在司法實踐中探索環境民事公益訴訟的多元化責任承擔方式

In Judicial Practice Searching Pluralistic Ways of Assuming Responsibility in Environmental Civil Public Interest Litigation

隨著2012年「民事訴訟法」和2015年「環境保護法」的修訂及2015年最高人民法院「關於審理環境民事公益訴訟案件適用法律若干問題的解釋」的公布，中國大陸環境民事公益訴訟制度由確立到實踐逐步成熟、不斷完善。司法實務界和學術理論界對很多問題的解決貢獻良多。相比之下，責任裁判問題研判較少，從實證角度的研究更是鮮有。而環境民事公益訴訟的目的需要法律責任承擔來實現，因此對責任裁判問題進行實證研究具有重大現實意義。一方面，總結經驗和收穫，為今後的司法實踐乃至相關規則完善提供借鑑。另一方面，查找問題與不足，指出責任裁判中的模糊性、分歧性問題，明確法律規則的缺欠，為更好地實現該類訴訟的目標打好基礎。在此基礎上，提出未來環境民事公益訴訟健康發展的出路及完善責任裁判的建議。本文通過對法院審判實踐中涉及環境民事公益訴訟案件進行分析研究，認為：目前，中國大陸環境民事公益訴訟的司法實踐與該領域的規則制定已經形成了良好的互動局面。司法實踐成為規則制定的重要智慧源泉；規則制定為司法實踐的完善提供制度保障。責任條款作為重要的規則內容與責任裁判作為司法實踐的基本任務，兩者之間互相促進也得益於這個良好局面。同時，也還有不少問題需要正視：訴訟請求範圍與針對公益訴訟特點的裁決主文規則缺乏；責任承擔方式的審判和執行規則不足；生態損害評估制度的選擇和完善需要進一步加強；環境服務功能損失的確定及修復存在諸多困境；環境修復賠償費用的管理使用問題需要得到解決。對於這些問題的解決根本出路在於未來繼續擴大和深化已有經驗。同時，在司法實踐中不斷完善和構建包括預防性責任承擔與行為保全規則、恢復性責任方案規則、修復方案的裁判和執行規則、替代性責任豐富發展等在內的具體事宜。

Public interest litigation has been established and becoming more and more mature in mainland China with the revisions of civil procedure law in 2012 and environmental protection law in 2015 and the implementation of the judicial interpretations on application of law in environmental civil public interest litigation. But compared with great contributions on many other issues in this field the judicial practice circle and the legal theory circle have made little research on judgment of responsibility especially from empirical perspective, through which the goal of environmental civil public interest litigation has been achieved. Researching on judgment of responsibility has two significances: one is to sum up experience and achievement in the past for providing reference for judicial practice and rule improvement in the future while the other is to find out problems and defects in the judgments for defining the weakness of law. Then the suggestion for judgment of responsibility and for development of environmental civil public interest litigation is coming out. We’ve got conclusions below after analysis on environmental civil public interest litigation in judicial practice. In this field rule-making and judicial practice have interacted so well that the latter is the important source of the former while the former has been providing rules for the latter. Responsibility is an important part of rules while judgment of it is a basic duty in practice, which two have been promoting each other. Besides achievements, there’re also some problems to solve. Rules are insufficient for defining scope of claims, for writing judgment for public interest litigation as well as for trial and execution. The selection and perfection of ecological damage assessment system should be strengthened. There’re many difficulties to ascertain loss and restoration of environmental service function. Also it should be solved how to manage and use compensation for environmental restoration. To solve these problems it’s fundamental to continue to enlarge and deepen existing experience in the future. At the same time, some other detailed rules need to be constructed and improved, including: preventive liability and behavior preservation rules, restorative liability rules, rules for adjudication and enforcement of repairs, enrichment and development of alternative responsibility, etc.