For a long time，"Difficult to prosecute" is a prominent problem in my country's administrative lawsuit。But in recent years，Administrative litigation "abuse" seems to be a new question in theory and practice。"Difficult to prosecute" and "abuse" coexist，Reflecting the imbalance between the administrative litigation system between judicial supply and the needs of the parties。U of the face of unbalance between the supply and demand of rights and demand for this system，It is necessary to continue to expand the supply of judicial relief，Rawnal cognition and reflection on the definition and response to "abuse"，Litigation needs to meet the principles of the rule of law and the principle of rights of rights，The system and technology of "approaching justice" should be improved，At the same time, inhibit the act that truly constituted the right to abuse litigation。

　Bet365 app download

In February 2018, the Supreme People's Court's "Explanation of the Application of the" Administrative Procedural Law of the People's Republic of China "was mentioned.，It is necessary to solve the problem of "difficulty in filed"，It is necessary to prevent the phenomenon of "abuse"。But what is "abuse"、How to define the connotation and extension of vulnerability，There are different understanding in theoretical and judicial practice。

First understanding from the perspective of administrative litigation, cognitive vulnerability，It is believed that the scope of the administrative lawsuit is filed for administrative litigation，belongs to abuse。For example，Actions that do not produce external legal effect、Process behavior、Assistance to perform behavior、Internal supervision behavior of the administrative bet365 live casino games system、Letters of letters and visits handling behaviors and other lawsuits，It is a lawsuit that does not have complaints，A type of manifestation of an abuse of appeal。

The second understanding from the perspective of the plaintiff cognitive vulnerability。In order to make limited judicial resources be fully and effective，The criteria for the qualifications of the plaintiff of the administrative litigation of my country's administrative proceedings are "a favorable relationship with administrative acts"。For example，In judicial practice，Complaints and reports of administrative cases such as "disturbance cases" surge in the number of "disturbance cases"，Some "professional counterfeiters" and "complaint professional households" who have nothing to do with their own legitimate rights and interests or are not associated with the complaints，Use the opportunity to reduce the threshold for prosecution with the registration system，Repeated complaints to the administrative organ repeatedly，Regardless of the administrative organs or do not make a processing behavior，"Professional counterfeiters" will filed an administrative lawsuit based on the purpose of exerting pressure。There is no interest relationship in the parties and administrative acts，Therefore, a lawsuit does not have the plaintiff's qualifications，Another type of expression that is understood as an abuse。

The third understanding is from the abuse of the right to appeal，Especially the perspective of abuse of the right to prosecution cognitive abuse。The right to prosecute is to apply for judicial relief、Important rights to start the judicial program，But as the possibility of being abused like any right，The right to prosecution may also be abused，In this sense，Optimization of the prosecution is the behavior of abuse of the right to prosecution，A kind of rights abuse。Principles of Jurisprudence and Honest Credit Credit Based on "Prohibition of Rights"，The behavior bet365 best casino games of the abuse of the right to abuse should be controlled。Abuse to understand at this level，The most prominent manifestation is the frequent appearing in the field of government information disclosure、Many times、Light submitting government information disclosure applications，and then filed an administrative lawsuit to the court。

Differences in the understanding of abuse and understanding in theory and practice，Reflects the fuzzyization of the essential specified cognition of the concept of abuse，One of its hazards is the generalization of the concept of abuse and abuse of the concept of "abuse" in practice。Logically speaking，"Optimizing" should be based on the right to prosecute the parties，No right of prosecution，Why come to "abuse"? therefore，Abuse of complaints shall be strictly limited in the context of "abuse of prosecution"，instead of generalization。From this logical framework,，The first situation in the above understanding，That is, understand the vulnerability from the perspective of the scope of the case，In fact, it confuses the relationship between abuse of prosecution and administrative acts; and the second understanding is to confuse the relationship between abuse of prosecution and the plaintiff's qualifications。Actually，There is no "abuse" problem in the above two situations，Because if the administrative behavior is not available at all，or although the administrative behavior is complaint, the parties do not have the benefit of the complaint and therefore have no plaintiff，It will cause the parties to have no right to prosecute，It is impossible to "abuse" the right to prosecute，At the same time, there is no problem of abuse。

　Is it a real question?

