作者：金自宁
作者介绍：北京大学法学院研究员
出版日期：2023年8月9日
内容提要 答复类行政解释既不同于包含于具体行政处理决定之中的个案解释，亦不同于以规范性文件为载体的抽象解释，由此难以被我国现行法上对具体及抽象行政行为的司法审查制度所覆盖。当前司法实践对其处理并不一致。但是，答复类行政解释的实质内涵关乎法律问题而不是事实问题，从而不宜被列为“证据”；同时，将之归为“依据”也与我国现行法及其法理不合。鉴于答复类行政解释对裁判结果的实际影响，有必要保障诉讼当事人对其提出异议的机会，为此，可以将其列为“其他诉讼材料”。法院应当在对答复类行政解释进行审查的前提下，认定其合法性和说服力。其中，合法性主要涉及解释主体权限和解释内容合法；说服力则涉及解释者的制度角色、解释程序及解释理由等因素。
关键词 答复类行政解释 司法审查 行政专长 正当程序
Abstract: Administrative letters as legal interpretation are different from both abstract and concrete administration act. Hence, it is difficult to include them into China’s existing system of judicial review. The judicial practices dealing with them have been inconsistent. Administrative letters as legal interpretation are about legal issues instead of factual issues, and thus they should not be listed as ‘evidence’. At the same time, categorizing them as the ‘basis’ would not be in accord with our positive law. Given administrative letters have significant de facto impact on judicial decisions, it won’t be fair that litigants have no chance to express their dissent. Both the legality and persuasiveness of administrative letters as legal interpretation shall be determined in the process of review.