公益保护行政执法与公民诉讼的平衡
|
摘要
美国国会在环境法规中纳入公民诉讼条款,形成由联邦环境保护局、州和私人公民组成的多方执法框架,共同推动环境法规目标的实现。为避免多方执法可能导致的执法重复和冲突,国会对公民诉讼设置了"勤勉执法"限制,但并未对此具体界定,交由法院在个案中认定。法院综合考量司法权与行政权的关系、公民诉讼的立法历史等因素,结合具体案件对行政机关执法活动进行认定。公民诉讼勤勉执法限制的立法和司法实践表明,国会及法院在公益保护上努力寻求行政机关执法与公民诉讼间的平衡,这对中国深化行政公益诉讼制度过程中处理司法权、行政权及公民参与权之间的相互关系具有重要启示。
The United States Congress authorized citizen suit provisions in environmental laws and the enforcement authority is shared by the Environmental Protection Agency,States and citizens to jointly promote the goal of environmental laws.In order to avoid duplication and conflict of en
forcement authority,the Congress places diligentprosecution bar on citizen suit without detailed definition.The court comprehensively considers the relationship between judicial and administrative power,the legislative history of citizen suit and other factors to review agency enforcement activities.The legislative provision and juridical practice of the diligent prosecution bar suggests that the Congress and courts try to balance the agency enforcement and citizen suit.This will inspire China to deal with the relationship among judicial power,administrative power and public participation during deepen administrative public interest litigation.
The United States Congress authorized citizen suit provisions in environmental laws and the enforcement authority is shared by the Environmental Protection Agency,States and citizens to jointly promote the goal of environmental laws.In order to avoid duplication and conflict of en
forcement authority,the Congress places diligentprosecution bar on citizen suit without detailed definition.The court comprehensively considers the relationship between judicial and administrative power,the legislative history of citizen suit and other factors to review agency enforcement activities.The legislative provision and juridical practice of the diligent prosecution bar suggests that the Congress and courts try to balance the agency enforcement and citizen suit.This will inspire China to deal with the relationship among judicial power,administrative power and public participation during deepen administrative public interest litigation.
引文
[1]《行政诉讼法》第25条增加一款,作为第四款:“人民检察院在履行职责中发现生态环境和资源保护、食品药品安全、国有财产保护、国有土地使用权出让等领域负有监督管理职责的行政机关违法行使职权或者不作为,致使国家利益或者社会公共利益受到侵害的,应当向行政机关提出检察建议,督促其依法履行职责。行政机关不依法履行职责的,人民检察院依法向人民法院提起诉讼。”
[2]本文所指的“行政公益诉讼过程”,既包括检察机关向行政机关提出检察建议的诉前程序,也包括检察机关后续向法院提起行政公益诉讼的诉讼程序,而非仅指诉讼程序。
[3]例如,公益诉讼提起主体的资格应该如何规定存在广泛争议,虽然《行政诉讼法》明确了检察机关“公益诉讼人”身份,但实践操作中法院对检察机关公益诉讼人的认识并不清晰。参见刘艺:《检察公益诉讼的司法实践与理论探索》,《国家检察官学院学报》2017年第2期;徐全兵:《检察机关提起公益诉讼有关问题》,《国家检察官学院学报》2016年第3期。
[4]例如,《清洁水法》规定:“(1)在原告发送指控违法的通知给环保局局长、违法行为所在州和被指控违反标准、限制或命令的违法者60日之前,或者(2)如果环保局局长或州政府在联邦或州的法院已经开始或正在勤勉地进行一项旨在要求违法者遵守有关排污标准、限制或命令的民事或刑事诉讼,……则不得依据该法公民诉讼条款提起公民诉讼。但任何公民可基于其权利参加在美国法院提起的上述任何诉讼。”33 U.S.C.A.§1365。
[5]国内学者少有研究美国公民诉讼限制的文章,而且缺乏对勤勉执法限制的系统研究。参见陈冬:《环境公益诉讼的限制性因素考察---以美国联邦环境法的公民诉讼为主线》,《河北法学》2009年第8期;巩固:《美国环境公民诉讼之起诉限制及其启示》,《法商研究》2017年第5期。
[6]The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948,c.758,62 Stat.1155.该法于1972年经由国会修订为《清洁水法》。
[7]Peter Cleary Yeager,The Limits of Law:The Public Regulation of Private Pollution(New York:Cambridge University Press,1991),83.
