检察机关民事公益诉讼问题研究

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属院系:

法学院

作者:

陈龙辉

导师:

廖中洪

导师单位:

法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

检察机关;公益诉讼;原告资格

摘要:

严格地说,公益诉讼不是一个法律意义上的概念,它与传统对诉讼类 型的划分是不同的,公益诉讼是与私益诉讼相对的概念,是以诉讼标的或 目的为标准而划分的诉讼类型。民事公益诉讼作为公益诉讼的类型之一, 是指特定的国家机关、社会团体和相关公民根据法律规定,对侵犯了国家 利益和社会公共利益的民事违法行为提起诉讼,由法院通过司法程序追究 法律责任的一种法律制度。近年来,我国国民经济取得了突飞猛进地发展, 在社会各个方面取得巨大进步的同时,随之产生的一些问题也日益凸现。 如国有资产的大量流失、市场信用的严重缺失、生态环境的日趋恶化、经 济领域秩序的混乱、大企业利用其垄断地位进行不正当竞争行为得不到有 效遏制等等。由于我国正处于体制转型的特殊时期,许多新的制度一时难 以建立和完善,特别是在保护国家利益和社会公共利益的制度构建方面存 在着严重缺失,致使许多涉及公共利益的新型社会纠纷得不到解决,公共 利益无法有效保护,己严重困扰着中国现代化的步伐。这些负面因素如不 能得到较好解决,必将对建设社会主义和谐社会产生不利影响。在加强依 法治国,建设社会主义法治国家的今天,应通过司法程序,采用司法手段 来维护国家和社会公共利益,建立起一个长效的、符合法治要求的全新司 法制度—民事公益诉讼制度。公共利益是一个极其抽象的概念,其究竟包 含哪些内容一直难以定论。目前重要的不是如何界定公共利益的概念,更 要关注公共利益的保护,关注如果没有民事公益诉讼这一制度,当前我国 社会存在的经济、民事方面的新矛盾如何解决。从历史上看,民事公益诉 讼从古罗马时就有了。现代西方许多先进国家也建立了这一制度,并在维 护国家和社会公共利益方面发挥了积极作用。在目前的司法实践中,公益 诉讼也是议论较多,颇有争议的一个话题。但由于我国现行法律至今没有 关于公益诉讼的立法,因此随着我国法治国家进程的加快,检察机关代表 国家提起民事公益诉讼的制度也呼之欲出。本文主要围绕检察机关提起民 事公益诉讼的概念、争论以及建立该制度的依据和对该制度建立的具体构 想进行论述。 首先是关于检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的概念界定,笔者是在对公益 诉讼概念和公共利益的内涵进行分析论证后得出检察机关提起民事公益 诉讼的概念。其次是检察机关是否可以提起民事公益诉讼在目前理论界和实务界一直都存在很大争论,否定者认为民事诉讼是平等主体之间的民事 权益之争,检察机关提起民事公益诉讼是对当事人处分权的不当干预,不 符合民事诉讼的特点,也势必对原来的诉讼结构带来一定的冲击,同时也 有人认为检察机关提起民事诉讼不利于其更好地履行法律监督职能,其特 殊的性质决定了其不能提起民事诉讼。持肯定观点的学者认为从世界各国 看,大多数国家都规定检察机关有权提起民事公益诉讼,且公诉权是检察 机关法律监督的重要部分,也有学者认为检察机关提起民事公益诉讼是对 当事人滥用处分权的限制。