惩罚性赔偿在消费公益诉讼中的适用研究

Research on the Application of Punitive Damages in Consumer Public Interest Litigation

摘要: 将惩罚性赔偿制度引入消费公益诉讼领域，旨在借助其遏制、预防与补充救济功能弥补传统私益救济的激励不足。然而，在缺乏明确实体法授权的情况下，由检察机关、消费者协会等法定公益诉讼主体通过公益诉讼程序主张惩罚性赔偿，引发了责任定型/责任竞合与赔偿金归属性等方面的争议。本文认为，消费公益诉讼惩罚性赔偿在性质上应定位为公法责任，其与私益诉讼惩罚性赔偿、行政罚款及刑事罚金之间应通过程序顺位、数额扣除与限额折抵等规则协调适用。在赔偿金管理上，应以社会产权理论为基础，通过公益诉讼专项基金或信托实现资金的独立管理。破解适用困局的根本路径在于：立法层面确立形式性惩罚性赔偿请求权的独立地位，解释层面引入比例原则弹性化裁量规则，配套层面构建惩罚性赔偿金的社会产权管理模式。

Abstract: Introducing a system of punitive damages into the field of consumer public interest litigation aims to use its preventive and remedial functions to make up for the lack of incentives in traditional private remedies. However, without clear authorization in substantive law, having statutory public-interest plaintiffs such as procuratorial organs and consumer associations claim punitive damages through public interest litigation has sparked debates around issues like responsibility definition/overlap and the ownership of compensation funds. This article argues that punitive damages in consumer public interest litigation should, in nature, be considered a form of public law liability, and their coordination with private litigation punitive damages, administrative fines, and criminal penalties should be managed through rules like procedural priority, amount deduction, and limit offsets. In terms of managing the compensation funds, it should be based on social property theory and handled independently through special public interest litigation funds or trusts. The fundamental way to resolve the practical challenges is to establish the independent status of formal punitive damage claims at the legislative level, introduce flexible discretion based on proportionality at the interpretive level, and set up a social property management model for punitive damage funds at the implementation level.