司法审查图景中行政协议主体的适格  

Qualifying Justification of Administrative Contract Subject in Judicial Review

作　　者：陈无风[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江财经大学

出　　处：《中国法学》2018年第2期131-146,共16页China Legal Science

基　　金：国家社科基金后期资助项目"公私合作中的争议解决实证研究--以政府多元角色为语境"(项目批准号:15FFX024)的阶段性成果

摘　　要：审查行政协议行政机关方的权利能力和行为能力主要视其是否有相应的订约权。对订约权的判断分两个层次进行:有无对订约权的直接规定;是否有协议事项上的行政管理职权,容许性如何。实务中对行政协议适格主体的判断因立法不一等原因存有争议,须注意不能因行政主管部门的主管权而否认一级政府的订约权。行政协议诉讼中依传统的被告确定规则,往往出现被告与协议签约方分离,与合同相对性原理不符,并有以被告转换技术消解协议行为主体资格缺陷问题,宜引入民法上事后追认等观念作为缓解理论与实务紧张关系的解释进路。The key to judge the legal capacity and behavioral ability of administrative contract＇s party is whether there is a corresponding power of signing. The judgment of such power could be carried out at two levels： whether there is a direct provision for the power of signing; whether there is a general administrative authority covering the subject matter of contract plus the availability of using the form of contract. In practice, the judgment of competent contract party is controversial due to the inconsistency of legislation. The administrative power of agency on a certain realm could not be the reason of denying the power of signing for the government. In administrative contract litigation, according to the traditional rule of defendant determination, the separation of defendant and the signing party often appears which contradicts the contract relativity principle. Meanwhile the technique of defendant determination is often employed to legalize the defect on signing party of administrative contract. The introduction of the notion of ex post recognition could facilitate the mitigation of tension between the theory and practice.

关 键 词：行政协议 主体资格 诉讼主体 法律效力 

分 类 号：D925.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]