Analysis has been analyzed earlier，It should be limited to the "abuse" in the framework of the abuse of the prosecution right。In this framework，The most influential case of the concept of "abuse" in my country's administrative lawsuit is the case of "Lu Hongxia sue the Nantong Development and Reform Bet365 lotto review Commission" (hereinafter referred to as the "land case")。The Supreme People's Court Communist Party selected the case in the 11th issue of 2015，and summarize the abuse of the right to know and the right to abuse with this，believes that "the parties have repeatedly mentioned trivial、Light、The same or similar litigation requests; or repeated a lawsuit with knowing no legitimate reasons，The people's court responded to its prosecution strictly for review，For the benefits of lack of complaints、Improper purpose、Victoring the prosecution of integrity，The necessity of exercising the right to exercise due to violations，Loss of the legitimacy of the right to exercise the right to appeal，It should be determined that it constitutes an abuse of the right to appeal "。Because the Supreme Court has published the "land case" as a typical case and is published in the "referee abstract"，The referee ideas and logic of the case，In judicial practice, it has become a model for solving similar cases，A large number of similar cases have been handled directly with reference to the "land case" thinking。

"Land Case" the reason and analysis of the abuse of prosecution，reflects a kind of effort to restrict the right to prosecution in the right to judge，Its motivation can be understood，But the "land case" only raised a real question，without completely answering how to define and limit the "abuse" question。In the "Land Case"，The court tried to provide some judgment standards for the right to prosecution。For example，First，Quantity and frequency standards，That is the party repeatedly、Make a lawsuit multiple times; second，The lawsuit filed by the parties repeatedly has homogeneity or similarity; third，Active vicious malignant，That is, repeated lawsuits，or improper prosecution; fourth，Lack of interests; fifth，The necessity of exercising against the right to lighter。But it is not difficult to see，These standards have internal bet365 Play online games logic unclear problems。For example，Lack of interests，Logically leading to the issue of prosecution qualification，Is there a question of whether there is a right to prosecution，instead of abuse of the right to prosecution。On the other hand，These standards have excessive free tailoring space in practice，Talking lightly，will may lead to excessive judicial motivation;，will lead to the infringement of the right to prosecution for judicial freedom。

Control the balance between the right to appeal and guarantee the right to appeal

Prohibition of litigation rights from abuse from the field of civil litigation，In many cases，The analysis of this problem is mainly based on the principle of honesty trust。Plant the principle of honesty trust into civil lawsuits，Reconstruction and correction of the parties' ability to debate、The legal concept and lawsuit mode of individuals such as punishment authority，The value yearning for the essential equality, fairness and justice of civil lawsuits, and the real realization of the lawsuit、Pursue the function of effectively solving disputes，It reflects a view of communityist litigation rights。

From the perspective of comparative methods，The principle of honesty trust contains the requirements for prohibiting the abuse of the right to appeal。For example，Repeatedly requested to try to avoid the judge without justified reasons、During the period of abuse of the application right, etc.，All acts that are contrary to the principles of honesty and trust。But the right to abuse one of the rights we discuss is the most critical、Complex Questions，Is the abuse of the right to prosecution。The right to prosecution is a basic litigation right that is guaranteed by the constitution and basic legal protection，In the practice of civil litigation abroad，It is quite cautious to limit the right to the prosecution with the principle of honesty and credit; theoretically，The principle of honesty trust can limit the exercise of the right to prosecution，The controversy is very large。Because it is difficult to limit the right to bet365 live casino games prosecution based on the principles of honesty and facilities or the principle of prohibition of power abuse，In foreign practice, the practice of restricting the abuse of the prosecution through the formulation method。For example，As early as 1896，The British formulated the "Entangling Litigation Law"，Australia and the United States also have similar restrictions on the legislation of "unreasonable entanglement litigation"。Regularly expressed the type of expression and behavior type bet365 best casino games of the abuse of the right to appeal through legislation，It can provide more guidance and more clear rules for the right exercise of the right to prosecution，Then provide the basic framework for controlling and guaranteeing the balanced design of the right to appeal。

　From rights control to behavioral control

Traditionally，We control the right to prosecution in administrative lawsuits，It is mainly a "right control" mode，It is manifested as the scope of behavior targeting the right to prosecution、The subject qualification of the right to prosecution，and motivation for the right to sue、Purpose and even frequency and other factors，Restrictions on the exercise of the right to prosecution。Frequent abuse of prosecution in practice，The existing restrictions are also mainly based on motivations exercised by the right to prosecution、Purpose、Frequency and other factors and other factors，There are great uncertainty and free tailoring in this path，There is also a risk that is abused。Should try to shift from the past "right control" mode to the "behavioral control" mode。The basic concept of "Behavior Control" mode is: on the basis of fully granting the right to prosecution as much as possible，Introducing the principles of honesty trust as the principles of prosecution and other right to exercise the right to prosecution，and make rules for the behavior elements bet365 best casino games of the abuse of the right to prosecution through the form of legislation。Judicial referees refine the abuse of prosecution in practice，Types study of theoretical research Bet365 app download on the abuse of the right to prosecution，and make rules for the behavior elements of the abuse of the right to prosecution through the form of legislation。

　(The author is a professor at the School of Law of Peking University)