[8]Jeffrey G.Miller,“Theme and Variations in Statutory Preclusions against Successive Environmental Enforcement Actions by EPA and Citizens,Part One:Statutory Bars in Citizen Suit Provisions,”Harvard Environmental Law Review 28(2004):408.
[9]Barry Boyer&Errol Meidinger,“Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement:A Preliminary Assessment of Citizen Suits under Federal Environmental Laws,”Buffalo Law Review 34(1985):846.
[10]除了《清洁空气法》,还有其他联邦环境法律包含类似的公民诉讼条款,如《清洁水法》、《资源保护和恢复法》、《有毒物质控制法》、《安全饮用水法》等。
[11]42 U.S.C.A.§7604。《清洁空气法》规定,任何人都可以以自己的名义提起诉讼:(1)起诉任何人(包括美国政府和在美国宪法所允许范围内的其他任何政府部门或机构),指控其违反了或正在违反本法规定的排放标准或限制、环保局长或各州颁布的有关上述标准或限制的命令;(2)起诉环保局局长,指控其不能履行本法所规定的不属于环保局长自由裁量领域的行为或义务;(3)起诉任何人,指控其无许可证,而打算建造或已经建造了任何新的或经改造的重要排放设施;或指控其违反了或正在违反上述许可证之任何条款。
[12]George Van Cleve,“Congressional Power to Confer Broad Citizen Standing in Environmental Cases,”Environmental Law Reporter 29(1999):10028.
[13]116 Cong.Rec.32(1970).
[14]116 Cong.Rec.33,104(1970)(statement of Sen.Hart);116 Cong.Rec.32,902(1970)(statement of Sen.Muskie).
[15]116 Cong.Rec.32,925(1970)(statement of Sen.Hruska).
[16]33 U.S.C.A.§1365.
[17]Boyer,Meidinger,“Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement,”837.
[18]Friends of the Earth,Inc.v.Laidlaw Environmental Services(TOC),Inc.,890 F.Supp.470,485(D.S.C.1995).
[19]Miller,“Theme,”456.
[20]Connecticut Fund for Environment v.Contract Plating Co.,Inc.,631 F.Supp.1291,1293(D.Conn.1986).
[21]典型案例如Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers v.Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dist.,382 F.3d 743,760(7th Cir.2004);Group against Smog and Pollution,Inc.v.Shenango Inc.,810 F.3d 116,117(3rd Cir.2016);Borough of Upper Saddle River,N.J.v.Rockland County Sewer Dist.,16 F.Supp.3d 294,322(S.D.N.Y.2014).
[22]EPA v.City of Green Forest,Ark.,921 F.2 d 1394,1405(8 th Cir.1990).
[23]Citizens Legal Envtl.Action Network,Inc.v.Premium Standard Farms,Inc.,No.97-6073-CV-SJ-6,2000 WL 220464,at 12(W.D.Mo.Feb.23,,2000).
[24]Gardeski v.Colonial Sand&Stone Co.,Inc.501 F.Supp.1159,1168(S.D.N.Y.1980).
[25]Miller,“Theme,”466.
[26]S.Rep.No.92-414,at 80(1971).
[27]Philip Hamburger,“Chevron Bias,”George Washington Law Review 84(2016):1188.
[28]Rachel L.Ryan,“Adequate Agency Action?How Procedural Trends in Environmental Citizen Suit Litigation Prompt a Reconsideration of Deference and Presumptions of Diligence,”Ecology Law Quarterly 44(2017):445.
[29]David M.Loring,“the Bar to Citizen Suits:the Preclusive Effect of a Settlement Between the Government and Violator on Citizen Suits Following Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers v.Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,”Wisconsin Law Review 2005(2005):1354.
