期刊文献+

自动化行政中的事实认定——以《行政处罚法》第41条为中心 被引量:1

Fact-Finding in Automated Administration——Based on Article 41 of the Administrative Punishment Law
原文传递
导出
摘要 新《行政处罚法》增设第41条,其意义在于确立了以“利用电子技术监控设备”为代表的自动化行政在事实认定方面的规范基础,并非构建了一种独立于传统行政程序的新型程序。事实认定由两阶段构成,先形成一定的基础事实,再结合证明标准完成案件事实的推断。基础事实本质上属于法律事实,自动化行政虽能高效获取外在的客观事实,但为确保其符合证据特性仍应经人工审核方能升格为法律事实。基于自动化行政所形成的基础事实并不等同于最终的案件事实。首先,当行政相对人提出异议时,行政机关仍应履行全面调查义务。其次,行政机关得于个案中结合证明标准判断最终的案件事实是否清楚。若案件适用简易程序,则选取优势证明标准,可从电子基础事实出发推断待证事实;若案件适用普通程序,无论采高度盖然性证明标准抑或排除合理怀疑证明标准,均无法基于电子基础事实直接推断待证事实。至此,围绕第41条的电子数据“定案孤证说”无从证立。 The significance of article 41 of“Administrative Punishment Law”is to put forward the le-gal requirements for the fact-finding of automated administration represented by“using electronic technology monitoring equipment”,rather than constructing a new type of administrative procedure that is independent of traditional administrative one.The fact-finding consists of two stages.The first stage is to form certain basic facts,and the second stage is to complete the inference of case facts with proof stand-ards.Basic facts belong to legal facts in essence.Although automated administration could obtain objective facts efficiently,they can only be upgraded to legal facts after manual review in order to make sure they conform to the qualities of evidence.The facts formed based on automated administration are not equivalent to the final case facts.Firstly,when the administrative counterpart raises an objection,the administrative organ should still perform the obligation of comprehensive investigation.Secondly,the administrative organ may judge whether the final case facts are clear by combining the proof standard in the case.If the summary procedure is applied in the case,the predominance proof standard can be selected to infer the facts accord-ing to electronic basic facts.If the ordinary procedure is applied in the case,no matter the high probability standard or the standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt,the facts to be proved cannot be directly in-ferred from the electronic basic facts.At this point,“the theory of using single evidence to judge the case”about electronic data,revolving around the article 4l,cannot be substantiated..
作者 查云飞 ZHA Yun-fei(Zhejiang University Guanghua Law School,Hangzhou 310008)
出处 《行政法学研究》 北大核心 2024年第2期33-44,共12页 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW REVIEW
基金 2021年司法部法治建设与法学理论研究部级科研项目青年课题“自动化行政裁量模型及其风险防范机制研究”(项目编号:21SFB3008) 2022年国家社会科学基金一般项目“自动化行政程序的理论基础与规则构建研究”(项目编号:22BFX167)。
关键词 自动化行政 事实认定 行政处罚 调查取证 证明标准 Automated Administration Fact-finding Administrative Punishment Investigation and Evidence Collection Proof Standard
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献235

共引文献550

引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部