消费民事公益诉讼损害赔偿请求权研究

发布时间：2018-05-08 14:43

本文选题：消费民事公益诉讼 + 损害赔偿　；参考：《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》2017年06期

【摘要】：最高人民法院《关于审理消费民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》将消费民事公益诉讼原告享有的请求权类型限定为停止侵害等"不作为之诉"的解释立场,值得商榷。通过梳理学界和司法实务界关于这一问题的争论可以发现,私益诉讼理论浸润、制度功能认知偏差和诉讼程序障碍,乃是最高人民法院拒绝损害赔偿请求权的基本缘由。消费民事公益诉讼制度功能应定位为"威慑——补偿"二元结构。在"威慑"与"补偿"功能实现路径中,单维度的"不作为之诉"难以胜任,而损害赔偿请求权则能很好地担当这一角色。在"最优威慑"情形下,均以威慑为导向的损害赔偿与行政罚款之间可以替代适用;在"威慑不足"情形下,二者的"合作规制"则是切合实际的选择。基于此,最高人民法院关于损害赔偿请求诉讼程序障碍上的担忧,不仅没有必要,而且也可以消除。
[Abstract]:The interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of Law to the trial of cases of Consumer Civil Public interest Litigation defines the type of claim enjoyed by the plaintiff in consumer civil public interest litigation as "action of omission", such as cessation of infringement, etc. It is debatable. Through combing the controversy between the academic circles and the judicial practice, we can find that the basic reason of the Supreme people's Court refusing the claim for damages is the infiltration of the theory of private interest litigation, the cognitive deviation of the system function and the obstacle of the litigation procedure. The function of consumer civil public interest litigation system should be defined as "deterrence-compensation" dual structure. In the path of "deterrence" and "compensation", the single dimension "action of omission" is difficult to do, and the right of claim for damages can play this role well. In the case of "optimal deterrence", both deterrent oriented damages and administrative fines can be substituted and applied; in the case of "inadequate deterrence", the "cooperative regulation" between them is a practical choice. Based on this, the Supreme people's Court's concerns about the procedural obstacles to damages claims are not only unnecessary, but also eliminated.
【作者单位】：江苏大学法学院;
【基金】：江苏省高校哲学社会科学研究项目(2016SJB820020)“消费公益诉讼制度研究” 国家社科基金一般项目(15BFX008)“法治中国”视野下农村基层治理法治化问题研究
【分类号】：D925.1

【相似文献】