行政诉讼履行法定职责判决论——基于《行政诉讼法》第54条第3项规定之展开  

On Administrative Litigation's Performing Legal Duty Judgment

作　　者：章剑生[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院

出　　处：《中国法学》2011年第1期141-152,共12页China Legal Science

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重大招标项目"学习实践科学发展观重大问题研究--以人为本与中国法制发展"(课题编号08&ZD001)的前期研究成果

摘　　要：《行政诉讼法》第54条第3项中的"不履行"是指行政机关以一种消极方式不作任何意思表示之状态,与"不予答复"相当;而"拖延履行"则是行政机关在法定时间或者合理时间内不作出终结行政程序的行政行为之状态。在履行法定职责判决方式上,《行政诉讼法》规定中只有"程序性裁判"之内容,但基于为行政相对人提供经济、实效的行政救济之理念,未来在《行政诉讼法》修改时,应当例外承认履行法定职责判决中"实体性裁判"的合法性。"行政不作为"并不当然构成行政违法,它不等于"不履行法定职责"。对"拒绝履行"之行政行为,应当适用撤销判决再加重作判决。为了减少行政相对人将来可能遭受的"诉累",法院可以在重作判决的主文中为行政机关添加若干限制性"指示"。对实务中出现的"拒绝履行"若干变种的加以讨论,则有助于法院正确适用履行法定职责之判决。＂Non-performance＂of＂Administrative Procedure Law＂Article 54,paragraph 3 means the executive authorities in a negative way without any intention,and＂no answer＂;and＂delayed discharge＂is a situation that the statutory or administrative organ do not end the administrative procedures within a legal or reasonable period of time.In the way of judgment to perform statutory duty,the＂Administrative Procedure Law＂only contains＂procedural judge＂in content,however it based on philosophy of administrative relief for the administrative counterpart to provide economic,effective.When＂the Administrative Procedure Law＂is revised in the future,it should recognize the＂substantive judgment＂legitimacy of judgments to perform duties as an exemption.＂Administrative omission＂does not of course violate administrative law;therefore it is different from＂non - performance statutory duties.＂To the＂refusal to perform＂administrative act,the Court should annul and redo the judgment.In order to reduce the possible＂tired litigation＂of administrative counterpart, the court can add certain restrictive＂instructions＂for administrative organ in redo judgment.It is helpful that pay attention to the situations like＂refusal to perform＂for the Court to fulfill its statutory duty to judge correctly.

关 键 词：履行法定职责 行政不作为 拒绝履行 不履行 不予答复 

分 类 号：D925.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]