法律科学：西北政法学院学报
法律科學：西北政法學院學報
법률과학：서북정법학원학보
Science of Law
2014年
2期
61~72
,共null页
公益 集合性公益 纯粹性公益 民事公益诉讼 侵害阻断程序
公益 集閤性公益 純粹性公益 民事公益訴訟 侵害阻斷程序
공익 집합성공익 순수성공익 민사공익소송 침해조단정서
public interest; collective public interest; pure public welfare; civil public welfare lawsuit; infringementinterruption procedure
民事诉讼所要承载之“公益”价值目标可一分为二：“集合性公益”与“纯粹性公益”。基于其间的本质差异，承载二者的制度逻辑和程序原理必须有所区别。传统的“群体性诉讼”制度，如代表人诉讼、选定当事人诉讼、集团诉讼、示范性诉讼（亦称实验性诉讼）等，足以承载“集合性公益”之救济需求。“纯粹性公益”之价值目标，则必须由“公益侵害阻断程序”加以承载。我国新《民事诉讼法》第55条所要建立的民事公益诉讼制度是以德国为代表的“团体诉讼”（verbandsklage）制度为模本的。该项制度在一定程度上开始突破传统民事诉讼之私益属性原理，在广义上属于公益侵害阻断程序的范畴，其制度功能处于“集合性公益”与“纯粹性公益”的临界点上。
民事訴訟所要承載之“公益”價值目標可一分為二：“集閤性公益”與“純粹性公益”。基于其間的本質差異，承載二者的製度邏輯和程序原理必鬚有所區彆。傳統的“群體性訴訟”製度，如代錶人訴訟、選定噹事人訴訟、集糰訴訟、示範性訴訟（亦稱實驗性訴訟）等，足以承載“集閤性公益”之救濟需求。“純粹性公益”之價值目標，則必鬚由“公益侵害阻斷程序”加以承載。我國新《民事訴訟法》第55條所要建立的民事公益訴訟製度是以德國為代錶的“糰體訴訟”（verbandsklage）製度為模本的。該項製度在一定程度上開始突破傳統民事訴訟之私益屬性原理，在廣義上屬于公益侵害阻斷程序的範疇，其製度功能處于“集閤性公益”與“純粹性公益”的臨界點上。
민사소송소요승재지“공익”개치목표가일분위이：“집합성공익”여“순수성공익”。기우기간적본질차이，승재이자적제도라집화정서원리필수유소구별。전통적“군체성소송”제도，여대표인소송、선정당사인소송、집단소송、시범성소송（역칭실험성소송）등，족이승재“집합성공익”지구제수구。“순수성공익”지개치목표，칙필수유“공익침해조단정서”가이승재。아국신《민사소송법》제55조소요건립적민사공익소송제도시이덕국위대표적“단체소송”（verbandsklage）제도위모본적。해항제도재일정정도상개시돌파전통민사소송지사익속성원리，재엄의상속우공익침해조단정서적범주，기제도공능처우“집합성공익”여“순수성공익”적림계점상。
The public interest value of civil litigation may be divided into two parts ： collective public interest and pure public welfare. Because of the essential difference between the two kinds of public interest, the institutional logic and prin-ciple bearing them must be differentiated. Traditional models of group action serve collective public interest. However, the value objective of pure public welfare must be borne by the infringement interruption procedure. The civil action mode ＂ver- bandsklage＂ in German Civil Procedure Law is the model of Art. 55 of Civil Procedure Law of PRC ,which have been break- ing through the private interest attribute of traditional civil action mode to a certain degree. In broader sense, it belongs to the scope of infringement interruption procedure and its institutional value is to be centered between collective public inter- est and pure public welfare.
