行政处罚决定公开的界限

Administrative Penalty Decision Disclosure Limit

摘要: 李云迪嫖娼案引发学界对行政处罚决定公开的界限的思考，行政处罚决定公开制度是《行政处罚法》修订中的一大亮点，其带来的影响值得高度重视。功能上，行政处罚决定公开制度可以强化对行政执法的监督，可以保障公众知情权作用，可以对社会公众进行风险警示与声誉制裁。新法第48条规范确立了“以不公开为原则，以公开为例外”的原则，并设立“具有一定影响”这一限定条件，但是仍缺乏足够细致的解释，行政处罚决定公开的界限应当在平衡公益与私益的基础上划定。在行政处罚实施中，对处罚决定的公开，应处理好多种利益的竞争甚至冲突关系，应当立足行政法“手段——目的”合比例性的要求考虑，避免“一刀切”等简单化处理。对于错误公开或不当公开引发的权利侵害，应当允许当事人对公开的处罚决定提出更正、删除等请求，应当允许当事人提起行政复议和行政诉讼。

Abstract: Li Yundi’s case of whoring prostitutes has aroused academia’s thinking about the boundaries of the disclosure of administrative punishment decisions. The system of disclosure of administrative punishment decisions is a highlight in the revision of the Administrative Punishment Law, and its impact deserves great attention. Functionally, the disclosure system of administrative punishment decisions can strengthen the supervision of administrative law enforcement, protect the public’s right to know, and issue risk warnings and reputational sanctions to the public. Article 48 of the new law establishes the principle of “non-disclosure as the principle and disclosure as an exception” and the qualification of “having a certain influence”, but there is still a lack of sufficient detailed explanations. The limit of disclosure of administrative penalty decisions should be delimited on the basis of balancing public and private interests. In the implementation of administrative punishment, the disclosure of punishment decisions should handle the competition, even the conflict of multiple interests, and should be based on the requirement of proportionality of “means-purpose” in administrative law to avoid the simplistic treatment such as “one size fits all”. For the infringement of rights caused by erroneous or improper disclosure, the parties should be allowed to make corrections, deletions and other requests for the public punishment decision, and the parties should also be allowed to file administrative reconsiderations and administrative lawsuits.