An Empirical Study Of Redoing Administrative Action Judgments

As an incidental judgment of rescinding judgment,administrative action judgment in administrative litigation has the functions of making up for the lack of effectiveness of rescinding judgment,enhancing the effectiveness of litigation,and improving judicial supervision.However,it can not be denied that there is a paradox between the system of rescinding judgment and the system and principle of evidence loss and the principle of consistent litigation and judgment.On the one hand,administrative law,as the youngest department law in China,plays an important role in resolving administrative disputes when the current level of administrative law needs to be further improved.On the other hand,retrial is actually a bad product of administrative rule of law in our country.We still need to treat it dialectically and clarify its transitional role in the process of rule of law in our country.While affirming the value of the retrial system,we should pay more attention to the problems existing in the judicial practice of the retrial system,and explore the solutions to the problems in order to improve the system,so as to better realize its value and promote the improvement of judicial efficiency.There are mainly the following problems in the judicial process of rejudgment: First,the uniformity of application of rejudgment is insufficient,that is,different courts and different judges have differences on whether to apply the rejudgment under the same case,and the judgment and non-judgment have obvious randomness.Second,the time limit for rewriting is scattered,which is mainly manifested in the existence of the time limit for rewriting,length and text expression.Third,the execution effect of remaking the judgment is not good,which is manifested as the maliciously redoing or redoing of the administrative subject prosecuted is basically the same as the original administrative act,thus causing the administrative counterpart to fall into the dilemma of invalid action or circular action.In view of the lack of unity in the application of rejudgment,on the one hand,it is necessary to clarify the application premise of the rejudgment,on the other hand,it is necessary to clarify the application situation of the rejudgment,so as to enhance the unity and fairness of the judicial judgment.Standardizing the time limit of redoing to deal with the disadvantages of the scattered time limit of redoing: firstly,it should be clear that the time limit of redoing is the necessary content of the redoing judgment,and there must be specific provisions on the time limit of redoing in the redoing judgment;Secondly,the upper limit of the reworking period should be determined.Thirdly,it is necessary to establish the specific rules for the reworking period.Finally,the text expression of the time limit for rewriting should be unified.To improve the execution system of rewriting judgment in order to enhance the execution power of rewriting judgment,including bringing malicious rewriting into the identification scope of refusing to execute judgment,improving the disciplinary measures for the relevant responsible personnel of administrative subject,stipulating that after two rewriting,instructive rewriting should replace ordered rewriting,and formulating the feedback mechanism of the execution situation of the administrative subject accused,etc.