西藏民族大学学报（社会科学版）

参考文献

[1]最高人民法院办公厅法办函[2017]181号《对十二届全国人大五次会议第5990号建议的答复意见》。

[2]Eurostat,GDP and main components(output,expenditure and income)[nama_10_gdp],P31_S14_S15.Household and NPISH final consumption expenditure.

[3]Deborah R.Hensler,From Sea to Shining Sea:How and Why Class Action Are Spreading Globally[J].65 UNIVERSITYOF KANSAS LAW REVIEW.965.(August,2017).

[4]GREEN PAPER On Consumer Collective Redress.COM(2008)794 final.

[5]M.B.M.Loos,Evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of collective redress mechanisms in the European Unioncountry report The Netherlands.Brussels:European Commission.2008

[6]Michael Faure,Franziska Weber,The Diversity of the EUApproach to Law Enforcement-Towards A Coherent Model Inspired by A Law and Economics Approach[J].18 GERMANLAW JOURNAL 823.(JULY 2017).

[7]DIRECTIVE 98/27/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA-MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers’interests.

[8]European Parliament resolution of 26 March 2009 on the White Paper on damages actions for breach of the EC antitrust rules(2008/2154(INI))(2010/C 117 E/27).

[9]GREEN PAPER On Consumer Collective Redress.COM(2008)794 final.

[10]范晓亮.我国消费公益诉讼实证分析--兼论《欧盟集体救济建议》之借鉴[J].苏州大学学报(法学版),2016(3).

[11]DIRECTIVE 2009/22/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA-MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 23 April 2009 on injunctions for the protection of consumers'interests.Annex 1.

[12]European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2012 on‘Towards a Coherent European Approach to Collective Redress’(2011/2089(INI))(2013/C 239 E/05).

[13]COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THEEUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,THE COUNCIL,THE EURO-PEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THECOMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS"Towards a European Horizontal Framework for Collective Redress"COM(2013)401 final.

[14]COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union Law(2013/396/EU)

[15]COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Report of the Fitness Check on the Unfair Contract Terms Directive 93/13/EEC,Consumer Sales and Guarantees Directive 1999/44/EC,Price Indication Directive 98/6/EC,Unfair Commercial Practices Directive 2005/29/EC and Injunctions Directive2009/22/EC.SWD(2017)209 final.

[16]Executive Summary-Study for the Fitness Check of EUconsumer and market law.

[17]REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPE-AN PARLIAMENT,THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEANECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the implementation of the Commission Recommendation of 11 June 2013 on common principles for injunctive and compensatory collective redress mechanisms in the Member States concerning violations of rights granted under Union law(2013/396/EU)

[18]COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACTASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposals for DI-RECTIVES OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OFTHE COUNCIL(1)amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC,Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive 2011/83/EU of teh European Parliament and of the Council as regards better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules and(2)on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers,and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC.SWD(2018)96 final.

[19]COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THEEUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,THE COUNCIL AND THE EU-ROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE A New Deal for Consumers.COM(2018)183 final.

[20]Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PAR-LIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993,Directive 98/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council,Directive 2005/29/ECof the European Parliament and of the Council and Directive2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules.2018/0090(COD).

[21]Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PAR-LIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers,and repealing Directive 2009/22/EC.2018/0089(COD).COM(2018)184 final.

[22]REGULATION(EU)2017/2394 OF THE EUROPEANPARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 12 December2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation(EC)No 2006/2004.Article 2 Scope.

[23]黄忠顺.中国民事公益诉讼年度观察报告(2016)[J].当代法学,2017(6).

[24]任震宇.首例消费维权公益诉讼应予立案[N].中国消费者报,2015-02-04.

[25]韩静茹.社会治理型民事检察制度初探--实践、规范、理论的交错视角[J].当代法学,2014(5).

[26]最高人民法院《关于审理消费民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》[EB/OL].中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报:http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/274c765d703d3bf42c0109ef1ae243.html,2016年4月24日.

[27]肖建国,宋春龙.检察机关提起消费公益诉讼范围分析[J].人民检察,2016(14).

[28]黄旭东.论消费民事公益诉讼的请求类型及适用[N].民主与法制时报,2018-01-11.

[29]杜其乐.消费民事公益诉讼损害赔偿请求权研究[J].法律科学,2017(6).

