年04期

5 蔣紅珍;;比例原則在“陳寧案”中的適用——兼及“析出法”路徑下個案規(guī)范的最短射程[J];交大法學(xué);2014年02期

6 劉權(quán);;論比例原則的規(guī)范邏輯[J];廣東行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年02期

7 安德烈亞斯·馮·阿爾諾;劉權(quán);;歐洲基本權(quán)利保護(hù)的理論與方法——以比例原則為例[J];比較法研究;2014年01期

8 姜濤;;追尋理性的罪刑模式:把比例原則植入刑法理論[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2013年01期

9 高秦偉;;論歐盟行政法上的比例原則[J];政法論叢;2012年02期

10 錢福臣;;解析阿列克西憲法權(quán)利適用的比例原則[J];環(huán)球法律評論;2011年04期

，

本文編號：1732459