惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼研究

通过个别诉讼行使惩罚性赔偿请求权,难以对经营者形成足够的威慑力,消费者协会、检察机关提起惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼的必要性客观存在。即使将消费者协会提起公益诉讼的"公益性职责"与检察机关提起公益诉讼的"职权"勉强解释为立法者赋予消费者协会、检察机关以形式性惩罚性赔偿请求权,以该请求权为基础的惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼也只是受害消费者享有的惩罚性赔偿请求权的集中行使方式。除非立法机关为消费者协会、检察机关另行创设实质性惩罚性赔偿请求权,惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼注定与特定受害消费者存在密切联系,无法从根本上破解惩罚性赔偿金的计算及其发放难题。因而,惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼对行政处罚与刑事罚金仅构成补充,在完善惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼制度的同时,应当强化惩罚性赔偿消费公益诉讼与其他消费者权益保护手段之间的协作机制。

On the Consumer Public Interest Litigation with Punitive Damages

Claim for punitive damages through individual proceedings is difficult to produce enough deterrent to producers and operators. Therefore, it has been the basic consensus of all circles of society to allow consumer associations and procuratorial organs to initiate punitive damages consumer public interest litigation. Due to the lack of clear provisions, there are many problems in the practice of punitive damages consumer public interest litigation. Even if the "public duty" of consumer associations to bring public interest litigation and the "power" of procuratorial organs to initiate public interest litigation are reluctantly interpreted as the formal right to claim punitive damages, the independent punitive damages consumer public interest litigation based on such formal right is only the centralized exercise of the punitive damages claims enjoyed by the injured consumers. Unless the legislature creates a substantive right to claim punitive damages for consumers’ associations and procuratorial organs, the punitive damages consumer public interest litigation is bound to have a close relationship with the specific injured consumers, and the calculation and issuance of punitive damages will face problems that are difficult to be solved fundamentally. Therefore, punitive damages consumer public interest litigation only complements administrative penalties and criminal penalties. We should strengthen the coordination mechanism between the punitive damages consumer public interest litigation and other consumer rights and interests protection means, while perfecting its system.