| In 2000, judicial interpretation on administrative litigation law established invalid judgment and made it become a kind of independent form judgment of value.However, the applied standard of invalid judgment is obscure. So the practice sector is rarely applied to this type of judgment, limiting the recognition of ineffective judgments. In 2014, Article 75 of the new Administrative Procedure Law expressly provides for the examination of invalid judgments, the introduction of ’obvious and significant’ violations of the standard, and specific examples of violations. Courts at all levels are also actively applicable to confirm invalid judgments, but the lack of consistency in the application of standards. To confirm the ineffective judgment system is still in the initial stage of our country. Although the introduction of the new law has greatly promoted the application of the confirmation of invalid judgment in judicial practice, the uniform applicable criterion is the rational track to confirm the development of invalid judgment. Therefore, this paper uses research method to study the applied standards of invalid judgment.Before the implementation of the new administrative procedural law, invalid judgments were in practice rarely applied. The applied standards are invalid provisions of substantive law. The most common is to apply to the Administrative Punishment Act Article 3 and Article 41. If there is no substantive law, even if the administrative act has reached the ’significant and obvious’ illegal degree, some courts also use the revocation of the verdict or confirm the verdict in lieu of invalid judgment.After the implementation of the new Administrative Procedure Law, although the law is more definite, but in practice there are still inconsistent with the application of the law. Mainly in the following aspects: First, on the ’ have non administrative subject qualification’, some courts expand the understanding as ’does not have the authority to exercise a power’, leading to its ’beyond authority’ mixed; second, On the’no basis’ of the identification, and some courts understand it as the lack of administrative basis for the actual basis. Based on the particularity of the marital relationship, in addition to the cases of marriage registration, other administrative activities based on the lack of facts should be affirmed as ’lack of the main evidence ’.And the lack of factual basis of the administrative agreement class disputes,should be based on the new judicial interpretation of Article 15 to make a judgment.Some courts have ruled that the executive authorities have acted as ’no basis’ in the absence of laws and regulations, which in fact confuse ’beyond authority’ with ’no basis’. Thirdly, some judgments have been made to confirm invalid sentences on the grounds that they are ’beyond authority’, ’lack of main evidence’ and ’applicable legal error’. The above misunderstanding needs to be clarified, otherwise it will expand the arbitrariness of the application to confirm the invalid decision, confuse the verdict with the verdict and invalidate the judgment.Through the analysis of the judicial jurisprudence, this article sums up the applicable standard of the invalid judgment in the background of the new Administrative Procedure Law: ’have non administrative subject qualification’ refers to the subject with the executive power but does not have other qualifications of the administrative subject, set up an organization, subordinate departments and agencies to act in their own name. ’No basis’ means that the administrative organ is acting only on the basis of the minutes of the government meeting, and the contents of the meeting are in violation of the laws and regulations, or the administrative organ has neither submitted the plead in the proceedings nor provided any legal basis. This article also explores the concrete manifestations of ’significant and obvious’violations in judicial practice, and summarizes the following circumstances:administrative decisions are not stamped, administrative decisions are not lawfully served, internal administrative acts are externalized, administrative acts are violated Laws and regulations of the mandatory provisions and the ownership certificate, the legal certificate is invalid documents and so on.In the early stages of confirmation of invalid judgment and related system development, the court should adopt a prudent and precise understanding of the application of the judgment in particular and clarify its limits with revocation of the judgment and confirmation of the law. The clear and unified referee standard is a prerequisite for confirming the ineffective judgment to play its unique system function. Therefore, this article hopes to clarify the erroneous tendencies in judicial practice and provide some reference for judicial application by studying the case of confirmation of invalid judgment. |
