發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-05-30 06:46

【摘要】：在行政給付中，行政機(jī)關(guān)根據(jù)一定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)行使調(diào)查權(quán)，根據(jù)具體情況進(jìn)行裁量，相對(duì)人被貼上“合格”或“不合格”的標(biāo)簽，沒(méi)有獲得“合格證”的相對(duì)人，便不能獲得行政給付。因此，行政給付的受益人資格對(duì)于受益人來(lái)說(shuō)，，意義重大。 行政給付的受益人資格，主要有三個(gè)比較重要的問(wèn)題：其一，是該資格的具體樣態(tài)，即實(shí)踐中有哪些類型的資格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以及這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是否存在問(wèn)題；其二，是如何確定相對(duì)人符合既定的資格和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以及此種確定之方式是否合法、合理及適當(dāng)；最后，是行政機(jī)關(guān)在確定此種資格之后的裁量權(quán)問(wèn)題，即面對(duì)符合某些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的相對(duì)人的事實(shí)條件時(shí)進(jìn)行裁量選擇的問(wèn)題。 對(duì)于第一個(gè)問(wèn)題，筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)，我國(guó)現(xiàn)行的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，主要的形式是經(jīng)過(guò)層層授權(quán)的行政法規(guī)、行政規(guī)章（包括部門規(guī)章和地方政府規(guī)章）和行政規(guī)范性文件。其中所包含的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)主要有三類，即戶籍與工作所在地標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、財(cái)產(chǎn)收入與低收入原因標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，以及遵守誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)具有具體化、細(xì)化、更加靈活和更具有可操作性的優(yōu)勢(shì)，但是同時(shí)也可能存在違反上位法或是行政法基本原則的可能。對(duì)于第二個(gè)問(wèn)題，筆者認(rèn)為，行政給付具有授益性，這決定了行政調(diào)查是其中必不可少的過(guò)程，但是縱觀各國(guó)的歷史和現(xiàn)實(shí)中的立法例，在進(jìn)行調(diào)查時(shí)，往往會(huì)損害受益人的某些利益，如人格尊嚴(yán)、隱私權(quán)等。因此，需要尋找一種合適的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。筆者通過(guò)比對(duì)法益衡量、價(jià)值位階理論和比例原則，認(rèn)為比例原則是較好的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，可以通過(guò)對(duì)比例原則的使用，在行政給付中發(fā)起調(diào)查行為時(shí)，在行政調(diào)查的目的、調(diào)查可能侵犯的法益和所要保護(hù)的利益之間找到平衡。最后，筆者簡(jiǎn)要敘述了行政給付中行政裁量權(quán)對(duì)于相對(duì)人的重要性，并根據(jù)既有的理論，列舉了我國(guó)對(duì)行政給付中裁量權(quán)的控制方式，并提出了從內(nèi)部和外部完善行政給付領(lǐng)域制度、控制行政裁量權(quán)的相關(guān)建議。 與此相對(duì)應(yīng)，本文從給付中受益人資格的設(shè)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、受益人資格調(diào)查以及裁量三部分進(jìn)行論述。第一部分，論及受益人資格的一般標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，嘗試通過(guò)對(duì)大量相關(guān)規(guī)定的梳理發(fā)現(xiàn)我國(guó)受益人資格標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的主要類型，并進(jìn)而論述這些標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的優(yōu)點(diǎn)與不足；第二部分從福利資格中的行政調(diào)查、受益人資格的調(diào)查主體及程序、給付資格調(diào)查中的權(quán)利保障四個(gè)方面討論行政給付中的調(diào)查權(quán)，第三部分系關(guān)于行政給付中的行政裁量權(quán)，及其未來(lái)可資借鑒的控權(quán)方式。
[Abstract]:In the course of administrative payment, the administrative organ exercises the power of investigation in accordance with certain standards and makes discretion according to the specific circumstances. The relative person is affixed with the label of "qualified" or "unqualified", and the relative person who has not obtained the "qualification certificate". You can't get an administrative payment. Therefore, the beneficiary qualification of administrative payment is of great significance to the beneficiary. There are three important problems in the qualification of the beneficiary of administrative payment: first, the specific pattern of the qualification, that is, what types of qualification standards exist in practice, and whether there are problems with these standards; Second, how to determine whether the relative person meets the established qualifications and standards, and whether the method of such determination is legal, reasonable and appropriate; Finally, it is the discretion of the administrative organ after the determination of this qualification, that is, the discretion selection in the face of the factual conditions of the counterpart who meet some criteria. For the first problem, the author finds that the main forms of the current standards in our country are administrative