A Study On The Confirmation Of Judgments For Minor Violations Of Administrative Procedures

After the 2015 "Administrative Litigation Law" was promulgated and implemented,the new "Minor Procedural Violation" clause and the "Violation of Statutory Procedures" clause added to the law divided the procedural violations into two categories.Legislation regarding the consequences of procedural violations has become diversified.In addition,after the establishment of this clause,the procedural violations that cannot be revoked as the “procedural flaws” in practice are included in the scope of procedural legitimacy review,which strengthens the supervision of administrative organs in accordance with the law.On the one hand,the confirmation judgment made a negative evaluation on the illegal behavior of the procedure,thus affirming the independent value of the procedure;on the other hand,it still maintained the effectiveness of the administrative act,avoided the rework of the procedure,and improved the administrative efficiency.After reviewing the entry process of the "Minor Procedure Violation" clause,the thesis analyzes the legal concept behind the establishment of the clause,and makes a distinction between "Minor Procedure Violation","violation of legal procedures" and "procedural defects".Delimit a rough range.Then,using the case data in China Judgment Documents Network as an analysis sample,based on the statistics and classification of cases four years after the implementation of the minor violation clause in administrative procedures in 2019,the current judicial practice analyzes the problems existing in the application of this clause.The main problems are: different judgment standards when the court makes a confirmation judgment,and lack of reasoning in the judgment document.Through exploring the reasons behind,it is found that the main reasons are: different understandings of the relationship between the two elements stipulated in the "Minor Procedural Violation"clause;the "Minor Violation" element has not formed a unified determination standard,and "no actual impact on the rights of the plaintiff" "The connotation of the elements is unclear;the value orientation of the court when it makes a confirmation judgment is inconsistent.In particular,the understanding of the relationship between the two is different,which leads to different courts with different focus on the review of the same procedure violations,and ultimately make different judgments.In response to these problems,the following improvement measures are proposed.First of all,it is clear that the two elements in the "Minor Procedural Violation" clause are equally important,and both are the judgment standards necessary to confirm the judgment,so as to determine the two elements separately.The prerequisite for the determination of "minor violations" is to determine the scope of the "law",and then "important procedural rights have not been substantially harmed" as the substantive judgment standard;secondly,it is to clarify the connotation of the requirement of "no actual impact on the plaintiff's rights".Since the confirmation judgment still retains the effectiveness of the administrative act,the court should strengthen the reasoning of the judgment document in the future,which will help to enhance the litigant's understanding and acceptance of the judgment result,thereby enhancing the authority of the judicial organ.In addition,our country can also draw on the supplementary system outside the territory to construct our country's supplementary system.The court can send judicial suggestions to the administrative agency,and at the same time,the administrative agency should raise the requirements for its own administration according to law,regulate the administrative agency's administration according to the law from the source,and reduce the occurrence of procedural violations.