司法判决中的行政不作为

Administrative Inaction in Judicial Judgments of China

对最高人民法院公布的80个行政不作为典型案例的实证分析表明,在行政不作为构成要件的把握上,人民法院业已形成了作为义务源自何处、有无现实作为可能以及是否已经作为的三重判断基准。这不仅修正了法律文本中义务来源单一化和不作为表现形态片面化的规定,而且通过个案特殊情境中危险预见可能性、避免损害发生可能性和公权发动期待可能性的权衡,建立了危险防止型行政不作为的判断标准。在行政不作为司法裁判方式的选择上,人民法院大体上形成了履行判决、确认判决和驳回诉讼请求判决三足鼎立的格局。不同类型判决的具体适用,有助于妥善处理司法独立判断、尊重行政裁量及私权有效保障的三重关系。

As to the ingredients of judging administrative inaction, administrative judges have developed triple standard including the origin of the obligation of agency action, the possibility of agency actual action and whether the agency acted or not. In addition to legal norms, the obligation of ac- tion can also originate from administrative rules, administrative contracts, administrative actions and former decisions. As to the possibility of actual action, some typical cases have identified three aspects, i. e. , the risk prediction possibility, the damage avoidance possibility and the an- ticipation of the public. Administrative inaction may have different appearances, so the judgment of whether the agency acted or not should combine both subjective and objective aspects based on individual cases. According to contemporary judicial practices, there are three different judgment forms for court to adjudicate, i. e. , judgment for performance, judgment for dismissal of the claim, and judgment for infraction confirmation and compensation. In order to give a suitable judgment, ad- ministrative judges should deal with the relationship between the relative independent review and the deference to agency discretion. These fresh native judicial experiences conquest the outdated statute provision and the rigid theory, so we can own our specific contribution to identify and re- solve administrative inaction.