regulations, administrative rules (including departmental rules and local government regulations) and administrative normative documents. There are three main standards, namely, the standard of household registration and place of work, the standard of property income and low income, and the standard of abiding by the principle of good faith. These standards have the advantages of concrete, detailed, more flexible and more operable, but at the same time, there may also be the possibility of violating the basic principles of upper law or administrative law. With regard to the second question, the author believes that administrative payment is beneficial, which determines that administrative investigation is an indispensable process, but throughout the history and reality of various countries, when conducting the investigation, It often damages some interests of beneficiaries, such as human dignity, privacy and so on. Therefore, it is necessary to find a suitable criterion. Through the comparison of legal interests, the theory of value rank and the principle of proportion, the author holds that the principle of proportion is a better standard, which can be used to initiate the investigation behavior in the administrative payment, and the purpose of the administrative investigation. Find a balance between the legal interests that may be infringed and the interests to be protected. Finally, the author briefly describes the importance of administrative discretion in administrative payment to the relative person, and according to the existing theory, enumerates the control mode of discretion in administrative payment in our country. Some suggestions are put forward to perfect the administrative payment domain system and control the administrative discretion from the inside and outside. Accordingly, this paper discusses the establishment standard of beneficiary qualification, beneficiary qualification investigation and discretion in payment. The first part discusses the general standards of beneficiary qualification, tries to find out the main types of beneficiary qualification standards in our country by combing a large number of relevant provisions, and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of these standards. The second part discusses the investigation power in administrative payment from four aspects: the administrative investigation in welfare qualification, the main body and procedure of beneficiary qualification investigation, and the protection of rights in the investigation of payment qualification. The third part is about the administrative discretion in administrative payment. And its future can be used for reference in the way of power control.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D922.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王貴松;;行政裁量權(quán)收縮的法理基礎(chǔ)——職權(quán)職責(zé)義務(wù)化的轉(zhuǎn)換依據(jù)[J];北大法律評(píng)論;2009年02期

2 胡敏潔;;福利行政調(diào)查權(quán)與受益人權(quán)利保障[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2008年02期

3 周佑勇;;作為過(guò)程的行政調(diào)查——在一種新研究范式下的考察[J];法商研究;2006年01期

4 鄭智航;;中國(guó)適當(dāng)生活水準(zhǔn)權(quán)制度反思——以中國(guó)的廉租房制度為例[J];法商研究;2010年06期

5 王貴松;;行政裁量的內(nèi)在構(gòu)造[J];法學(xué)家;2009年02期

6 譚兵;社會(huì)救助的理念與功效——關(guān)于香港綜援制度與內(nèi)地低保制度的思考[J];廣東社會(huì)科學(xué);2005年03期

7 任喜榮;;“社會(huì)憲法”及其制度性保障功能[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2013年01期

8 于立深;劉東霞;;行政訴訟受案范圍的權(quán)利義務(wù)實(shí)際影響條款研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2013年06期

9 崔卓蘭;;行政自制理論的再探討[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2014年01期

10 高秦偉;;論行政裁量的自我拘束[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2014年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 吳蘭;法治政府中行政裁量的功能與治理[D];吉林大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：2488614