司法实践中的行政裁量基准

Standards of Administrative Discretion from Judicial Perspective

行政裁量基准制度给司法实践带来了新的问题:在行政行为合法性审查中,应如何对待其根据或参照的裁量基准?对此,我国出现了几种方向各异的判例理论:有的认可或者要求行政机关严格适用裁量基准,甚至事实上将之作为裁判规范;有的则相反,认可或者要求被告考虑个案情况,背离裁量基准。这种分歧的背后是裁量一元论与裁量二元论的对立。与裁量基准的严格适用相链接的裁量二元论是过去时代的教义,与实质法治主义不相容;与个别情况考虑义务相链接的裁量一元论,则有着更强的体系性和解释力。但这并不意味着裁量基准在任何情况下都不可以是行为规范乃至裁判规范。妥当的立场毋宁是:裁量基准原则上不应当被严格适用,除非裁量授权规范的意旨是可以免除行政机关的个别情况考虑义务。

Administrative discretion standard system brings new a problem to juridical practice： in le gal inspection of administrative actions, how to treat with the discretion criteria？ China reveals the differ ent legal precedent theories about this problem： some of them approve or require the administrative body to use discretion criteria as code of conduct or use it as judgment criteria in fact. Some of them hold the opposite opinion, namely they approve or require defendants to consider the case situation and deviate from the discretion criteria. The opposition between discretion monism and discretion dualism hides be- hind the divergence. Discretion dualism is the doctrine in the past era, which is incompatible with the substantive constitutionalism;the discretion monism that is linked with obligations in individual cases has the stronger system and explanatory power, but it doesn＇t mean discretion criteria shouldn＇t be code of conduct or even judgment standards. The proper standpoint means that discretion criteria in principle shouldn＇t be strictly suitable unless that the intention of non-discretion authorization standards is to ex- empt from obligations of individual situations in administrative body