面向党政机构改革的行政诉讼被告认定标准——以“职权要素”为核心的实质解释路径构建

Identification Criteria of the Defendant in Administrative Litigation Under the Background of the Reform of the Party and Government Institutions:Construction of Substantive Interpretation Path as the Core of “Authority Elements”

党政机构改革下党的机构职能出现行政化趋势,而司法实践从形式标准入手强调党政融合机构必须使用行政机构的名义,导致相对人的权益救济陷入供需困境。关键在于理顺党的机构被告资格问题,就此分析、探讨三条潜在的路径。以"主体要素"为核心路径,解决了相对人权利救济的问题,但未能触及权力运行的根本。绝大多数学者所主张的行政主体理论重构路径缺乏经济合理性考量,忽略了改革影响的可控性、本质因素的稳定性和既有概念的使用惯性。笔者较为认同的以"职权要素"为核心的实质解释路径,兼具理论与实践理性,应重新解释"行政主体"的概念,将实质行使"行政管理职权"的主体认定为"行政主体",进而肯定其行政诉讼被告资格。

Against the backdrop of the reform of the Party and government institutions, the Party’s institutional functions show a tendency of administerization. Judicial practice emphasizes that the integration of the Party and government must use the name of administrative organization from the perspective of formal standard, which leads to the supply and demand dilemma of administrative relative person’s rights and interests relief. The key to solving this problem is to straighten out the defendant’s qualification of the Party’s institutions. The ensuing are the three potential paths: First, the path as the core of “main elements” helps settle the problem of relative person’s rights and interests relief, but fails to get to the root of authority-run rules. Second, the reconstruction path of administrative subject theory advocated by a majority of scholars is lacking in economic rationality, which ignores the controllability of the impact of reform, stability of essential factors, and inertia in the use of existing concepts. Third, the substantive interpretation path as the core of “authority elements” has both theoretical and practical rationality. The concept of “administrative subject” should be reinterpreted, which means that the subject that exercises the “administrative power” in essence should be identified as the “administrative subject”, hence his affirmed qualification as a defendant in administrative litigation.