On The Execution Judgment In Administrative Litigation

As a form of judgment stipulated in the Administrative Procedure Law of our country,performance judgment plays an important role in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart.There is no one-to-one correspondence between the performance judgment and the action of performance.In other words,the performance judgment has an independent position in the administrative litigation.We should not simply interpret the performance judgment as the corresponding form of the j udgment of the action of performance.The definition of performance judgment should be grasped from two aspects:performance judgment in legal norms and performance judgment in judicial practice.According to the Administrative Procedure Law and relevant legal norms,the execution of judgments is a form of judgment against the violation of the law by the administrative subject’s omission.In practice,the forms of omission arc mainly the refusal to perform and the delay of performance.In judicial practice,the execution of j udgments often occurs in cases such as information disclosure,application for personal property protection,and the issuance of diploma.The similar concepts of performance judgment,performance judgment and restitution judgment are inextricably linked,and clarifying the relationship between them is the only way to study the performance of judgment.Generally speaking,the litigation disputes of payment judgment mainly lie in the payment of property such as money,that is,factual acts and property applicable to payment judgment other than specific administrative acts.The retrial judgment belongs to the performance j udgment in a broad sense,and the retrial judgment is a special form of the performance judgment.Because the plaintiffs litigation requests are different,administrative litigation which urges the defendant to perform his statutory duties leads to the diversion of re-judgment and execution of judgment in the trial stage.The key point of standardizing the execution of judgments lies in the applicable conditions and contents of the execution of judgments.Only when the procedural and substantive conditions are satisfied can the execution of judgments be applied.The procedural conditions include that the plaintiff has submitted an application to the administrative organ for the performance of his duties,that the administrative subject has fulfilled the deadline for the performance of his omissions,and that the substantive conditions are that the administrative subject has the obligation to perform its statutory duties,and that there is no It is necessary for facts and administrative subjects to perform their duties.There are two opinions on the content of executing judgments in academic circles,namely,the principle judgment and the concrete judgment.The two opinions differ sharply.The principle judgment advocates respecting the first judgment power of the administrative subject,and advocates that the people’s court can no longer perform the judgment and order the administrative subject to make a specific and specific administrative act.but only require the administrative subject to perform its statutory duties.Specific judgment theory advocates that in the degree of judicial review,the execution of judgments should be "judged to the end" without giving administrative subjects discretion.The doctrine of principled judgment is helpful to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the administrative counterpart,to provide the proper remedy for the administrative counterpart,and to balance the judicial and administrative powers.Therefore,the doctrine of principled judgment is more reasonable.In judicial practice,the principle judgment is also the usual practice,and the principle judgment replaces the concrete judgment is the general trend.