On The Judicial Review Of Minor Administrative Procedures

The slightest paralysis in administrative procedures is when the administrative agency has made an administrative act that has caused significant errors in the procedure.The 1989 "Administrative Procedure Law" stipulated that the violation of legal procedures should be revoked,clarifying the important role of administrative procedures.However,merely revoking all procedural errors to violations of statutory procedures would obviously result in a waste of judicial resources and other issues.At the same time,it would not be able to properly resolve the appeals of administrative counterparts and increase the freedom of judges when hearing cases.Discretion is also not conducive to correcting procedural issues.Since the promulgation and implementation of the new "Administrative Procedure Law",administrative procedures have been mistaken for violations of statutory procedures and procedures for minor violations of the law,which in turn point to the two methods of revoking judgments and confirming illegal judgments.The procedural issues are divided into the above two types,which reflect the different levels of procedural issues and make administrative cases more reasonable.However,in the judicial practice,cases with minor ambiguities can still not be solved by dichotomy.Procedures Minor molestation are usually ruled to reject a claim and cannot give a satisfactory answer to the opposing party.It also jeopardizes procedural justice.Therefore,in order to better solve the procedural problems brought about by the minor flaws in the procedure,the minor flaws in the research procedure and its judicial review are of great significance to this issue.In this regard,this article summarizes the theoretical and legislative criteria for judging the slightest flaw in the general theory of the procedure.In combination with the judicial practice,the judge has furthered the difficulties arising from the handling of minor flaws in the procedure.Thinking,making suggestions on improving the minor judicial review of administrative procedures.This article is divided into four parts: The first part defines the concept of minor defects in administrative procedures by studying the general theory and status quo of minor defects in administrative procedures.It also summarizes the treatment of small administrative defects in legislation;the second part deals with administrative issues.The procedure involved in this case is slightly flawed.According to the court'sjudgment,several different types of administrative procedures were summarized and summarized.In the third part,the analysis of the judgment further points out that there is a conflict between the court and the judicial theory of administrative procedures.As well as the disputes arising from the handling of cases by judges,the fourth section proposes the "three-point rule" for improving judicial review of administrative procedures,correcting the system,natural governance and judicial advice.Small program problems provide better solutions.