[30]广东省广州市中级人民法院民事判决书(2017)粤01民初383号、385号、386号、387号;湖北省利川市人民法院刑事附带民事判决书(2017)鄂2802邢初453号等。

[31]李友根.美国惩罚性赔偿制度的宪法争论--过重罚金条款与我国的惩罚性赔偿制度[J].法学论坛,2013(3).

[32]DIRECTIVE 2013/11/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIA-MENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 21 May 2013 on alternative dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation(EC)No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC(Directive on consumer ADR).

(1)该倡议书指出:代表人诉讼指,事先或者临时指定的适格机构代表已经被识别或者可识别的受害人提起诉讼。选择加入的团体诉讼指,若干受害消费者明确决定将其个人索赔合并到一个案件中。

(2)妨碍集体救济有效性的因素包括:资金缺乏、发起主体缺乏专家和资源、诉讼风险、程序复杂、过于严格的受理和主体地位的先决条件、程序长度和被告拖延、媒体报道不足、无法有效分配所获救济等。

(3)这些问题包括:各国禁令性集体救济的法律不统一,导致跨境程序复杂;适用范围有限;诉讼费用为集体诉讼的发起主体带来过重负担;震慑力和预防力不足;法律解释和裁判者的自由裁量权的不确定性,导致救济程序缺少法律确定性。

(4)建议具体包括:将禁令指令的适用范围扩张到一般的消费者法律,与消费者保护合作条例保持一致。消除特别法中的单行规则,以消弭集体救济规则间不合理的差异。将成员国不同的禁令性集体救济程序统一到欧盟法之中,设专章规定跨境集体救济程序的规则。废除或者修改败诉方付费的原则。采取进一步的救济措施以消除违法的后果。扩张禁令性集体救济诉讼判决的效力。针对不遵守生效禁令决定的行为,引入强制性的制裁规则,明确制裁方式。为禁令性集体救济诉讼设置能够体现公共利益特性的专门的民事诉讼程序,增强法院在这种程序中的专业化,以保障法律适用的统一性和法律的确定性。

(5)2013/396/EU建议在欧盟成员国中产生的影响包括两个国家因此通过了新的赔偿型集体救济立法(比利时和立陶宛),两个国家(法国和英国)在一定程度上改变了原有立法,但并不足够有效。有9个成员国还没有提供应对大规模侵害的损害赔偿性集体救济机制。

(6)初始影响评估报告提供了三种促使法律被遵守的路径:(1)完善禁令程序,增加威慑性和公共执法的比例。(2)增加消费者个体救济的权利。(3)增加集体消费者救济措施。其中,路径3是综合了所有优点的最佳方案。首先,它是更有效的禁令程序,可以通过救济受害消费者产生更强的震慑效果,进而为经营者遵守法律提供更大的动因。其次,采用更强有力的集体救济机制会促进公平竞争,使守法经营者获益,从而有利于内部市场平稳运行。再次,它将在大规模侵害的情况下提供更高水平的消费者保护,减少消费者的损害。最后,虽然发展集体救济可能需要更多成本,但是,它带来的精简效果和程序效率能够抵消这些成本。它会使规则更加协调,从而降低经营者的风险评估成本并增加准确性,可节省的成本更高。

(7)比如,此前消费者如果受到不实广告的误导,根据以前的欧盟法律是无法起诉的,但是,根据提案修改以后的指令,消费者有权对此提起诉讼并要求赔偿。

(8)这与中国民事诉讼法上的“代表人诉讼”完全不同,而与中国消法上的消费民事公益诉讼类似。

(9)消费者保护合作条例加强了跨境公共执法,使委员会能够启动并协调公共执法行动以解决欧盟范围内的侵害行为。然而,它没有为遭受此类跨境侵害的消费者规定救济权利。代表人诉讼指令提案规定的与集体消费者救济相关的具体措施是对消费者保护合作条例的补充,旨在提高其有效性。两者在适用范围上的统一,有助于提高两类执行措施的配合效率。

(10)Prof.Susanne Augenhofer在2018年10月24日中国消费者协会所做的主题为“德国的一般数据保护条例为消费者保护带来的影响”的讲座中,提到包括她本人在内的德国学者对代表人诉讼提案第6条的此种观点。