Research On The Litigable Standards Of Procedural Administrative Acts

The Supreme People’s Court issued the No.69 guidance case,which aroused the heated discussion of the procedural administrative actions of the academic and practical circles.Among them,the issue of the sueable standard has become the core of the discussion of the topic-what kind of procedural administrative behavior can be an independent litigation object? In fact,before and after the publication of the guiding case,there was no lack of research on procedural administrative behavior and its justiciability.In the legal norms,the judicial interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court has also expressed the position on the issue of the procedural administrative actability.This article attempts to adhere to the academic research results based on the basis of the empirical evidence,combined with the judicial vision presented by the current administrative trial practice,various academic and practical views on the procedural administrative actionable standards,and their I rely on the basic theory of dependence.Then,on the basis of the investigation,the paper puts forward the basic position and viewpoint of the standard of the litigation,in order to further improve the existing litigation standards and increase its operability.There are two main paths in the current academic circles for theprocedural administrative actionable standards.One is the “actual influence” path under the empirical law;the other is the “program independent” path for exploring the relative independent value of the program.Among them,the “actual impact” path is adopted by most scholars because of its close connection with the empirical law.In judicial practice,courts often judge the procedural administrative actions based on the “actual impact” criteria.However,after investigation,it is found that whether it is the academic refinement of the sueable standard or the court’s affirmation of the procedural administrative action in the case,there is a lack of careful grasp of the timelyness of judicial review.In other words,through the so-called abstract expressions such as“substantial influence” and “adverse influence”,it is still impossible to see what kind of specific interest pattern is formed,and the court can be sure that there is a need for judicial intervention.In order to further improve the procedural standards of procedural administrative behavior,this paper draws on the theory of judicial review timeliness in American law,especially the maturity principle.In view of the intrinsic link between the “actual impact” clause and the maturity principle,this paper attempts to embody the maturity principle within the meaning of the “actual impact” clause,so that the maturity principle becomes the procedural administrative actable litigation standard.There is also no operability.The realization of this specificization is tosummarize the factors that the four judges need to consider when judging whether the procedural administrative behavior is mature.These four factors are the degree of behavioral violations,the effectiveness of rights protection,the factors of administrative efficiency impairment,and the sufficiency factors of written materials.On the basis of the specific circumstances,the judge can make his own judgment on the justiciability of procedural administrative actions on the basis of discretion and weighing these four factors.In practice,when certain specific situations occur,procedural administrative actions can satisfy the inherent requirements of the above four factors,and thus have the suability.These situations are the abrupt termination of the procedure and the substitution of the entity,the subsequent recovery of the relief will be difficult to recover the loss and the significant obvious violation will result in the invalidation of the administrative act.