earticle

영어

The Chinese “Administrative Procedural Law” was legislated in April 1989, and was enacted on October 1, 1990. Since its implementation, it has played an important role in promoting the improvement of the administrative legislation, improving the administration of the administrative organ by law, protecting the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organizations and maintaining social stability. But with the development of the situation, the law has increasingly revealed its insufficiencies. In the face of the escalating contradiction between the public and the officials, the administrative litigation system appears to be helpless and its role and function has failed to be given full play. And, it becomes more and more difficult for various rules legislated in the establishment of the “Administrative Procedural Law” to adapt to Chinese social reality with three difficulties, including “difficulty of cases filing, trial difficulty and enforcement difficulty”, in practice. To deal with the above three difficulties, China had incorporated the amendment of the “Administrative Procedural Law” in the legislation plan of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress as early as 2003.The 12th session of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress had implemented three deliberation from December 25, 2013 to November 1, 2014, and finally issued the “Decision on Amending the Administrative Procedure Law”. According to the current situation of the Chinese politics, economy and social development, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (NPC) , in combination with the rich experience of judicial practice of the courts at all levels, implemented relatively comprehensive amendment on the “Administrative Procedural Law”. The articles of “Administrative Procedural Law” increased from 75 to 103 after revision. The main amended content is as follows: first, further open channels for litigation, strengthen the protection of civil litigation. For this, the scope of administrative lawsuit is expanded with “the specific administrative act” renamed as “administrative behavior,” which leaves space for expanding the scope of administrative litigation in the future. The normative documents formulated by the State Council and local people’s governments and relevant departments in addition to administrative rules and regulations should be conditionally incorporated in the scope of administrative litigation. The plaintiff qualification is expanded and the citizens, legal persons or other organizations, having a stake in administrative behavior, also can hold the plaintiff qualification. The filing procedure is refined with clear rules made for the filing registration system and the legal responsibility of the people’s court refusing to file. The prosecution deadline is extended. And the deadline for the citizens, legal persons or other organizations to directly file a suit in people’s court is changed from the original three months to six months. Secondly, part of the trial system is adjusted to guarantee the impartiality of the trial results. The trial level regulation of the administrative cases in the first instance is improved. The cases of filing a suit for the administrative action of the local government should be under the jurisdiction of the intermediate court. The administrative cases should be incorporated in the cross administrative region jurisdiction. With the approval of the Supreme People’s Court, the Higher Peoples Court can determine several administrative cases under the jurisdiction of the people’s court across the administrative areas. Thirdly, the supervision of the people’s court for the administrative organ should be strengthened, and the administrative disputes should be solved in essence. It is necessary to expand the scope of the rational review of the people’s court, and make clear rules on the responding system for the head of the administrative organization, the defendant qualification of the reconsideration organization, the legal consequences caused by the administrative organ’s failing to fulfill the judgment within the specified time. The amendment for “Administrative Procedural Law” can not be settled at one go and there is still a great space left. Firstly, the scope of accepting cases can be further expanded, and the administrative fact behavior, administrative contract, administrative guidance and other non-mandatory administrative behavior are also can be incorporated in the scope of accepting cases. Secondly, the scope of the defendant of administrative lawsuit remains to be further expanded. The qualification of the defendant of administrative lawsuit should adopt the “standards of public function” to involve public administrative organizations that exercise public administrative function other than the administrative body in defendant. Thirdly, the principle of legality review should no longer be acted as an unique principle in the administrative litigation. The implementation of this principle in practice leads to the Chinese administrative trial mode, namely the “unanimism of revocation litigation”. And it also causes the single administrative lawsuit type in China .The future amendment should focus on making the people’s court, to the maximum extent, respond to the appeal of the administrative relative person, and implementing legislative design on administrative litigation cases to classify them.

중국어

中国 《行政诉讼法》 制定于1989年4月, 于1990年10月1日起实施。 《行政诉讼法》 实施以来对于促 进行政立法的完善、 促进行政机关依法行政、 保护公民、 法人和其他组织的合法权益和维护社会的 稳定方面都发挥了重要的作用。 但是随着形势的发展, 这部法律日益显露出不足, 面对不断升级的 官民矛盾, 行政诉讼制度显得束手无策, 行政诉讼制度的作用与功能未能得到充分的体现。 《行政诉 讼法》 制定之初所确立的各种规则, 越来越难以适应中国社会的现实情况, 在实践中面临了 “立案 难、 审理难、 执行难” 的三大难题。 针对上述三难问题, 中国早在2003年就将 《行政诉讼法》 的修改 纳入全国人大常委会的立法计划。 第12届全国人大常委会从2013年12月25日至2014年11月1日, 经 过三次审议, 通过了 《关于修改<行政诉讼法>的决定》。 全国人大常委会根据中国政治、 经济和社会发展的形势, 结合各级法院在司法实践中所积累的 丰富的经验, 对 《行政诉讼法》 进行了首次比较全面的修改。 修改后的 《行政诉讼法》 由75条增加到 103条。 修改的主要内容如下 : 第一、 进一步畅通诉讼渠道, 加强对公民诉权的保护。 为此, 扩大了行 政诉讼的受案范围将 “具体行政行为” 更名为 “行政行为”, 为今后进一步扩大行政诉讼受案范围留 下空间。 将除了行政法规和规章以外的国务院部门和地方人民政府及其部门制定的规范性文件有 条件地纳入了行政诉讼的受案范围。 扩大了原告资格, 与行政行为有利害关系的公民、 法人或者其 他组织, 也可以具备原告资格。 细化了立案程序, 对立案登记制以及人民法院不予立案的法律责任 都作出了明确的规定。 延长了起诉期限, 公民、 法人或者其他组织直接向人民法院提起诉讼的期限, 由原来的3个月变更为6个月。 第二、 调整部分审判体制, 保证案件审理结果的公正性。 提高了一审 行政案件的审级规定, 对县级以上地方政府所作的行政行为提起诉讼的案件, 由中级法院管辖。 规定可以跨行政区 域管辖行政案件, 经最高人民法院批准, 高级人民法院可以根据审判工作的实际情 况, 确定若干人民法院跨行政区域管辖行政案件。 第三、 加强人民法院对行政机关的监督, 实质解 决行政争议。 扩大了人民法院的合理性审查范围, 并对行政机关负责人出庭应诉制度, 复议机关的 被告资格、 行政机关逾期不履行裁判的法律后果等做出了明确的规定。 对《行政诉讼法》的修改不可能一步到位, 仍留下了很大的修改空间。 第一、 受案范围有待进一步 扩大, 将行政事实行为, 行政合同、 行政指导等非强制性行政行为也纳入受案范围。 第二、 行政诉讼 被告范围有待进一步扩大。 行政诉讼被告资格标准应采用“公共职能标准”, 使行政主体以外的其他 行使公共行政职能的组织也可以成为被告。 第三、 合法性审查原则不应再作为行政诉讼特有的原 则。 实践中这一原则的贯彻导致了中国行政审判模式为“撤销诉讼一体主义”, 这使得中国行政诉讼 的类型单一。 今后的修改中应注意使人民法院最大限度地回应行政相对人的诉求, 对行政诉讼案件 进行类型化的立法设计。