国家赔偿法中追偿模式的选择

Model Selection of Claim in State Compensation Law

《国家赔偿法》中规定的追偿条款是其抑制违法功能的具体实现方式之一。实践中,国家追偿制度并未有效运转,反而陷入“休眠”。造成这一局面的最主要的原因在于,目前《国家赔偿法》规定的由侵权机关负责的分散追偿模式并不合理,导致赔偿义务机关在追偿动力和能力方面都存在不足。考虑到行政赔偿和刑事赔偿程序的不同,在不影响国家赔偿损害救济功能的基础上,应当选择由独立赔偿义务机关统一处理刑事赔偿和追偿事宜,并同时负责行政追偿的模式。为保证赔偿义务机关的独立性,应当在各级人大设立国家赔偿委员会负责具体工作。与此同时,也应明确追偿对象。行政追偿中的“重大过失”主要以一般人的注意义务作为评判标准;刑事赔偿则不应泛化追偿范围,只能针对存在法定追偿情形的人展开,对集体决策中提出正确意见的,必须免责。

The recovery provision in the State Compensation Law is one of the concrete ways to realize its function of inhibiting violations. In practice, the state recovery system has not functioned effectively, but has fallen into “dormancy”. The main reason for this situation is that the decentralized recovery model provided for in the State Compensation Law, which is the responsibility of tort organs, is unreasonable, resulting in the lack of motivation and capacity of the organs responsible for compensation. Considering the differences between administrative and criminal compensation procedures, the model of unifiedhandling of criminal compensation and recovery by independent compensation-obligated organs and administrative recovery at the same time should be chosen without affecting the damage relief function of state compensation. In order to ensure the independence of compensation obligation organs, national compensation committees should be established in the people’s congresses at all levels to take charge of specific work. At the same time, the target of recovery should also be clarified. The “gross negligence” in the administrative recovery is mainly judged by the general duty of care;the criminal compensation should not generalize the scope of recovery, but only for those who have the statutory recovery, and those who put forward correct opinions in the collective decision-making must be exempted from liability.