Research On The Standard Of Review And Prosecution Of Environmental Administrative Public Interest Litigation

In recent years,in response to the national policy,the environmental administrative public interest litigation system came into being,and the supervisory authority of the Prosecution Authority has shown an expansion.However,as this system is still in its infancy,the details are not yet perfected,especially in the review and prosecution standards,which lack uniformity and depend on the subjective judgment of the case handlers.How to grasp the standard of review and prosecution,The scholarly discussion has focused on the system itself and the criteria for determining "failure to perform duties in accordance with the law",ignoring the boundary of interference in administrative affairs and the review process.Therefore,this article from the perspective of the Prosecution Authority to intervene in administrative affairs,the legislative logic and judicial practice to sort out the current review and prosecution standards,summarize the current problems,clarify the theoretical basis of the Prosecution Authority to intervene in administrative affairs by way of prosecution,and on this basis,to refine the review and prosecution standards optimization program.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper is divided into four chapters.Chapter 1,"A Realistic Examination of the Standard of Review and Prosecution," is divided into two parts.This chapter is divided into two parts.The first part composes the legislative logic and finds that in terms of legislative norms,the standard of review and prosecution has gone through a process of "no clear standard-a substantive ’outcome standard’-a hybrid standard".-There is no unified and clear direction.In the second part,the 187 cases concluded between July 2017 and June 2022 were analyzed in terms of the prosecution grounds,the evidence and the administrative organ’s defense,and the following characteristics of the prosecution standard were concluded in practice: first,the content of the review could not cover all the review priorities;second,the review of behavior was mainly subjective;third,the review of results was mainly phenomenal;and fourth,the judgment of the prosecutor’s recommendation was mainly subjective.The fourth judgment is interfered with by prosecutorial recommendations;and the fifth mainly adopts the result standard.Chapter 2,"Review of Prosecution Standards-Improper Intervention in Administrative Affairs.This chapter summarizes the problems of improper interference with administrative affairs from the perspective of improper interference with administrative affairs by the Prosecution Authority in 187 sample cases,and classifies them into the following categories: expansion of the effectiveness of prosecution recommendations to increase the burden on the administrative authorities,expansion of the scope of supervision,and interference with the exercise of administrative power.Chapter 3,"Theoretical Return of Prosecutorial Intervention in Administrative Affairs.This chapter returns to the theoretical basis,from the structural purpose,functional basis and basic guidelines,as well as the supervisory attributes of prosecution recommendations,to argue that the Prosecution Authority must intervene in administrative affairs by way of prosecution,from the structural purpose of supervising the administrative organs to perform environmental supervision functions,adhere to the legal supervision function basis,and not "only environmentalism " The prosecutors must strictly follow the principles of supervision in accordance with the law,appropriate function and limited supervision,and must not overstep the bounds of excessive interference in administrative affairs.Chapter 4 "Rational Optimization of Prosecution Standards".Based on the theoretical basis outlined in Chapter 3,this chapter suggests optimizing the current standard of review and prosecution.It includes moderate expansion of the review content,scientific improvement of the review method,and rational revision of the judgment mode.