笔者认为从现实角度看应赋予检察机关提起民 事公益诉讼的权利,因为现实国情需要检察机关提起民事公益诉讼,而且 当前关于诉权理论与当事人理论以及处分权理论都在不断发生变化,我们 完全可以从实践需要来改进和修正我们诉讼理论。最后阐述了民事公益诉 讼在我国经历了一个曲折的发展过程,此次理论界和实务界重提检察机关 提起民事公益诉讼不再是旧曲重唱,而是我国国情的需要,是我国民事诉 讼发展的必然趋势。检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的依据本部分主要论述建 立检察机关提起民事公益诉讼制度的依据,具体分三点来论述:首先是理 论依据。民事诉讼理论、检察理论、国家干预理论是建立检察机关提起民 事公益诉讼制度的主要理论依据。而民事诉讼理论主要是诉权理论和处分 权理论的发展,改变了传统的“利害关系人”说,扩大了当事人的范围, 强调国家对当事人滥用处分权的限制。检察理论则更是从检察机关的性 质、职能方面来阐述民事公诉权是检察机关法律监督权的必要构成,是由 检察机关特殊的性质和地位决定的。国家干预理论强调我国国家干预“私 法”不同于前苏联的全面干预,而是有限制的进行干预,同时这种干预也 不是我国独创,在英、美、日、德等发达资本主义国家都有检察机关代表 国家干预“私法”的规定。其次是现实依据。赋予检察机关提起民事公益 诉讼是我国现实国情的需要,主要包括三个方面:其一,我国目前大量存 在国家利益和社会利益受到侵害的严峻事实;其二,我国近年来公益诉讼 不尽如人意;其三,我国检察机关已在实践中进行了有益的探索。最后是 法律依据。虽然我国民事诉讼法没有明确法条规定检察机关可以提起民事 公益诉讼,但是我们仍然可以从《宪法》、《民事诉讼法》、《刑事诉讼 法》、《民法通则》等有关法律中找到我国检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的 法律依据。检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的制度构想分重点阐述如何构建我 国检察机关提起民事公益诉讼制度,其一是检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的原则和范围。笔者认为检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的条件范围宜窄不宜 宽,既能达到履行检察职能,又能维护公民“意思自治”,因此公益诉讼 的范围应限在侵犯国有资产、造成公害的、涉及公民重大利益并损害公序 良俗等几类民事案件。其二关于检察机关在民事公益诉讼中地位主要有国 家监诉人、国家公诉人、原告人等五种不同说法,笔者在对这五种说法进 行评析后认为“原告人说”更符合检察机关在民事公益诉讼中的地位和特 征,又能体现检察机关同于普通民事当事人。其三对于检察机关在民事公 益诉讼中有哪些权利,笔者认为由于检察机关的诉讼目的的特殊性,因此 其除具有民事诉讼中一般当事人的诉讼权利外,还应拥有调查权、抗诉权、 优先审理权,这样做是为了更好地保证诉讼目的的实现,更好地维护公共 利益。其四在程序设置方面由于公益诉讼的特殊性也决定了其诉讼程序不 同于普通的民事程序,不同的主要体现在检察机关在诉讼前的督促程序和 诉讼后对判决的审查。另外关于诉讼中当事人是否可以反诉、检察机关应 否缴纳诉讼费用、检察机关是否有权调解等问题,笔者都作出了否定的回 答。

