反信息公开诉讼研究

The Research on Reverse Information Disclosure Litigation

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

行政法学院

作者:

章红艳

导师:

刘泽刚

导师单位:

行政法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

反信息公开诉讼;个人隐私;商业秘密;诉讼规则

摘要:

在信息公开救济领域,存在着信息公开诉讼和反信息公开诉讼两种诉讼,信息公开诉讼要求行政机关最大限度地公开信息,反信息公开诉讼要求行政机关不公开信息,两者诉讼目的相反。反信息公开诉讼是第三方提起的旨在保护涉及个人隐私和商业秘密信息的诉讼,是主观诉讼,依诉讼提起时间不同,可分为信息公开之前的反信息公开诉讼和信息公开之后的反信息公开诉讼。从现有的法律规定和司法实践来看,我国反信息公开诉讼正处于起步阶段,有许多不足之处,需要不断发展和完善。相较于我国,美、日、韩三国都较早地设立了反信息公开诉讼,经过长期地发展,积累了丰富的司法经验,其完善的法律制度和成熟的司法经验值得我们学习和借鉴。本文共分为四个部分:第一部分讨论反信息公开诉讼的内涵和基础理论。首先对反信息公开诉讼的概念进行辨析,在此基础之上,依诉讼提起时间不同,将反信息公开诉讼分为信息公开之前的反信息公开诉讼和信息公开之后的反信息公开诉讼,指出两者在诉讼目的、权利保护模式、诉讼类型和判决方式上的不同。其次分析反信息公开诉讼存在的法理基础——利益平衡原则、权利保护的全面性和有效性、政府持续获取信息的需要。第二部分叙述我国反信息公开诉讼的发展现状并分析其成因。主要从制度保障、司法实践两方面描述我国反信息公开诉讼的现状及不足,并指出引发此种现状的主要因素为信息公开行为定性存在瑕疵、预防性诉讼缺乏、权利意识淡薄等。第三部分介绍美、日、韩三国反信息公开诉讼的立法及实践,阐释各国制度特点。美国通过克莱斯勒诉布朗案等案件逐步确立了反信息公开诉讼,日、韩主要依据本国的成文法构建反信息公开诉讼,三者虽起源不同,但殊途同归,都以保护个人隐私和商业秘密为核心,并且有许多共通之处。第四部分从起诉规则和审理规则两方面探讨反信息公开诉讼的完善方式。首先,起诉规则包括起诉时间、诉讼当事人和起诉依据三方面,在起诉时间上,不同类型的反信息公开诉讼的起诉时间的计算方式不尽相同;在诉讼当事人方面,为了最大限度地保障当事人的权益,应尽可能放宽原告诉讼资格。其次,诉讼的审理规则包含举证责任分配、审理方式、审查内容和判决方式四个维度。法院在审理案件时应采用不公开单方审理的方式审查案件事实、法律依据和行政程序,并作出相应的判决。判决类型主要有判决行政机关不得公开信息、确认违法判决并责令采取补救措施、赔偿判决、驳回原告诉讼请求四种。此外,基于行政诉讼特有的举证责任方式和行政机关的举证优势,应由行政机关举证证明信息公开行为的合法性。

参考文献:

70

学科:

