风险规制行政诉讼的原告资格  

The Plaintiff's Standing in Administrative Litigation on Risk Regulation

作　　者：王贵松[1] Wang Guisong

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《环球法律评论》2020年第6期159-173,共15页Global Law Review

摘　　要：针对风险规制的行政诉讼可以反映出原告资格认定的基本问题和完整的判断框架。第一阶段要判断原告主张的利益是否具有可保护性。我国法院已开始按照保护规范说展开审查,这是法解释的问题,但主要还是集中于根据规范,缺乏多元因素的考虑。第二阶段要判断可保护的原告利益是否有受到侵害的现实性,这是事实认定的问题,法院通常要借助于距离标准等来确定损害的盖然性和程度大小,进而划定需要保护的原告范围。在原告资格的证明上,通常的可能性标准仍然可以适用。在风险设施发生损害的可能性上,因风险设施在设置时就有安全审查的要求,可以推定其存在;在原告利益受到风险设施侵害的可能性上,则仍需原告举证证明。因风险规制所涉利益并非公私分明,得到认可的原告在一定程度上也承担着公共职能。The administrative litigation against risk regulation can reflect the basic issues and the complete judgment framework of the plaintiff’s standing.At the first stage,it is necessary to determine whether the interests claimed by the plaintiff are protectable.Chinese courts have begun to carry out the review according to the theory of protective norm.Although this is a matter of legal interpretation,it still mainly focuses on legal basis and,as a result,lacks consideration of multiple factors.At the second stage,it is essential to determine whether the protectable interests of the plaintiff are actually infringed upon.This is a matter of factual finding.The court usually resorts to such standards as distance to determine the probability and magnitude of the damage and then delineate the range of plaintiffs that need protection.With respect to the proving of the plaintiff’s standing,the usual standard of possibility can still be applied.With respect to the possibility of damages caused by risk facilities,since safety review is required for the installation of risk facilities,it can be presumed that such possibility exists;as for the possibility of the plaintiff’s interests being infringed upon by risk facilities,the burden of proof still rests on the plaintiff.However,because the interests involved in risk regulation are not clearly defined,the recognized plaintiff also assumes public functions to a certain extent.

关 键 词：风险设施保护规范 值得法保护的利益现代型诉讼 

分 类 号：D925.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]