摘要
最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》的解释第106条规定了行政诉讼重复起诉的三要素识别要件,即当事人相同、诉讼标的或诉讼请求相同、后诉的诉讼请求为前诉裁判所包含。但是“当事人相同”“诉讼标的”“诉讼请求”都是内涵模糊不清的概念。通过对司法判决的梳理,我们可以发现对于重复起诉的认定并没有统一的标准,另外,司法实践中重复起诉的情形不止包含法条所规定的三种,还包括撤诉后重新起诉、多阶段行政行为单独起诉、两种救济制度反复缠诉的情形。识别行政诉讼中的重复起诉应当考虑以下几个因素:行政诉讼的目的、当事人诉权的保护以及司法资源的合理配置。当事人相同分为“原告相同”和“被告相同”。传统的“诉讼标的”理论认为行政诉讼的标的是行政行为,但是该学说不足以适用于所有的诉讼类型。在判断“诉讼标的”是否相同时,前提是区分出不同的诉讼类型有着不同的诉讼标的。在一些诉讼类型中,“诉讼请求”要素同样发挥着不可替代的识别作用。引入行政诉讼类型化制度、同时发挥法官的释明义务有利于重复起诉的识别。后诉的诉讼请求为前诉裁判结果所包含可以转换为部分诉讼请求可诉性的判断,应当在明确原告的说明义务、正当理由的具备以及限制部分诉讼请求提起的次数这几个要件的前提下,判断是否属于重复起诉。撤回起诉后或者按撤诉处理应当允许当事人再次起诉,但需要限制当事人再次起诉的次数,否则以同一理由和事实再次提起诉讼就是重复起诉。多阶段行政行为单独起诉的判断应当以辩证的眼光看待,判断诉的利益是否存在进而判断是否属于重复起诉。另外,多种途径缠诉是重复起诉的情形之一,也是滥用诉权的表现,判断此种情形的重复起诉则转换为对“滥用诉权”的认定。
The Article 106 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the application of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulates three elements for the identification of repeated prosecution in administrative proceedings,that is,the parties are the same,the object of action or the claim of action is the same,and the claim of the latter action is included in the judgment of the former action.But the connotation of the three elements is vague.Through sorting out judicial decisions,we can find that there is no unified standard for the determination of repeated prosecution.In addition,the situations of repeated prosecution in judicial practice include not only the three kinds stipulated by the law,but also the situations of re-prosecution after the withdrawal of prosecution,separate prosecution of multi-stage administrative act,and repeated prosecution.The following factors should be considered in identifying the repeated prosecution in administrative litigation:the purpose of administrative litigation,the protection of litigants’right of action and the rational allocation of judicial resources.Sameness of parties is divided into“sameness of plaintiff”and“sameness of defendant”.In judging whether the“object of litigation”is the same,the premise is to distinguish different types of litigation with different object of litigation.In some types of litigation,the“claim”element also plays an irreplaceable role in identification.Introducing the system of administrative litigation type and giving full play to judge’s obligation of interpretation is beneficial to the identification of repeated litigation.The latter claim is the judgment contained in the judgment result of the former claim which can be converted into the justiciability of part claim,and it should be judged whether it is a repeated prosecution on the premise of clarifying the obligation of the plaintiff to explain,the possession of just reasons and the limitation of The Times of filing part claim.After the withdrawal of the suit or the withdrawal of the suit,the party concerned shall be allowed to bring a suit again,but the number of times for the party to bring a suit again shall be limited;otherwise,bringing a suit again for the same reason and facts is a duplicate prosecution.The judgment of separate prosecution of multi-stage administrative act should be viewed dialectically,judging whether the interest of prosecution exists and then judging whether it belongs to repeated prosecution.In addition,binding prosecution is one of the cases of repeated prosecution,which is also the manifestation of abuse of right of action.The judgment of repeated prosecution in this case is transformed into the recognition of“abuse of right of action”.
关键词
行政诉讼
当事人
诉讼标的
诉讼请求
重复起诉
administrative litigation
The parties
Object of action
Claims
Repeated prosecution
作者简介
陈姿君(1995—),江苏连云港人,中国政法大学行政法方向博士研究生。
