祛魅与返魅:行政诉讼中权利保护必要性之理论解读及其适用

Disenchantment and Re-enchantment:Theoretical Interpretation and Application of the Necessity of Rights Protection in Administrative Litigation

修改后的《行政诉讼法》对"起诉条件"虽无实质改变,但"诉权保障"的政策鼓呼仍使不少法院走上"有案必收""先收后驳"的歧路。与此伴生的滥诉现象迫使法院频繁借助学理上的权利保护必要性之概念及法理,以此达到"滥诉规制"的目的。在我国,行政诉讼权利保护必要性尚面临理论研究之不足、立法层面之概念"缺位"与司法层面之概念"越位"的问题,亟待祛魅与返魅。具体包括纠正概念的误用现象、归纳权利保护必要性的判定标准及其欠缺表现、厘清其学理定位、完善其适用规则等。依托对判例的梳理,可勾勒出行政诉讼权利保护必要性的中国图景:其指涉当事人的请求是否具有利用国家审判制度加以解决的实际价值和必要性,并以效率性、有用性、适时性、正当性及预期性作为判定标准,由法院驳回无效率、无实益、不适时、非正当或不可预见的起诉。权利保护必要性应纳入诉讼要件之范畴,且由诉讼过滤、权利塑造、筛选救济渠道的三重功能出发,可证成法院将其作为裁判事由之正当性;当其作为裁判事由被适用时,应让位于实定法中的相关制度安排。

Although the revised Administrative Litigation Law in People’s Republic of Chinahas no substantive change to the"conditions to sue",the policy advocacy of"protecting the litigation right"has caused many courts falling into the wrong zone of"all cases must be received"and"receiving first and then turning down".Accompanied by above situation,the phenomenon of litigation-abuse forces courts to frequently use the concept and jurisprudence about the necessity of rights protection,so as to achieve the purpose of preventing litigation-abuse.In China,the necessity of rights protection in administrative litigation still faces shortages at the theoretical research level,"concept-absence"at the legislative level and"concept-offside"at the judicial level,which also need disenchantment and re-enchantment by correcting the misuse of concepts,summarizing the judgment criteria and lacking performance of the necessity of rights protection,and clearing the academic positioning as well as perfecting the application rules of the necessity of rights protection.Based on studying cases,the Chinese picture of the necessity of rights protection in administrative litigation can be outlined,which refers to whether the request of the litigant has actual value and necessity to be solved by using the national trial system,and the efficiency,usefulness,timeliness,legitimacy and expectation are used as the judgment criteria.A lawsuit which is ineffective,unproductive,untimely,unjustified or unexpected would be turned down by the court.The necessity of rights protection should be included in the scope of litigation requirements.Starting from the three functions of litigation filtering,rights shaping,and selection of relief channels,it can be justified that the court regards the necessity of rights protection as the reason for judgment.When the necessity of rights protection is applied as judgment grounds,the relevant institutional arrangements in legal provisions should be applied preferentially.