学科:

诉讼法学

提交日期

2025-12-04

引用参考

陈龙辉. 检察机关民事公益诉讼问题研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2008.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 检察机关民事公益诉讼问题研究
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 04334120100501
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 陈龙辉
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法律硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2008
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 廖中洪
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 检察机关;公益诉讼;原告资格
  • dc.subject
  • prosecutorial organization;public prosecution;function of action;Plaintiff qualifications
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 严格地说,公益诉讼不是一个法律意义上的概念,它与传统对诉讼类 型的划分是不同的,公益诉讼是与私益诉讼相对的概念,是以诉讼标的或 目的为标准而划分的诉讼类型。民事公益诉讼作为公益诉讼的类型之一, 是指特定的国家机关、社会团体和相关公民根据法律规定,对侵犯了国家 利益和社会公共利益的民事违法行为提起诉讼,由法院通过司法程序追究 法律责任的一种法律制度。近年来,我国国民经济取得了突飞猛进地发展, 在社会各个方面取得巨大进步的同时,随之产生的一些问题也日益凸现。 如国有资产的大量流失、市场信用的严重缺失、生态环境的日趋恶化、经 济领域秩序的混乱、大企业利用其垄断地位进行不正当竞争行为得不到有 效遏制等等。由于我国正处于体制转型的特殊时期,许多新的制度一时难 以建立和完善,特别是在保护国家利益和社会公共利益的制度构建方面存 在着严重缺失,致使许多涉及公共利益的新型社会纠纷得不到解决,公共 利益无法有效保护,己严重困扰着中国现代化的步伐。这些负面因素如不 能得到较好解决,必将对建设社会主义和谐社会产生不利影响。在加强依 法治国,建设社会主义法治国家的今天,应通过司法程序,采用司法手段 来维护国家和社会公共利益,建立起一个长效的、符合法治要求的全新司 法制度—民事公益诉讼制度。公共利益是一个极其抽象的概念,其究竟包 含哪些内容一直难以定论。目前重要的不是如何界定公共利益的概念,更 要关注公共利益的保护,关注如果没有民事公益诉讼这一制度,当前我国 社会存在的经济、民事方面的新矛盾如何解决。从历史上看,民事公益诉 讼从古罗马时就有了。现代西方许多先进国家也建立了这一制度,并在维 护国家和社会公共利益方面发挥了积极作用。在目前的司法实践中,公益 诉讼也是议论较多,颇有争议的一个话题。但由于我国现行法律至今没有 关于公益诉讼的立法,因此随着我国法治国家进程的加快,检察机关代表 国家提起民事公益诉讼的制度也呼之欲出。本文主要围绕检察机关提起民 事公益诉讼的概念、争论以及建立该制度的依据和对该制度建立的具体构 想进行论述。 首先是关于检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的概念界定,笔者是在对公益 诉讼概念和公共利益的内涵进行分析论证后得出检察机关提起民事公益 诉讼的概念。其次是检察机关是否可以提起民事公益诉讼在目前理论界和实务界一直都存在很大争论,否定者认为民事诉讼是平等主体之间的民事 权益之争,检察机关提起民事公益诉讼是对当事人处分权的不当干预,不 符合民事诉讼的特点,也势必对原来的诉讼结构带来一定的冲击,同时也 有人认为检察机关提起民事诉讼不利于其更好地履行法律监督职能,其特 殊的性质决定了其不能提起民事诉讼。持肯定观点的学者认为从世界各国 看,大多数国家都规定检察机关有权提起民事公益诉讼,且公诉权是检察 机关法律监督的重要部分,也有学者认为检察机关提起民事公益诉讼是对 当事人滥用处分权的限制。笔者认为从现实角度看应赋予检察机关提起民 事公益诉讼的权利,因为现实国情需要检察机关提起民事公益诉讼,而且 当前关于诉权理论与当事人理论以及处分权理论都在不断发生变化,我们 完全可以从实践需要来改进和修正我们诉讼理论。最后阐述了民事公益诉 讼在我国经历了一个曲折的发展过程,此次理论界和实务界重提检察机关 提起民事公益诉讼不再是旧曲重唱,而是我国国情的需要,是我国民事诉 讼发展的必然趋势。检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的依据本部分主要论述建 立检察机关提起民事公益诉讼制度的依据,具体分三点来论述:首先是理 论依据。民事诉讼理论、检察理论、国家干预理论是建立检察机关提起民 事公益诉讼制度的主要理论依据。而民事诉讼理论主要是诉权理论和处分 权理论的发展,改变了传统的“利害关系人”说,扩大了当事人的范围, 强调国家对当事人滥用处分权的限制。检察理论则更是从检察机关的性 质、职能方面来阐述民事公诉权是检察机关法律监督权的必要构成,是由 检察机关特殊的性质和地位决定的。国家干预理论强调我国国家干预“私 法”不同于前苏联的全面干预,而是有限制的进行干预,同时这种干预也 不是我国独创,在英、美、日、德等发达资本主义国家都有检察机关代表 国家干预“私法”的规定。其次是现实依据。赋予检察机关提起民事公益 诉讼是我国现实国情的需要,主要包括三个方面:其一,我国目前大量存 在国家利益和社会利益受到侵害的严峻事实;其二,我国近年来公益诉讼 不尽如人意;其三,我国检察机关已在实践中进行了有益的探索。最后是 法律依据。虽然我国民事诉讼法没有明确法条规定检察机关可以提起民事 公益诉讼,但是我们仍然可以从《宪法》、《民事诉讼法》、《刑事诉讼 法》、《民法通则》等有关法律中找到我国检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的 法律依据。检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的制度构想分重点阐述如何构建我 国检察机关提起民事公益诉讼制度,其一是检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的原则和范围。笔者认为检察机关提起民事公益诉讼的条件范围宜窄不宜 宽,既能达到履行检察职能,又能维护公民“意思自治”,因此公益诉讼 的范围应限在侵犯国有资产、造成公害的、涉及公民重大利益并损害公序 良俗等几类民事案件。其二关于检察机关在民事公益诉讼中地位主要有国 家监诉人、国家公诉人、原告人等五种不同说法,笔者在对这五种说法进 行评析后认为“原告人说”更符合检察机关在民事公益诉讼中的地位和特 征,又能体现检察机关同于普通民事当事人。其三对于检察机关在民事公 益诉讼中有哪些权利,笔者认为由于检察机关的诉讼目的的特殊性,因此 其除具有民事诉讼中一般当事人的诉讼权利外,还应拥有调查权、抗诉权、 优先审理权,这样做是为了更好地保证诉讼目的的实现,更好地维护公共 利益。其四在程序设置方面由于公益诉讼的特殊性也决定了其诉讼程序不 同于普通的民事程序,不同的主要体现在检察机关在诉讼前的督促程序和 诉讼后对判决的审查。另外关于诉讼中当事人是否可以反诉、检察机关应 否缴纳诉讼费用、检察机关是否有权调解等问题,笔者都作出了否定的回 答。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Strictly speaking, public interest lawsuit is not a concept which has some legal sense and it is different from the traditional differentiation of litigation type. Public interest lawsuit, as a notion compared with private interest lawsuit, is a kind of litigation divided according to the standard of the target or purpose of relevant litigation. Civil public interest lawsuit, a sub-branch of public lawsuit, refers to the legal system that specific state organs, social organizations or relevant citizens, according to some legal provisions, bring some action against civil violation behavior, which has infringed on national interest and