论德国规划诉讼中的原告资格  

Analysis on the Plaintiff s Standing in Planning Litigation in Germany

作　　者：陈靓雯 CHENG Jingwen

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院

出　　处：《中德法学论坛》2023年第2期29-52,共24页

摘　　要：2022年最高人民法院的公报案例“湛江喜强案”就详细规划的可诉性,提出了有别于以往的“直接限制当事人权利”标准。其与本案判决提出的原告资格标准——“直接利害关系”存在同一化判断的可能。鉴于该主张潜藏着运用公权利理论将受案范围纳入原告资格判断的观点,有必要对规划诉讼中的原告资格问题展开研究。考虑到德国悠久的规划诉讼历史,本文以其中最无争议的可诉性规划——具体建设规划为例,详细阐明了其原告资格的认定方法。概观德国联邦行政法院及地方高级行政法院相关判例可知,德国以申请人的不动产是否位于规划区内为标准,发展出了关于两套原告资格的解释方案。即对于规划区内的申请人适用基本权利侵害说,对于规划区外的申请人适用公平权衡请求权教义。其中,公平权衡请求权教义为德国规划诉讼原告资格判断的特色之处。从历史上观察,伴随着“不利影响”到“权利侵害”的立法变迁,客观法上的考虑/权衡要求才转变为主观的公平权衡请求权。从理论脉络上观察,公平权衡请求权作为一项程序性公权,其内涵乃至所遭受的质疑均与无瑕疵裁量请求权有极大的相似性。故尽管其仍处于发展阶段,也无碍于其作为新兴程序性公权蕴含的巨大价值。从比较法上观察,尽管我国与德国在规划的法律性质、实定法基础上存在差异,二者的规划诉讼构造却有极大的相似性,尤其是德国结合了相当因果关系理论的公平权衡请求权教义与我国“湛江喜强案”提出的“直接利害关系”标准有很大的契合性。In 2022,The Supreme People's Court of the People's Republic of China(SPC)launched a leading case,Zhanjiangxiqiang Co.,Ltd v.Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau in Suixi County,which infers the unification of the justiciability and plaintiff's standing problems by one standard,namely whether the plan has directly infringed rights of plaintiff.Such view is apparently interactive with the very popular theory,which contends that scope of litigation can merge into the plaintiff's standing by using public right.Taking this into account,it is neceessary to study the plaintiff's standing in planning litigation.Therefore this article chooses the most undisputed justiciable plan,Bebauungsplan as object and concludes the standard of plaintiff's standing of litigation against it.By looking over related cases from BVerwG,OVG and VGH,there are two methods of judging the plaintiff's standing be found.For the plaintiff whose real state is inside planning area,basic right-infringement theory takes effect;for the plaintiff whose real state is outside the planning area,right of fair balancing dogmatik applies.And the right of fair balancing dogmatik is the most distinctive.From the perspective of history,right of fair balancing is developped from fair balancing principle with the amendment of VwGO,in which the original“negative effects”was transfered into“right infringed”.In the view of administrative law theory,right of fair balancing is quite similar to right of faultless discretion not only in content,but also in critics against them.Although such right is still under development,as a newborn procedural public right,it involves huge potentials.By using the comparative method,it will be found that the structure of planning litigation in China and Germany is nearly the same,in spite of some differences in legal nature of plans and the legislative foundation of rights.What's more,the right of fair balancing combined with a considerable causality theory conforms to the doctrine of the standard of direct right-infringe

关 键 词：公平权衡请求权 规划诉讼 受案范围 原告资格 程序性公权 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]