指导案例6号的未竟之业

Unresolved Issues of Guiding Case No.6

对于我国行政法制发展来说,指导案例6号的贡献有二:一是将法律没有明文列举的"没收较大数额财产"的行政处罚纳入听证的范围,保障了行政相对人的权益,澄清了对《行政处罚法》第42条的模糊认识;二是间接地明确了正当程序原则对于行政行为的普遍约束力,肯定了系列判决在这方面的尝试和努力。但指导案例6号留下两个待决的问题:一是如何处理正当程序原则与成文法规定的程序之间的关系;二是在具体个案中,如果依据正当程序原则弥补成文法规定程序的不足,需要在什么情形下补充哪些程序?对这两个问题,加拿大和美国的判例已作了明确、清晰的回答,但对我国人民法院而言,仍有待深入研究和解决。如果借鉴加拿大和美国的判断基准来分析指导案例6号,反倒可以看出,该案适用正式听证程序没有必要,有程序适用过度之嫌。

To the development in of the two administrative aspects.legal system,enables Guiding the Case No.6 has made of significant contributions the large following amount Firstly,it not administrative penalty the confiscation 42 of a relatively of to property,be which to is explicitly listed in the provisions in Article of the law Administrative and Penalties the Law,of subject a court hearing,thus giving a clearer understanding of the protecting principle rights the on parties the involved.Secondly,it indirectly and confirms the general binding effect in of the of of due process administrative However,activities acknowledges issues the achievements to made handling a to series deal cases the of this type.there are of still due two remaining the be resolved.The the to first law.is how with what relation between should the principle adopted process procedure and procedure stipulated law by the The second is procedures the be due when To the stipulated by the in is found and be US can insufficient have according definite to principle but of process.these two questions,the the cases Canada court given answers,they demand thorough investigation offered before people's and in China find Case a good No.solution.seems Analyzed overuse according the to the criteria by the to Canadian apply American cases,holding Guiding a 6 to procedure,for it is unnecessary the procedure of formal hearing.