【作者】 王静；

【导师】 孙大雄；

【作者基本信息】 华中师范大学 ， 法律硕士（专业学位）， 2019， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来,非诉行政强制执行案件中,司法裁定权和行政执行权之间的关系,一直是我国司法改革的重要内容。“裁执分离”作为非诉执行一种新的执法手段,相较于传统的“裁执一体”,在减少法院的负担,加强对行政机关的监督等方面起到了重要的作用,越来越多的受到各级行政机关的重视。但作为一项新的司法改革和实践探索,和所有的新生事物一样都要经历一个不断曲折发展的过程,其中会遇到各种挑战和困惑,对这些问题都应该进行总结和探讨。文章将从理论与实践相结合为基础,对目前正在进行的“裁执分离”改革作一些探讨和研究。文章从四个方面展开研究:第一部分从“裁执分离”的一般理论出发,概括了其涵义和特征。包括以下两点:一是充分考虑对被执行人合法权益的保护。二是“裁执分离”明确了人民法院和行政机关权责关系。其次介绍“裁执一体”与“裁执分离”的区别,在此基础上,探讨了“裁执分离”的法理基础。最后分析了“裁执分离”在行政决定等案件适用时的领域范围,并探讨了行政诉讼案件能否适用“裁执分离”的问题。第二部分主要探讨“裁执分离”的必要性和可能性。分析了“裁执一体”的操作模式存在的弊端,以及“裁执分离”能充分发挥行政机关的资源整合优势,有利于提高人民法院的司法公信力,有利于明晰人民法院与行政机关的职能分工等方面,阐述了“裁执分离”的现实必要性和可行性,并考察和分析了域外经验对“裁执分离”的借鉴意义。第三部分分析了“裁执分离”的具体实践与现实困惑:具体实践探索,包括明确“裁执分离”的目的,明确划定“裁执分离”的适用范围,科学谋划推进策略,注重沟通和协调。“裁执分离”面临的问题与困惑主要是:具体承办机构无明确,“裁执分离”无明确的上位法依据,对“裁执分离”存在认识上的分歧,“裁执分离”无法确保法院中立等。第四部分在前述分析的基础上,提出了完善“裁执分离”的对策建议,包括明确“裁执分离”的法律地位和职责范围,通过修改相关法律确立“裁执分离”的法律地位,明确人民法院在“裁执分离”中的角色定位,明确“裁”与“执”的关系,并区分了司法审查权和行政强制权。提出了完善“裁执分离”的具体举措,包括建立行政机关与人民法院的协调机制,推进非诉行政强制执行执法体制机制改革,完善司法审查程序,建立实施后的审查机制,明确责任体系,并提出了完善“裁执分离”对被执行人诉权保障机制,包括建立健全非诉行政强制执行案件的中止保障机制,依法受理非诉行政强制执行行为的诉讼,完善非诉行政强制执行后的救济、赔偿体系和保障机制,建立社会各界对非诉行政强制执行案件的参与机制,发挥成功案例的指导作用,充分保障人权等。更多还原

【Abstract】 Recently,in the non-litigation administrative enforcement cases,the relationship between judicial judgment and administrative enforcement is an important issue in the judicial practice reform.As a new enforcement method,the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement is more useful in strengthening the supervision on the administrative authorities and gets more and more attention by the administrative authorities.As a new judicial reform and practical exploration,just like all the nascent things having to go through a constant developing process,it will face different challenges.So,all these problems should be deeply summarized and discussed.Based on theory and practice,this thesis will discuss the ongoing reform of separation of adjudication and enforcement.This thesis comprises 4 parts.The first part begins with the common theory about the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement,and summarizes its concept and characteristic of this mode.This part mainly incorporates two points.The first one is to fully consider the protection of the legal rights of the person subject to enforcement;the second one is that the mode outlines the rights and responsibilities between the court and the administrative authorities.Then it explains the differences between the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement and mode of integration of adjudication and enforcement,and focuses on the legal principles in separation of adjudication and enforcement.In the end,it discusses the issue of whether separation of adjudication and enforcement can be used in the administrative litigation.The second part focuses on the necessity and feasibility of the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement.Based on the disadvantages of the mode integration of adjudication and enforcement,the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement can play an important role in optimizing the resources in the administrative authority,overcoming the skepticism of the person subject to enforcement to the judicial credibility,and defining the function division between the court and administrative authorities.The thesis holds the opinion that there are lots of benefits from drawing the extraterritorial experience.The third part analyzes the specific practice and reality perplex.The specific practice includes defining the purpose and the range of the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement.It has to be done in a scientific and communicative way.The main problem and perplex of the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement are that there is no clear agency to carry out the task,no legal support to the mode,the opinion division on the mode and the neutrality of the court.The fourth part provides the suggestions on how to improve the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement.It clarifies the legal status and scope of the mode of separation of adjudication and enforcement,establishing the legal status of the mode by amending relevant laws,clarifying the role of the people’s court in this mode,clarifying the relationship between "adjudication" and "persistence",and distinguishing the power of judicial review power and administrative compulsory power.This part also puts forward to the concrete measures including establishing a favorable coordinate mechanism between the court and administration,promoting the reform of the law enforcement system and mechanism of non-litigation administrative enforcement,perfecting the judicial review procedure,establishing the post-implementation review mechanism.It also puts forward the perfection of the safeguard mechanism of the right of the executed,including the establishment and perfection of the safeguard mechanism of the suspension of non-litigation administrative enforcement cases,the acceptance of litigation of non-litigation administrative enforcement acts in accordance with the law,the improvement of the compensation system and safeguard mechanism after non-litigation administrative enforcement,and the establishment of the participation mechanism in administrative enforcement cases.It takes advantages of the guiding role of successful cases and fully protects human rights and so on.更多还原