司法實踐中的行政裁量基準

行政裁量基準制度給司法實踐帶來了新的問題：在行政行為合法性審查中，應如何對待其根據或參照的裁量基準？ 對此，我國出現了幾種方向各異的判例理論：有的認可或者要求行政機關嚴格適用裁量基準，甚至事實上將之作為裁判規範；有的則相反，認可或者要求被告考慮個案情況，背離裁量基準。這種分歧的背後是裁量一元論與裁量二元論的對立。與裁量基準的嚴格適用相連結的裁量二元論是過去時代的教義，與實質法治主義不相容；與個別情況考慮義務相連結的裁量一元論，則有著更強的體系性和解釋力。但這並不意味著裁量基准在任何情況下都不可以是行為規範乃至裁判規範。妥當的立場毋寧是：裁量基準原則上不應當被嚴格適用，除非裁量授權規範的意旨是可以免除行政機關的個別情況考慮義務。

Administrative discretion standard system brings new a problem to juridical practice: in legal inspection of administrative actions, how to treat with the discretion criteria?China reveals the different legal precedent theories about this problem: some of them approve or require the administrative body to use discretion criteria as code of conduct or use it as judgment criteria in fact. Some of them hold the opposite opinion, namely they approve or require defendants to consider the case situation and deviate from the discretion criteria. The opposition between discretion monism and discretion dualism hides behind the divergence. Discretion dualism is the doctrine in the past era, which is incompatible with the substantive constitutionalism; the discretion monism that is linked with obligations in individual cases has the stronger system and explanatory power, but it doesn't mean discretion criteria shouldn't be code of conduct or even judgment standards. The proper standpoint means that discretion criteria in principle shouldn't be strictly suitable unless that the intention of non-discretion authorization standards is to exempt from obligations of individual situations in administrative body.