最高人民法院为什么废止了关于齐玉苓诉陈晓琪案的批复  

Why Did the Supreme People's Court Annul the Reply to the Qi Yuling v.Chen Xiaoqi Case

作　　者：朱泳 Zhu Yong(School of Politics and Law,Jianghan University,Wuhan 430056)

机构地区：[1]江汉大学法学院,武汉430056

出　　处：《西部学刊》2023年第24期62-66,共5页Journal of Western

摘　　要：齐玉苓诉陈晓琪案争议的焦点在于我国宪法上所规定的公民“受教育权”到底应该如何定义?根据《义务教育法》和《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》的规定,“受教育权”是指政府应当为本国所有适龄青少年提供免费的小学和初中教育。“受教育权”被侵犯的案件,权利方只能是全体适龄青少年,而义务方恒定为本国政府,案件性质属于行政诉讼。而陈晓琪与齐玉苓之间的纠纷是作为平等主体的两位公民之间的姓名权侵权责任纠纷,因此并不适用宪法,适用民法对姓名权的保护同样可以维护齐玉苓的权利。2008年,当届最高人民法院审判委员会废止2001年关于本案的批复,属于自行纠正错误。The point of contention in the Qi Yuling v.Chen Xiaoqi case revolves around how"the right to education"for citizens pre-scribed by the Constitution in China should be defined.According to Compulsory Education Law and International Covenant on Economic,Social,and Cultural Rights,“the right to education”means that the govermment should provide free primary and junior high school educa-tion for all school-age children and adolescents in the country.In cases where"the right to education"is violated,the party with rights can only be all school-age children and adolescents,and the party with obligations is invariably the government,making the nature of the case administrative litigation.However,the dispute between Chen Xiaoqi and Qi Yuling is a dispute over the infringement of the right to a per-sonal name between two citizens who are equal subjects.Therefore,it does not fall within the purview of the Constitution.Applying civil law can also uphold Qi Yuling's rights.Therefore,in 2008,the Adjudication Comnittee of the Supreme People's Court annulled the reply to this case from 2001,which was a self-correction.

关 键 词：宪法 受教育权 同志关系 组织行为 义务教育 公民的基本权利 

分 类 号：D921[政治法律—宪法学与行政法学] D920.5[政治法律—法学]