食品小业态处罚裁量问题研究——以"芹菜案"展开OA
Discretionary Penalties in Small Food Businesses:An Analysis Based on the"Celery Case"
陕西"芹菜案"的曝光引发公众对行政合理性的质疑,反映出合理性与合法性在食品安全与小业态规制的交叉语境下出现割裂.案件折射出货值金额与处罚金额、处罚制裁性与谦抑性两大矛盾.究其原因,食品小业态本身特性与上位法规定导致金额差异被放大,行政处罚适用过程中的机械性与法院在专业性考虑下的尊让则导致行政处罚中的裁量难以实际运转.通过发挥比例原则与信用监管手段的作用重新审视"相当性"的判定标准,完善机器裁量机制的公开渠道,并允许执法人员适度申诉与逸脱,以期实现对裁量机制的再设计以及行政合理性的提高.
The exposure of the"Celery Case"in Shaanxi has sparked public scrutiny over administrative rationality,revealing a disconnect between legitimacy and reasonableness within the intersecting domains of food safety and small business regulation.The case highlights two fundamental contradictions:the disparity between the value of goods involved and the severity of penalties,and the tension between punitive sanctions and the principle of restraint.The root causes lie in the inherent characteristics of small food businesses and overriding legal provisions that amplify monetary discrepancies.The mechanical application of administrative penalties and courts'deferential stance based on the professionalism of administrative agencies render discretionary power in administrative sanctions impracticable.By re-examining the standard of"proportionality"using the principle of proportionality and credit-based regulatory measures,improving transparency in automated decision-making mechanisms,and permitting appropriate appeals and deviations by law enforcement officers,we can redesign the discretionary framework to enhance administrative rationality.
肖平辉;王佳阳
广州大学法学院,广东 广州 510006汉堡大学法与经济学研究所,德国 汉堡 20354
社会科学
食品小业态行政处罚行政裁量裁量机制
small food businessesadministrative penaltypenalty discretiondiscretion mechanism
《食品科学》 2026 (4)
17-26,10
国家社会科学基金面上项目(19BFX164)
评论