public interest of the society, and ask the court to punish those wrongdoers for their legal responsibility through judicial procedure. In recent years, the national economy of our country has developed rapidly and obtained great progress in all aspects of the society. However, some problems also arise as a consequence. In our society, For example, a huge amount of state-owned assets has been laundered and ceased to exist, many subjects have lost their trustworthiness in the market, the ecological environment has become worse, order in the economy field has been chaotic and the phenomenon that huge enterprises engage in unfair competition by taking advantage of their monopoly power cannot be effectively restrained, etc. Since our country, nowadays, is in a special period of transforming system, many new institutions cannot be established and consummated in a short time. Especially, there are many serious defects in the field of system construction necessary for safeguarding national interest and social public interest, which has made many new types of social disputes concerning public interests difficult to be resolved, resulted with ineffective protection of public interest. All these problems have disturbed the step of Chinese modernization undertaking. If we cannot get rid of these negative elements, they would have an adverse effect on the construction of socialist harmonious society. Today, during the cause of strengthening to rule the country by law and construct socialist law-ruled country, we shall, according to the law-ruled standard, set up a long-acting and newly-made judicial system, civil publicinterest lawsuit system, implemented through judicial procedure and by means of jurisdiction to protect national interest and social public interest. Public interest is an extremely abstract characterization and, until now, people have not agreed upon the issue of what content it should include. At present, In current judicial pract6ice, commonweal lawsuit is a topic with lots of arguments. However, since there is no legislation on commonweal lawsuit, the system that procurator organ proposes the civil commonweal lawsuit on behalf of the country is essential under the situation that progress of our country ruled by law is rapid. This thesis states the definition, arguments, reference of setting up this system as well as the concrete conception. This thesis begins with the definition of civil commonweal lawsuit proposed by procuratorial organ, while the author reaches definition the of commonweal lawsuit proposed by procuratorial organ upon analyzed on the definition of commonweal lawsuit and connotation of public interest. Then this thesis illustrates the arguments existing in the current theoretical and practical circles that whether procuratorial organ has the right to propose civil commonweal lawsuit. People with negative opinion think that civil lawsuit is the argument on civil interest between equal subjects. It is unsuitable interference to litigant punishment right for procuratorial organ to propose civil commonweal lawsuit. They also state that they do not conform to the character of civil commonweal lawsuit and this will bring certain strike. In addition, procuratorial organ can not implement the supervision function if it proposes civil commonweal lawsuit and this is not good for its development. The scholars holding positive opinion think that most countries all over the world stipulate that it is procuratorial organ that proposes the civil commonweal lawsuit and lawsuit right is a very important part of legal supervision of procuratorial organ. Some scholars think that it is a kind of restriction to litigant to abuse the rights for procuratorial organ to propose the civil commonweal lawsuit. The author takes the view that procuratorial organ should be endowed with the lawsuit right from reality since the current state of the country has such need. In addition, since the theory of lawsuit right, litigant and punishment is changing all the time, we can ratify and amend ourtheory from practice. Finally, this