An Empirical Study On The Litigability Of Responding Behavior To Report

In our country,reporting,as the basic rights and interests entrusted to citizens by the Constitution,deeply reflects the democratic supervision color of localization.With the continuous expansion of the scope of administrative functions,the connotation of the right to report is also enriched.On the one hand,as an important way for citizens to actively participate in administrative activities,on the other hand,it has become a useful supplement to promote the exercise of power by public power organs in accordance with the law.In recent years,with the rising awareness of civil rights and the increasing enthusiasm to participate in administrative activities,contradictions and conflicts between informants and administrative organs in the field of complaint reporting have gradually emerged.When the informer's rights and interests are infringed,a large number of cases seeking relief through litigation begin to occur frequently.At present,the prosecutability of the act of reporting and responding has become one of the common causes of administrative judicial trials and the hot spots of judicial practice.Despite the guidance case No.77 issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2016,which responded positively to the suitability of such cases.By distinguishing the difference between public welfare and self-interest reporting,it was further clarified that the informer reported to the administrative organ when his own legitimate rights and interests were infringed or had the possibility of infringement,and that the informer had a legal interest in the handling of the administrative organ's reports.It has the criterion of judging the plaintiff's qualification in administrative litigation.However,the simple division of non-prosecutable public welfare reporting and self-interest reporting seems to be difficult to fully deal with the diverse types of reporting and response in reality.In addition,the reporting system lacks unified upper law norms and perfect relief system.In the face of a large number of reported cases,it is particularly urgent and necessary to build a judicial relief guarantee for whistleblowers from abundant trial practice combined with theoretical research.Under the current legislative situation and judicial judgment,the general opinions of academic circles basically conform to the gist of guiding cases.However,after reading a large number of reports,the author thinks that there are still some problems worth pondering: firstly,there are different perceptions of judicial trials and lack of uniform standards for different acts of responding to reports,and secondly,there are several typical cases of reporting in the Bulletin of the Supreme Court in 2017 which are different from the past.According to the existing theory and practice,there are still some shortcomings and loopholes in the benchmark of non-prosecution and self-interest reporting,which can not be generalized.In other words,whether public welfare reporting can not be prosecuted,and the conclusion that self-interest reporting can be prosecuted remains to be verified.Based on the empirical study of current judicial precedents,this paper will try to put forward the criteria for determining the suitability of the act of reporting and replying,and try to sort out and construct a more unified framework of judicial relief.The article is mainly divided into four parts.The first part takes the interpretation of the guiding case of the Supreme Court as the introduction,raises the question of the main purpose of the judgment and the criterion of prosecution,and then deduces the topic of this article.Then,by defining the basic connotation and nature of the act of reporting and replying,we can further clarify the identification of the administrative law attribute of the act.In view of the confused recognition that the traditional theory and the actual trial seldom distinguish the acts of reporting and responding and administrative treatment,the author intends to put forward the typological distinction between the procedural and substantive meanings from the perspective of normative meaning,which lays the foundation for the demonstration of litigability.The second part explores the litigability of the affirmation of responding acts in the trial practice by sorting out the typical cases from 2012 to 2018 in China's courts.Consideration factors,so as to reflect on the current status of litigability problems.The third part,based on the questions raised above,combines the basic theory of litigability of administrative acts and relevant legal text norms,and takes the theory of protection norms in German law as a reference,with a view to outlining the overall view of litigability of reporting and responding acts from the perspective of typification,and drawing practical criteria for judging litigability according to the characteristics of such cases.The fourth part is to review the applicability of the reporting and replying behavior which includes the administrative handling behavior on the basis of the previous article,and to creatively reflect on the suitability of the public welfare reporting in the specific field of environment combined with the current administrative public welfare litigation system.Based on the vision of perfecting the protection of the rights and interests of the relative person and controlling the public power,this paper aims to outline the general situation of the prosecutability of the act of reporting and responding.