Study On The Standards For The Accreditation Of Complainants In Administrative Litigation

In July 2020,the Supreme People’s Court issued the "Guiding Opinions on Unifying the Application of Laws and Strengthening the Retrieval of Type-Cases",which puts forward higher requirements for similar cases and types of judgments(simultaneous judgments).Judgments in similar cases mean that similar cases can get similar results,which can further unify judicial judgment standards and achieve judicial justice.In this context,the accreditation standards of the complainant and the plaintiff should be given more attention to avoid the difference in the accreditation results caused by the difference in the accreditation standards.At present,there are three standards in the identification of the main body of the complainant and the plaintiff,namely,The theory of interest relationship,The theory of legal rights and the;Theory of Protection Norms.Although these three standards have a sequential order in time,they are in a parallel relationship rather than a substitute in practice.In the process of determining the qualification of the complainant and the plaintiff,these three determination standards have a double conflict.The first is that there are differences within a single identification standard,which leads to different conclusions even when the same standard is applied.The second is that there are too large differences between the three identification standards,and similar cases will lead to conflicting identification results.Behind these conflicts,the Supreme People’s Court is hesitant about the scope of the complainant and plaintiff qualifications-whether some complainants are qualified as plaintiffs or all complainants are qualified as plaintiffs.The former is the standard for determining the qualification of the complainant and the plaintiff,while the latter is the standard for determining the qualification of the complainant.If the two are equated,the consequences may cause a large number of complaints to flood into the courts,aggravating the tension of judicial resources.Before making a choice on the criteria for accreditation of complainants and plaintiffs,it is necessary to clarify that some of the complainants have the qualifications of plaintiffs,and to clarify the two prerequisites of the space for divergence in the three criteria.In fact,the three identification standards have a consensus in the case of the administrative agency’s inaction-the complainant has the qualifications of the plaintiff,and there is no need to force a unified identification standard in this case.The real point of divergence lies in whether the complainant is qualified as a plaintiff when he is dissatisfied with the administrative agency’s handling decision.In this case,it is necessary to choose the determination standard.The theory of interest relationship and The theory of legal rights have logical flaws that are difficult to justify.Theory of Protection Norms are relative and the proof of speech is relatively complete.It is a rational and objective identification standard,and it matches the relatively limited status of my country’s judicial resources.Therefore,on the basis of further sorting out and improving the Theory of Protection Norms,we should construct a model that tries to use The theory of legal rights as the shell and Theory of Protection Norms as the connotation.In addition,it is also necessary to further clarify the rules for the determination of complainants in award-type cases,plug the loopholes in the determination standards in award-type cases,and make the complaint system return to its original position.