论公益机构行为的司法审查范围

德国的特别权力关系及其修正理论、英国的公共职能理论、法国的公务理论和美国的多元标准理论为法院判断公益机构行为的司法审查范围提供了有效的方法。我国的授权理论在判断公益机构行为的司法审查范围问题时缺乏明确性和可操作性。充分借鉴国外成功经验 ,确定公共职能理论作为判断公益机构行为的司法审查范围之理论 ;确立限制公益机构行为的司法审查范围标准以及修改行政诉讼法若干条款以适应公共职能理论 ,从而为人民法院判断公益机构行为的司法审查范围提供解决途径。     

行政审判中职权审查的九个问题

在行政诉讼实体审查阶段,第一项司法审查就是针对职权:被告是否有权作出被诉具体行政行为;如果无权,则应依法判决撤销或者确认违法。职权审查往往具有行政权力再分配的效果,尤其在涉及授权依据可适用性判断时,其影响可能超出个案,对行政权力的结构造成冲击。这种威力并未明显强化司法的力量,反而无形中增加了司法判断的压力,除了职权问题自身     

中美行政行为司法审查标准的比较与反思

中美行政行为司法审查的标准 ,既有相似的一面 ,又有重大区别。在我国加入WTO的新形势下 ,应积极借鉴美国行政行为司法审查标准的有益经验 ,对我国行政行为司法审查的标准予以重构 :确立司法审查的灵活性标准 ;确立司法审查的正当程序标准 ;确立司法审查的合理性标准。     

私人行政司法审查受案标准的美国经验——兼论我国私人行政责任机制的建构

如今,越来越多的私人主体承担行政任务,提供公共服务,履行公共职能。如何构建私人行政的责任机制是公共行政主体多元化情境下当代行政法面临的新课题。美国对私人行政可能引发责任缺失给予的回应是严格设定私人行政应受司法审查的受案标准,包括公共职能标准、紧密关联标准、行政强制标准,审慎地将公法规范拓展适用于私人主体。我国新《行政诉讼法》关于私人行政的司法审查受案标准存在一定的局限性,可以借鉴美国"公共职能"标准对其进行再造。只要私人主体行使传统上属于政府的行政职能,对外作出权利义务处分行为,就可以对其进行司法审查。建构私人行政的责任框架,应坚持传统与非传统的责任机制并举,平衡和兼顾私人行政的责任与收益。     

论民办高校的法人性质

我国现行法律既未明确概括民办高校的公法地位,对其私法地位的界定也与学说和制度不洽,致使民办高校的法人性质不明,对民办高校的发展多有不利。本法理论,民办高校应当既是一种民事法律主体,享有法人的经营权;同时也行使一定的教育行政管理职权,具有公法地位。倘若将民办高校的公法地位概括为依法律授权实施教学行政管理的教育机构,将其私法地位界定为社团法人、准公益法人,并特别地将其界定为民办学校法人,则上述问题将能得到相应的解决。     

广告发布者的著作权审查义务问题研究

广告发布者的著作权审查义务,是指广告发布者主动、积极地采取合理措施,审查广告主或广告经营者所提供广告内容的著作权合法性。审查义务与注意义务不同,注意义务仅要求广告发布者谨慎、小心地行为,避免其发布的广告内容侵犯他人著作权。从学理上而言,同时存在公法上的审查义务和私法上的审查义务。公法上的审查义务来源于公法规范,广告发布者的公法审查义务来源于《广告法》中的相关规定。考察新《广告法》的规定可以发现,广告发布者的公法审查义务不包含著作权审查义务。私法上的审查义务来源于私法规范,考察《著作权法》及相关司法解释,广告发布者也不负著作权审查义务,仅承担合理的注意义务。最后在司法上,存在一种危险的判决思路,即广告发布者的公法审查义务影响其私法上著作权问题的注意义务。这种思路实质上使得所有承担公法审查义务的广告发布者在私法上的注意义务都会被提到一个较高的水平,从而使广告发布者陷入"违反公法义务,承担公法责任"和"履行公法义务,承担民事责任"的两难困境。     

婚姻登记行政诉讼司法审查研究——以婚姻法与行政法竞合为视角

近年来,因婚姻登记行为引发的行政诉讼屡见不鲜,由于其所特殊蕴含的婚姻法与行政法、私法与公法相互交织的双重属性,使婚姻登记行政诉讼在原告资格、合法性审查标准、法律责任承担等问题上存在较大争议,裁判方案差别较大.如何正确认识与理解婚姻法与行政法、私法与公法相互连接与交织现象,并妥善解决由此产生的法律争议与诉讼问题,实为司法...     

