浙江社会科学

2014年修改的《行政诉讼法》规定,法院可对行政行为所依据的规范性文件进行合法性审查。然而,审查标准的阙如却为法院的适用带来了巨大难题。从538份裁判文书的样本分析中可知,规范性文件的审查标准主要由三部分构成:在规范性文件的制定主体方面,法院主要审查的是制定主体的身份和权限;在规范性文件的制定程序方面,重点环节的审查是一种务实的选择;在规范性文件的内容方面,法院主要从依据性、一致性和抵触性这三个方面来进行审查。为了避免审查标准的不清晰而造成法院裁判的"同案不同判",未来的制度完善应尽量考虑建立体系化的审查标准。具体的完善方案可采取由最高人民法院发布司法解释的方式,或者更理想的是在以后修法中进行补充。无论采取哪种方式,制定统一的审查标准对于提升行政规范性文件司法审查结果的统一性、公正性和可接受性都会有莫大裨益。

The Administrative Litigation Law amended in 2014 stipulates that the court can legally review the normative documents upon which administrative acts are based. However, the absence of review standards poses huge problems to the courts' applications. On the basis of the analysis of 538 Judgments,the review standards mainly consist of three parts: as to the formulating bodies of normative documents, the court mainly reviews their identity and competence; as to the formulating procedure of normative documents,the review of key parts is a pragmatic choice; as to their contents of normative documents, the court mainlyreviews their dependence, consistency and resistance. In order to avoid the phenomenon of "identical cases with different court adjudications" due to vagueness of the review standards, the future institutional improvement should focus on establishing a systematic review standard. The concrete perfecting plan can be judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme People's Court, and the more desirable method is to amend in future revision of laws. Regardless of the methods adopted, the establishment of a unified standard of review will be of great benefit in enhancing the uniformity, fairness and acceptability of the results of judicial review of administrative normative documents.