On Actual Impact In The Scope Of Administrative Litigation

In the judicial interpretation and typical cases issued by the Supreme People’s court,the actual impact standard appears as the core standard in the judgment of the scope of administrative litigation The lack of reasoning in the exclusionary interpretation of“several interpretations” and the generalization of the concept of administrative act can not provide legitimacy for the court to accept cases other than specific administrative acts,which is the reason for the emergence of the actual impact standard.The relationship between the actual impact standard and the effect standard and Article 1 of the procedural law provide the legal basis for the court to use the standard.As a criterion to judge whether an act has a specific consequence,the influence under the interpretation of the actual impact criterion is a kind of substantive legal effect.The factual effect,the repeated legal effect and the consequences that only affect the procedural rights and obligations of the parties are not the consequences required by the actual impact standard.The actual effect is not equal to the legal effect of the specific administrative act.First,the actual impact still needs to be made for a specific relative person or event,but it does not need to be directly generated by the accused act.Second,the actual impact still needs to be an external legal effect,but it does not need the administrative subject to express it externally.The actual impact is mainly in two forms.One is that the rights and interests of the parties are impaired by the sued act.The existing rights and interests of the parties have been eliminated,or the legal status of the parties has been changed to a more unfavorable state,and the parties have been given new obligations.If the party’s claim to the administrative organ is not satisfied,it also means that the rights and interests are impaired,including two forms: the request is not answered by the administrative organ,and the reply obtained by the party is inconsistent with the request.Second,the fact or status of the party is confirmed by the administrative organ.Only the confirmation with legal significance can be regarded as a form of influence by the court.After the fact or status of the parties is confirmed,they will face the increase of obligations or the impairment of rights,which is the basis for the court to judge whether the confirmation has legal significance.The judgment of whether the actual impact is produced is the judgment of whether the external legal effect exists.There are two different ways to judge whether the accused behavior has actual impact in the case.First,the behavior that meets the characteristics of specific administrative behavior can have practical impact.Second,the court no longer pays attention to the form and content of the accused behavior itself,but judges whether there is a correlation between the accused behavior and the consequences of the impact on the basis of norms or facts,so as to determine whether the actual impact exists or not.The different nature of influence in different cases is the reason why the court chooses different judgment methods.If the impact is obvious and realistic,then the court will choose to judge the relationship between the sued behavior and the damage consequences based on norms or facts.If the impact is not obvious and has not yet occurred,then the court will choose to judge whether the accused behavior can have actual impact from the perspective of behavior form and content.The concept of administrative act defined by the actual impact standard is a specific external handling act.But whether the inner meaning of the making subject and the external influence are directly generated by the act is not the key point of whether the administrative act is established.Under the procedural law framework of "administrative behavior centralism" in China,the actual impact standard will continue to provide help for the court to judge whether the sued behavior is actionable or not,and will not die out.