| 摘要: |
| 《行政诉讼法》第38条第2款第2句规定确立了特定情形下损失情况的证明责任由原告转移给被告的规则，但本条规定并非严格意义上的证明妨碍规则。第91号指导性案例以及相关判例所确立的审查模式和审查要素，尽管对实定法规范有所突破，但均应具备一定的理论基础。以证明协力义务为启示，可将行政侵权行为划分为形成性行政侵权和事实性行政侵权。本款规定适用于形成性行政侵权，而在事实性行政侵权情形下将证明责任转移给被告没有意义。适用本款规定的基本逻辑为： 第一，行政机关违反法定义务而导致原告对相关损失情况无法举证，即构成“被告致原告无法举证”，证明责任仍由被告承担；第二，若原告无法举证的结果有原告自身的原因，则不构成“因被告原因导致原告无法举证”，证明责任仍由原告承担；第三，原告承担损失情况的主张责任，且法官可依职权降低原告的证明难度。此外，法官酌定的适用须以保护受害人权益为前提，且遵循有利于原告的酌定原则。 |
| 关键词: 行政诉讼 证明责任 行政侵权 指导性案例 “被告致原告无法举证” |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目: |
|
| On Plaintiff's Inability of Proof Caused by Defendant in Administrative Litigation: A Study Centered on Guiding Case No. 91 of the Supreme People's Court |
|
Jiang Chengxu
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| Article 38 Section 2 of Administrative Litigation Law establishes a new rule, which imposes the burden of proof on the defendant when the inability of the plaintiff to provide evidence is caused by the defendant in a case of administrative compensation or indemnity. This rule is not strictly a rule of spoliation of evidence. The model and the elements of judicial review in Guiding Case No. 91 of the Supreme People's Court and other relevant cases are not without any theoretical foundation. Administrative torts can be further categorized into two： executable and factual ones. Only in the case of executable administrative tort should this rule be effective. The judicial reasoning can be demonstrated as： first, the defendant's violation of legal obligations caused the plaintiff's inability to provide evidence; second, no causation links between the fact of the plaintiff's inability and her/his own fault; third, the burden of proposition is still on the plaintiff, and the court could reduce the burden according to the circumstances. In addition, the judge's discretion should be premised on protecting the plaintiff's rights. |
| Key words: Administrative Litigation, Burden of Proof, Administrative Tort, Guiding Case |
