消费民事公益诉讼请求的类型化分析
|
摘要
消费民事公益诉讼的功能主要通过原告的诉讼请求实现。目前消费民事公益诉讼请求的类型不能满足制度目的和功能需求。诉讼请求的相互依赖性和救济的不可分割性可作为消费民事公益诉讼应处理的诉讼请求的判定标准。同类集合性的诉讼请求也应纳入其中。中国不妨借鉴并调整欧盟关于消费者集体利益保护的指令提案,扩宽消费公益诉讼中确认请求的范围;依照损害的性质对损害赔偿请求进行分类,允许原告请求公益性和私益性损害赔偿;谨慎对待集体惩罚性赔偿;在确认请求和损害赔偿请求的关系方面,可以采用并限制"两步走"的方案。
The functions of the public interest litigation( PIL) are mainly realized through the plaintiff's claims. So far,the claim types stipulated by Chinese PIL rules cannot meet the need of the purposes and functions of this system. The interdependence of claims and the indivisibility of remedies can be the criteria that determine whether a claim should be processed in a PIL for consumers. Homogeneous collective claims should also be included in the claims of PIL. China could draw on the EU's latest proposal directive for the protection of the collective interest of consumers on the basis of adjustments,broadening the application scope of the declaratory judgment of PIL. We can classify the damage claims according to the nature of damages,allow the plaintiff to bring claims for public interest damages and private damages,and apply the collective punitive damage prudently. As regards the relationship between the declaratory claims and the damage claims,China could restrictedly adopt the "two step"approach.
The functions of the public interest litigation( PIL) are mainly realized through the plaintiff's claims. So far,the claim types stipulated by Chinese PIL rules cannot meet the need of the purposes and functions of this system. The interdependence of claims and the indivisibility of remedies can be the criteria that determine whether a claim should be processed in a PIL for consumers. Homogeneous collective claims should also be included in the claims of PIL. China could draw on the EU's latest proposal directive for the protection of the collective interest of consumers on the basis of adjustments,broadening the application scope of the declaratory judgment of PIL. We can classify the damage claims according to the nature of damages,allow the plaintiff to bring claims for public interest damages and private damages,and apply the collective punitive damage prudently. As regards the relationship between the declaratory claims and the damage claims,China could restrictedly adopt the "two step"approach.
引文
[1]案例统计以2013年1月1日至2018年11月8日中国裁判文书网发布的公益诉讼判决计数。未完结的案例以中国知网中的报道计数。统计时间以案件提起诉讼时间计。
[2]参见杜万华:《最高人民法院消费民事公益诉讼司法解释理解与适用》,人民法院出版社2016年版,第33页之后。
[3]杨会新:《去公共利益化与案件类型化——公共利益救济的另一条路径》,《现代法学》2014年第4期。
[4]吴俊:《中国民事公益诉讼年度观察报告(2017)》,《当代法学》2018年第5期。
[5]我国台湾地区“消费者保护法”第49-53条。
[6]Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a)Prerequisites,(b)Types of Class Actions.
[7]Law No.2014-344 of 17 March 2014 on consumption.Chapter 1.Action de groupe.Art.L.423-1.
[8]Brazilian Consumer Code.Art.81.
[9]Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers,and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC.Article 2 Scope.
[10]Gesetz zur Einführung einer zivilprozessualen Musterfeststellungsklage.Vom 12.Juli 2018.
[11]Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law(2013/396/EU)II.Definitions and Scope Art.3.(a).
[12]Alexandre Bailly and Xavier Haranger,“Class/Collective Actions in France:Overview,”Practical Law(May 2018):11.
[13]David Marcus,“The Public Interest Class Action,”Georgetown Law Journal,vol.104(2016):788.
[14]Robert G.Bone,“The Puzzling Idea of Adjudicative Representation:Lessons for Aggregate Litigation and Class Actions,”George Washington Law Review,vol.79(2010):611.
[15]Ibid..
[16]同前注[6],23(b)(3).
[17]Richard A.Nagareda,“Embedded Aggregation in Civil Litigation,”Cornell Law Review,vol.95(2009):1118.
[18]黄旭东:《论消费民事公益诉讼的请求类型及适用》,《民主与法制时报》2018年1月11日。
[19]Directive 98/27/EC OF the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers'interests.Article 3.
[20]同前注[9],Article 6.Paragraph 2。
[21]同前注[10]。
[22]同前注[13],第780-807页。
[23]张卫平:《民事公益诉讼原则的制度化及实施研究》,《清华法学》2013年第4期。
[24]李友根:《民事公益诉讼制度研究》,《政治与法律》2017年第9期。
[25]杜其乐:《消费民事公益诉讼损害赔偿请求权研究》,《法律科学》2017年第6期。
[26]Brian T.Fitzpatrick,“Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little,”University of Pennsylvania Law Review,vol.158(2010):2083.
[27]吴光荣、赵刚:《消费者团体提起公益诉讼基本问题研究》,《法律适用》2015年第5期。
[28]赵红梅:《美、德新型惩罚性赔偿对我国<消法>修订的启示》,《法律科学》2011年第5期。
[29]同前注[3]。
[30]钱玉文:《消费者权的经济法表达——兼论对<民法典>编纂的启示》,《法商研究》2017年第1期。
[31]同前注[24]。
[32]罗冠男:《中西消费者团体诉讼权比较研究》,《法学杂志》2013年第11期。
[33]French Consumer Code.Articles L421-1 to L421-7.
