The Suing Parties of Pure Civil Public Interest Litigation in China Should Not Claim Punitive Damages

Abstract

With the transformation of Chinese society and the development of its economy, many infringements against public interests have occurred. The legal resolution of those disputes is vital to the country’s further growth. In order to fully protect the public welfare, the National legislature of China revised the Civil Procedure Law, and created the system of civil public interest litigation (CPIL). In line with valid laws, the suing parties of CPIL are only entitled to file claims of inaction and claims for actual losses. However, for the purpose of enhancing the effect of punishment, deterrence and thereby better protecting the public interest, as one of the proper suing parties in CPIL, People’s Procuratorates of China have been keen on filing a new type of request to the court---the claim of punitive damages. As for the filed claim of punitive damages, the attitude of judges is polar opposite on it. Some upheld that claim, while others rejected it. The academic circle is roughly divided into two similar mutual opposing groups. So, should the suing parties be authorized to file such claims to the court? The conclusion of this article is: No, they shouldn’t. There are three reasons to support that argument: 1. Legal bases for filing CPIL punitive damages are administrative regulations and judicial explanatory documents. Firstly, for their vague meaning, they possess a low status in China’s law hierarchy, and are incompetent for the assigned job. Secondly, because the function of administrative regulations or judicial explanatory documents is to “patch loopholes in basic systems of civil law”, they actually committed ultra vires in legislative affairs. 2. This topic is constantly plagued by a paradox: if we stick to the developing trend of merely filing claims of inaction and claims for actual losses, it will negatively affect the deterrent and punishing effects of CPIL; on the other hand, if punitive damages are introduced into CPIL, it will certainly cause the confusion of CPIL and the traditional civil litigation for the protection of harmed private interests. 3. The theoretical studies of punitive damages for harmed public welfare is far from perfect. This awkward status quo is reflected in a train of conundrums yet to be deciphered. As far as this article is concerned, the author mainly used the following research methods such as case analyses, theoretical analyses, and comparative law studies.