论民事公益诉讼的适格原告

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:

彭伟锋

导师:

唐力

导师单位:

法学院,党政办公室

学位:

硕士

语种:

中文

关键词:

民事公益诉讼;适格原告;理论基础;域外经验;原告体系

摘要:

随着社会的进步、经济的发展,人们对公共利益的关注达到了前所未有的程度。一方面,公共利益遭受侵害的事件屡屡发生;另一方面,公民的维权意识日益增强,越来越多的有识之士积极为公共利益寻求司法保护,却往往由于原告主体不适格、诉讼程序无法启动而扼腕作叹。在学界对民事公益诉讼制度的建立已经逐步达成共识的前提下,如何突破现行的民事诉讼法律,赋予非直接利害关系人民事公益诉讼原告资格成为当前最为突出而又亟待解决的问题,对该问题进行探讨具有较强的现实意义。笔者在本文中通过比较分析的办法,理论联系实践,结合域外主要国家和地区公益诉讼的立法和我国民事公益诉讼的实践现状,分析了我国民事公益诉讼适格原告问题与现行立法的冲突,并对确定民事公益诉讼适格原告的理论基础和域外经验等进行了探讨,最后在理论基础的指引下,参照域外经验尝试为构建我国民事公益诉讼原告体系提出建设性的对策和思路。 本文除结论部分外,共分四个部分。 第一部分通过典型案例说明我国民事公益诉讼实践中遇到的最突出问题是原告的适格问题;进而对我国民事公益诉讼实践现状进行剖析,得出结论:社会和公民对公益诉讼的司法需求与现行立法滞后之间存在矛盾,因而有必要对现行民事诉讼当事人制度进行改革,扩大公益诉讼适格原告的范围。 第二部分对构建民事公益诉讼适格原告体系的理论基础--以诉的利益说为基础的当事人适格理论和诉讼信托理论进行分析和论证。其中,以诉的利益说为基础的当事人适格理论突破了传统的当事人适格基础--管理权说,使享有诉的利益的非直接利害关系人获得适格原告的资格;诉讼信托理论则可使相关主体获得公益诉讼的诉权。 第三部分对确定民事公益诉讼适格原告的域外经验进行比较分析。着重介绍了法国、德国、英美三种公益诉讼的典型模式,并对三者进行共性分析:三种模式都将检察机关、社会团体作为民事公益诉讼的适格原告,都重视公民个人在公益诉讼中的作用发挥。该部分为下文构建民事公益诉讼原告体系提供借鉴。 第四部分对我国民事公益诉讼原告体系的构建进行探讨。主要对检 2 察机关、社会团体及公民个人担任民事公益诉讼原告的具体问题进行了分析。提出检察机关应在民事公益诉讼原告体系中占主导地位;同时参照德国团体诉讼的模式,通过预设条件和行政管理部门核准的方式对社会团体担当民事公益诉讼原告作必要的限制。最后,通过对英美国家的“告发人诉讼”制度进行改良,解决公民个人参与民事公益诉讼的问题。

学科:

