环境行政公益诉讼诉前程序实证研究
|
摘要
作为环境行政公益诉讼的法定前置程序,诉前程序在督促环保执法机构依法履职等方面发挥了重要作用,但实践中环保执法机构是否履职到位缺乏认定标准、诉前程序没有明确的操作规范、检察机关的调查取证能力不足等问题日益突出。对此展开了实证研究,细化了行政不作为及环保执法机构是否履职到位的认定机制;提出规范检察建议的操作细则,建立约谈或听证制度,加强与人大、监察委的机制衔接以落实有效监督;建议赋予检察机关以一定的强制措施权,建立检察机关与环保执法机构之间的信息共享及联席会议制度,以提升检察机关调查取证能力。
As a mandatory prepositive procedure of environmental administrative public interest litigation,the pre-litigation procedure plays an important role in urging environmental law enforcement agencies to perform their legal duties. But it also faces triple dilemmas,including the difficulties to determine if the environmental law enforcement agencies have fulfilled their duties properly,lack of clear operation standards in pre-litigation procedures,and incapability of investigation and evidence collection of the procuratorial organs. Based on the empirical study,this paper puts forward a concrete solution to perfect the prelitigation procedure. It involves a detailed identification mechanism of administrative omission and unfulfillment,as well as standardizing the operation detailed rules of procuratorial suggestions,establishing the system of making inquiries or hearing,and strengthening the coordination with the National People's Congress and the commission of supervision to implement effective oversight. Beside this,it also suggests that procuratorial organs should be given the power of compulsory measures to facilitate their diversified exercise of the right of investigation and verification,and establish the information sharing and joint meeting system between procutatorial organs and environmental law enforcement agencies to improve the capacity of investigation and evidence collection of procuratorial organs.
As a mandatory prepositive procedure of environmental administrative public interest litigation,the pre-litigation procedure plays an important role in urging environmental law enforcement agencies to perform their legal duties. But it also faces triple dilemmas,including the difficulties to determine if the environmental law enforcement agencies have fulfilled their duties properly,lack of clear operation standards in pre-litigation procedures,and incapability of investigation and evidence collection of the procuratorial organs. Based on the empirical study,this paper puts forward a concrete solution to perfect the prelitigation procedure. It involves a detailed identification mechanism of administrative omission and unfulfillment,as well as standardizing the operation detailed rules of procuratorial suggestions,establishing the system of making inquiries or hearing,and strengthening the coordination with the National People's Congress and the commission of supervision to implement effective oversight. Beside this,it also suggests that procuratorial organs should be given the power of compulsory measures to facilitate their diversified exercise of the right of investigation and verification,and establish the information sharing and joint meeting system between procutatorial organs and environmental law enforcement agencies to improve the capacity of investigation and evidence collection of procuratorial organs.
引文
[1]最高人民检察院“全面实施检察机关提起公益诉讼制度”新闻发布会[EB/OL].(2017-06-30)[2018-07-15]. http://gjwft. jcrb. com/2017/6yue/qmssjcjgtqgyss/.
[2]徐日丹.最高检召开新闻发布会通报检察公益诉讼案件办理情况[N].检察日报,2018-03-03(001).
[3]江必新,梁凤云.行政诉讼法理论与实务[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009:17
[4]薛志远,王敬波.行政公益诉讼制度的新发展[J].法律适用,2016(9):96-102.
[5]应松年.行政公益诉讼试点亟待解决的几个问题[J].人民论坛,2015(24):64-65.
[6]沈开举,邢昕.检察机关提起行政公益诉讼诉前程序实证研究[J].行政法学研究,2017(5):39-51.
[7]刘辉.检察机关提起公益诉讼诉前程序研究[J].中国检察官,2017(3):71-74.
[8]胡卫列,迟晓燕.从试点情况看行政公益诉讼诉前程序[J].国家检察官学院学报,2017,25(2):30-48; 170-171.
[9]史绪广.行政公益诉讼运行中的难点[J].中国检察官,2017(9):69-72.
[10]任晟缘.检察机关提起公益诉讼制度诉前程序研究[J].法制与社会,2017(19):123-125.
[11]徐全兵.检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的职能定位与制度构建[J].行政法学研究,2017(5):77
[12]黄学贤.行政公益诉讼回顾与展望——基于“一决定三解释”及试点期间相关案例和《行政诉讼法》修正案的分析[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,39(2):41-53.
[13]李伟.我国环保行政约谈的制度研究[D].兰州:甘肃政法学院,2017.
[14]傅国云.行政公益诉讼制度的构建[J].中国检察官,2016(5).
[15]叶俊荣.环境政策与法律[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:249.
[16]黄钰.行政执法与刑事司法衔接机制研究[G].政府法制研究,2008(3):1-48.
[17]高建伟,马晓锐.检察机关提起公益诉讼诉前程序研究[J].人民检察,2017(19):34-36.
[18]张雪樵.检察公益诉讼的“智慧之门”[N].检察日报,2018-04-09(003).
[2]徐日丹.最高检召开新闻发布会通报检察公益诉讼案件办理情况[N].检察日报,2018-03-03(001).
[3]江必新,梁凤云.行政诉讼法理论与实务[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2009:17
[4]薛志远,王敬波.行政公益诉讼制度的新发展[J].法律适用,2016(9):96-102.
[5]应松年.行政公益诉讼试点亟待解决的几个问题[J].人民论坛,2015(24):64-65.
[6]沈开举,邢昕.检察机关提起行政公益诉讼诉前程序实证研究[J].行政法学研究,2017(5):39-51.
[7]刘辉.检察机关提起公益诉讼诉前程序研究[J].中国检察官,2017(3):71-74.
[8]胡卫列,迟晓燕.从试点情况看行政公益诉讼诉前程序[J].国家检察官学院学报,2017,25(2):30-48; 170-171.
[9]史绪广.行政公益诉讼运行中的难点[J].中国检察官,2017(9):69-72.
[10]任晟缘.检察机关提起公益诉讼制度诉前程序研究[J].法制与社会,2017(19):123-125.
[11]徐全兵.检察机关提起行政公益诉讼的职能定位与制度构建[J].行政法学研究,2017(5):77
[12]黄学贤.行政公益诉讼回顾与展望——基于“一决定三解释”及试点期间相关案例和《行政诉讼法》修正案的分析[J].苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018,39(2):41-53.
[13]李伟.我国环保行政约谈的制度研究[D].兰州:甘肃政法学院,2017.
[14]傅国云.行政公益诉讼制度的构建[J].中国检察官,2016(5).
[15]叶俊荣.环境政策与法律[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:249.
[16]黄钰.行政执法与刑事司法衔接机制研究[G].政府法制研究,2008(3):1-48.
[17]高建伟,马晓锐.检察机关提起公益诉讼诉前程序研究[J].人民检察,2017(19):34-36.
[18]张雪樵.检察公益诉讼的“智慧之门”[N].检察日报,2018-04-09(003).