| Recently there has been a trend in judicial practice towards amplified interpretation of prestation judgment, which could lead to an overlap of application between prestation judgment and other similar judgments and prevent the full realization of the legislative purpose of the new judgment system established by the revised Administrative Litigation Law. The dual purposes of Administrative Litigation Law, expressed as “overseeing administration-dispute settlement”, have led to a judicial review intensity system with different intensity models of judicial review, namely “low intensity review model-high intensity review model”. As a result, courts should distinguish procedural judgments from substantive judgments. In principle, enforcement judgment can only be procedural judgment, while prestation judgment has the system function of establishing a model of substantive judgment aimed at making up for the deficiencies of enforcement judgment. At the present stage, prestation judgment is still unable to fully realize the function of “multi-purpose weapon” envisaged by many scholars and judges and its applicable situation should be limited to special areas meeting the following three conditions at the same time, that is, the obligation is provided by laws and regulations, the obligation is within the scope of supply administration, and the obligation takes money or property as its content. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号