全国人大常委会备案审查决定的先例约束力  

NPCSC’s Record and Review Decisions as Binding Precedents

作　　者：黄明涛[1] 张梦奇 Huang Ming-tao;Zhang Meng-qi

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院 [2]武汉大学法学院宪法与法治国家研究中心

出　　处：《苏州大学学报（法学版）》2022年第4期1-12,共12页Journal of Soochow University：Law Edition

摘　　要：在2020年备案审查工作报告发布“出租车司机户籍限制系列案”之后,多个地方人大通过备案审查制度推动纠正了地方政府规章中的相似规定。对此现象,可引入“备案审查决定的先例约束力”概念予以解释。为了维护法制统一、提高审查结果的确定性和强化人大对备案审查制度体系的主导,确立全国人大常委会备案审查决定的先例约束力具有必要性。上下级人大之间的监督关系和法律询问答复机制分别为备案审查的先例约束提供了权力和经验层面的制度基础。对备案审查先例的遵循表现为在涵摄范围内遵照先例、在相似情形下类推适用、在例外情况下可予突破。备案审查先例制度的构建可从案例发布、意见公开、事前推动和事后纠错四方面着手。全国人大常委会的审查先例在其他系统的备案审查及审判、立法工作之中亦有发挥作用的空间。Following the disclosure of the“huji restrictions for taxi drivers cases”in the 2020 LAC record and review(R&R)report,several local congresses have corrected similar provisions in local governmental regulations respectively.These amendments can be explained by the conceptualising the“R&R decisions as binding precedents”.To maintain the unity of national legal system,improve the certainty of review results and strengthen NPCSC’s dominance over the plural R&R systems,it is necessary to establish the binding effect of the NPCSC’s R&R precedents.The supervisory relationship between the higher and lower congresses and the legal inquiry response mechanism provide the basis respectively in the institutional and empirical level.The adherence to precedents in R&R refers to follow precedents within the scope of coverage,analogy in similar situations,and breaking precedents in exceptional cases.The system of R&R binding precedents could be institutionalised via four ways:the publication of case,the disclosure of decisions,the advanced promotion and the prompt correction of errors.The NPCSC’s precedents may also play a role in other R&R systems,as well as in judicial and legislative activities.

关 键 词：全国人大常委会 备案审查 遵循先例 法律效力 

分 类 号：D920.0[政治法律—法学]