行政诉讼中举报人原告资格的审查路径——基于指导案例77号的分析

发布时间：2019-03-08 09:18

【摘要】：在与举报相关的行政案件中,判定举报人是否具有行政诉讼原告资格是最为核心的争议。分析指导案例77号以及相关案例,可以发现最高人民法院以举报是否出于自身合法权益为标准认定举报人的原告资格,这一思路回避了举报人与举报答复行为之间是否存在利害关系的问题。行政诉讼中判断原告资格最为关键的要件为"合法权益",目前我国法院更接受"值得保护的利益说",并以德国法上的"保护规范理论"予以界分。举报虽在实定法上表现为一类权利,但对其保护的目的不在于特定人的私益,而在于公共利益,因此其不属于"值得保护的利益",据此可将指导案例77号所隐藏的逻辑归纳为三个层次的审查路径:第一,举报并非一项主观权利,仅是"作为特定法律技术"的权利;第二,行政机关举报答复的内容旨在保护公共利益;第三,作为举报人的原告不具有原告资格,并不意味着原告在案件中当然地不具有原告资格。
[Abstract]:In the administrative cases related to reporting, it is the core dispute to judge whether the informant has the qualification of plaintiff in administrative litigation. By analyzing the guidance case No. 77 and related cases, it can be found that the Supreme people's Court determined the qualifications of the whistleblower plaintiff on the basis of whether the report was based on its own legitimate rights and interests. This approach evades the question of whether there is an interest between the informant and the reporting behavior. The most important element of judging plaintiff's qualification in administrative litigation is "legal rights and interests". At present, the courts in our country accept "the theory of interests worthy of protection" more and more, and divide them by the "protection norm theory" in German law. Although reporting is a category of rights in practice, the purpose of its protection is not in the private interest of a particular person, but in the public interest, and therefore does not belong to "an interest worthy of protection". Accordingly, the hidden logic of guidance case 77 can be summarized into three levels of review path: first, reporting is not a subjective right, but only the right to "as a specific legal technology"; Second, the contents of the administrative organs' reporting replies are aimed at protecting the public interest; third, plaintiff, who is the informant, is not qualified as plaintiff, and does not mean that plaintiff does not, of course, have plaintiff qualifications in the case.
【作者单位】：浙江工业大学法学院;
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】