权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

ENACTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE LAW AND ITS INFLUENCE UPON ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS

行政诉讼法的制定及其对行政上诉的影响

基本信息

批准号：
06620017
负责人：
KOYAMA Masayoshi
金额：
$ 1.09万
依托单位：
YAMAGUCHI UNIVERSITY
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
1994
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1994 至 1995
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/en/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-06620017/
关键词：
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE (-LAW)ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL WIDERSPRUCH (-VERFAHREN)ADMINISTRATIVE COURT (-LAW)DECLARATION OF REASONS FOR A DISPOSITION BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY REVISION OF REASONS FOR A DISPOSITION BY ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY GERMANY

项目摘要

(1) What kind of influence does an Enactment of Administrative Procedure Law (APL) have on administrative appeals? To clarify this issue is the aim of this research. On this occasion, I had an intention of comparing Japan-Law with Germany-Law and of using declaration of reasons for a disposition by administrative agency as a model. I have examined Administrative Appeal System (Widerspruchverfahren) and Declaration of Reasons (Begruendung des Verwaltungsakt) in precedents of the Federal Administrative Court in Germany. This work will turn into two articles soon.(2) Administrative Appeal System is provided in Administrative Court Law (ACL), namely judicial proceeding Law. On the other hand administrative procedure is regurated in APL in Germany. In this case is Administrative Appeal System an administrative procedure or judicial procedure? According to some former judgments of Federal Administrative Cort, Administrative Appeal System was understood as judicial proceeding. But the Court r … More egards it as administrative procedure today. Many authors support this view.By the way, ACL provides some significant matters concerening Administrative Appeal System, but doesn't the other details. As a result people must consider the issue whether ACL should be applied to Administrative Appeal System or APL,when there is not any clear provision in ACL.It is an opinion of Procedents in the Federal Administrative Court and of many authors to settle this issue by a substance of a affair.For example, people have argued on reformatio in peius in Administrative Appeal System. It is allowed generally or conditionalyly by the precedents and many Authors. In Japan it's forbidden (Administrative Appeal Law, Article 40, Paragraph 5 : Article 47, Paragraph 3).(3) Administrative agency should attach reasons to its disposition in writting as a rule (German-Apl, Article 39). It's only natural to regard a disposition without reasons as illegal. Whtat should people consider a disposition with reasons which don't support its substantial legality? The precedents and many authors regard it as possible that administrative agency revise or exchange reasons in Administrative Appeal System and inferior administrative courts. This veiw has been explained before an enactment of APL.A significance of declaration of reasons seems to be reduced.(4) I think that Administrative Appeal System in Germany can't be grasped under a category of pre-administrative-procedure and post-administrative-procedure. Two types of administrative-prcedure are distinguished cleary in Japan. And so it may be difficult to compare Japan-Law with Germany-Law. Anyway people may lose a part of significance of fore -regulating administrative process by APL in Germany. Less

(1)《行政诉讼法》的实施对行政上诉有什么样的影响？澄清这一问题是本研究的目的。在此，笔者打算对日本法和德国法进行比较，并以行政机关处分理由的说明为范本。我研究了德国联邦行政法院判例中的行政上诉制度（Widerspruchverfahren）和理由声明（Begruendung des Verwaltungsakt）。这项工作很快就会变成两篇文章。(2)《行政法院法》即《司法诉讼法》规定了行政上诉制度。另一方面，行政程序在德国的《行政程序法》中被重新确立。在这种情况下，行政申诉制度是行政程序还是司法程序？根据以往联邦行政法院的一些判决，行政上诉制度被理解为司法程序。但法院r ...更多信息今天把它作为行政程序。但是，《行政复议法》对行政复议制度的一些重要内容作了规定，而对其他方面的内容却没有作详细的规定。因此，在《行政诉讼法》没有明确规定的情况下，行政诉讼法究竟适用于行政上诉制度还是适用于行政程序法，这是人们必须考虑的问题。联邦行政法院的诉讼人和许多学者都主张通过一件事的实质来解决这一问题。这是允许一般或有条件的先例和许多作者。在日本，这是被禁止的（行政上诉法第40条第5款：第47条第3款）。(3)行政机关应当以书面形式说明其处分的理由（德国《行政诉讼法》第39条）。把没有理由的处分视为违法是很自然的。如果处分的理由不支持其实质合法性，人们应该如何看待处分？判例和许多学者认为，行政机关在行政上诉制度和下级行政法院修改或交换理由是可能的。这一观点在《杀伤人员地雷法》制定之前已经得到解释，说明理由的意义似乎有所降低。(4)笔者认为，不能将德国的行政上诉制度放在行政程序前和行政程序后的范畴中来把握。日本的行政实践有两种类型。因此，很难将日本法与德国法进行比较。无论如何，人们可能会失去德国的APL对行政程序进行事前规制的部分意义.少