An Empirical Study On The Applicability Of "Significant Improper" In Administrative Judgments

In 2014,the "Administrative Procedure Law" established "obviously inappropriate" as one of the judicial review basis for administrative litigation,but the "Administrative Procedure Law" and a series of subsequent judicial interpretations did not answer the "appropriately inappropriate" scope of application,recognition criteria,applicable limits and other issues.Regarding the question of the review of the rationality of administrative actions,the academic community has made many useful discussions,and the number of administrative judgments applying Article 70(6)of the Administrative Procedure Law as the basis for adjudication has also increased significantly.On this basis,it is already feasible to conduct empirical research on the "clearly inappropriate" judicial review based on the judicial application in China’s administrative cases through case analysis.After analyzing and studying 427 administrative judgments related to "obviously inappropriate",it was found that the "apparently inappropriate" review in judicial practice has a wide scope of application,including fact determination,legal application,procedural application,and processing results.There are not phenomena that show that there are“obviously improper” reviews of restraint administrative actions in judicial practice.The“clearly inappropriate” review standards in judicial practice are diverse,but have certain regularities,and can be roughly divided into principled standards such as the principle of proportionality,the principle of fairness,the principle of due process,the principle of change of circumstances,and substantive standards such as failure to exercise due diligence obligations,poor considerations,unclear administrative actions,administrative actions that are not enforceable,different judgments in the same case,damage to the legal rights and public interests of third parties,and inability to actually resolve disputes.In judicial practice,the administrative actions of “wrong determination of facts,misunderstanding of the law,violation of legal provisions,improper application of procedures” are regarded as “obviously inappropriate”,and there are suspects of misuse and abuse of “clearly inappropriate” judicial review.By sorting out the three administrative violations that are "inadequate main evidence,wrong application of laws and regulations,and violation of legal procedures",it is recognized that the above-mentioned cases that are judged as "obviously inappropriate" can be absorbedto Article 70(1,2,3)of the Administrative Procedure Law.Therefore,even if the emphasis on "obviously inappropriate" should become one of the violations of the administrative act,it is still necessary to clarify the boundaries and differences between the various items of Article70 of the "Administrative Procedure Law" to promote the reasonable application of the "apparently inappropriate" review,and be alert to the judicial abuse of discretion.