摘 要
本文认为行政裁量权过度或过宽，往往会导致个案的不公平，执法者随意性的处罚现象甚是普遍，制定裁量基准是为了剔除那些不必要的裁量权，以防止裁量权的滥用。现在法治国家，裁量基准逐渐出台。笔者从事质监部门行政执法多年，深刻体会到行政自由裁量权对于质监部门有效履行行政职能的积极意义和裁量基准不当使用的弊端，并结合自身工作实际对裁量基准提出自己的观点。
文章对质量技术监督行政执法裁量基准的基本理论进行了阐述，介绍了质量技术监督行政执法、行政自由裁量权、裁量基准的概念、对裁量基准的发展脉络进行了梳理、裁量基准的功能和作用进行了表述。通过文献的深入研究得出，行政机关根据法律、法规规定制定裁量基准制度是基于法律的授权和执法实践发展的客观需要，是抽象的法规与具体的事实之间的桥梁，是行政权行使方式的一个重要路径，更像是一种解决立法与执法之间矛盾的协调制度。
笔者认为设立裁量基准应包括三方面的内容：一是裁量基准就是对行政自由裁量权的第二次控制，对行政裁量的初步控制就是法律、法规、规章来完成的；二是违法情节的考量，根据是否初犯或屡犯等违法行为进行违法情节的考量，择重择轻的处罚；三是行政执法经验总结。要想对行政自由裁量权第二次控制得到成效，接下来研究裁量基准应遵循的四大原则：合理分类原则、平等原则、比例原则、法律保留原则。笔者针对自身的办案实践基础结合案例分析出行政行为效力的产生过程、行政执法者主观意愿作出裁量的过程是裁量行为理性化的重要因素。根据这一结论对现行裁量基准的问题进行分析，研究出“存在不确定法律用语的理解程度、从实践中存在转变认识上的难度、裁量基准文本传递速度慢”这三种现象。并结合现有的法律、法规、规章进行案件的深入评析，得出自己的办案处理结果。对《湖北质量技术监督系统行政处罚自由裁量权行使指导规则（试行）》与《襄樊市质量技术监督行政处罚自由裁量权参照执行标准》进行比较，分析两部《标准》的优缺点并提出完善建议：建立案例指导制度、裁量基准制度与文书说明制度相结合、增加裁量基准模块检索等。
关键词：行政自由裁量权；裁量基准；违法情节
Abstract
According to this thesis, the excessive executive discretion often leads to unfair individual cases. The phenomenon of law-executors’ discretionary penalty is so common that the authority has to establish the discretion benchmark to get rid of those unnecessary discretions and to avoid their abuse. And now the discretion benchmark is gradually established in the countries under the rule of law. Since the author has been working on the law enforcement in the department of quality supervision for many years, she deeply realizes the positive significance of executive discretion for the department to effectively perform its administrative function and the disadvantage of the discretion benchmark abuse. Also, she puts forward her own perspectives about the discretion benchmark according to her experience.
The author states the basic theory of the discretion benchmark of executive law enforcement in the quality and technical supervision in this thesis. She introduces the concepts of executive law enforcement, administrative discretion and discretion benchmark, formulates the development, function and effect of discretion benchmark. Through the deep research, it turns out that the discretion benchmark made by the administration on the basis of laws and regulations rules is the objective need in view of the authorization of law and the practice development of law enforcement. It is the bridge between abstract regulations and specific facts, an important way of performing executive power. Rather, it is a coordination system to solve the contradiction between legislation and enforcement.
There are three aspects of establishing the discretion benchmark. Firstly, it is the second control for administrative discretion, the error control of discretion is accomplished by the laws and regulations. The second one is the criteria of illegality. The punishment scale is based on whether the criminal is a first offender or recidivism. And the third is the conclusion of law enforcement experience. In order to fulfill the second control of administrative discretion, the following research should abide by four principle—reasonable classification, equality, proportion and legal reservation. The author learns that the process of producing administrative act efficacy and deciding law-executor’s will is an important factor of rationalizing discretion act combining her practical experience with cases. Analyzing the conclusion to the condition of discretion benchmark, it describes three phenomena—the comprehending degree of uncertain law terms, the difficulty of converting from practice to cognition, and the slow speed of delivering discretion benchmark files. In addition, she carries out the conclusion of her case-handling by deeply evaluating cases with existing laws and regulations. Comparing a discretion guidance of Hubei Province with a discretion executive standard of Xiangfan City, analyzing their merit and demerit, the author suggests establishing the case-guiding system, associating the discretion benchmark with official document, and adding the search function of discretion benchmark.
Key words: administrative discretion; discretion benchmark; illegality
