我国行政公益诉讼举证责任分配问题探讨

Discussion on the Distribution of Burden of Proof in China's Administrative Public Interest Litigation

对于行政公益诉讼举证责任的分配,学界有不同的观点,《行政诉讼法》和相关司法解释也未专门规定。通过对普通行政诉讼举证责任分配原则的分析,发现普通行政诉讼中的"举证责任倒置"仅是表象,其在本质上仍遵循"谁主张、谁举证"原则。学理上来看,行政公益诉讼举证责任的分配也不例外。据此,行政公益诉讼起诉人应对诉讼主张直接产生的待证事实,以及诉前检察建议的合法性承担举证责任。如果被告主张其未履行或未全面履行检察建议具有合法性,则该主张的举证责任由被告承担。

There are different opinions about how to distribute the burden of proof in administrative public interest litigation in the academia. Neither does the Administrative Procedure Law have special provisions on this subject, nor do the relevant judicial interpretations. Through the analysis of the distribution principle of burden of proof in general administrative litigation, it is found that the inversion of the burden of proof is just a facade, and the essential principle is still that of “he who claims must prove”. Theoretically,the distribution of burden of proof in administrative public interest litigation is no exception. Accordingly, the prosecutor of administrative public interest litigation should bear the burden of proof for the facts to be proved based on the claims, and the legality of the procuratorial suggestions before the prosecution. If the defendant asserts the legality of his nonperformance or incomplete performance of the procuratorial suggestions, the defendant is responsible for the burden of proof.