原告资格从“不利影响”到“主观公权利”的转向与影响——刘广明诉张家港市人民政府行政复议案评析

The Change and Impact from “Adverse Impact” to “Subjective Public Rights”:Comments on Case Liu Guangming v.Zhangjiagang Government

2017年的"刘广明诉张家港市人民政府行政复议案"再审裁定中,法院首次使用德国法上的主观公权利和保护规范理论,释解作为我国行政原告资格基准的"利害关系"。从此前的"不利影响"到"主观公权利",刘案对域外学理的吸收,对我国行政诉讼原告资格的判定发挥了重要的推进作用。除引发我们重新认识行政诉讼原告资格问题外,主观公权利和保护规范理论对于重新考量行政实体法与行政诉讼法的关联、原告资格与诉讼的整体定位关联,以及如何寻获权衡"诉权保障/防堵滥诉"的教义学基础都有重要的启发意义。但刘案裁定对上述理论的适用仍旧存在值得商榷的不当之处,案件未尽问题也不在少数。

In the retrial ruling of"Case Liu Guangming v.Zhangjiagang Government"in 2017,the court first used the theory of subjective public rights and protection norms in German law as the interpretation of"interest relationship",which is the qualification of administrative plaintiff in China.From the previous"adverse effects"to"subjective public rights",the absorption of extraterritorial doctrine in Liu case has played an important role in promoting the determination of plaintiff qualification in administrative litigation in China.In addition to triggering us to rerecognize the issue of plaintiff qualification in administrative litigation,the theory of subjective public rights and protection norms have important enlightenmental significance for us to reconsider the relationship between administrative substantive law and administrative litigation law,the relationship between plaintiff qualification and the overall positioning of litigation,and how to find the dogmatic basis for weighing the"protection of litigation rights/prevention of indiscriminate litigation".However,the application of Liu’s ruling to the above-mentioned theory is still questionable,and there are also a few problems that have not been solved.