行政处罚视域下重复越级信访行为的法律适用——(2020)浙03行终467号判决评析  

Legal Application of Repeated Cross-Level Petition Behaviour under the Perspective of Administrative Punishment—Commentary on the Judgement of Case No.467(2020)of Zhejiang 03 Administrative Final

作　　者：边品三 BIAN Pinsan(Guanghua Law School,Zhejiang University,Hangzhou,Zhejiang 310008,China)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院,浙江杭州310008

出　　处：《中州大学学报》2025年第2期59-65,共7页Journal of Zhongzhou University

摘　　要：在存在现行有效法律法规的情形下,学理层面应当重视对信访行为的法解释学探究。以重复信访、采用走访形式越级信访、在得到有关单位答复后仍以同一事由上访、在受到训诫后仍再次上访等行为为特征的重复越级信访行为在实践中颇具普遍性。(2020)浙03行终467号案件对于重复越级信访行为在行政处罚视域下的法律适用极具典型意义。于行政处罚视域而言,就地域管辖而论,信访人居住地公安机关是否“管辖更为适宜”,取决于越级信访行为被发现时信访人实际所处何地,在行为被发现时信访人回到其居住地的状况下,由信访人居住地公安机关管辖存在合理性。针对行为的定性,重复越级信访行为与《治安管理处罚法》第26条前3项列举的情形在“扰乱公共秩序”程度方面并不相当,不应予以相同评价,也无法通过比例原则的实质性审查,故而并不属于该条第4项“其他寻衅滋事行为”。Where there are effective laws and regulations in force,theoretical attention should be paid to the study of the legal interpretation of petitioning acts.The behaviour of repeated appeals is common in practice,which is characterised by repeating petitions by visiting higher authorities to petition,petitioning for the same reason even after getting a reply from the relevant authorities,and petitioning again even after being admonished.Case No.467(2020)of Zhejiang 03 administrative final is of typical significance in the application of the law to the repeated acts of petitioning at a higher level under the view of administrative penalties.In the context of administrative penalties,with regard to territorial jurisdiction,whether the public security organ of the petitioner’s place of residence has“jurisdiction over significant cases”depends on where the petitioner was actually located when the act of repeated letters and visits was detected,and it is reasonable for the public security organ of the petitioner’s place of residence to take jurisdiction if the petitioner returned to the place where he/she resided when the act was detected.With regard to the characterisation of the act,the act of repeated petitions does not have the same degree of“disturbance of public order”as the situations listed in the first three subparagraphs of article 26 of the Public Security Administration Punishment Law,and should not be evaluated in the same way,and therefore does not fall within the category of“other provocative behaviours”in subparagraph 4 of that article.

关 键 词：重复信访 越级信访 行政处罚 地域管辖 寻衅滋事 

分 类 号：D922.112[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学]