规范性文件作为行政行为“依据”的识别基准——以《行政诉讼法》第53条为中心

The Benchmark for Identifying Normative Documents as the “Basis” of Administrative Acts——Centering on Article 53 of Administrative Procedure Law

在“毛爱梅案”中,法院通过确定规范性文件与被诉行政行为在“内容构造”上的不一致,认定二者之间不具有关联性,否定了涉案规范性文件的“依据”地位。从应然层面上讲,“依据”的识别存在形式基准、内容基准以及一并审查的原则基准三个层面。形式基准要求法院可以通过行政机关对“依据”的表示行为进行判定,但需结合规范性文件的规范属性共同确认;内容基准则要求规范性文件具有对相对人权利义务产生实际影响的条件性、与行政行为形成法律关系上的一致性和法律效果的因果性,并且应当与合法行政协议“权利处分”的关联性割断;原则基准要求“依据”的识别应指向被诉行政行为合法性判断,并由此形成了“依据”识别的重要性检验基准。

In the "Mao Aimei case ", the identification of normative documents becomes the premise of and the key to judicial review of normative documents. By determining the inconsistency between the normative documents and the sued administrative acts in terms of “content construction ” the court affirmed that there was no correlation between the two and denied the role of "basis" of the normative documents involved. On the level of it-ought-to-be, the identification of "basis" has three levels: formal benchmark, content benchmark and principle benchmark for overall review. The formal benchmark requires that the court judge the representative act of the “basis” through the administrative agency, but it must be confirmed with the normative attributes of normative documents;the content benchmark establishes the conditional nature of the actual impacts of normative documents on the rights and obligations of counterparts so as to disconnect the consistency of administrative acts in the constitution of legal relations, the causality of administrative acts in the formation of legal effects, and the association of right disposal in legal administrative agreements;the principle benchmark requires that the identification of “basis” should point to the legality judgment of the sued administrative acts, thus forming the benchmark for the importance test of identifying the “basis”.