【作者】 朱鹏；

【导师】 蒋红珍；

【作者基本信息】 上海交通大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 2021年《行政处罚法》第48条经历立法两稿,在法律层面承继了2019年《政府信息公开条例》“有限公开”的审慎立场,正式将“具有一定社会影响”的公开标准订入。然而虽有法规范的指引,但“具有一定社会影响”标准缺乏更加明晰的导引,各地公开与否背后的裁量也各不相同,面临着严峻的适用困境。行政处罚决定公开具有三重目的,同时其区分于行政处罚、行政强制执行等,属于作为事实行为的特殊政府信息公开行为,并受到《个人信息保护法》的规制。对目的与性质的界定意在为公开的目的解释路径与“举重以明轻”的制度类比适用铺垫,同时指引作出区别于一般政府信息公开的考量。行政处罚决定呈现了由积极到审慎的公开立场转变,转变的背后存在着隐私权优位、成本收益及行政控权主义的考量。而既有规范中仍存在着刚性冲突与柔性冲突的表现样态,需要以2021年《行政处罚法》第48条为基础,通过法律适用规则的优先应用,排除部分与“有限公开”规则明显相悖的规范,同时通过立法技术规则的补足,回归新《行政处罚法》下的“有限公开”立场。有限公开“具有一定社会影响”的抽象标准可以从文义解释、体系解释与目的解释三条路径中得出。从抽象到具体,“主体—客体—主观方面—客观方面”的四维标准认定规则的建构有助于增强公开标准的明确性,以矫正实践中公开标准适用的偏离。行政处罚决定公开是我国执法体制改革的重要成果,也是《行政处罚法》上的一项新制度,制度规范的适用需要处理好公众知情权与个人隐私之间的利益冲突。在信息时代的当下,在进行制度的设计与构造中,更是需要协调好不同价值之间的张力,规避损害与贡献良善。更多还原

【Abstract】 Article 48 of the Administrative Penalty Law of 2021 has gone through two drafts of legislation,inheriting the prudent position of“limited disclosure”of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information of 2019 at the legal level,and formally subscribing to the criterion of disclosure of“having a certain social impact”.However,despite the guidance of the law,the standard of“having a certain social impact”lacks clearer guidance,and the discretion behind disclosure varies from place to place,facing a serious application dilemma.The disclosure of administrative penalty decisions has a triple purpose,and is distinguished from administrative penalties,administrative enforcement,etc.It is a special act of disclosure of government information as a factual act,and is subject to the regulation of the Personal Information Protection Law.The definition of purpose and nature is intended to pave the way for the interpretation of the purpose of disclosure and the application of the analogy of the system“to emphasize the lightness of the matter”,while at the same time guiding the consideration of differentiation from the disclosure of general government information.The administrative penalty decision shows a shift from a positive to a prudent position on disclosure,behind which there are considerations of privacy preference,cost-benefit,and administrative control.There are still rigid and flexible conflicts in the existing norms,and it is necessary to take Article 48 of the Administrative Penalty Law of 2021 as the basis,and exclude some norms that are obviously contrary to the rule of“limited disclosure”through the preferential application of the rules of legal application,and at the same time,return to the“limited disclosure”under the new“Administrative Penalty Law”through the supplementation of the technical rules of the legislation.At the same time,through the supplementation of the technical rules of legislation,it returns to the position of“limited disclosure”under the new Administrative Penalty Law.The abstract standard of limited disclosure“with certain social influence”can be derived from three paths:textual interpretation,systematic interpretation and purpose interpretation.From the abstract to the concrete,the construction of the four-dimensional standardization rule of“subject-object-subjective-objective”helps to enhance the clarity of the disclosure standard,so as to correct the deviation of the application of the disclosure standard in practice.The disclosure of administrative penalty decisions is an important achievement of the reform of China’s law enforcement system and a new system in the Administrative Penalty Law,and the application of the institutional norms needs to deal with the conflict of interest between the public’s right to know and personal privacy.In the information age,in the design and construction of the system,it is even more necessary to harmonize the tension between different values,avoiding damage and contributing to goodness.更多还原