诉讼法学

提交日期

2025-12-04

引用参考

彭伟锋. 论民事公益诉讼的适格原告[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
  • 论民事公益诉讼的适格原告
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 05444110400611
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 彭伟锋
  • 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
  • 唐力
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 法学院,党政办公室
  • dc.language.iso
  • 中文
  • dc.subject
  • 民事公益诉讼 ;适格原告;理论基础;域外经验;原告体系
  • dc.subject
  • civil public interest litigation;competent plaintiff;underlying theories;foreign experiences;system of plaintiff
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 随着社会的进步、经济的发展,人们对公共利益的关注达到了前所未有的程度。一方面,公共利益遭受侵害的事件屡屡发生;另一方面,公民的维权意识日益增强,越来越多的有识之士积极为公共利益寻求司法保护,却往往由于原告主体不适格、诉讼程序无法启动而扼腕作叹。在学界对民事公益诉讼制度的建立已经逐步达成共识的前提下,如何突破现行的民事诉讼法律,赋予非直接利害关系人民事公益诉讼原告资格成为当前最为突出而又亟待解决的问题,对该问题进行探讨具有较强的现实意义。笔者在本文中通过比较分析的办法,理论联系实践,结合域外主要国家和地区公益诉讼的立法和我国民事公益诉讼的实践现状,分析了我国民事公益诉讼适格原告问题与现行立法的冲突,并对确定民事公益诉讼适格原告的理论基础和域外经验等进行了探讨,最后在理论基础的指引下,参照域外经验尝试为构建我国民事公益诉讼原告体系提出建设性的对策和思路。 本文除结论部分外,共分四个部分。 第一部分通过典型案例说明我国民事公益诉讼实践中遇到的最突出问题是原告的适格问题;进而对我国民事公益诉讼实践现状进行剖析,得出结论:社会和公民对公益诉讼的司法需求与现行立法滞后之间存在矛盾,因而有必要对现行民事诉讼当事人制度进行改革,扩大公益诉讼适格原告的范围。 第二部分对构建民事公益诉讼适格原告体系的理论基础--以诉的利益说为基础的当事人适格理论和诉讼信托理论进行分析和论证。其中,以诉的利益说为基础的当事人适格理论突破了传统的当事人适格基础--管理权说,使享有诉的利益的非直接利害关系人获得适格原告的资格;诉讼信托理论则可使相关主体获得公益诉讼的诉权。 第三部分对确定民事公益诉讼适格原告的域外经验进行比较分析。着重介绍了法国、德国、英美三种公益诉讼的典型模式,并对三者进行共性分析:三种模式都将检察机关、社会团体作为民事公益诉讼的适格原告,都重视公民个人在公益诉讼中的作用发挥。该部分为下文构建民事公益诉讼原告体系提供借鉴。 第四部分对我国民事公益诉讼原告体系的构建进行探讨。主要对检 2 察机关、社会团体及公民个人担任民事公益诉讼原告的具体问题进行了分析。提出检察机关应在民事公益诉讼原告体系中占主导地位;同时参照德国团体诉讼的模式,通过预设条件和行政管理部门核准的方式对社会团体担当民事公益诉讼原告作必要的限制。最后,通过对英美国家的“告发人诉讼”制度进行改良,解决公民个人参与民事公益诉讼的问题。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Together with the progress of the society and the development of the economy, people’s attention to public interest litigation has reached new height. On one hand, it’s commonly seen that the public interest being infringed; on the other hand, general public has developed their awareness towards rights protection. And there have been an increasing number of appeals to actively seek for the legal protection of public interest from the learned people. However, due to the incompetent of plaintiff and the litigation procedure cannot be started, a majority of the appeals resulted in nothing. While the among the scholars it’s becoming a common understanding about the necessity of establishing the public interest litigation, how to break through the current civil litigation procedures and allow indirect interested party the title of competent plaintiff would be the most urgent and important question to answer. And therefore, a discussion towards such an answer has significance in reality. The author of the essay analyzed, by a comparative study of the current legislation of the public interest litigation in major foreign countries/regions and the current situation of civil public interest litigation of our country, the potential conflict between civil public interest litigation and current legislation, and discussed the theories underlying the ascertain of the competent plaintiff and foreign experiences, and also, under the guidance of academic theories, with a reference to foreign experiences, attempted to develop constructive answers to the building of the system of civil public interest litigation in our country. Apart from Conclusion, this essay consists 4 parts. Part One is to demonstrate, by typical cases, that the most prominent question that the civil public litigation encounter is the competency of plaintiff; further, to analyze the practice of civil public interest in our country, and with a conclusion that there is the conflict between the needs of society and general public and the nature of hysteresis of current legislation, and therefore, a reform of current system of plaintiff in civil litigation, and to expand the scope of competent plaintiff of public interest litigation, are both necessary. 2 Party Two is to analyze and demonstrate the underlying theories that established civil public interest litigation, namely the competency of plaintiff and litigation trust based upon the doctrine of Interest of Action. Among the above, the theory of competent plaintiff, which is based upon the doctrine of Interest of Action, broke through the doctrine of power of management, the traditional theory of competent plaintiff. And therefore, results in the title of competent plaintiff by the indirect interested party with an Interest of Action. And litigation trust will allow an unvarying title in the public interest litigation. Party Three is a comparative law study of foreign experience on ascertaining of the competent plaintiff in the civil public interest litigation. With an emphasis of the typical model of France, Germany and Anglo-America, this part analyzes the general character of the models: prosecuting authorities and non-government organizations can become competent plaintiff in civil public interest litigation, and the significance of individual in the public interest litigation is valued. This part is used as reference for the following part in establishing the system of civil public interest litigation. Part Four is to discuss establishing a system of public interest litigation in our country. This part analyzes the actual problems for prosecuting authorities, non-government organizations and individual to be the plaintiff of the public interest litigation, and bring forward that the prosecuting authorities shall take a leading place in the civil public interest litigation. With a reference to the German model of classic action, this part suggests to limit the possibility of non-government organizations as plaintiff by setting out preconditions and approval procedures by the administrative authorities. Last, by improving on the Relator Action of Anglo-American system, this part suggests a solution on individual’s participation in public interest litigation.
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2025-12-04
回到顶部