宪法学与行政法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

章红艳. 反信息公开诉讼研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2016.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 反信息公开诉讼研究
  • dc.title
  • The Research on Reverse Information Disclosure Litigation
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20130301030228
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 章红艳
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 行政法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2016
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 刘泽刚
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 行政法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 反信息公开诉讼;个人隐私;商业秘密;诉讼规则
  • dc.subject
  • reverse information disclosure litigation;personal privacy;business secret;procedure rules
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 在信息公开救济领域,存在着信息公开诉讼和反信息公开诉讼两种诉讼,信息公开诉讼要求行政机关最大限度地公开信息,反信息公开诉讼要求行政机关不公开信息,两者诉讼目的相反。反信息公开诉讼是第三方提起的旨在保护涉及个人隐私和商业秘密信息的诉讼,是主观诉讼,依诉讼提起时间不同,可分为信息公开之前的反信息公开诉讼和信息公开之后的反信息公开诉讼。从现有的法律规定和司法实践来看,我国反信息公开诉讼正处于起步阶段,有许多不足之处,需要不断发展和完善。相较于我国,美、日、韩三国都较早地设立了反信息公开诉讼,经过长期地发展,积累了丰富的司法经验,其完善的法律制度和成熟的司法经验值得我们学习和借鉴。本文共分为四个部分:第一部分讨论反信息公开诉讼的内涵和基础理论。首先对反信息公开诉讼的概念进行辨析,在此基础之上,依诉讼提起时间不同,将反信息公开诉讼分为信息公开之前的反信息公开诉讼和信息公开之后的反信息公开诉讼,指出两者在诉讼目的、权利保护模式、诉讼类型和判决方式上的不同。其次分析反信息公开诉讼存在的法理基础——利益平衡原则、权利保护的全面性和有效性、政府持续获取信息的需要。第二部分叙述我国反信息公开诉讼的发展现状并分析其成因。主要从制度保障、司法实践两方面描述我国反信息公开诉讼的现状及不足,并指出引发此种现状的主要因素为信息公开行为定性存在瑕疵、预防性诉讼缺乏、权利意识淡薄等。第三部分介绍美、日、韩三国反信息公开诉讼的立法及实践,阐释各国制度特点。美国通过克莱斯勒诉布朗案等案件逐步确立了反信息公开诉讼,日、韩主要依据本国的成文法构建反信息公开诉讼,三者虽起源不同,但殊途同归,都以保护个人隐私和商业秘密为核心,并且有许多共通之处。第四部分从起诉规则和审理规则两方面探讨反信息公开诉讼的完善方式。首先,起诉规则包括起诉时间、诉讼当事人和起诉依据三方面,在起诉时间上,不同类型的反信息公开诉讼的起诉时间的计算方式不尽相同;在诉讼当事人方面,为了最大限度地保障当事人的权益,应尽可能放宽原告诉讼资格。其次,诉讼的审理规则包含举证责任分配、审理方式、审查内容和判决方式四个维度。法院在审理案件时应采用不公开单方审理的方式审查案件事实、法律依据和行政程序,并作出相应的判决。判决类型主要有判决行政机关不得公开信息、确认违法判决并责令采取补救措施、赔偿判决、驳回原告诉讼请求四种。此外,基于行政诉讼特有的举证责任方式和行政机关的举证优势,应由行政机关举证证明信息公开行为的合法性。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • In the field of information disclosure relief, there are information disclosure litigation and reverse information disclosure litigation, Information disclosure litigation demands administrative organs to publicize information maximumly while reverse information disclosure litigation not for the reason to protect individual privacy and business secrets. Reverse information disclosure litigation is the subjective litigation which is brought by the third party to protect personal privacy and business secret. Depending on the difference of the prosecution time , reverse information disclosure litigation can be divided into reverse information disclosure litigation before information public and reverse information disclosure litigation after information public. From the current situation of law and the judicial practice of our country's reverse information disclosure litigation, it is known to us that there still has a long way to go before it is fulfilled so that we have to learn from other countries' experience. Compared to our country, United States, Japan and South Korea have set up the reverse information disclosure litigation quite early and accumulated rich judicial experience after a long period of development. The perfect legal system and mature judicial experience are worthy of our learning. This paper will be divided into four parts: The first part discusses the connotation and basic theory of reverse information disclosure litigation. It begins with the analyzation of the concept of reverse information disclosure litigation, which according to the different prosecution time can be divided into reverse information disclosure litigation before information public and reverse information disclosure litigation after information public, which are different in litigation purpose, protection mode of right, and the types of litigation and judgment mode. Secondly, an analyzation of the legal basis of reverse information disclosure litigation is given -- The Interest Balancing Principle,Comprehensive&Effectiveness of Rights Protection,The needs of government continuing to obtain information.The second part describes the present situation of reverse information disclosure litigation in our country and analyzes its causes.Mainly from the aspects of legal system and the judicial practice to describe its actuality and defects,pointing out that there are three main factors:the law system lawed in information public,the lacking of preventive litigation,indifference of right consciousness that caused this situation.The third part gives an introduction to the United States and Japan, South Korea's reverse information disclosure litigation, with their characteristics highlighted.The United States gradually established reverse information disclosure litigation by Chrysler v. Brown, Japan and South Korea mainly according to its statute law to construct it.Although the origins of them are different, there are still a lot in common.The fourth part explores the way of perfecting reverse information disclosure litigation from aspects of prosecution and trial rules. First of all, its rules include suing time, litigants and prosecution basis. The calculation of lawsuit time of different types of reverse information disclosure litigation is not same. In terms of litigants, in order to maximize the protection of the rights of the parties, it should broaden the qualification of the plaintiff as far as possible. Secondly, its trial rules contain the burden of proof allocation, trial method, review the content and the way of judgment . The court should adopt the way of not hearing to review the case facts, legal basis and administrative procedures, and make corresponding decision in a trial. The main types of judgment include administrative organs not publicizing information, confirming the illegal decision and taking remedial measures, and rejecting the plaintiff claims. In addition, based on a special way of distribution of evidential burden of administrative litigation and the advantages of proof of administrative organs , the legitimacy of the information disclosure should be certified by the administrative organs.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-23
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2016-05-14
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 70
回到顶部