行政公益诉讼的举证规则

论文总字数：19817字

摘 要

近年来行政公益诉讼制度无论是在实践中还是理论界都受到热烈的关注，虽然行政公益诉讼制度的基本轮廓已在两年的试点期内得到了初步构建，但现有研究主要停留在检察机关究竟应该以什么角色进入行政公益诉讼之中，而缺乏其他更为实质性的讨论。本文在此背景下，选择行政公益诉讼体系中并不太引人注目的举证规则制度进行梳理和研究，认为无论是让原告检察机关还是被告行政机关独自承担全部举证责任均不符合诉讼证据规则的基本逻辑，也不是一种科学的价值取向。行政公益诉讼中应当将“谁主张，谁举证”与“举证责任倒置”的规则有机结合。总体来说，检察机关主要承担公益受到侵害、诉前程序已经履行、行政机关法定职责与损害事实之间存在因果关系等举证责任，而行政机关仍应对被诉行政行为合法性予以证明。在对原、被告举证责任进行具体配置时，应把维护公共利益作为核心价值取向，综合考虑依法行政原则、“最有利于客观事实再现”原则以及检察院在公益诉讼中的角色定位等因素，进一步保障公益诉讼人的调查取证权。

关键词：行政公益诉讼；公益维护；检察机关；举证规则

Abstract

In recent years, the administrative public interest litigation system has received intense attention both in practice and in the theoretical field. Although the basic outline of this new litigation system has been initially constructed during the two-year pilot period, the existing research is mainly on what role the prosecution should enter in the administrative public interest litigation, and lack of other more substantive discussions. Under this background, this article selects a not-obscene proof liability rule system in the administrative public interest litigation system to sort out and study it. It is considered unreasonable that neither the plaintiff's prosecutor nor the defendant's administrative authorities bears all the burden of proof, and it is not a scientific value orientation. In the administrative public interest litigation, it is necessary to organically combine the rules of“who advocates, who gives evidence”and the “inversion of the burden of proof”. On the whole, the prosecution mainly bear the burden of proof such as the infringement of public interest, the performance of laws before the proceedings, the existence of a causal relationship between the illegal acts of the administrative authorities and the damage, and the administrative authorities should still prove the legality of the administrative acts. In the specific allocation of the burden of proof, the public interest should be taken as a core value orientation, and comprehensive consideration should be given to factors such as the principle of legal administration, the principle of “best for the reproduction of objective facts” and the role of the Procuratorate in public interest litigation. It is vital to further protect public interest litigants' right to investigate and collect evidence.

Key words: Administrative public interest litigation; Public interest maintenance; Procuratorate；Rule of burden of proof

目 录

摘要 I

Abstract II

引言 1

一、行政公益诉讼举证规则问题理论研究现状 1

（一）“谁主张，谁举证”说 2

（二）“举证责任倒置”说 2

（三）“加重被告举证责任”说 2

二、行政公益诉讼举证规则的功能 3

（一）对原、被告举证责任范围进行合理划分 3

（二）有利于客观事实再现 3

（三）完善我国行政诉讼举证责任分配体系 4

三、行政公益诉讼试点中举证规则存在的突出问题 5

（一）检察机关实际承担了较重的举证责任 5

（二）行政机关在试点中不承担举证责任 6

（三）缺乏立法供给和规则配套 6

四、行政公益诉讼举证规则配置的考量因素 7

（一）以维护公益为核心价值取向 7

（二）遵循“最有利于客观事实再现”原则 7

（三）坚持依法行政原则 8

（四）考量检察院在公益诉讼中的角色定位 8

五、行政公益诉讼举证规则具体制度设计 9

（一）综合适用“谁主张谁举证”与“举证责任倒置”原则 9

（二）将作为类和不作为类行政公益诉讼的举证责任加以区分 10

（三）进一步保障检察机关调查取证权 11

结语 13

参考文献 14

致谢 15

剩余内容已隐藏，请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：19817字