【作者】 张婷婷；

【导师】 朱丘祥；

【作者基本信息】 江西财经大学 ， 法律硕士（法学）（专业学位）， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 信用惩戒制度作为一种新型的社会治理方式,以其执法成本低、执法效果显著等不可替代的优势,在现阶段已经成为推进我国社会信用建设的主要抓手。但是近年来,由于该制度缺乏相应的法律规制,频频出现过罚不相当、严重侵犯信用主体合法权益等乱象,造成信用惩戒制度呈现滥用的趋势,从而引发了人们对信用惩戒制度的运用是否过度的质疑。因此,对于规制信用惩戒制度滥用现象的研究具有非常重要的现实意义。对信用惩戒制度滥用现象的法律规制研究首先要从信用惩戒的基本内涵和法律定性出发,在得出信用惩戒概念的基础上,要进一步厘清什么是信用惩戒制度的滥用,以归纳制度滥用的具体社会现象。在信用惩戒的法律性质认定方面,应先根据对失信主体权益影响方式的不同,对信用惩戒措施进行类型化处理后,再按照不同的类型逐一去分析法律性质。为总结我国现阶段信用惩戒制度滥用主要体现在哪些方面,本文选取了大量的典型案例和涵盖多个效力层级和适用领域的制度文本作为现象归纳的主要依据。从失信行为的认定标准泛化、信用惩戒实施中的不当联结、信用惩戒措施在实施层面的滥用来阐述当前我国信用惩戒制度滥用的具体表现。在总结归纳我国目前信用惩戒制度滥用的具体现象的基础上,深入探究出现滥用现象的根源,除了信用惩戒权的不断扩张以及过度强调信用惩戒的惩罚功能外,对于实施程序的规定过于简单,存在“重实体惩戒,轻程序保障”的倾向。此外,权利救济制度和信用修复机制的不完善,也同样是导致信用惩戒制度滥用的重要原因。在这样的背景下,对信用惩戒制度滥用问题的规制已经刻不容缓。在规制的过程中,必须对信用惩戒的性质进行明确界定。首先是失信行为的认定,无论怎样强调信用惩戒的重要性,都要从承诺的信守这个角度去认定失信行为。其次是信用惩戒措施的法律性质认定,应当根据对失信主体权益影响方式的不同进行归类认定,信用惩戒措施可以划分为纳入失信“黑名单”、限制资格权益类、加强监管类、限制授益类、限制高消费这五大类,前两者属于行政处罚,后三者由于不满足行政处罚的惩罚性和制裁性特征,因此不能被归类为行政处罚。与此同时,在明确信用惩戒制度的具体实施主体和实施范围时,也要进行类型化的处理,并且还应当受到禁止不当联结原则和比例原则的制约。不仅要在实体上进行规制,同时程序上的规范也不能落下,必须健全信用惩戒制度的程序机制,充分保障失信主体的知情同意权和异议权。完善信用惩戒救济制度,充分发挥行政复议和行政诉讼在信用惩戒中的权利救济作用,同时还要对信用修复制度通过立法的形式加以规范,给予失信主体恢复信用状况、改过自新的机会。综上,今后信用惩戒制度仍需在实体上进行完善,在程序上进行规范,以避免信用惩戒制度的滥用。更多还原

【Abstract】 As a new type of social governance,the credit disciplinary system has become the main grip for promoting social credit construction in China at the present stage with its irreplaceable advantages such as low enforcement cost and significant enforcement effect.However,in recent years,due to the lack of corresponding legal regulation of the system,there are frequent chaotic phenomena such as excessive punishment and serious violation of the legitimate rights and interests of credit subjects,resulting in a trend of abuse of the credit disciplinary system,which has led to questions about whether the use of the credit disciplinary system is excessive.Therefore,it is of great practical significance to study the abuse of the credit disciplinary system.The research on the legal regulation of the abuse of credit disciplinary system should firstly start from the basic connotation and legal characterization of credit disciplinary,and on the basis of arriving at the concept of credit disciplinary,we should further clarify what is the abuse of credit disciplinary system in order to summarize the specific social phenomenon of system abuse.In terms of the determination of the legal nature of credit discipline,the credit disciplinary measures should first be typed according to the different ways of affecting the rights and interests of the defaulting subjects,and then go on to analyze the legal nature according to the different types one by one.In order to summarize in which aspects the abuse of credit disciplinary system is mainly manifested at the present stage in China,this paper selects a large number of typical cases and institutional texts covering multiple levels of effectiveness and fields of application as the main basis for the generalization of the phenomenon.The specific manifestations of the current abuse of credit disciplinary system in China are elaborated in terms of the generalization of the recognition criteria of the breach of trust,the improper association in the implementation of credit disciplinary measures,and the abuse of credit disciplinary measures at the implementation level.On the basis of summarizing the specific phenomena of the abuse of the credit disciplinary system in China,the root causes of the abuse are investigated in depth.In addition to the continuous expansion of the credit disciplinary power and the overemphasis on the punitive function of the credit disciplinary system,the provisions of the implementation procedures are too simple,and there is a tendency to "emphasize physical discipline but not procedural protection".In addition,the imperfect rights relief system and credit repair mechanism are also important reasons for the abuse of credit disciplinary system.In this context,the regulation of the abuse of credit disciplinary system is urgent.In the process of regulation,the nature of credit discipline must be clearly defined.First is the identification of the breach of trust,no matter how to emphasize the importance of credit discipline,it is necessary to identify the breach of trust from the perspective of commitment to keep.Secondly,the legal nature of credit disciplinary measures should be determined according to the different ways of affecting the rights and interests of the defaulting subject,and the credit disciplinary measures can be divided into five categories,including "blacklist",restriction of qualifications and rights,strengthening supervision,restriction of benefits,and restriction of high consumption,the first two of which are administrative penalties,the last three of which are administrative penalties.The latter three cannot be classified as administrative penalties because they do not meet the punitive and sanctioning characteristics of administrative penalties.At the same time,when specifying the specific implementation subject and scope of the credit disciplinary system,it should also be typed,and should also be subject to the principle of prohibiting improper association and the principle of proportionality.Not only should the physical regulation be carried out,but also the procedural regulation should not be left behind,and the procedural mechanism of the credit disciplinary system must be improved to fully guarantee the right to informed consent and the right to dissent of the subject who has lost trust.At the same time,the credit repair system should be regulated by legislation,so as to give the subjects who have failed to comply with the credit system the opportunity to restore their credit status and reform themselves.In summary,the future credit disciplinary system still needs to be improved in the entity and regulated in the procedure to avoid the abuse of the credit disciplinary system.更多还原