行政诉讼中行政行为据以作出的案件事实的审查强度问题,立场不同,主张不一。从行政机关而言,法院对其据以作出具体行政行为的基础事实的审查强度,当然是越浅越好,而对相对人而言,诉至法院的,多数是对行政机关行政行为的事实依据有异议,其诉讼期望当然是对事实问题审查得越深越好。而作为裁判者的法院,对事实的审查强度问题,缺乏相对明确的结论性标准。所以在审判实践中往往因地因案因人而异,有的浅则仅及其表,有的则全面审查行政机关据以作出具体行政行为的基础事实,直至 Administrative Litigation in administrative action made according to the facts of the case to examine the intensity of the problem, different positions, different opinions. From the executive branch’s point of view, the strength of the court’s examination of the basic facts on which it is supposed to make specific administrative actions is, of course, the more superficial the better, whereas for the relative, the majority of the complaints to the court are based on the factual basis of the administrative act of the administrative organ Objections, of course, of their litigation expectation are, of course, as good as the examination of factual matters. Courts as judges, the strength of the examination of the facts, the lack of a relatively clear conclusive criteria. Therefore, the practice of trial often varies from one case to another, with some shallow and only tabular, while others review the basic facts on which administrative agencies make specific administrative actions