| Abstract:At present, all three major procedural laws in China adhere to the principle of consistency between claims and judgments, albeit to varying degrees. In administrative litigation, the relationship between claims and judgments differs from that in civil and criminal proceedings. Unlike civil litigation, which emphasizes a high degree of alignment-where judgments are expected to directly respond to the plaintiff’s claims and unlike criminal proceedings, where courts exercise greater discretion and are not strictly bound by the charges and sentencing recommendations brought by the prosecution, administrative litigation occupies an intermediate position. Administrative public interest litigation, as a distinct form of administrative litigation, presents unique characteristics that tend to weaken the rigidity of the claim-judgment consistency principle. In practice, the patterns of the relationship between claims and judgments in APIL may take several forms: strict consistency, modified consistency, inconsistency, or partial consistency. A judgment that strictly aligns with the claims is not necessarily reasonable. People’s courts should dare to correct inappropriate claims advanced by procuratorates. The occurrence of modified consistency should be minimized, while acknowledging the legitimacy of inconsistent outcomes. When inconsistency arises, courts must ensure the accuracy of their rulings. In cases of partial consistency, a balanced and proportionate approach to the scope of the judgment is required. |
点此下载全文