[30]Group against Smog and Pollution,810 F.3 d at 117(3 rd Cir.2016).
[31]例如,《资源保护和再生法》规定,针对那些有可能给公众健康或环境带来危险的固体或危险废弃物的管理、储藏、处理、运输或清除等活动提供了帮助或正在帮助的行为,如果为了减轻或限制这些行为,联邦环保局局长或州政府根据《1980年环境综合性反应、赔偿和责任法》第104条,正在切实地从事一项清除活动或已经支付了“补救调查和可行性研究”(RIFS)的启动费用、且依据《1980年环境综合性反应、赔偿和责任法》正在勤勉地从事一项补救措施,则不得提起公民诉讼。42 U.S.C.A.§6972。
[32]33 U.S.C.A.§1365.
[33]Baughman v.Bradford Coal,Inc.,592 F.2 d,215,217(3 d Cir.1979).
[34]Hudson River Sloop Clearwater,Inc.v.Consolidated Rail Corporation,591 F.Supp.345,347(N.D.N.Y.1984).
[35]North and South Rivers Watershed Association,Inc.v.Town of Scituate,755 F.Supp.484,487(D.Mass.1991).
[36]Friends of the Earth v.Consolidated Rail Corp.,768 F.2 d 57,63(2 d Cir.1985).
[37]Sierra Club v.Chevron U.S.A.,Inc.,834 F.2 d 1517,1524(9 th Cir.1987).
[38]Miller,“Theme,”436-437.
[39]Sierra Club,834 F.2 d at 1524.
[40]Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black's Law Dictionary 10 th edition(St.Paul,MN:West Publishing Co,2014)
[41]典型案例如Gardeski,501 F.Supp.at 1164.
[42]Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers and Alliance for Great Lakes v.Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,556 F.3 d603,605(7 th Cir.2009).
[43]Friends of the Earth,Inc.v.Laidlaw Environmental Services(TOC),Inc.,528 U.S.167,173(2000).
[44]North and South Rivers Watershed Ass'n,Inc.v.Town of Scituate,949 F.2 d 552,553(1 st Cir.1991).
[45]Ellis v.Gallatin Steel Co.,390 F.3 d 461,464(6 th Cir.2004).
[46]Atlantic States Legal Foundation,Inc.v.Eastman Kodak Co.,933 F.2 d 124,128(2 d Cir.1991).
[47]Arkansas Wildlife Federation v.ICI Americas,Inc.,29 F.3 d 376,380(8 th Cir.1994).
[48]Frilling v.Village of Anna,924 F.Supp.821,838(S.D.Ohio 1996).
[49]典型案例如Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.v.Vygen Corp.,803 F.Supp.97,101(N.D.Ohio 1992);Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey,Inc.v.GAF Corp.,770 F.Supp.943,951(D.N.J.1991);Atlantic States Legal Foundation,Inc.v.Universal Tool&Stamping Co.,Inc.,735 F.Supp.1404,1415(N.D.Ind.1990);McAbee v.City of Fort Payne,318 F.3 d 1248,1255(11 th Cir.2003).
[50]Gwaltney of Smithfield,Ltd.v.Chesapeake Bay Foundation,Inc.,108 S.Ct.376,379(1987).
[51]Adkins v.VIM Recycling,Inc.,644 F.3 d 483,503(7 th Cir.2011).
[52]Friends of the Earth v.Carey,535 F.2 d 165,172(2 d Cir.1976).
[53]Walls v.Waste Resource Corporation,761 F.2 d 311,317(6 th Cir.1985).
[54]Culbertson v.Coats American,Inc.,913 F.Supp.1572,1579(N.D.Ga.1995).
[55]Jones v.City of Lakeland,Tennessee,224 F.3 d 518,522-526(6 th Cir.2000).
[56]Gwaltney of Smithfield,Ltd.,108 S.Ct.at 385.
[57]William H.Rodgers,Jr.,Environmental Law(New York:West Publishing Co.,1994),64.
