Improvement Of The Third Party System In Administrative Public Interest Litigation

The third party system of administrative public interest litigation,as a kind of litigation mode combining subjective and objective litigation,is quite controversial in practice.However,analyzing the theoretical basis of the system,the subjective and objective litigation disputes should not become an obstacle to the development of administrative public interest litigation.The reason is that,on the one hand,Germany,Japan and France all have the phenomenon of objective litigation mixed with subjective litigation;On the other hand,the third party system of administrative public interest litigation conforms to the design of the third party system,which not only meets the litigation purposes of protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the third party,saving litigation resources and preventing contradictory judgments,but also meets the type of the third party with indirect interests.Although theoretically,the combination of subjective and objective litigation is not an obstacle to the third party system of administrative public interest litigation,when improving the system,we should reasonably set up the litigation rules according to the characteristics of the combination of subjective and objective litigation.The third party in administrative public interest litigation has the characteristics of "greater influence on rights and interests","lower litigation status" and "heavier burden of proof" than the third party in general litigation.Although it is the third party with "indirect interest",it should be inclined to the third party when the system is perfect.In practice,in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the third party,some courts have explored the implementation of the third party system of administrative public interest litigation,but due to the lack of legal norms,some problems have been exposed: on the one hand,due to the wide legal provisions of the third party system of administrative public interest litigation,the separation of law and practice leads to difficulties in application;On the other hand,the third party system of administrative public interest litigation is not running smoothly.In practice,there are some problems,such as too broad participants,the way of participation is not conducive to the protection of the interests of the third party,too strict judgment standard,the content of judgment beyond the limits of judicial power,and the evidence convergence failure between administrative public interest litigation and related administrative litigation.In order to solve the above problems,legislation should be made to improve the third party system of administrative public interest litigation.First of all,the law should determine that the third party in the administrative public interest litigation is mainly to protect their own legitimate rights and interests,taking into account the litigation purpose of finding out the facts of the case.Secondly,legislation should reasonably protect the litigation rights of the third party,including: protecting the third party’s right of "court’s active additional participation in litigation",the right to participate in the pre-trial meeting,the right to file an appeal,the right to apply for retrial,and the right to enjoy the relief of litigation time limit;Thirdly,we should reasonably set up the evidence rules and judgment contents of the third party litigation.The "objective and reasonable" standard of proof should be adopted in the judgment of administrative public interest litigation.The facts that have been proved in the administrative public interest litigation can be directly adopted in the related administrative litigation.The judgment of administrative public interest litigation has indirect executive power to the third party The judgment content of the administrative organ can include the name of the third party and the specific time of performance,but it should not include the specific content of performance;Finally,the third party who did not participate in the lawsuit should be given relief according to the reasons and time of not participating in the lawsuit,and the third party who maliciously did not provide evidence should be given corresponding evidence punishment.