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:刘一玮[1] LIU Yi-wei(Law School of Peking University,Beijing,100871)
机构地区:[1]北京大学法学院
出 处:《行政法学研究》2019年第4期114-122,共9页ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW
摘 要:《行政诉讼法》增设的行政诉讼简易程序具有提高行政诉讼效益的制度功能,但是在司法实践中却面临着适用率普遍偏低、不同法院的认可度存在差异、地方"各自为政"违反司法统一性、随意简化和过分简化减损程序价值等问题。当前简易程序存在诸多问题的一个重要原因就是法律对简易程序的制度规则供给不足。因而,确保简易程序规则的统一性与权威性、不断丰富与优化简易程序的规则内容成为完善简易程序制度的必由之路。The administrative litigation summary procedure added in the Administrative Litigation Law has the institutional function of improving the efficiency of administrative litigation. However, there are many problems in the judicial practice such as low application rate, different recognition degree of different courts, local violation of the judicial uniformity by "governing in their own way", and derogation of the value of procedure caused by casual and excessive simplification. An important reason for the existence of many problems in the current summary procedure is that the law provides insufficient supply of institutional rules for summary procedure. Therefore, it is essential to ensure the uniformity and authority of the summary procedure rules, and constantly enrich and optimize the summary procedure rules to improve the summary procedure system.
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:216.73.216.249