食品科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (15): 1-9.doi: 10.7506/spkx1002-6630-20260401-001

• 基础研究 •    下一篇

论食品安全检察公益诉讼的行民程序选择

刘艺,张伟琪   

  1. (1.中国政法大学法治政府研究院,北京 100088;2.中国政法大学法学院,北京 100088)
  • 出版日期:2026-08-15 发布日期:2026-08-24
  • 基金资助:
    最高人民检察院研究阐释党的二十届四中全会精神重点委托课题项目(GJ2026Z03)

Choice of Administrative or Civil Procedures for Procuratorial Public Interest Litigation in the Field of Food Safety

LIU Yi, ZHANG Weiqi   

  1. (1. Institute of Rule of Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China;2. School of Law, China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing 100088, China)
  • Online:2026-08-15 Published:2026-08-24

摘要: 检察机关在办理同时具备行政公益诉讼与民事公益诉讼立案条件的食品安全案件时,拥有较大的程序选择裁量空间,以致实践中暴露出相似案件采用不同办案路径、民事公益诉讼空间被不当压缩、刑事线索案件形成路径依赖等现实隐忧,亟需通过规则确立与规范建构予以回应。食品安全检察公益诉讼的行民程序选择,既应建立在行政监管主导的风险治理逻辑、检察权与行政权职能分工的法理基础之上,也应以公共利益保护效果为根本价值导向。基于此,应采用公益保护统摄下的“行公优先、民公补充”的程序衔接原则。检察机关在个案中应当遵循“两步走”的判断路径:首先判断行民公益诉讼是否具有并行适用的空间,再结合风险控制效果、违法遏制强度、损害修复程度等因素展开对“行政公益诉讼有效保护社会公共利益”的实质判断,从而选择最适配于个案的程序方案。特定情形下,若民事公益诉讼在功能实现上更具针对性,则应优先启动民事公益诉讼程序。为确保程序选择规则得到有效落实,检察公益诉讼立法还应当增设程序选择与衔接条款,从而使检察公益诉讼的程序选择从隐性判断转化为可论证、可监督的法定步骤。

关键词: 食品安全;行政公益诉讼;民事公益诉讼;程序选择;公共利益

Abstract: When handling food safety cases that meet the applicable conditions for both administrative and civil public interest litigation, procuratorates possess significant discretion in procedural selection. This has led to practical concerns, such as the use of different handling paths for similar cases, undue compression of the scope of civil public interest litigation, and path dependency in criminal-related cases, which urgently require to be addressed through rulemaking and normative refinement. The choice of administrative or civil procedures should be based on the risk governance logic dominated by administrative supervision and the functional division between procuratorial and administrative powers, with the protection of public interest as the fundamental value orientation. Based on this, the principle of “administrative public interest litigation first, civil public interest litigation as a supplement” under the umbrella of public interest protection should be adopted. Procuratorates should follow a “two-step” judgment path when handling individual cases, namely, determining whether there is a scope for the concurrent application of administrative and civil public interest litigation, and then conducting a substantive judgment on “whether administrative public interest litigation effectively protects social public interests” by considering factors such as risk control efficacy, deterrence intensity, and damage remediation levels, thereby selecting the most suitable procedural plan for the individual case. In specific situations, if civil public interest litigation is more targeted in protecting public interest, the civil procedure should be initiated first. To ensure the effective implementation of procedural selection rules, the legislature should add provisions for procedural selection and coordination, thereby transforming the procedural selection from implicit judgment to demonstrable steps subject to supervision.

Key words: food safety; administrative public interest litigation; civil public interest litigation; procedural choice; public interest

中图分类号: