On The Plaintiff Qualification Of The Informant In Administrative Litigation

As a legal right of citizens,the widespread exercise of this right has led to a sharp increase in the number of administrative cases of reporting,especially the appearance of professional informants,which has increased the judicial burden.In order to save judicial resources and reduce the abuse of the right to sue,the identification of the plaintiff’s qualification has become a hot topic.In the 15 th batch of guiding cases issued by the Supreme People’s Court in 2016,the guiding case No.77 confirmed that the private interest whistleblower has the qualification to be a plaintiff and can file a lawsuit as a plaintiff.The Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China also provided for this in 2018,which is consistent with the judgment idea of the guiding case No.77.They all divided the whistleblower into the whistleblower who safeguarded private interests and the whistleblower who safeguarded public interests,and believed that the complainant could also be called the whistleblower who safeguarded private interests and enjoyed the plaintiff’s litigation rights.However,judicial practice deviates from this conclusion.After the introduction of the protection norm theory,the court no longer takes the protection of its own legitimate rights and interests as the only criterion to judge the informant as a plaintiff.However,the application of judicial practice to the theory of protection norms is still superficial.On the basis of judicial empirical investigation,the general dilemma of the identification of the plaintiff qualification of the whistleblower is reflected in the following aspects: First,there are differences in the standards of the identification of the interest relationship;Second,in terms of legal rights and interests,there is uncertainty in judgment;Third,in terms of causality,the judgment is ambiguous.Therefore,the judgment path of the plaintiff qualification of the whistleblower should appropriately draw lessons from the theory of protection norms.In a step-by-step and typed way,a comprehensive judgment can be made according to the interpretation of subjective public rights,the judgment of the infringement of rights and interests and the necessity of the protection of rights and interests.On this basis,a typed analysis of the plaintiff qualification of the whistleblower for private interests should be carried out.However,the public interest informant does not have the qualification of plaintiff because it does not meet the standard of interest.