Research On Compensation Of Administrative Prompt Coercion

The revised National Compensation Law has been promoted as for theindemnification issues and it protects the citizens’ legal interests in a better way.However there are little changes about the compensation matters because theopportunity has not yet arrived. It is an inevitable problem in regard to how toindemnify the citizens fully and timely during the practice. The compensation ofadministrative prompt coercion refers to a liability of indemnification, which incurredwhen the Administrative Organ causes damages to the counterparts while taking legaladministrative enforcement actions so as to protect social orders and public interestsas an administrative subject suffers crimes, natural disasters, accidents, public healthincidents, social safety incidents or emergencies. Although the prompt coercion itselfis kind of legal administrative action, and the purpose of which is to protect the publicinterests, but based on the principles of fairness and justice, the executive publicauthorities must bear the compensation liability for damage caused by this power. Thearticle revolves around the compensation of administrative prompt coercion problemis studied from five aspectsIn the first part,the author defines the concept of administrative prompt coercionand gives a clear definition of administrative compensation and its classification. It ispointed out that the concept of prompt coercion does not exist in current legislationinland, and only stays in the statement of academic discussion.In addition,the articleintroduces the definition of administrative prompt coercion in the civil law countries.The author justifies the legitimacy of the compensation of administrative promptcoercion in the second part. From the following four aspects: the conception of thesocial state and the law, principle of minimum level of human rights protection, inparticular the equality of public burden of sacrifice bear theory on civil compensationfor special damages and related legal provisions, the author demonstrates thenecessity of compensation paid for imposed administrative prompt coercion behaviorlawfully.It is clarified in the third part some compensation legislation of compulsory acts that several typical continental law system countries have about prompt coercion.Thefair compensation occurred after the combination of unified and separate law withprompt enforcement in Germany; the regulation of a just compensation in Japaneseseparate law. Taiwan also regulates in the administrative enforcement law expresslyto provide mandatory compensation for reasonable damages. These legislativepractices do have important referential significance to China.Administrative prompt coercion laws in China is combed in the fourth part andproblems do really exist that we are lacking in basic principles of guidance, unifiedadministrative compensation legislation and a perfect compensation relief system.There is no standard operating procedures in the program, and the discretion power ofadministrative subject is too expanded.In the last part, the author discusses the construction of administrative promptcoercion compensation system in our country, which concludes that establishingmandatory compensation elements, setting out the compensation provision in the juscogens, listing the standards, scope, modalities, procedures and the improvement ofremedies of immediate mandatory compensation. Finally it must be ensured thatcompulsory compensation of Government information is public to all and broadsupervision must be strengthened. We shall ensure that the compensation is trulyimplemented and relativity’s legal rights are effectively recovered.