行政行为程序轻微违法的识别

The Identification for Procedural Minor Illegality of Administrative Actions

识别“程序轻微违法”的唯一要件是被诉行政行为“对重要程序性权利不产生实质损害”。“重要程序性权利”包括对不利处分的申辩权、要求行政机关中立地作出决定的权利等;“产生实质损害”指向违反正当程序原则的情形。考察裁判文书所勾勒的“程序轻微违法”情形并借此实现与一种更轻微的狭义程序瑕疵之界分,乃是我国学界研究“程序轻微违法”的现有范式。但通过梳理最高人民法院审理的案件会发现,其归纳的“程序轻微违法”情形因与狭义程序瑕疵、“违反法定程序”情形屡屡重合而存疑。试图提炼程序违法之“轻微”与“更轻微”的各自表现,并以此实现界分的横向界分思路并不成功,亟待向纵向界分思路转换。当满足被诉行政行为“对重要程序性权利不产生实质损害”时,可对程序违法之“轻微”与“更轻微”暂作模糊化处理。在此基础上,若行政主体自行实施了有意义的补正,则构成狭义程序瑕疵;反之,构成“程序轻微违法”。

The only element for identifying"procedural minor illegality"is that the administrative ac-tion being sued doesn't cause substantial damage to important procedural rights.The"important procedural right"includes the right to defend against adverse dispositions,the right to request administrative organs to make decisions neutrally and so on.The"substantial damage"refers to a violation of the principle of due process.Examining the situation of"procedural minor illegality"identified in the judgment documents and using it to achieve a distinction from a"further minor"narrow procedural defect,is the existing paradigm for Chinese academic community to study"procedural minor illegality".However,a review of the cases heard by the Supreme People's Court reveals that the situation of"procedural minor illegality"summarized by the court are doubtful because they repeatedly overlap with the situation of narrow procedural defects and"violations of legal procedures".Attempting to refine the respective manifestations of"minor"and"further minor"procedural illegality to achieve a horizontal distinction hasn't been successful,and it is ur-gent to change the idea to that of longitudinal distinction.When the administrative action being sued doesn't cause substantial damage to important procedural rights,"minor"and"further minor"procedural illegali-ty can be temporarily blurred.On this basis,if the administrative entity implements meaningful corrections on its own,it constitutes a narrow procedural defect;otherwise,it constitutes a"procedural minor illegali-ty".