我国行政行为司法审查标准之理性选择

我国行政诉讼法确立的司法审查标准实际上是“正确性审查”标准,而不是“合法性审查”标准。“正确性审查”标准存在单一化、僵化和程序问题审查标准空洞化等弊端。重构我国行政行为司法审查标准,首先应当调整司法审查标准的方向,包括区分法律问题和事实问题、转变司法审查的强度和确定“正当程序”原则。同时,要建立以坚持合法性审查标准、确立合理性审查标准和正当程序审查标准为内容的三元化标准体系。     

“不合规”规划许可合法性审查的检视与司法空间政策的形成

“不合规”是不符合国家强制性标准的简约表达,我国各地法院对于“不合规”规划许可是否合法的裁决并不一致。国家强制性标准具有法律约束力,把公法意义上对“不合规”规划许可的合法性审查转化为私法意义上对居民是否获得侵权补偿的审查是不妥的,认定“有补偿则合法”实际进行了“超越法律的法的续造”,会产生负外部性效果,因而在公法层面上“不合规”则不合法的判断模式是成立的。为适度发挥司法空间政策形成功能,可确认经补偿之“不合规”许可违法而不予撤销,并制度性激活反向征收作为补救措施,为城市持续发展服务。     

对评估报告不服可提起执行异议

【裁判要旨】对评估报告的程序性异议、评估报告本身的异议均应纳入执行异议程序处理。委托评估行为虽属于辅助行为,其是基于法院职权作出并对当事人权利义务产生影响的执行行为,且法院对委托评估行为具有监督职能,因此对评估报告不服异议属于执行异议之诉,应当由执行裁决机构进行审查。在审查方式上可采用书面审查、质询、听证等方式。在评估异议审查期     

Kwok Cheuk Kin v Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor: Government Chastisement of Dissidents and Judicial Review That Never Was?

The Hong Kong Government issued a strongly-worded official statement, subsequently adopted by the Chief Executive, to publicly condemn an outspoken constitutional law scholar for expressing views which the Government considered unconstitutional. Leave to judicially review the statement was refused by the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong on the grounds, inter alia, that a statement lacking in direct legal consequences was outside the ambit of judicial review and, further, the Chief Executive was in any event entitled to comment on public affairs. This note argues that, on a proper understanding of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court and the theory of the ‘third source’ of governmental power, neither ground should have precluded judicial review.     

Claims against a university: the role of administrative review in Australia and the United Kingdom

The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Griffith University v. Tang denied judicial review to a student aggrieved by the decision of a university to exclude her. This article analyses the role of judicial review of university decision-making in the United Kingdom and Australia, analysing the justification for administrative remedies in universities. It considers the legislative reform of administrative review in Australia, and the impact of that reform in some states. It places administrative review in the context of the visitorial jurisdiction, where that jurisdiction still exists. Finally, it addresses some of the policy aspects of denying judicial review in the case of the university.     

Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court

This paper investigates the Landes-Posner thesis on judicial independence using data on public law decisions in which the government was the defendant decided in the New Zealand High Court over the period 1958–2001. We use survival analysis to examine whether successive New Zealand governments have promoted judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal (which stands above the High Court) on the basis of political considerations, the quality of the judge's decision-making or both. Our findings suggest that the quality of decision-making has generally been important. Consistent with the weak form of the Landes-Posner hypothesis we find no evidence that governments have used their powers to punish judges who decided cases against them. On the contrary, we find some support for the strong form of the Landes-Posner thesis that governments positively use their powers to secure judicial independence.     

