行政规划行为可诉性的类型化研究——以“湛江喜强公司案”为分析中心

A Typological Study on the Litigability of Administrative Planning Acts

行政规划是现代行政职权行使的一种重要方式。司法实践中,法院在判断行政规划是否可诉时主要借助普遍约束性、实际影响两种标准。对此,应当首先厘清行政规划的法律性质,并将其定位为与行政行为并列的新型行政活动方式。对“湛江喜强公司案”裁判理由及其他类案的分析表明,在行政规划可诉性问题的把握上,法院业已形成了行政过程论、成熟性原则以及救济实效性三重思考路径,并辅以对象具体特定性、内容权利限制性和效果直接明确性三项构成要件,这为司法有效应对纷繁复杂的行政规划案件提供了较为统一的裁判尺度。在此基础上对行政规划进行类型化分析,有助于权利保护和纠纷解决。

Administrative planning is an important way of exercising modern administrative power.In judicial practice,courts mainly rely on two criteria when judging whether an administrative planning is actionable:universal binding and actual impact.In this regard,we should first clarify the legal nature of administrative planning and position it as a new type of administrative activity parallel to administrative actions.An analysis of the reasons for the judgment in the“Zhanjiang Xiqiang Company Case”and other similar cases shows that courts have developed a triple-track approach to assessing the litigability of administrative planning,including the theory of administrative process,the principle of maturity,and the effectiveness of remedies.This is complemented by three constituent elements:the specificity of the target,the restrictive nature of content rights,and the direct and clear effect.This provides a relatively uniform criterion for judicial decisions in effectively addressing the complex and diverse cases of administrative planning.Furthermore,a typological analysis of administrative planning can also contribute to rights protection and dispute resolution.