| 摘要: |
| 在东联电线厂案再审判决中，最高人民法院重申了刘广明案“保护规范说”的原理，但并未就产品质量法规范如何成为确定原告资格的规范充分说理。裁判认为被诉处罚已确认了产品质量处罚的要件事实，起诉人由此将可能受到产品质量行政处罚这一行政法上的不利影响。这强调了被诉处罚和产品质量行政处罚间事实上可能的因果关系，是“实际影响说”的体现。法院还指出了被诉机关线索移交的义务，并肯定了被诉处罚对于后一行政处罚的确认效力，客观上可补充因果关系的论证，但确认效力的实定法基础，以及给予预防性救济的必要性仍待证明。东联电线厂案再审判决在论证中混用了两种理论，反映了多次作为最高人民法院裁判原理的“保护规范说”的理论深度尚不足以应对疑难案件，也说明了“实际影响说”的影响力不可忽视。理论界和实务界应就我国原告资格具体疑难案件进行讨论，重视两种理论在应用中各自的发展，承认两者存在相互作用的可能，并回应来自对方角度的解释。 |
| 关键词: 原告资格 保护规范说 实际影响说 东联电线厂案再审判决 |
| DOI： |
| 分类号: |
| 基金项目:浦江人才计划“城乡规划的司法审查机制研究”（项目编号： 18PJC092） |
|
| The Confusion and Clarification of the Protection Norms Theory and the Actual Influence Theory in Determination of the Qualification of Administrative Plaintiff — The Judgement of the Case of Donglian Electric Wire Factory |
|
Li Lingye
|
|
|
| Abstract: |
| In the retrial judgment of “Case Donglian Electric Wire Factory v. Guangdong Housing and Urban Rural Development Department”， the Supreme Peoples Court restates the protection norms theory， but has not made thorough reasoning about why the norm in the Product Quality Law is the protection norm. The Court confirms that the challenged administrative punishment determines the specific constitutive elements in the Product Quality Law， and therefore who brings the suit will be negative influenced by the future punishment according to the Product Quality Law. The reasoning emphasizes the factual causation between the challenged administrative punishment and the administrative punishment according to the Product Quality Law. It reflects the actual influence theory. Moreover， the Court points out the duty of the challenged administrative organ to deliver evidences， and affirm the confirmative effect of the challenged administrative punishment to the administrative punishment according to the Product Quality Law. Although the confirmative effect can reinforce the reasoning of causation， the basis of positive law of the confirmative effect and necessity of preventive action should be proved. It sees that the protection norms theory used by the Court is proved not qualified to deal with this kind of complex actions because of the confusion in this case， and it cannot be working instead of the actual influence theory yet. It is necessary to value both of these two theories， recognize the possibility of interaction and response the interaction. |
| Key words: Qualification of Administrative Plaintiff, Protection Norms Theory, Actual Influence Theory, “Case Donglian Electric Wire Factory v. Guangdong Housing and Urban Rural Development Department” |
