履行期限确定的司法裁量--从一则案例切入

Judicial Discretion for Determining the Time Limit of Performance-Starting from a Case

法院在履行判决中确定履行期限时享有司法裁量权,但因该事项涉及行政权与司法权的关系协调问题,又因行政程序法规则的空缺,给法院的司法裁量带来挑战,相关司法实践亦未给出明晰的确定思路。对此,发圣公司案判决揭示了裁量确定履行期限的多层次规则:首先,法定期限应被视为确定履行期限之基准;其次,无法定期限时,可参照《行政诉讼法》第47条设置的两个月的期限;最后,可结合当事人合法权益保护的及时性和行政机关履职的可行性等个案因素,合理确定履行期限。透过此案,还可进一步提炼行政诉讼司法裁量的三重应然样态,亦即:面向行政诉讼权力结构的司法裁量、受法释义学技术制约的司法裁量以及推动行政争议实质性解决的司法裁量。

The court enjoys judicial discretion when determining the time limit of performance in the performance of the judgment,but because the matter involves the coordination of the relationship between administrative power and judicial power,and because of the vacancy of the rules of administrative procedure law,it brings challenges to the judicial discretion of the court,and the relevant judicial practice has not given clear and definite ideas.In this regard,the judgment of Fasheng company case reveals the multi-level rules for discretionary determination of the time limit of performance:first,the legal time limit should be regarded as the benchmark for determining the time limit of performance;Secondly,if the time limit cannot be fixed,the two-month period set in Article 47 of the administrative procedure law can be referred to;Finally,the time limit of performance can be reasonably determined in combination with the timeliness of the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of the parties and the feasibility of the administrative organ performing its duties.Through this case,we can further refine the three necessary forms of judicial discretion in administrative litigation,that is,judicial discretion facing the power structure of administrative litigation,judicial discretion restricted by legal hermeneutics technology and judicial discretion promoting the substantive settlement of administrative disputes.