论文部分内容阅读
登记应采何种审查标准在学界和实务界都没有统一的意见,在现行的法律法规中也不能找到直接的依据。近年来,审慎合理审查标准开始进入学者和司法人员的视野,该标准正在司法裁判中被逐渐接受和应用。最具代表性和开创性的中国行政审判案例第10号,虽然未明确使用“审慎合理审查”的字眼,但是从法院裁判理由的表述来看,法院的确倾向于在登记中应该采用审慎合理审查的审查标准。审慎合理审查和形式审查、实质审查对登记机关有着不同的审查义务要求。审慎合理审查标准的实质是要求登记机关在登记审查时要尽到合理的注意义务。审慎合理审查标准对登记机关不仅仅有客观标准,更主要的是主观标准。司法实践的案例中,采取传统审查标准和审慎审查标准的各占了一半左右,其中传统审查标准中形式审查标准居多。由于没有厚实的理论支撑,审慎审查标准在实践中的运用不统一。规范该类案件的裁判可以分别从设立登记、变更登记、注销登记三种类型着手,针对不同登记类型需要的申请材料的不同,依据个案情况具体运用审慎合理审查标准。虽然审慎合理审查标准适用于各种不同的登记类型,但是行政机关在登记中都应该根据法律的相关规定,从实体和程序两个方面进行适用。
There is no unified opinion on what kind of examination standard should be adopted in the academic and practical circles, and no direct basis can be found in the current laws and regulations. In recent years, the standard of prudent and reasonable review has begun to enter the field of view of academics and judicial personnel. The standard is being gradually accepted and applied in judicial adjudication. The most representative and groundbreaking case No. 10 of China’s administrative trials, although it is not explicitly used the words “prudent and reasonable review”, but judging from the reasons for court adjudication, the court does tend to adopt prudence in the registration Reasonable review of the review criteria. Prudent and reasonable review and formal examination, the substantive examination of the registration authority has a different review obligations. The essence of prudent and reasonable review standards is to require the registration authority to make reasonable due diligence in the examination of registrations. Prudent and reasonable review of the standard registration authority not only objective criteria, but more importantly, the subjective standard. Judicial practice in the case, the traditional review of standards and cautious review of the standards each accounted for about half, of which the traditional censorship standards in the majority of formal censorship standards. In the absence of solid theoretical support, the application of cautious examination standards in practice is not uniform. The referees that regulate such cases may separately proceed from the three types of registration of establishment, alteration of registration and cancellation of registration, and apply the criteria of prudent and reasonable review according to the different circumstances of the application materials required by different registration types. Although prudent and reasonable censorship standards apply to different types of registrations, administrative organs should apply both in substantive and procedural aspects in the registration according to the relevant provisions of the law.