关于行政行为合法性推定的理论和行政争议法院的立场

Lorena Machi, E. Machi
{"title":"关于行政行为合法性推定的理论和行政争议法院的立场","authors":"Lorena Machi, E. Machi","doi":"10.31672/55.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout this paper we intend to analyze the current criterion of the Administrative Litigation Court relative to the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act, which was not admitted for a while and even in some judgment subsequent to those stated herein. The paper further discusses another issue regarding which there is no doubt or questioning whatsoever, namely, the issue related to the Administration’s discretionary activity. On this second topic, relevance does not occur in the same degree and there is abundant bibliography and case law.With regards to the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act, there are doctrinal opinions against and in favor, and these are based on analyzing existing rules in our legal system that have varied over the years, and throughout this paper a series of positions and their foundations will be briefly outlined. In addition, judgments of the Administrative Litigation Court will be cited as an example stating an opinion in favor of the presumption of legitimacy, which such Court is currently applying.","PeriodicalId":440704,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Derecho Público","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"DOCTRINA SOBRE PRESUNCIÓN DE LEGITIMACIÓN DEL ACTO ADMINISTRATIVO Y POSICIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO\",\"authors\":\"Lorena Machi, E. Machi\",\"doi\":\"10.31672/55.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Throughout this paper we intend to analyze the current criterion of the Administrative Litigation Court relative to the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act, which was not admitted for a while and even in some judgment subsequent to those stated herein. The paper further discusses another issue regarding which there is no doubt or questioning whatsoever, namely, the issue related to the Administration’s discretionary activity. On this second topic, relevance does not occur in the same degree and there is abundant bibliography and case law.With regards to the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act, there are doctrinal opinions against and in favor, and these are based on analyzing existing rules in our legal system that have varied over the years, and throughout this paper a series of positions and their foundations will be briefly outlined. In addition, judgments of the Administrative Litigation Court will be cited as an example stating an opinion in favor of the presumption of legitimacy, which such Court is currently applying.\",\"PeriodicalId\":440704,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Derecho Público\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Derecho Público\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31672/55.6\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Derecho Público","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31672/55.6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在整个本文中,我们打算分析现行行政诉讼法院关于行政行为合法性推定的标准,这一标准在一段时间内甚至在随后的一些判决中都不被承认。该文件进一步讨论了另一个毫无疑问或有任何疑问的问题,即与行政当局酌情活动有关的问题。在第二个主题上,相关性并不相同,并且有大量的参考文献和判例法。关于行政行为的正当性推定,理论上有反对和赞成的意见,这些意见是在分析我国法律体系中多年来变化的现有规则的基础上提出的,本文将简要概述一系列立场及其基础。此外,将引用行政诉讼法院的判决作为一个例子,说明支持合法性推定的意见,该法院目前正在适用这种推定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
DOCTRINA SOBRE PRESUNCIÓN DE LEGITIMACIÓN DEL ACTO ADMINISTRATIVO Y POSICIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO
Throughout this paper we intend to analyze the current criterion of the Administrative Litigation Court relative to the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act, which was not admitted for a while and even in some judgment subsequent to those stated herein. The paper further discusses another issue regarding which there is no doubt or questioning whatsoever, namely, the issue related to the Administration’s discretionary activity. On this second topic, relevance does not occur in the same degree and there is abundant bibliography and case law.With regards to the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act, there are doctrinal opinions against and in favor, and these are based on analyzing existing rules in our legal system that have varied over the years, and throughout this paper a series of positions and their foundations will be briefly outlined. In addition, judgments of the Administrative Litigation Court will be cited as an example stating an opinion in favor of the presumption of legitimacy, which such Court is currently applying.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Inteligencia Artificial en la Justicia (Del juez-robot al asistente-robot del juez) José Manuel Martínez Sierra, The European Council against EU law. Editorial Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2021. Crítica al diseño institucional de la Fiscalía Nacional Económica: ¿Órgano de la Administración o persecutor autónomo? Discurso de incorporación de Pablo Ruiz-Tagle a la Academia Chilena de la Lengua como académico correspondiente Ceremonia de homenaje a funcionarios y funcionarias por cumplimiento de décadas en la Facultad de derecho de la Universidad de Chile
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1