对检察机关垄断行政公益诉讼起诉资格之质疑及正位——以环境行政公益诉讼为分析重点

Questions and Repositioning of Procuratorial Organ's Monopoly of Administrative Public Interest Litigation Standing—Focus on Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation

2017年6月27日修正后的《行政诉讼法》第25条第4款之合理性有待商榷,原因在于该款规定使得检察机关垄断了包括环境行政公益诉讼在内的行政公益诉讼起诉资格。检察机关作为法律监督机关和公益诉讼人的角色混同,在造成检察机关适用诉讼程序困难的同时,影响法院的正常审判和环境行政效率。检察机关环境公益起诉权作为公权力的一种具体表现形式,存在与其他适格原告相互配合并接受监督的客观需要。私人检察总长理论为公民个人以及社会组织作为适格原告提供了理论支援,解决了重构环境行政公益诉讼多元起诉主体制度的前提性问题。通过起诉主体序位制度的构建,可以最大程度地保障最优起诉主体的寻找和诉讼效率,进而实现环境行政公益诉讼"动力"条款效能的最大化。

Article 25,Clause 4 of the Administrative Procedural Law amended on June 27 th,2017 is open to question for it allows the procuratorial organ＇s monopoly of administrative public interest litigation standing,including the environmental administrative public interest litigation.The role confusion of legal supervision and public interest litigation makes it difficult for the procuratorial organ to apply litigation procedure and influence the impartial judgment of the court as well as the efficiency of the environmental administration.As a form of public power,it is necessary for the environmental public interest litigation right of the procuratorial organ to cooperate with other qualified plaintiffs and accept supervision.The theory of private chief procurator provides the theoretical basis for individuals and social organizations to be qualified plaintiffs and prerequisite for the reconstruction of the multi-subject prosecution system of the environmental administrative public interest litigation.Through the construction of prosecution subject order system,it guarantees the location of the most appropriate plaintiff and the litigation efficiency to the extreme so as to achieve the maximum efficiency of the＂drive＂clause of the environmental administrative public interest litigation.