论公益诉讼中处分原则的限制与修正--兼论《新民诉法解释》第289、290条的适用

Limitation and Reinterpretation of Disposition Principle in Public Interest Litigation The Application of Article 289,290 of the "Interpretative Guidelines of New Civil Procedure Law"

借助诉讼标的理论和请求权学说,分析公益诉讼中"请求权"与"诉权"分离的困境,得提出发展"诉讼担当学说"、借鉴"诉讼管理学说",以界定民事公益诉讼处分原则限制的"度"与"量"。其目的,一是督促诉权主体勤勉于法定诉讼担当、救济原初请求权人;二是防止滥诉、诈诉的公共秩序保留;三是补救行政失灵,补强现代公共治理。其上,尤需考虑我国目前公益诉讼动力不足、准入门槛较高,鼓励"立法"变成"活法"的需要。诉权主体公信度越高、法定适格越严,与原初请求权人联系越紧密、信息越畅通,处分自由越大;诉赔额越大、赔偿分配透明度越小,公权机关参与越深,行政措施强制性越大,处分自由越小。防御型请求权的处分自由大于补偿型请求权。对《新民诉法解释》第289、290条就公益诉讼撤诉、调解、和解的严格限制,并能活用理论标尺、分层解释适用,将赋予公益诉讼"准出"相对灵活的方案,为法院减负,并反向促进公益诉讼制度付诸实践。

This paper discusses the modern collective action and inter alia, the limited application of the principle of disposition, which is a fundamental rule in traditional civil procedure law of civil law countries. It does this by comparing the essential difference between the traditional civil litigation and the modern collective action. The latter has broken through the ＂inter partes＂ pattern of the former. This note seeks to analyze the legitimacy of the group plaintiffs~ right of action on the ground of the theories of ＂matter in dispute＂ and the ＂legitimacy of the claim＂ in civil procedure jurisprudence. It suggests adop- ting the ＂standing to sue doctrine＂ and ＂objective right control theory＂ as a framework to define the ex- tent and boundaries when applying the principle of disposition in modern collective litigation. The bottom line is that the right of action of collective plaintiffs shall not injure the claim of the original party de fac- to. In light of this, the principle of disposition shall be restructured by the principle of ex officio and the principle of bona fide. The legality of the standing of the administrative body as plaintiff to bring collec- tive actions, as proposed by the Chinese legislator recently, is in this sense questionable.