賠償性消費民事公益訴訟的訴權配置

我國現行法並沒有明確賦權消費者協會和檢察機關在消費民事公益訴訟中提出賠償性請求。除了否定性案例，主流裁判規則承認賠償性請求權，但訴權配置的邏輯各不相同。一種認為賠償性請求屬消費民事公益訴訟的固有訴權，在技術上通過公益訴訟原告主體資格與賠償性請求當事人適格的等同，以及對實體法依據的目的解釋來實現；另一種認為賠償性請求的實體依據是分散的消費者的群體性權益，公益訴訟將這些權益公益化乃至國有化；還有一種則通過略式的申請審查程序在具體受害消費者之間分配訴訟後賠償金，以此確立賠償性消費民事公益訴訟的實質合法性。解釋論始終無法對賠償性消費民事公益訴訟訴權的合法性自圓其說。在制度層面，可以採取法定訴訟擔當的方式讓消費者協會或者檢察機關獲得集合性消費賠償請求的訴權，賠償金的使用應該兼顧特定消費者權益的保護和消費公益的普遍性保護。基於法秩序統一性原理，應該確立行政責任和刑事責任阻卻公益性賠償責任成立的規則。

China's current law does not expressly authorize consumer associations or procuratorates to raise compensatory claims in consumer civil public interest litigation. Apart from some negative precedents, mainstream judicial practice generally recognizes such claims, but the underlying logic for the allocation of the right of action varies. One view holds that compensatory claims are an inherent component of the cause of action in consumer public interest litigation. Technically, this approach equates the plaintiff's standing in public interest litigation with the qualification to seek compensation, and it relies on a purposive interpretation of the substantive legal basis to justify this equivalence. A second view regards the substantive basis for compensatory claims as the collective interests of dispersed consumers, which public interest litigation transforms into public—or even state—interests. A third approach employs a simplified post-judgment application and review process to distribute compensation funds among specific affected consumers, thereby asserting the substantive legitimacy of compensatory consumer public interest litigation. Doctrinal interpretation, however, has never fully reconciled the legitimacy of granting such compensatory standing. Institutionally, this issue could be resolved through a system of statutory procedural representation, under which consumer associations or procuratorates are vested with the right to bring aggregate compensatory claims on behalf of consumers. The use of compensation funds should balance the protection of specific consumers' rights with the broader goal of safeguarding the public interest in consumer protection. Based on the principle of the unity of the legal order, rules should also be established to preclude the imposition of compensatory public interest liability where administrative or criminal liability has already been imposed