On The Regulation Of Administrative Fees

Exaction of fees from administrative counterpart preform that the power of state is abused, which not only seriously impedes the healthy and orderly progress of our country and the development of a harmonious society, but also flagrant violates the property rights of citizens in Construction system which respects for private property rights. Guided by the socialist concept of the rule of law, this paper aimed to analyze how to regulate effectively administrative fees by Administrative Law. This Paper includes the introduction, the body and the conclusion, which totally has more than 30,000 characters. And the body is divided into three sections as follows:Section ONE: The basic theory of the administrative fees. It includes the definition of the connotation and extension of the administrative charges, the analysis of the difference among administrative fees, administrative charges and taxes, as well as the explain of the function of administrative fees. First of all, for the concept of administrative fees isn't unified, it cited some representative definition on administrative fees made by the administrative law scholars, public finance scholars and practitioners, summed up the differences between those definitions mentioned by the above, and got a new definition of administrative fees on the basis of the characteristics of administrative fees. Secondly, after redefined the concept of administrative fees, it analyzed respectively the differences and relationships among administrative fees, administrative charges and taxes. Finally, though the elaboration on the positive features and negative features of administrative fees, it demonstrated the the intrinsic value of administrative fees and necessity of making effective regulation on administrative fees.Section TWO: The current regulatory system in China's administrative fees and existential problems. In this section, the author sort out the state's current normative documents on administrative fees and conduct a preliminary introduction on the regulation of administrative fees at first. Then, the author analyzed empirical data and information issued by the Chinese Leadership IUD Decision-making Analysis and Processing Center, analyzed statutes and other normative documents which prescribed road maintenance fees, airport construction fees, inland waterway maintenance fees and summed up major problems in China's regulation on administrative fees. At last, the author try to expound and prove with some examples that the roots of China's current problems on administrative fees were the lack of Administrative Fees Act, departmental interests, imperfect judicial supervision of administrative fees.Section THREE: Some suggestions on perfecting the regulation of administrative fees. In this section, the author suggested that in order to perfect the current regulation of administrative fees, it is very important to lay down the Administrative Fees Act and improve the justice system as soon as possible. On the one hand, based on the progress of China's rule of law and characteristics of administrative fees, the author described some principles that legislation should always follows, such as principle of legitimacy, principle of equality and fairness, principle of private property protection and principle of transparency. And then, the author suggested to explicit denotation of administrative fees, strictly regulate the power and process of create a project of administrative fees and disclosure the appliance of administrative fees by drawing on the experience of legislation on administrative fees in Canada, Australia and New Zealand and combing with our state's administrative management system. On the other hand, on account of the narrow scope of administrative lawsuit, the traditional theory on subject of administrative law and qualifying defendant, simplex criterion of judicial review have become increasingly cannot meet the development of administrative fees, the author gave some advice to gradually expand the scope of administrative lawsuit, let "formal defendant" instead of "virtual defendant" and establish a flexible multi-mode judicial review.