[34]同前注[20],Paragraph 3。
[35]同前注[20],Paragraph 3。
[36]欧盟代表人诉讼提案第6条第3款(b)项规定的公益性损害赔偿仅针对消费者遭受小额损害的情况,而(a)款却没有强调小额损害。
[37]Antonio Gidi,“Class Actions in Brazil-A Model for Civil Law Countries,”The American Journal of Comparative Law51,no.2(2003):339-341.
[38]Rachael Mulheron,“Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales,”Civil Justice Council(February 2008):100.
[39]Carter v.Westlex Corp.,643 Fed.Appx.371(2016).P.374.
[40]参见[德]格哈德.瓦格纳:《损害赔偿法的未来——商业化、惩罚性赔偿、集体性损害》,王程芳译,中国法制出版社2012年版,第112-138页。
[41]Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b).
[42]黄忠顺:《消费者集体性损害赔偿诉讼的二阶构造》,《环球法律评论》2014年第5期。
[43]李祖军:《我国代表人诉讼撤诉制度的检讨与完善——以美国相关法制为借鉴》,《法商研究》2018年第6期。
[44]陈云良:《反垄断民事公益诉讼:消费者遭受垄断损害的救济之路》,《现代法学》2018年第5期。
[2]参见杜万华:《最高人民法院消费民事公益诉讼司法解释理解与适用》,人民法院出版社2016年版,第33页之后。
[3]杨会新:《去公共利益化与案件类型化——公共利益救济的另一条路径》,《现代法学》2014年第4期。
[4]吴俊:《中国民事公益诉讼年度观察报告(2017)》,《当代法学》2018年第5期。
[5]我国台湾地区“消费者保护法”第49-53条。
[6]Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a)Prerequisites,(b)Types of Class Actions.
[7]Law No.2014-344 of 17 March 2014 on consumption.Chapter 1.Action de groupe.Art.L.423-1.
[8]Brazilian Consumer Code.Art.81.
[9]Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers,and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC.Article 2 Scope.
[10]Gesetz zur Einführung einer zivilprozessualen Musterfeststellungsklage.Vom 12.Juli 2018.
[11]Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law(2013/396/EU)II.Definitions and Scope Art.3.(a).
[12]Alexandre Bailly and Xavier Haranger,“Class/Collective Actions in France:Overview,”Practical Law(May 2018):11.
[13]David Marcus,“The Public Interest Class Action,”Georgetown Law Journal,vol.104(2016):788.
[14]Robert G.Bone,“The Puzzling Idea of Adjudicative Representation:Lessons for Aggregate Litigation and Class Actions,”George Washington Law Review,vol.79(2010):611.
[15]Ibid..
[16]同前注[6],23(b)(3).
[17]Richard A.Nagareda,“Embedded Aggregation in Civil Litigation,”Cornell Law Review,vol.95(2009):1118.
[18]黄旭东:《论消费民事公益诉讼的请求类型及适用》,《民主与法制时报》2018年1月11日。
[19]Directive 98/27/EC OF the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers'interests.Article 3.
[20]同前注[9],Article 6.Paragraph 2。
[21]同前注[10]。
[22]同前注[13],第780-807页。
[23]张卫平:《民事公益诉讼原则的制度化及实施研究》,《清华法学》2013年第4期。
[24]李友根:《民事公益诉讼制度研究》,《政治与法律》2017年第9期。
[25]杜其乐:《消费民事公益诉讼损害赔偿请求权研究》,《法律科学》2017年第6期。
[26]Brian T.Fitzpatrick,“Do Class Action Lawyers Make Too Little,”University of Pennsylvania Law Review,vol.158(2010):2083.
[27]吴光荣、赵刚:《消费者团体提起公益诉讼基本问题研究》,《法律适用》2015年第5期。
[28]赵红梅:《美、德新型惩罚性赔偿对我国<消法>修订的启示》,《法律科学》2011年第5期。
[29]同前注[3]。
[30]钱玉文:《消费者权的经济法表达——兼论对<民法典>编纂的启示》,《法商研究》2017年第1期。
[31]同前注[24]。
[32]罗冠男:《中西消费者团体诉讼权比较研究》,《法学杂志》2013年第11期。
[33]French Consumer Code.Articles L421-1 to L421-7.
[34]同前注[20],Paragraph 3。
[35]同前注[20],Paragraph 3。
[36]欧盟代表人诉讼提案第6条第3款(b)项规定的公益性损害赔偿仅针对消费者遭受小额损害的情况,而(a)款却没有强调小额损害。
[37]Antonio Gidi,“Class Actions in Brazil-A Model for Civil Law Countries,”The American Journal of Comparative Law51,no.2(2003):339-341.
[38]Rachael Mulheron,“Reform of Collective Redress in England and Wales,”Civil Justice Council(February 2008):100.
[39]Carter v.Westlex Corp.,643 Fed.Appx.371(2016).P.374.
[40]参见[德]格哈德.瓦格纳:《损害赔偿法的未来——商业化、惩罚性赔偿、集体性损害》,王程芳译,中国法制出版社2012年版,第112-138页。
[41]Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b).
[42]黄忠顺:《消费者集体性损害赔偿诉讼的二阶构造》,《环球法律评论》2014年第5期。
[43]李祖军:《我国代表人诉讼撤诉制度的检讨与完善——以美国相关法制为借鉴》,《法商研究》2018年第6期。
[44]陈云良:《反垄断民事公益诉讼:消费者遭受垄断损害的救济之路》,《现代法学》2018年第5期。