检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:章楚加[1]
出 处:《南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学)》2018年第4期65-71,共7页Journal of Nanjing University(Philosophy,Humanities and Social Sciences)
基 金:国家社会科学基金重大招标课题(16ZDA072);国家留学基金(留金发[2016]3100号)
摘 要:自20世纪70年代至今,德国环境团体诉讼权能经历了从无到有、由严格限定到适度宽松的变迁历程,其间既有与本国行政诉讼功能模式相协调的立法探索,又经受着欧盟法上"去主观化"趋势的冲击。包括环境团体受到认可、被诉的行政行为存在违法性、法定的协作决策权限受损、环境团体曾积极参与行政决策过程在内的一系列诉讼前提的确立,使得德国环境团体诉讼权能制度建构在社会监督强化、环境行政实效性提升以及司法资源有效利用三重目的之间达成了平衡。德国经验对于探讨中国环境保护社会组织提起行政行为合法性审查之诉命题具有深刻的参考价值。In 1970s,the litigation right enjoyed by German environmental groups began to evolve from nothing to a legislative procedure,firstly strictly limited and then moderately wide. In this development,exploration,in the wake of "de-subjectivity " trends in EU law,was made to coordinate the litigation right with the function model of administrative litigation. System construction of German environmental groups' litigation right reached equilibrium between three goals: strengthening social supervision,improving the effectiveness of the implementation of environmental administration,and efficient use of judicial resources. The German experience provides a reference of great value for China in its exploration of the issues relating to the preconditions for environmental groups,who are proposing administrative legitimacy judicial review.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:18.220.192.109