摘要
“小过重罚”“趋利执法”等问题的出现,使得行政裁量的个案正义实现再次成为焦点。我国的行政裁量司法审查,因《行政诉讼法》的制定和修正,经历了从“行政处罚显失公正”到“行政行为明显不当”的变迁,“滥用职权”则从宽泛认定逐渐聚焦到主观过错上。在此过程中,比例原则被引入和运用,行政裁量合法性的原则框架得以确立。行政机关则从自我拘束的角度开始制定裁量基准。裁量基准的适用,在一定程度上规范了裁量权的运用,也提高了行政效率。然而,上级机关的羁束性管理和法院对裁量基准的低限度审查,使得机械适用裁量基准成为常态,执法者的具体裁量和个案考虑义务相应被忽视。裁量基准甚至成为“小过重罚”“趋利执法”的“避风港”。为此,人民法院应当坚持类案考虑义务和主观目的正当性审查,对裁量基准没有预见或忽视的重要类案要素,要求执法者予以考虑,从而平衡公共利益和个案正义;对受财政目的驱使的执法,即使形式合法或符合裁量基准,也应当认定滥用职权,从而助力营商环境优化和宏观经济发展。
The emergence of "disproportionate penalties for minor offenses" and "profit-driven enforcement" has refocused attention on achieving individual justice in administrative discretion.China's judicial review of administrative discretion has evolved from "obvious injustice in administrative penalties" to "obvious inappropriateness in administrative acts"with the enactment and amendment of the Administrative Litigation Law,while"abuse of power"has gradually shifted from a broad concept to the one centered on subjective fault.In this process,the principle of proportionality was introduced and applied,establishing a doctrinal framework for the legality of administrative discretion.Administrative authorities began to formulate discretionary guidelines from the perspective of self-restraint.These guidelines have,to some extent,standardized the exercise of discretion and improved administrative efficiency.However,rigid oversight by higher authorities and minimal judicial scrutiny have turned mechanical application of the guidelines into the norm,marginalizing case-specific analysis and individualized consideration.The guidelines have even become a "safe harbor" for disproportionate penalties and profit-driven enforcement.Therefore,the People's Courts must consistently review whether the agency has discharged its duty of individualized consideration and whether the agency's subjective purpose is substantively legitimate:when decisive case-specific elements are unforeseeable or ignored by the guidelines,agencies must be required to take them into account to balance public interest and individual justice;and when enforcement is motivated by fiscal interests,courts should deem it an abuse of power even if formally lawful or consistent with the guidelines,thereby fostering a better business environment and macro-economic development.
出处
《中国政法大学学报》
2025年第6期183-199,共17页
Journal Of CUPL
关键词
行政裁量
明显不当
滥用职权
裁量基准
个案考虑义务
administrative discretion
manifest impropriety
abuse of authority
discretionary guidelines
duty of individualized consideration
