【作者】 张帆；

【导师】 吴英姿；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 法律， 2012， 硕士

【副题名】以英美国家的告发人制度为鉴

【摘要】 自2007年以来我国各地都出现了环境公益诉讼的司法试验,2011年《民事诉讼法修正案(草案)》首次规定了公益诉讼,赋予“有关机关、社会团体”的公益诉讼原告资格。法学界期盼了多年的这一制度即将出台,对我国的环保事业是一件大事。然而草案未就环境公益诉讼的具体制度和详细操作给与进一步说明,而且文章认为在原告资格的设置上草案仍显保守。于是文章通过研究英美两国的告发人诉讼制度,建议将个人纳入环境公益诉讼的原告范围,讨论了这一设想的现实和理论可能性,并作了具体的制度设想。告发人诉讼是起源于十三世纪英国的一种借助个人推动执法的诉讼方式,个人起诉违反国王利益的行为,胜诉之后能够获得罚金的一部分,剩余部分归国王所有。英国早期为了扩大国王法院的诉讼管辖权、提高刑法执行效果而设立这一制度。但该制度在历史上出现了各种滥用情形,英国在对待这一制度的态度上几经反复,终于在1951年废止。而同时这一制度随着英国殖民移植到了美国,并在那里生根发芽,至今仍对美国社会起着重要作用。美国的现代告发人诉讼起源于1863年的《防止欺诈请求法》,主要是为了制裁南北战争时期军火商与政府交易时作虚假的费用请求从中牟利的行为。根据该法,任何人掌握违反该法的证据就可以代表美国政府提起诉讼,请求赔偿政府的损失,而告发人,即起诉的个人,可以从政府收回的资金中获得一定比例的奖励。这一制度在美国历史上经历了四次修订,逐渐完善。现行制度有下面几项重要的规则。一、起诉前的报告程序。告发人起诉前须先向司法部或其他政府部门报告,由其对诉讼材料审阅后决定是否参与起诉,以将公共资源投入到有价值的案件中。二、诉讼中政府的控制权。如果政府部门决定参与起诉,案件将由政府主导,而告发人则有服从义务。比如政府可以不顾告发人的意见撤诉、和解、甚至建议法院限制告发人的诉讼行为。三、赔偿金及诉讼费用。如果告发人胜诉,根据政府是否参加诉讼,告发人将获得不同比例的赔偿金作为奖励,诉讼费用也由被告承担。但告发人单独起诉且败诉时,将面临负担被告诉讼费用的风险。四、公开披露信息。为防止公务人员利用职务中接触到的线索提起告发人诉讼为自己牟利,“公开披露信息”条款禁止告发人利用政府已经获得的信息起诉,除非诉讼由政府主导,或者告发人是该信息的最初提供者。五、诉讼时效和赔偿金计算。略。美国当代法学界对告发人也有批评的声音,主要集中在三个方面：制度本身的合宪性,这是最受争议的问题；告发人个人利益与公共利益冲突的问题；告发人诉讼在实践中的负面效应。比较英美两国的告发人诉讼制度可以发现美国将其适用于商业领域,规范的主要是政府承包商这类大型企业,并且政府在诉讼中有相当的控制力,而英国则用这一制度管理诉讼能力一般的酒类零售商等人,告发人几乎不受政府的制约。这正是导致同一制度在英美两国发展出不同结局的原因。联系到我们国家,中国的环境公益诉讼目前面临着六大现实问题：个人诉讼能力不足、政府信息不公开、政府重视经济轻视环保、村民对农村环境的依赖性减弱、熟人社会和私下交易、缺乏诉讼热情。这些因素构成了我国引入告发人诉讼的现实基础,如果我们将个人纳入环境公益诉讼的原告范围,同时运用美国的告发人立法经验对其规制,就可以激励民间力量填补公权力执法的漏洞,结合个人的信息优势和政府的资源优势来制止环境污染行为。而要将个人纳入环境公益诉讼的原告范围,除了有现实的需要,还需要回应“直接利害关系”传统诉权理论。文章认为首先《环境保护法》和民诉法修订草案都已作出突破性的规定,另外环境利益是一种公共利益,固守传统诉权理论会陷入面对违法行为无人能诉的困局。而制度的保障也能够消除个人滥诉的风险。关于如何设计个人提起环境公益诉讼的具体规定,首先应采用检察机关和个人合作的模式,吸收美国告发人诉讼中的前置报告程序、诉讼中政府的主导角色、公开披露信息规则和罚金奖励。而在罚金计算时,文章提出应计算到告发人能够起诉之日为止,避免其为了提高赔偿金而延迟起诉扩大污染程度。在诉讼时效的规定上,文章提出应当分别对待个人单独提起的诉讼和由检察机关主导的诉讼,前者适用较短的诉讼时效促进个人行使诉权限制私下交易,而后者可以不设诉讼时效或者设置较长年限的时效。更多还原

