环境民事公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿的适用及规制

The Application and Regulation of Punitive Damages in Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

环境民事公益诉讼应否及如何适用惩罚性赔偿分歧较大.此类诉讼救济的客体一般为生态环境损害,囿于填补性赔偿的局限、环境行政执法的缺陷,有适用惩罚性赔偿的正当性.但是,鉴于惩罚性赔偿作为私法救济却又蕴含惩罚、威慑的"私人执法"特性,应严格审慎适用.为防止泛化甚或滥用,需对适用条件、确定惩罚性赔偿金的因素等进行规制.与环境侵权私益诉讼的损害赔偿不同,惩罚性赔偿须具备行为违法性、损害后果严重性和主观故意性要件.惩罚性赔偿更多应在填补性损害赔偿、行政罚款、刑事罚金适用后仍无法弥补生态环境损失时方得适用,若此三项法律责任已起到相应法律效果,惩罚性赔偿就不应再"越俎代庖".与环境污染侵权采举证责任倒置不同,环境民事公益诉讼适用惩罚性赔偿原则上应坚持"谁主张、谁举证",由请求权人对其适用承担举证责任.

It is highly debatable whether and how punitive damages should be used in environmental civil public interest litigation.The object of environmental civil public interest litigation remedies is generally ecological and environmental damage.Punitive damages are essential and feasible due to the restrictions on compensatory damages and the inefficiencies of environmental administrative enforcement.The application of punitive damages should be restricted due to their"private law enforcement"nature as a private law remedy with the connotation of punishment and deterrence.The parameters for applying punitive damages and the criteria for calculating punitive damages need to be regulated in order to prevent generalization or even misuse.Punitive damages,unlike damages in private proceedings for environmental torts,are dependent on the unlawfulness of the tortious act,the severity of the harmful consequences,and the subjective intent of the tortfeasor.Punitive damages should only be used when compensatory damages,administrative penalties,and criminal fines are insufficient to make up for ecological damage.Punitive damages do not need to be used if these three liabilities have the proper legal effect.The application of punitive damages in environmental civil public interest litigation should,in theory,be based on the idea that the proof lies upon him who affirms,not upon him who denies",as opposed to the reverse onus for environmental tort damages.