Empirical Analysis On Judicial Judgment Standard Of Non-performance In Administrative Public Interest Litigation

"Not performing duties" is an intermediate link between the pre-litigation procedure and the litigation procedure of administrative public interest litigation.It is also the key to the initiation of administrative public interest litigation.It is also the focus of disputes in the process of hearing administrative public interest litigation cases,which is of great significance to administrative public interest litigation.However,the current law on this is too vague,the academic community on the judgment of "not performing their duties" there is also a big dispute: the source of the responsibility of administrative organs;How to judge whether an administrative organ is performing its duties;What is the standard of proof in the judgment of "not performing duties" ? Since the interpretation of the judge is timely and focuses on specific cases,and the judges play a leading role in the litigation,this paper explores the definite meaning of "not performing duties" from the perspective of the judge,so as to clarify the fuzzy concept.Enter "administrative public interest litigation" in the search bar of the judgment document net,and select "non-performance" in the left keyword,remove the duplication and obtain 213 judgment documents as the analysis sample of this paper.Through qualitative and quantitative analysis,the law of judicial judgment is summarized as follows: procuratorial Suggestions are not the source of responsibility,and The function judgment of administrative agencies is not limited to formal legality;The judgment of "whether to perform duties or not" focuses on "outcome criteria" and "behavior criteria";The standard of proof for different things is different,and the standard of proof for the illegal state is lower than that for the state and the social public interest damage.The author concludes that the responsibility source is result-oriented.Two kinds of judgment criteria should be considered and balanced.The expert auxiliary organization should be standardized;Administrative public interest litigation has the tendency of objective litigation,which should be further developed.