行政诉讼履行法定职责实体判决论——以“尹荷玲案”为核心

The Study of Substantive Judgment to Perform Statutory Duty in the Administrative Procedure Law——With the Case of YIN Heling as the Core

"司法审查有限原则"是行政诉讼法的基本原则,这导致了"履行法定职责实体判决"存在争议。"尹荷玲案"不但证成了履行法定职责实体判决存在的正当性,而且明确了该判决适用的"双阶要件",即"理由具备、事实清楚、法律规定明确"的一般要件,与"法效果唯一性"的特别要件。其中"法效果唯一性"分为两种情况:一是羁束行政行为,二是行政裁量收缩为零,这恰与《行政诉讼法》修改后"给付判决"与"履行判决"的规定相契合。纵观司法实践,重做判决、履行判决、给付判决形成了"程序性判决—提示性判决—履行法定职责实体判决"3种判决方式,体现了三者功能的相似性。作为实质化解争议的履行法定职责实体判决,也彰显了司法推动制度发展的功能。

Limited principles of judicial review is the basic principle of Administrative Procedural Law, and leads to different opinions on ＂substantive judgment to perform statutory duty＂. But the case of Yin Heling defined the legitimacy of ＂substantive judgement to perform statutory duty＂and described its double applicable conditions： the general condition of ＂good reason,clear fact,clear law＂,and the special requirement of ＂only one legal effect＂. The only one legal effect contains two conditions： strict administrative act and administrative discretion shrink to zero, which is consistent with the judgement on prestation and the performance judgment. Throughout the judicial practice, redoing judgment,judgment on prestation, execution of judgment are the three judgement types： procedural judgment, prompt judgement, and performing statutory duty judgement. This determines the similarity of their functions. Substantive judgment to perform statutory duty shows the substantive resolution of disputes, and demonstrates the justice＇s function of promoting system development.