论行政公益诉讼中的举证责任  

On the Burden of Proof in Administrative Public Interest Litigation

作　　者：商宁 袁周斌[2] Shang Ning;Yuran Zhoubin(Zhongnan University of Economics and Law,Wuhan 430073,China;Hubei University of Police,Wuhan 430035,China)

机构地区：[1]中南财经政法大学法学院,湖北武汉430073 [2]湖北警官学院法律系,湖北武汉430034

出　　处：《湖北警官学院学报》2022年第5期151-159,共9页Journal of Hubei University of Police

基　　金：中南财经政法大学研究生科研创新项目“失信惩戒立法研究”(202210685)。

摘　　要：在深入践行习近平生态文明思想、全面推进国家治理体系和治理能力现代化的背景下,举证责任机制的法治化和科学化成为行政公益诉讼制度构建及完善进程中不容回避的关键环节。检察机关通过诉前程序的大量证据收集,使得行政机关在诉讼中常处于被动地位,这一举证责任分配上的博弈造成了司法实践乱象。究其根源,举证责任分配规则及证明标准尚无统一规定乃首要原因。基于对相关立法和司法实践现状的梳理归纳,应通过对案件的类型化来科学地分配举证责任,进而适用多元化证明标准,并分授不同机关程度各异的调查取证权,以扫清行政公益诉讼中举证责任方面的障碍。Under the background of in-depth practice of Xi Jinping’s ecological civilization thought and the comprehensive promotion of the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity, the legalization and scientificization of the burden of proof mechanism has become an unavoidable key link in the construction and improvement of the administrative public interest litigation system. The procuratorial organ collects a large amount of evidence through the pre-litigation procedure, so that the administrative organ is often in a passive position in the litigation. This game in the distribution of the burden of proof has caused chaos in judicial practice. Investigating its root cause, the primary reason is that there are no uniform rules for the allocation of the burden of proof and the standard of proof. Based on the summary of the current situation of relevant legislation and judicial practice, the burden of proof should be scientifically allocated through the classification of cases, and then diversified standards of proof should be applied, and different authorities should be assigned different levels of investigation and evidence collection power, so as to clear the Problems related to the burden of proof are obstacles to the improvement of the administrative public interest litigation system.

关 键 词：行政公益诉讼 举证责任 证明标准 检察机关 公共利益 

分 类 号：D925.3[政治法律—诉讼法学]