论受行政处罚当事人无过错之证明——由《行政处罚法》第33条第2款展开

On the proof of no subjective fault of the party to administrative penalty: Paragraph 2 of Article 33 of the Administrative Penalty Law

新《行政处罚法》第33条第2款确立了过错推定的归责模式,属于主观归责的特殊形态,是法治的进步。然而该条款中的不确定法律概念给行政机关留下了巨大的裁量空间,为了避免行政权的滥用和怠惰,需要从规范出发为执法实践提供基准。在行政判断上,要注意从当事人心理状态和客观行为两个层面考察主观过错;规范取证认证,确保证据的合法与真实;针对不同案件类型确定不同的证明标准;在判断是否具有过错时考虑相关因素;注意责任阻却事由的存在。在司法审查上,要在全面审查原则的基础上尊重行政判断,审查手段上采取“禁止恣意原则”,重点纠正明显不当的行政行为。为了充分保障当事人举证权的实现,需要根据不同的行政处罚程序进行类型化的设计,提供程序性保障。

The second paragraph of Article 33 of the new Administrative Penalty Law establishes the imputation mode of fault presumption, which is the special form of subjective imputation and is the progress of the rule of law. However, the uncertain legal concept in the clause leaves a huge discretionary space for administrative organs. In order to avoid the abuse of administrative power, providing a benchmark for administrative organs based on norms is of necessity. In administrative judgment, we need to take two aspects,both parties’ psychological state and objective behavior, into consideration, to standardize evidence collection and certification to ensure the legitimacy and authenticity of evidence, to determine different standards of proof for different types of cases, to consider relevant factors when judging whether there is fault, and to pay attention to the clause of non-imputability. In judicial review, we should respect administrative judgment on the basis of the comprehensive review principle, adopt the "doctrine of prohibiting arbitrariness" in the means of inspection,and focus on correcting obviously improper administrative acts. In order to realize the parties’ right of proof with adequate protection, it is requisite to design different administrative punishment procedures to provide procedural safeguard.