A Study On The Judgment Of Administrative Litigation

Studying administrative litigation judgments is of positive significance for safeguarding public interests,maintaining the stability of the law,and improving administrative efficiency.This article analyzes the current problems in the judgment of administrative litigation in China through the statistical results of cases,and finally finds out how to solve the existing problems in the judgment of current situations.At present,the main problems in the judgment of administrative litigation in China are as follows: First,the scope of application of judgment is too broad,leading to the trend of abuse of the system.Secondly,the definition of the concept of "public interest" is not clear enough,and many unrelated interests are interpreted as public interests and protected;There is a lack of unified standards for resolving conflicts of public and private interests in situational judgments,and it is not possible to accurately measure interests.Third,the types of third-party interests that appear in situational judgments are complex,and the degree of differentiation and treatment of them is currently limited.Fourth,the application of the relief system matching the situation judgment is not sufficient in practice.Fifth,situational judgments are easily confused with other judgments that confirm illegal judgments.The following suggestions are proposed in this article: First,it is necessary to clarify the unified standards for cases that can be judged by applying situational judgments,specifically using the method of "feature judgment plus stage division" to determine whether a specific case can be judged by applying situational judgments.Secondly,the "interest measurement" thinking is introduced into the application of situational judgments,and the method of interest measurement is used to deal with conflicts of public and private interests encountered in situational judgments.The concept boundary and judgment criteria of "public interest" should be clarified,and public interest should be defined by the standard of "non specific majority";At the same time,the plaintiff’s "private interests" are also included in the interest measurement.Through analyzing and comparing the public interests protected by the judgment on the situation in terms of "quality and quantity",it is determined whether the protected public interests have been "significantly damaged",and finally the benefit measurement result is obtained.Third,carefully divide the types of third-party interests that exist in the case judgment,grasp the public interests underlying different third-party interests,and determine whether to protect the interests of the third party involved in the case.Fourth,make full use of relevant remedial measures in the case judgment,clarify the subject of responsibility,the object of remedy,the method of remedy,and the time limit for the implementation of the remedy.At the same time,learn from Japan’s "Declaration and Judgment on Intermediary Illegality" to improve the remedial measures in the case judgment in China.Fifth,use a similar case retrieval system to avoid confusion between situational judgments and other judgments that confirm illegal judgments.