行政诉讼中程序瑕疵“指正”探析  

Research on“Correction”of Procedural Defects in Administrative Litigation

作　　者：陈佳宁 CHEN Jianing(Law school,China University of political science and law,Beijing 100089,China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学法学院,北京100089

出　　处：《济宁学院学报》2022年第3期85-93,共9页Journal of Jining University

摘　　要：最高人民法院2018年颁布的关于适用《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》的解释在第96条对“程序轻微违法”进行了阐释,这是对程序瑕疵法律后果的进一步细化。但“重要程序性权利”这一概念的出现,仍然无法解决程序瑕疵标准的不确定性问题,这也揭示了通过判决方式的规定来反推行政行为程序瑕疵法律后果的不足。因此,需要从立法规定中“程序轻微违法”与“违反法定程序”的程序瑕疵两分法之审查标准的弊端出发,对过往的程序瑕疵司法审查标准的形式内容和实质内容之演变进行梳理。将司法解释中“重要程序性权利”的规定未得到实践积极反应的原因、程序瑕疵的内涵和外延进行纵向的归纳和总结,从而在规范研究的基础上,探寻行政诉讼中对行政行为程序瑕疵“指正”存在的立法空间。The Supreme People’s Court’s interpretation on the application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China promulgated in 2018 explains the“minor procedural violation”in Article 96,which further details the legal consequences of procedural flaws.However,the concept of“important procedural rights”still cannot solve the uncertainty of the standard of procedural defects,which also reveals the serious deficiency of deducing the legal consequences of procedural defects of administrative acts through the provisions of judgment.Therefore,this paper attempts to analyze the evolution of the formal content and substantive content of the judicial review standard of procedural defects in the past from the drawbacks of the two review standards of procedural flaws in the legislative provisions:“minor procedural violations“and”violation of legal procedures”.This paper makes a vertical summary of the reasons why the provisions of“important procedural rights”in judicial interpretation have not received positive response in practice,as well as the connotation and extension of procedural defects,so as to explore the legislative space for“correcting”the procedural defects of administrative acts in administrative litigation on the basis of normative research.

关 键 词：程序瑕疵 指正 违反法定程序 程序轻微违法 

分 类 号：D922[政治法律—法学]