消费民事公益诉讼损害赔偿请求权研究

Study on the right of claim for damages in consumption civil public litigation

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。

It is doubtful to set the claims including cessation of fringerment for the plaintiffs of consumption civil public litigation by SPC in its explanations on consumption civil public litigation. After summarizing the debate in theory and practice fields,the reasons why SPC made this choice are penetration of private litigation concept,deviation of institutional functions cognition and barriers of litigation procedures. The institutional functions of consumption civil public litigation should be a dual structure-＂deterrence—compensation＂. As far as paths to accomplish these two functions concerned,injunction action is not enough to fulfill aforesaid functions solely,but damages claim can play an important role. Damages and administrative penalty can be replaced by each other in context of ＂optimal deterrence＂; but it is practical to choose＂cooperative regulation＂for damages and administrative penalty in context of＂underdeterrence＂. It is not necessary for SPC to worry about barriers of litigation procedures,because they can be eliminated.