The Hermeneutics of the Concept of Misrepresentation: Addressing the Quagmire of Damages and Compensation in Cases of Misrepresentation in Formation of a Contract Under Indian and English Law

In England, fraudulent misrepresentation is governed by English common law and damages are provided under the Tort of Deceit whereas negligent and innocent misrepresentation is governed by the Misrepresentation Act, 1967. In India, fraud is governed by s 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) and misrepresentation by s 18 of the ICA. Notably, unlike in England where the remedies for fraud and misrepresentation are provided at separate avenues, in India, the relief to the innocent party in both cases is provided under s 19 of the ICA. This article discusses fraudulent misrepresentation & negligent/innocent misrepresentation and the quantification of damages thereof in contracts under the two legal regimes mentioned above. To that extent, the authors attempt to illustrate certain nuanced differences between the two legal regimes while also highlighting the similarities between English law and Indian law. For the purposes of this article, the authors refer to the Misrepresentation Act, 1967 and the seminal judgments of Derry v Peek, Doyle v Olby, East v Maurer and Smith New Court Securities Ltd. v Scrimgeour Vickers and discuss the “date of transaction rule” as enunciated by Lord Steyn while juxtaposing it with the judgments of the High Court of Delhi, and the Supreme Court of India. In the Indian context, the authors highlight the position of law as is apparent from two recent judgments of the Delhi High Court in NHAI v Pune Sholapur Road Development and Daiichi Sankyo v Malvinder Mohan Singh and Ors and also focus on the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in Avitel Post Stuidoz v HSBC Holdings (Mauritius).

     

The Heathrow Case in the Supreme Court: Climate Change Legislation and Administrative Adjudication

In R (on the application of Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport Ltd the UK Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that there had been a series of legal errors in the designation of the Airport National Policy Statement. This case note analyses the case from an ‘internal’ doctrinal perspective and argues that the Supreme Court could have engaged more explicitly with the legal issues that arise from climate change legislation for administrative law adjudication. For courts to adjudicate well in such circumstances they need to be prepared to develop administrative law doctrine, particularly in light of the issues of integrating climate change into public decision-making and of scientific/policy uncertainty which lie in the background of climate change legislation.     

Governmental Rejections of Ombudsman Findings: What Role for the Courts?

This article discusses the recent Bradley litigation before the High Court and Court of Appeal, in which applicants sought judicial review of a Government Minister's decision to reject findings made by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in her report, 'Trusting in the Pensions Promise'. The article critically analyses the Court of Appeal's approach to reviewing the Minister's decision, focusing on the standard of review applied and placing the Court's approach in the wider context of the Ombudsman process, which is inherently political.     

United Kingdom: HIV-positive asylum seeker denied judicial review of removal decision

The High Court of Justice had dismissed an application for a judicial review of a decision by immigration officials not to grant the applicant leave to remain in the UK on the basis of her HIV status. In December 2002, the Court of Appeal denied the applicant permission to appeal the High Court's decision, reasoning that an appeal under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, already initiated, would be more appropriate and advantageous.     

Abandoning the common law: medical negligence, genetic tests and wrongful life in the Australian High Court

The Australian High Court recently found that the common law could allow parents to claim tortious damages when medical negligence was proven to have led to the birth of an unplanned, but healthy, baby (Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1). In Harriton v Stephens (2006) 80 ALJR 791; [2006] HCA 15 and Waller v James; Waller v Hoolahan (2006) 80 ALJR 846; [2006] HCA 16 the High Court in a six-to-one decision (Kirby J dissenting) decided that no such claim could be made by a child when medical negligence in failing to order an in utero genetic test caused the child severe disability. In an era when almost all pregnancies will soon require patented fetal genetic tests as part of the professional standard of care, the High Court, by barring so-called "wrongful life" (better termed "wrongful suffering") claims, may have created a partial immunity from suit for their corporate manufacturers and the doctors who administer them. What lessons can be learnt from this case about how the Australian High Court is, or should be, approaching medical negligence cases and its role as guardian of the Australian common law?     

Making sense of the case law on Ombudsman schemes

This article analyses the case law on ombudsman schemes in the UK, with the purpose of identifying some of the key trends that underpin this branch of law pre-the first Supreme Court decision in this area, JR55 v Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. While the law on ombudsman schemes remains based on legislation and the various grounds of administrative law available in judicial review, distinct bespoke principles have also been relied upon. These principles are beginning to provide consistent guidance on how the law should be used and interpreted in cases involving an ombudsman scheme. One task of the Supreme Court in JR55 will be to confirm these principles, or rationalize any departure from them.     

The Ad That Changed Libel Law: Judicial Realism and Social Activism in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

The 1964 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan transformed libel law by extending constitutional protection to the publication of false and defamatory statements about public officials made without actual malice, that is, without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Less well recognized is the decision's advancement of advocacy advertising and unhindered news coverage as a means to counter racism in the United States. Civil rights history, increasing visibility of advocacy advertisements and the Court's reliance on thin legal precedent suggest the decision embodies judicial realism and social activism.