消费公益诉讼中适用惩罚性赔偿的理论检讨与实践辨正  

Theoretical Review and Practical Reflection on PunitiveDamages in Consumer Public Interest Litigation

作　　者：李响[1] LI Xiang(Civil and Commercial Economic Law School,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100022,China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学民商经济法学院,北京100022

出　　处：《南都学坛（南阳师范学院人文社会科学学报）》2024年第5期82-90,共9页Academic Forum of Nandu:Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences of Nanyang Normal University

基　　金：国家社会科学基金重点项目“以人民为中心的民事司法程序前沿问题研究”(项目编号:20AZD118)。

摘　　要：在消费公益诉讼当中,判处被告承担惩罚性赔偿责任面临着法理、事理、情理三重质疑。就法理层面而言,我国法律始终将惩罚性赔偿定位为一种私人执法手段,只有消费者个人才有权提起此种诉讼请求;就事理层面而言,惩罚性赔偿并不符合公益诉讼的设立目的,起不到通过激励私人执法来弥补公共执法不足的作用;就情理层面而言,行政罚款/刑事罚金已经足以体现对被告违法行为的严厉制裁,而且消费者可以自行通过私益诉讼求得惩罚性赔偿。此外,对于惩罚性赔偿金的管理与使用,各地做法极不统一,无论上缴国库,还是发放给受害人,抑或纳入专门基金,均非万全之策。故而,此项制度应当缓行,有待检察公益诉讼法构建专属于公益诉讼体系的惩罚性赔偿。In consumer public interest litigation,the imposition of punitive damages on defendants faces challenges of legality,rationale,and necessity.Legally,Chinese law consistently categorizes punitive damages as a private enforcement measure,accessible only to individual consumers who can initiate such claims.From a rational perspective,punitive damages do not align with the objectives of public interest litigation and fail to compensate for deficiencies in public law enforcement by incentivizing private enforcement.In terms of necessity,administrative or criminal fines already sufficiently signify severe penalties for defendants’illegal conduct,and consumers can pursue punitive damages through private interest litigation if desired.Moreover,the management and utilization of punitive damages vary widely across regions,whether deposited into the national treasury,distributed to victims,or allocated to a designated fund,none of which provide comprehensive solutions.Therefore,this system should be temporarily suspended,pending the formulation of specific punitive damages provisions within the framework of procuratorial public interest litigation laws.

关 键 词：消费公益诉讼 惩罚性赔偿 代表人诉讼 请求权基础 

分 类 号：D925[政治法律—诉讼法学] C912.3[政治法律—法学]