行政规范性文件作为被诉行政行为“依据”的司法认定

Judicial Determination of Administrative Normative Documents as the “Basis” for the Challenged Administrative Act

摘要: 规范性文件的附带审查制度，应当是行政诉讼诉源治理的重要一环，而诉请审查的规范性文件与被诉行政行为之间存在依据关系，又是进行合法性审查的前提。但是，由于法院对规范性文件的审查意愿不足、《行政诉讼法》第五十三条的释义不明、法官对附带审查制度的片面理解等原因，司法实务中对于依据关系的认定存在多重标准且法院的认定态度较为保守，这并不利于附带审查制度的运行。从《行政诉讼法》的目的出发，在认定依据关系时不宜过于严格，而应采取更为宽松的解释立场。同时，“宽松”不意味着无所限制，可以从规范性文件是否对行政相对人的权利义务产生了实际影响以及该文件与被诉行政行为之间是否具有法律关系的一致性两个方面进行反向排除，不满足其中任一条件即可排除审查。

Abstract: The incidental review system for normative documents should serve as a key component of source control in administrative litigation. The determination of a “basis relationship” between the normative documents subject to review and the challenged administrative act is a prerequisite for their legitimacy review. However, due to factors such as courts’ insufficient willingness to review normative documents, ambiguous interpretation of Article 53 of the “Administrative Litigation Law”, and judges’ one-sided understanding of the incidental review system, multiple standards for identifying the basis relationship have emerged in judicial practice, with courts generally adopting a conservative stance—this undermines the effective operation of the incidental review system. Guided by the purpose of the “Administrative Litigation Law”, the determination of the basis relationship should not be overly rigid; instead, a more lenient interpretive approach is advisable. Meanwhile, “leniency” does not equate to unrestraint. Reverse exclusion may be applied based on two criteria: whether the normative document has exerted actual impact on the rights and obligations of administrative counterparts, and whether it maintains consistency in legal relations with the challenged administrative act. Failure to meet either criterion justifies excluding the document from review.