[58]Adam Babich,“Citizen Suits:the Teeth in Public Participation,”Environmental Law Reporter 25(1995):141.
[59]Jeffrey G.Miller,Citizen Suits:Private Enforcement of Federal Pollution Control Laws(New York:Wiley Law Publications,1987),6.
[60]刘艺:《美国私人检察诉讼演变及其对我国的启示》,《行政法学研究》2017年第5期。
[61]刘超:《环境行政公益诉讼诉前程序省思》,《法学》2018年第5期。
[62]《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于检察公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》法释[2018]6号。
[63]徐全兵:《检察机关提起公益诉讼有关问题》,《国家检察官学院学报》2016年第3期。
[64]范明志:《<人民法院审理人民检察院提起公益诉讼案件试点工作实施办法>的理解与适用》,《法律适用》2016年第5期。
[65]Boyer,Meidinger,“Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement,”843.
[66]S.REP.No.1196,91 st Cong.,2 d Sess.at 36(1970).
[67]沈岿:《检察机关在行政公益诉讼中的请求权和政治责任》,《中国法律评论》2017年第5期。
[68]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》,《行政法学研究》2017年第5期。
[69]同前注[61]。
[2]本文所指的“行政公益诉讼过程”,既包括检察机关向行政机关提出检察建议的诉前程序,也包括检察机关后续向法院提起行政公益诉讼的诉讼程序,而非仅指诉讼程序。
[3]例如,公益诉讼提起主体的资格应该如何规定存在广泛争议,虽然《行政诉讼法》明确了检察机关“公益诉讼人”身份,但实践操作中法院对检察机关公益诉讼人的认识并不清晰。参见刘艺:《检察公益诉讼的司法实践与理论探索》,《国家检察官学院学报》2017年第2期;徐全兵:《检察机关提起公益诉讼有关问题》,《国家检察官学院学报》2016年第3期。
[4]例如,《清洁水法》规定:“(1)在原告发送指控违法的通知给环保局局长、违法行为所在州和被指控违反标准、限制或命令的违法者60日之前,或者(2)如果环保局局长或州政府在联邦或州的法院已经开始或正在勤勉地进行一项旨在要求违法者遵守有关排污标准、限制或命令的民事或刑事诉讼,……则不得依据该法公民诉讼条款提起公民诉讼。但任何公民可基于其权利参加在美国法院提起的上述任何诉讼。”33 U.S.C.A.§1365。
[5]国内学者少有研究美国公民诉讼限制的文章,而且缺乏对勤勉执法限制的系统研究。参见陈冬:《环境公益诉讼的限制性因素考察---以美国联邦环境法的公民诉讼为主线》,《河北法学》2009年第8期;巩固:《美国环境公民诉讼之起诉限制及其启示》,《法商研究》2017年第5期。
[6]The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948,c.758,62 Stat.1155.该法于1972年经由国会修订为《清洁水法》。
[7]Peter Cleary Yeager,The Limits of Law:The Public Regulation of Private Pollution(New York:Cambridge University Press,1991),83.
[8]Jeffrey G.Miller,“Theme and Variations in Statutory Preclusions against Successive Environmental Enforcement Actions by EPA and Citizens,Part One:Statutory Bars in Citizen Suit Provisions,”Harvard Environmental Law Review 28(2004):408.
[9]Barry Boyer&Errol Meidinger,“Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement:A Preliminary Assessment of Citizen Suits under Federal Environmental Laws,”Buffalo Law Review 34(1985):846.
[10]除了《清洁空气法》,还有其他联邦环境法律包含类似的公民诉讼条款,如《清洁水法》、《资源保护和恢复法》、《有毒物质控制法》、《安全饮用水法》等。
[11]42 U.S.C.A.§7604。《清洁空气法》规定,任何人都可以以自己的名义提起诉讼:(1)起诉任何人(包括美国政府和在美国宪法所允许范围内的其他任何政府部门或机构),指控其违反了或正在违反本法规定的排放标准或限制、环保局长或各州颁布的有关上述标准或限制的命令;(2)起诉环保局局长,指控其不能履行本法所规定的不属于环保局长自由裁量领域的行为或义务;(3)起诉任何人,指控其无许可证,而打算建造或已经建造了任何新的或经改造的重要排放设施;或指控其违反了或正在违反上述许可证之任何条款。
[12]George Van Cleve,“Congressional Power to Confer Broad Citizen Standing in Environmental Cases,”Environmental Law Reporter 29(1999):10028.
