论文部分内容阅读
行政执法和解制度是一种典型的价值与风险的共存体。风险控制是世界各国在适用行政执法和解时都高度重视的问题。我国已存在适用“行政执法和解”的情况,但在法律上只有《反垄断法》有简略规定,而且只注重了赋予行政机关可以和解的职权,倡导行政机关在和解程序适用上的绝对主导地位,很少对行政执法和解潜在的风险作出评估和控制。设置程序对风险的控制具有重要价值。从行政执法和解适用阶段来看,可以通过以下方式来控制风险。第一,“先决程序”控制。在拟适用阶段,为了防止行政相对人寻租公权力或者为了防止行政机关追求执法简便而简单执法,泛化和解适用,规定以行政机关穷尽职权调查不能掌握充足证据为标准。第二,“操作程序”控制。在决定适用行政执法和解的具体操作过程中,为使行政执法和解不损害第三人的利益和社会公共利益,将操作程序过程透明化,并赋予法院对行政执法和解协议的司法审查权。第三,“后续程序”控制。在行政执法和解协议的履行阶段,为使其预期目标得以实现,防止和解协议在履行中发生偏差,对行政执法和解协议的履行设置程序保障。
The system of reconciliation in administrative law enforcement is a typical coexistence of value and risk. Risk control is a problem that all countries in the world attach great importance to when implementing administrative law enforcement reconciliation. In our country, there are cases where “administrative law enforcement reconciliation” exists. However, in the law, there is only a simple stipulation on the “anti-monopoly law”, and only the authority given to the administrative organ to reconciliation is emphasized, and the administrative organs are absolutely advocated in the application of the reconciliation procedure Dominance, seldom assess and control the potential risks of reconciliation of administrative law enforcement. Setting a program to control risk is of great value. From the administrative law enforcement reconciliation stage of application, the following ways to control the risk. First, “prerequisite program ” control. In the proposed stage of application, in order to prevent the administrative counterparts from renting public power or to prevent the administrative organs from seeking law enforcement simple and simple law enforcement and generalization of reconciliation, it is stipulated that the administrative organ’s exhaustive power investigation can not grasp the sufficient evidence as the standard. Second, “operating procedures ” control. In the specific operation process of deciding the application of administrative law enforcement reconciliation, in order that the reconciliation of administrative law enforcement will not harm the interests of the third party and the public interests of society, the procedural procedures will be transparent and the courts shall be given the power of judicial review of the administrative law enforcement settlement agreement. Third, “follow-up procedure ” control. In the fulfillment phase of the agreement on administrative law enforcement, in order to realize its expected goal and prevent the settlement of the agreement from being biased in the fulfillment of the agreement, procedural safeguards are set for the performance of the administrative law enforcement settlement agreement.