论生态环境损害赔偿诉讼中原告的举证责任  

The Burden of Proof for Plaintiffs in Ecological Damage Compensation Lawsuits

作　　者：刘沐晗 严厚福[1] LIU Muhan;YAN Houfu

机构地区：[1]北京师范大学法学院,北京海淀100875

出　　处：《闽南师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第1期13-20,共8页Journal of Minnan Normal University:Philosophy and Social Sciences

摘　　要：我国现行生态环境损害赔偿诉讼制度适用原告举证损害、行为及其“关联性”的举证责任设置。该举证责任设置在法理上存在与保护“弱者”、平衡诉讼双方举证负担、“武器平等”、诉讼经济等理念和原则相悖的情况。在司法实践中,多数原告与法院将“关联性”理解为“因果关系”,且“因果关系”证成率极高。但在因果关系证明不充分的案件中,被告可能因原告仅需证明“关联性”而陷于诉讼不利的困局,最终承担了高额赔偿。原告证明损害与行为“因果关系”的举证责任设置具有法理可行性与实践合理性,符合程序公正精神,兼顾了环境保护与社会经济发展。In China’s ecological damage compensation lawsuits,the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant has commit‐ted misconducts and the damage of ecological environment is correlated with the act.The setting of the burden of proof violates the fairness concept of the procedural law to protect the vulnerable,to balance the burden of proof on both parties in litigation and is inconsistent with the principle of equal weapons and litigation economy.In practice,the plaintiff and the court often interpret“correlation”as a causal relationship,and the success rate in“causal relationship”is extremely high.However,in cases where the proof of causality is insufficient,the defendant may be in a disadvantageous position in the lawsuit since the plaintiff only needs to prove“relevance”,and ultimately bear high compensation.The burden of proof of causal relationship between damage and behavior for the plaintiff is legally feasible and practically reasonable,in line with the spirit of procedural justice,and is bene‐ficial for environmental protection and social economic development.

关 键 词：生态环境损害赔偿诉讼 举证责任分配 因果关系 关联性 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学] D925.1[政治法律—法学]