[13]116 Cong.Rec.32(1970).
[14]116 Cong.Rec.33,104(1970)(statement of Sen.Hart);116 Cong.Rec.32,902(1970)(statement of Sen.Muskie).
[15]116 Cong.Rec.32,925(1970)(statement of Sen.Hruska).
[16]33 U.S.C.A.§1365.
[17]Boyer,Meidinger,“Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement,”837.
[18]Friends of the Earth,Inc.v.Laidlaw Environmental Services(TOC),Inc.,890 F.Supp.470,485(D.S.C.1995).
[19]Miller,“Theme,”456.
[20]Connecticut Fund for Environment v.Contract Plating Co.,Inc.,631 F.Supp.1291,1293(D.Conn.1986).
[21]典型案例如Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers v.Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dist.,382 F.3d 743,760(7th Cir.2004);Group against Smog and Pollution,Inc.v.Shenango Inc.,810 F.3d 116,117(3rd Cir.2016);Borough of Upper Saddle River,N.J.v.Rockland County Sewer Dist.,16 F.Supp.3d 294,322(S.D.N.Y.2014).
[22]EPA v.City of Green Forest,Ark.,921 F.2 d 1394,1405(8 th Cir.1990).
[23]Citizens Legal Envtl.Action Network,Inc.v.Premium Standard Farms,Inc.,No.97-6073-CV-SJ-6,2000 WL 220464,at 12(W.D.Mo.Feb.23,,2000).
[24]Gardeski v.Colonial Sand&Stone Co.,Inc.501 F.Supp.1159,1168(S.D.N.Y.1980).
[25]Miller,“Theme,”466.
[26]S.Rep.No.92-414,at 80(1971).
[27]Philip Hamburger,“Chevron Bias,”George Washington Law Review 84(2016):1188.
[28]Rachel L.Ryan,“Adequate Agency Action?How Procedural Trends in Environmental Citizen Suit Litigation Prompt a Reconsideration of Deference and Presumptions of Diligence,”Ecology Law Quarterly 44(2017):445.
[29]David M.Loring,“the Bar to Citizen Suits:the Preclusive Effect of a Settlement Between the Government and Violator on Citizen Suits Following Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers v.Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,”Wisconsin Law Review 2005(2005):1354.
[30]Group against Smog and Pollution,810 F.3 d at 117(3 rd Cir.2016).
[31]例如,《资源保护和再生法》规定,针对那些有可能给公众健康或环境带来危险的固体或危险废弃物的管理、储藏、处理、运输或清除等活动提供了帮助或正在帮助的行为,如果为了减轻或限制这些行为,联邦环保局局长或州政府根据《1980年环境综合性反应、赔偿和责任法》第104条,正在切实地从事一项清除活动或已经支付了“补救调查和可行性研究”(RIFS)的启动费用、且依据《1980年环境综合性反应、赔偿和责任法》正在勤勉地从事一项补救措施,则不得提起公民诉讼。42 U.S.C.A.§6972。
[32]33 U.S.C.A.§1365.
[33]Baughman v.Bradford Coal,Inc.,592 F.2 d,215,217(3 d Cir.1979).
[34]Hudson River Sloop Clearwater,Inc.v.Consolidated Rail Corporation,591 F.Supp.345,347(N.D.N.Y.1984).
[35]North and South Rivers Watershed Association,Inc.v.Town of Scituate,755 F.Supp.484,487(D.Mass.1991).
[36]Friends of the Earth v.Consolidated Rail Corp.,768 F.2 d 57,63(2 d Cir.1985).