【Abstract】 In China, Environmental public welfare lawsuits have been brought to litigation since2007. In2011, the Amendment of Civil Procedural Law (draft) encompassed public welfare suits for the first time in which "relevant organs and social organizations" can be plaintiffs. This is a long-expected event both in law circle and environmental protection. However, the draft fails to explain in detail how to bring an environmental public welfare suit and it’s conservative about the plaintiff qualification. This thesis will discuss the qui tam action in Britain and USA and go on to suggest Chinese civil procedural law include private persons as plaintiff and prove the actual and theoretical possibilities of doing so and finally design the details of this new kind of suit.Qui tam actions have roots reaching back to thirteenth century Britain, where an informant who uncovered evidence of illegality was awarded a share of the penalties paid by the wrongdoer, while the Government received the remainder. In formative stage of English law, it was devised to expand the jurisdiction of royal courts and improve the execution of penal statutes. But it was abused throughout the history when British government’s attitude towards it swung between affirmative and negative. In1951, it was finally abolished in Britain. Meanwhile, qui tam action was brought to America with England colonies and is still exerting an important influence on American society.The present-day qui tam action in America was originated from1863False Claim Act, a law passed during the Civil War as a means of combating the fraudulent actions of private suppliers in filling military procurement orders. According to the law, any private citizen in control of evidence of illegality could bring a suit on behalf of US government against the wrongdoer for remedy and get a portion of the recovered money as rewards. Qui tam action under FCA has gone through four modifications to become relatively complete. The current qui tam action is regulated as follows.1. File the complaint before bringing a suit. Before bringing a lawsuit, informer must file their complaints to Government for it to decide whether this action is worth intervening or not.2. Government’s control in the proceeding. If Government proceeds with the action, the suit will be led by it rather than informer and informer has obligation to obey. For instances, Government can dismiss the action or settle the action with the defendant notwithstanding informer’s objection, Government can even suggest the court to impose limitations on informer’s participation.3. Award to qui tam plaintiff. If informer prevails in the action, they can receive a portion of proceeds of the action or settlement of the claim and the exact percentage is different depending on whether Government intervenes or not. However, if informer brings a suit without Government’s intervening and they lose it, they might be ordered to pay for defendant’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses4. Public disclosure. In order to prevent Government employees from using information they learn of in the course of performing official duties to bring qui tam actions to benefit themselves,"public disclosure" provision was promulgated to forbid informers bringing a suit upon the information already in possession of Government, unless the suit is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.5. Statute of limitation and calculation of remedy,(omitted here) There are criticisms against qui tam action in American contemporary law circle which basically focus on the following three aspects. First is the constitutionality of qui tam action, a controversial issue; second is interest conflict between private informers and public welfare; and last is the negative effect in practice. A contrast of English and American qui tam actions shows that America applies it in commercial field where large enterprises like government suppliers are mostly regulated while Britain uses it to administer alcohol retailers whose capacity of action is average. And in America, Government has much control over private informers in the suit but in Britain informers receive barely any constraints from government. These are exact reasons why qui tam action evolves into different endings in Britain and America.When it comes to China, our environmental public welfare lawsuit is confronted with six practical problems:private citizen’s incapacity of action, failure in openness of government, government’s preference of economic development to environmental protection, people’s less dependency on rural environment, social acquaintance and private deals, a lack of litigation enthusiasm. The above factors constitute practical basis of introducing qui tam action to China. If private persons are permitted as plaintiffs in environmental public welfare lawsuits and American qui tam action adopted to regulate private plaintiffs, citizens will be incited to supplement government’s enforcement of law to stop environmental pollution.Apart from practical needs,"direct interest", the traditional standing theory should be considered in order to include private persons into environmental public welfare suits. This thesis points out that first of all, Environmental Protection Law and Amendment of Civil Procedural Law (draft) have already made breakthrough in this area. In addition to that, environmental interest is a kind of public interest which will be in a dilemma that no one is a qualified plaintiff if we stick to "direct interest" standing theory. And finally, the risk of utilization can be eased by legal bulwark.The detailed regulations of private person bringing environmental public welfare lawsuits can be designed to include following systems:the co-operation of procuratorial organ and private person, the report procedure in American qui tam action; government’s leading role in suits; public disclosure rule and reward for private person. In calculating the reward, this thesis suggests that the reward should be calculated according to the pollution until the day when the informer could bring a suit to avoid a delay in suing just for more serious pollution and higher reward correspondingly. As to statute of limitation, this thesis holds that it should be regulated differently depending on whether procuratorial organ intervene or not. If the suit is independently brought by an informer, the statute of limitation should be short to avoid informers from doing private deals. While in the case of procuratorial organ brings the suit, there should be a longer statute of limitation or even no limitation.更多还原