Research On Confirmation Of Invalid Judgment In Administrative Litigation

The "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Implementation of the "Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China" in 2000)first mentioned the confirmation of invalid judgment,but it was on the same law as the confirmation of the illegal judgment,and it was not applicable to the application.Standards are specifically explained.In 2015,the new Administrative Litigation Law listed the invalid judgment as a judgment method,and its independent value was revealed.The significance of establishing an invalid judgment was the maintenance of the substantive justice of the law and the protection of the rights of the administrative counterpart.However,through the study of relevant theories and the analysis of a large number of judicial practice cases,it is found that there are still some problems in the confirmation of invalid judgments,such as the meaning of“significant and obvious violation of the law”,whether the time limit for prosecution is not clear,and different judgments.The method is applicable to confusion,and the original defendant's burden of proof is unclear.This article combines the relevant provisions of Articles 94 and99 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China in2018,and proposes corresponding improvement measures for the existing problems: The case of the case was classified and discussed,further clarifying the connotation of “significant and obvious violation of the law”;the confirmation of invalidation should be filed in the “appropriate period”,and the “appropriate period” was reviewed by the Supreme People's Court in 2016.Guo Jiaxin et al.v.Zibo An innovative concept put forward in the case of the dismissal of the People's Government of Boshan District,which broke through the traditional view that the time limit for prosecution can only be with or without,but the determination of the “appropriate period” scope of the Supreme People's Court has not To make a specific explanation,this article explains the rationality of the“appropriate period” and refines its identification criteria,and considers that it should follow the case-based standard and not less than the statutory time limit for prosecution;The relationship model between the two,China adopts a parallel relationship,and the provisions of Article 94 of the judicial interpretation are consistent with The legislative purpose of the Administrative Litigation Law to protect the legitimate rights and interests of administrative counterparts;during the period of statutory prosecution,the defendant bears the burden of proof for the legality of the administrative act,and the plaintiff bears the burden of proof for the“significant and obvious violation of the law”,which exceeds the statutory time limit for prosecution.The plaintiff shall bear the burden ofproof and the defendant shall not be liable for the burden of proof.