part states that civil commonweal lawsuit experiences a zigzag development process. It is not a repeat for our country to discuss civil commonweal lawsuit proposed by procuratorial organ but the demand of the state of our country and the essential trend of the development of civil lawsuit in China. This thesis discusses the reference of civil commonweal lawsuit proposed by procuratorial organ from three aspects: It begins with the theoretical reference, including civil lawsuit theory, procuratorial theory and national interference theory. Civil lawsuit theory covers lawsuit right theory and punishment right theory, which change the traditional saying of interest related persons and expand the scale of litigant, emphasizing the restriction to right abuse for litigant from the country. Procuratorial theory illustrates from the character and function that civil lawsuit right is part of legal supervision right of procuratorial organ which is decided by its special character and status. National interference theory emphasizes that Private Law interfered by our country is different from the complete interference of the Soviet Union, but the limited restriction. Meanwhile, this kind of interference is not created only by our country. There is procuratorial organ in Great Britain, America, Japan and German to represent the country to interfere the stipulation of Private Law. The following is the practical reference. It is the need of real state of our country for procuratorial organ to propose civil commonweal lawsuit, mainly including the following three aspects: first, there are many facts that national and social interests are infringed; second, commonweal lawsuit is not satisfied in recent years; third, we have made profitable exploration in practice. Finally, this part states the legal reference Though there is no definite stipulation in Civil Procedure Law that procuratorial organ has the right to propose the civil commonweal lawsuit, we can still find the reference for our procuratorial organ to propose the civil commonweal lawsuit in Charter, Civil Procedure Law, Criminal Procedure Law, and General Rule of the Civil Law, etc. This thesis illustrates how to construct the system of civil commonweal lawsuit proposed by procuratorial organ. The author first covers the principle and scale of civil commonweal lawsuit proposed by procuratorial organ, taking theview that the scale should be narrow, not broad. Thus the procuratorial organ can not only perform its responsibility, but also maintain ruling the mind by the citizens themselves. Therefore, the scale should be within infringing the national asset, referring significant interest of the citizens and doing harm to the public order and good custom. Second, the status of procuratorial organ in civil commonweal lawsuit includes the following five sayings: national monitor of lawsuit, national prosecution, prosecutor, etc. The author thinks that Prosecutor Theory conforms to the status and character of procuratorial organ in civil commonweal lawsuit and embodies that procuratorial organ is different from ordinary civil litigant. The following of this part states the rights of procetorial organ in civil commonweal lawsuit. The author considers that due to the special lawsuit purpose of the procuratorial organ, besides the lawsuit right of ordinary litigant, procuratorial organ should be endowed with investigation right, counter-appealing right and hearing priority right. This is for ensuring the better realization of lawsuit and maintenance of commonweal. Fourth, due to the particularity of commonweal lawsuit, the procedure should be different from ordinary civil procedure. The difference lies in the supervision and urging procedure before the lawsuit and examination of the verdict after lawsuit. In addition, the author gives the negative response to the problems that whether litigant can counter-charge, whether procuratorial organ collects the lawsuit fee as well as whether procuratorial organ has the right to mediate.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-04
回到顶部