A Judicial Review Study On The Correlation Between Normative Documents And The Administrative Action Prosecuted

According to Article 53 of the "Administrative Procedure Law",the administrative counterpart may file a request for incidental review of the normative documents on which the administrative action is based when filing an administrative lawsuit.That is to say,only the normative documents on the basis of administrative actions can file an application for incidental review,and whether the normative documents are the basis for administrative actions needs to be correctly determined by the people's court,which is also the judicial review of the normative documents Necessary premise.At present,the Supreme People's Court has not issued relevant judicial interpretations of the "foundation" provided for in Article 53 of the Administrative Procedure Law.Therefore,the practice has not yet formed the relationship between the normative documents and the administrative actions being sued.Mandatory review standards.The lack of mandatory review standards will inevitably lead to a series of problems.Therefore,it is an important condition for the supplementary review system to play a role in the judicial review standards that clarify the relevance of normative documents and the administrative conduct of the respondent.Through empirical research on the relevant judgments,it is found that when the judicial review of the relevance of the supplementary review of normative documents and administrative behaviors is carried out by the practice community,the substantive standard review is the main,and the formal standard review is supplemented.When conducting the review,it is more concerned whether the relevance between the normative documents and administrative actions meets the requirements of substantive standards,and the formal standards are secondary standards.In this regard,the practice has a high level of review,which also reflects the professionalism and rigor of our judicial team.Although the review methods and standards formed by the current practice are scientific,they have found that there are still some problems.For example,the judicial review overemphasizes the "clearquotation" in administrative actions and the special samples due to administrative actions.To deny the "foundation",the judiciary misunderstood the meaning of the directly applicable "foundation",excluded the normative documents in the form of evidence from judicial review,and the result of judicial determination deviated from the legislative intent of Article 53.These problems arise in practice,on the one hand,it has a great relationship with the lack of mandatory review standards,and on the other hand,it is related to the lack of proper understanding of legal provisions.The solution of these problems should be from the perspective of scientifically expanding the scope of incidental review,by describing the theoretical form of the relationship between normative documents and administrative behaviors,and combining the problems that arise today,giving concrete and actionable suggestions,Five practical suggestions are put forward in the article.First,adopt an expanded interpretation method for the "foundation" in Article 53,and include as many forms of "foundation" as possible;Judicial review practice standards;third,clarify the court's obligation to present “non-foundation”,and allow the administrative counterpart to apply for replacement of the regulatory documents submitted for review midway;fourth,from the perspective of benefiting the administrative counterpart,to the normative Relevance between documents and administrative actions is determined;Fifth,the guidance and supervision of higher people's courts are strengthened.It is hoped that these suggestions can truly solve the problems in the current practice and realize the function of supervising the normative documents with the review system.