本文選題：司法強(qiáng)制搬遷 + 強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行��； 參考：《南京師范大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：自2011年以來(lái),《國(guó)有土地上房屋征收補(bǔ)償條例》、《行政強(qiáng)制法》及一系列相關(guān)規(guī)定的陸續(xù)出臺(tái),在實(shí)踐層面上構(gòu)建了一種“行政機(jī)關(guān)申請(qǐng),人民法院審查；行政機(jī)關(guān)執(zhí)行為主,人民法院執(zhí)行為輔”的司法強(qiáng)制搬遷制度。這一制度通過(guò)引入司法審查,改變了以往的行政機(jī)關(guān)“既做運(yùn)動(dòng)員,又做裁判員”的尷尬局面,將房屋強(qiáng)制征收的決定權(quán)改由人民法院行使：同時(shí),新制度的另一大亮點(diǎn)在于將公共利益目的作為征收前提,并對(duì)公共利益的范圍加以明確、細(xì)化,增加了實(shí)際操作的可能性,有利于更好地防止權(quán)力濫用和維護(hù)被征收人權(quán)益。 但這一制度中仍有許多不足之處,如在具體執(zhí)行主體規(guī)定方面,國(guó)務(wù)院出臺(tái)的條例中要求由被征收房屋所在地的市、縣級(jí)人民政府負(fù)責(zé)房屋征收工作,需要強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行的,“申請(qǐng)人民法院執(zhí)行”；但在最高人民法院出臺(tái)的通知中,則要求具體執(zhí)行工作一般應(yīng)由行政機(jī)關(guān)執(zhí)行,人民法院在一定情況下亦可負(fù)責(zé)具體執(zhí)行工作,這一系列規(guī)定就導(dǎo)致了理論和實(shí)踐上對(duì)執(zhí)行主體理解的出入。另外,現(xiàn)行制度在公共利益界定方式、補(bǔ)償機(jī)制、救濟(jì)制度等方面的規(guī)定也有許多有待完善的地方。 對(duì)此,筆者在分析現(xiàn)行制度的基礎(chǔ)上,從征收決定的作出、補(bǔ)償機(jī)制、執(zhí)行程序三個(gè)方面對(duì)司法強(qiáng)制搬遷制度提除改進(jìn)意見(jiàn)。在征收決定作出環(huán)節(jié),筆者建議增設(shè)公共利益的司法界定制度,改變線形的由行政機(jī)關(guān)界定的制度；另外,筆者建議在征收決定作出前應(yīng)充分考慮所追求的公共利益與將要“損害”的個(gè)人利益之間的比例,即明確比例原則在征收中的適用,與此同時(shí)對(duì)聽(tīng)證制度加以完善,以更好實(shí)現(xiàn)征收的公共利益目的,維護(hù)被征收人權(quán)益。對(duì)于征收補(bǔ)償機(jī)制,筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)從適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大補(bǔ)償范圍和完善補(bǔ)償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)兩個(gè)方面加以完善,以從一定程度上緩解拆遷難的問(wèn)題。對(duì)于執(zhí)行程序,筆者從科學(xué)確定執(zhí)行主體和增設(shè)執(zhí)行中止兩個(gè)方面提出完善建議,以期從制度層面確定強(qiáng)制征收領(lǐng)域的制裁分離制度,同時(shí)更好的維護(hù)被征收人權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:Since 2011, the regulations on the Collection and compensation of Housing on State-owned Land, the Administrative compulsory Law and a series of related regulations have been issued one after another. In practice, a kind of "administrative organ applies for examination by the people's court; the administrative organ is mainly executed," The people's Court shall enforce the system of judicial forced relocation. Through the introduction of judicial review, this system has changed the embarrassing situation in which the administrative organs used to be "both athletes and referees", and changed the decision on mandatory expropriation of houses to be exercised by the people's courts: at the same time, Another bright spot of the new system is that the purpose of public interest is taken as the premise of expropriation, and the scope of public interest is clarified and refined, which increases the possibility of practical operation and is conducive to better preventing abuse of power and safeguarding the rights and interests of expropriated persons. However, there are still many deficiencies in this system. For example, in the specific implementation of the main provisions, the regulations issued by the State Council require that the city where the house is being expropriated and the people's government at the county level be responsible for the collection of houses. "apply to the people's court for execution"; however, in the notice issued by the Supreme people's Court, it is required that the specific execution work should generally be carried out by the administrative organ, and the people's court may also be responsible for the specific execution work under certain circumstances, This series of regulations leads to the discrepancy between theory and practice on the subject of execution. In addition, the current system in the definition of public interest, compensation mechanism, relief system and other aspects of the provisions need to be improved. On the basis of analyzing the current system, the author puts forward some suggestions on the judicial forced relocation system from three aspects: the decision of expropriation, the compensation mechanism and the execution procedure. In the process of making the expropriation decision, the author suggests that the judicial definition system of the public interest should be added to change the linear system defined by the administrative organs; in addition, The author suggests that the proportion of the public interest pursued and the personal interests to be "damaged" should be fully considered before the expropriation decision is made, that is, the application of the principle of proportion in the expropriation should be made clear, and at the same time, the hearing system should be perfected. In order to better achieve the purpose of public interest expropriation, protect the rights and interests of the expropriated person. As to the mechanism of expropriation and compensation, the author thinks that the compensation scope should be expanded and the compensation standard should be improved in order to alleviate the difficulty of demolition to a certain extent. For the execution procedure, the author puts forward some perfect suggestions from two aspects of scientific determination of the subject of execution and the addition of suspension of execution, in order to determine the separate system of sanctions in the field of compulsory collection from the system level, and at the same time to better safeguard the rights and interests of the expropriated person.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D926.2;D922.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 李春成;公共利益的概念建構(gòu)評(píng)析——行政倫理學(xué)的視角[J];復(fù)旦學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年01期

2 楊建順;;司法裁判、裁執(zhí)分離與征收補(bǔ)償——《國(guó)有土地上房屋征收與補(bǔ)償條例》的權(quán)力博弈論[J];法律適用;2011年06期

3 宦吉娥;王暢聰;;《國(guó)有土地上房屋征收與補(bǔ)償條例》可操作性評(píng)價(jià)——以文本為對(duì)象[J];理論月刊;2012年04期

4 張千帆;“公共利益”是什么?——社會(huì)功利主義的定義及其憲法上的局限性[J];法學(xué)論壇;2005年01期

5 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

6 房紹坤;;國(guó)有土地上房屋征收的法律問(wèn)題與對(duì)策[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2012年01期

7 應(yīng)松年;論行政強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1998年03期

8 宋雙;李玲玲;;我國(guó)城市房屋征收決定中公眾參與權(quán)立法問(wèn)題研究[J];行政與法;2013年10期

，

本文編號(hào)：2080586