本文關(guān)鍵詞：行政訴訟中的履行判決　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

  更多相關(guān)文章： 履行判決 原則判 具體判 規(guī)范化 執(zhí)行

【摘要】：履行判決作為我國《行政訴訟法》規(guī)定的一種判決形式,對于保障行政相對人的合法權(quán)益有著舉足輕重的作用。履行判決與履行之訴并非一一對應(yīng)的關(guān)系,換言之,履行判決在行政訴訟中有獨立的地位,不應(yīng)簡單地將履行判決理解為履行之訴對應(yīng)的判決形式。對履行判決的定義應(yīng)緊緊圍繞法律規(guī)范中的履行判決與審判實務(wù)中的履行判決兩個層面去把握。按照《行政訴訟法》及相關(guān)法律規(guī)范規(guī)定,履行判決是針對行政主體不作為違法而作出的判決形式,實踐中不作為的表現(xiàn)形式主要為拒絕履行和拖延履行兩種;在審判實中,履行判決常出現(xiàn)于信息公開、人身財產(chǎn)保護(hù)申請、畢業(yè)證書發(fā)放等案件中。履行判決與給付判決、重作判決等相似概念有著千絲萬縷的聯(lián)系,理清它們之間的關(guān)系是研究履行判決的必經(jīng)之路。通說認(rèn)為,給付判決的訴訟爭議主要在于金錢等財產(chǎn)的給付,即行政主體給付具體行政行為以外的事實行為和財產(chǎn)適用給付判決。而重作判決屬于廣義上的履行判決,重作判決是履行判決的一種特殊形式。因為原告的訴訟請求不同,督促被告履行法定職責(zé)的行政訴訟在審判階段導(dǎo)致了重作判決與履行判決的分流。規(guī)范履行判決的重點在于履行判決的適用條件與內(nèi)容,只有滿足了程序性條件與實體性條件,才能適用履行判決,程序性條件包括原告已向行政機(jī)關(guān)提出履行職責(zé)的申請、行政主體不作為已滿履行期限,實體性條件是行政主體有履行法定職責(zé)的義務(wù),且有不作為的事實以及行政主體履行職責(zé)有必要。關(guān)于履行判決的內(nèi)容,學(xué)術(shù)界有兩種觀點,即原則判與具體判,兩種觀點分歧鮮明,原則判決說主張尊重行政主體的首次判斷權(quán),主張人民法院不能再履行判決中責(zé)令行政主體作出某種具體、特定的行政行為,而只能要求行政主體履行法定職責(zé)。具體判決說主張在司法審查程度上,將履行判決“一判到底”,不給行政主體以裁量空間。原則判決說利于保障行政相對人的合法權(quán)益,為行政相對人提供應(yīng)有的救濟(jì)途徑,并兼顧權(quán)衡司法權(quán)與行政權(quán),因此,原則判決說更為合理。在審判實務(wù)中,原則判決也是通常做法,原則判決代替具體判決更是大趨勢。
[Abstract]:As a kind of judgment form stipulated in the Administrative procedure Law of our country, the fulfillment of judgment plays an important role in protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart, and the relationship between the execution of judgment and the action of performance is not one-to-one corresponding. In other words, the execution of the judgment has an independent status in the administrative proceedings. Performance judgment should not simply be understood as the corresponding judgment form of performance action. The definition of performance judgment should be tightly defined from two levels: the performance judgment in the legal norms and the performance judgment in the trial practice. Administrative procedure Law and related legal norms. The execution of judgment is the form of judgment against the violation of the law of the administrative subject's omission. In practice, the forms of omission are mainly the refusal to perform and the delay to perform. In the trial practice, the execution of the judgment often appears in the information disclosure, the personal property protection application, the graduation certificate issuance and so on. The similar concepts such as the execution judgment and the payment judgment, the redelivery judgment and so on have the inextricable connection. To clarify the relationship between them is the only way to study the implementation of the judgment. The general view is that the dispute over payment of judgment mainly lies in the payment of property such as money. That is, the administrative subject pays the specific administrative acts other than the factual acts and property applicable to the payment of the judgment, and the judgment is a broad sense of the performance of the judgment. Redelivery is a special form of performance because the plaintiff's claim is different. The administrative litigation which urges the defendant to perform the legal duty in the trial stage leads to the diversion of the judgment and the execution of the judgment. The emphasis of the norm of the execution of the judgment lies in the applicable conditions and contents of the execution of the judgment. Only if the procedural and substantive conditions are satisfied, can the performance judgment be applied. The procedural conditions include that the plaintiff has filed an application to the administrative organ to perform his duties, and that the administrative subject has completed the period of performance. The substantive condition is that the administrative subject has the obligation to perform the legal duty and the fact that there is omission and it is necessary for the administrative subject to perform the duty. There are two points of view in academic circles about the content of fulfilling the judgment. That is, the principle of judgment and the specific judgment, the two views are distinct, the principle of judgment claims to respect the first judgment of the main administrative power, the people's court can no longer fulfill the judgment ordered the administrative subject to make a certain specific. The specific administrative act can only require the administrative subject to perform the legal duty. The concrete judgment says that in the degree of judicial review, it will fulfill the judgment "one judgment to the end". Not to give administrative subject discretion. The principle of judgment is conducive to the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart, for the administrative counterpart to provide due relief, and balance the judicial power and administrative power, therefore. The principle judgment is more reasonable. In the trial practice, the principle judgment is also the common practice, and the principle judgment replaces the concrete judgment is the big trend.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：鄭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D925.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王貴松;;信息公開行政訴訟的訴的利益[J];比較法研究;2017年02期

2 潭宗澤;楊靖文;;行政訴訟功能變遷與路徑選擇——以法與治的關(guān)系為主線[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2016年04期

3 李云霖;晏賽舟;;行政不作為訴訟應(yīng)對之實證研究[J];江蘇行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2016年02期

4 應(yīng)松年;;行政訴訟法律制度的完善、發(fā)展[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2015年04期

5 嚴(yán)征;;關(guān)于我國行政判決執(zhí)行難的問題分析和改革探究[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì);2015年05期

6 董琪;林哲;;我國行政判決種類的透視、反思與前瞻[J];成都行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2015年01期

7 毛建軍;;行政訴訟履行判決研究——從行政不作為角度分析[J];上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(法治論叢);2013年06期

8 章劍生;論利益衡量方法在行政訴訟確認(rèn)違法判決中的適用[J];法學(xué);2004年06期

9 張宏,高辰年;反思行政訴訟之重作判決[J];行政法學(xué)研究;2003年03期

10 薛剛凌;行政判決制度研究[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年02期

，

本文編號：1430035