[37]Sierra Club v.Chevron U.S.A.,Inc.,834 F.2 d 1517,1524(9 th Cir.1987).
[38]Miller,“Theme,”436-437.
[39]Sierra Club,834 F.2 d at 1524.
[40]Bryan A.Garner ed.,Black's Law Dictionary 10 th edition(St.Paul,MN:West Publishing Co,2014)
[41]典型案例如Gardeski,501 F.Supp.at 1164.
[42]Friends of Milwaukee's Rivers and Alliance for Great Lakes v.Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District,556 F.3 d603,605(7 th Cir.2009).
[43]Friends of the Earth,Inc.v.Laidlaw Environmental Services(TOC),Inc.,528 U.S.167,173(2000).
[44]North and South Rivers Watershed Ass'n,Inc.v.Town of Scituate,949 F.2 d 552,553(1 st Cir.1991).
[45]Ellis v.Gallatin Steel Co.,390 F.3 d 461,464(6 th Cir.2004).
[46]Atlantic States Legal Foundation,Inc.v.Eastman Kodak Co.,933 F.2 d 124,128(2 d Cir.1991).
[47]Arkansas Wildlife Federation v.ICI Americas,Inc.,29 F.3 d 376,380(8 th Cir.1994).
[48]Frilling v.Village of Anna,924 F.Supp.821,838(S.D.Ohio 1996).
[49]典型案例如Natural Resources Defense Council,Inc.v.Vygen Corp.,803 F.Supp.97,101(N.D.Ohio 1992);Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey,Inc.v.GAF Corp.,770 F.Supp.943,951(D.N.J.1991);Atlantic States Legal Foundation,Inc.v.Universal Tool&Stamping Co.,Inc.,735 F.Supp.1404,1415(N.D.Ind.1990);McAbee v.City of Fort Payne,318 F.3 d 1248,1255(11 th Cir.2003).
[50]Gwaltney of Smithfield,Ltd.v.Chesapeake Bay Foundation,Inc.,108 S.Ct.376,379(1987).
[51]Adkins v.VIM Recycling,Inc.,644 F.3 d 483,503(7 th Cir.2011).
[52]Friends of the Earth v.Carey,535 F.2 d 165,172(2 d Cir.1976).
[53]Walls v.Waste Resource Corporation,761 F.2 d 311,317(6 th Cir.1985).
[54]Culbertson v.Coats American,Inc.,913 F.Supp.1572,1579(N.D.Ga.1995).
[55]Jones v.City of Lakeland,Tennessee,224 F.3 d 518,522-526(6 th Cir.2000).
[56]Gwaltney of Smithfield,Ltd.,108 S.Ct.at 385.
[57]William H.Rodgers,Jr.,Environmental Law(New York:West Publishing Co.,1994),64.
[58]Adam Babich,“Citizen Suits:the Teeth in Public Participation,”Environmental Law Reporter 25(1995):141.
[59]Jeffrey G.Miller,Citizen Suits:Private Enforcement of Federal Pollution Control Laws(New York:Wiley Law Publications,1987),6.
[60]刘艺:《美国私人检察诉讼演变及其对我国的启示》,《行政法学研究》2017年第5期。
[61]刘超:《环境行政公益诉讼诉前程序省思》,《法学》2018年第5期。
[62]《最高人民法院、最高人民检察院关于检察公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》法释[2018]6号。
[63]徐全兵:《检察机关提起公益诉讼有关问题》,《国家检察官学院学报》2016年第3期。
[64]范明志:《<人民法院审理人民检察院提起公益诉讼案件试点工作实施办法>的理解与适用》,《法律适用》2016年第5期。
[65]Boyer,Meidinger,“Privatizing Regulatory Enforcement,”843.
[66]S.REP.No.1196,91 st Cong.,2 d Sess.at 36(1970).
[67]沈岿:《检察机关在行政公益诉讼中的请求权和政治责任》,《中国法律评论》2017年第5期。
[68]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》,《行政法学研究》2017年第5期。
[69]同前注[61]。