刑事附带民事公益诉讼制度的诞生带有浓重的政策色彩，是改革试点背景下民事公益诉讼与刑事诉讼程序人为嵌合的结果。该制度为我国首创，具有显著的创新性。2018年以来，附带民事公益诉讼案件数量爆发增长后逐渐稳定，远超行政和普通民事公益诉讼，成为检察机关提起公益诉讼的“主力军”，诉讼结构失衡的问题凸显。实践的快速发展提出了一系列亟待解决的问题，相关理论和制度建设却较为缓慢。《两高司法解释》效力层级不足，无法成为该制度的法源基础，“一条两款”的规定过于笼统，缺乏充分的程序性操作规范。本文以2017—2023年的10154份裁判文书为对象，分析附带民事公益诉讼制度运行情况，总结制度实践适用之困境。笔者将该制度现实困境分为起诉条件之困境、庭审程序之困境和判决与执行之困境。具体包括级别管辖混乱、受案范围模糊、责任承担方式混乱等问题。笔者认为前述问题产生的直接原因是制度适用规范不明和规范冲突。前者导致缺乏可供操作的具体程序，后者则进一步加剧司法适用之困惑。本文从法学理论和相关政策层面分析前述问题产生的深层原因。笔者认为检察权收缩后，为填补职权空缺和应对内部考核压力，检察系统有意拓展法律监督属性，公益诉讼实践在全国铺展开来。附带民事公益诉讼乘着“时代东风”，兼之其可以搭乘刑事诉讼“顺风车”，备受检察机关青睐，公益诉讼结构失衡的问题日益凸显。此外，该诉讼制度是改革试点的产物，缺少足够的理论研究，有关制度本质属性、“公共利益”概念和制度价值的争论不可避免会影响规范的选择和理解。笔者从起诉条件、庭审程序、判决与执行三个层面提出完善建议。建议合理界定受案范围、统一级别管辖、适用民事证据规则、完善调解制度、明确责任被告承担方式、适用基金会模式统筹管理赔偿金等。除此之外，笔者还认为在附带民事公益诉讼中还应积极完善诉前保全措施，及时制止违法行为，保护公共利益。
The birth of this system has a strong policy color, and is the result of the artificial integration of civil public interest litigation and criminal procedure under the background of reform pilot. This system is the first of its kind in China and has remarkable innovation. Since 2018, the number of cases of incidental civil public interest litigation has first exploded and then gradually stabilized, far exceeding administrative and ordinary civil public interest litigation, and becoming the "main force" for procuratorial organs to file public interest litigation. The rapid development of practice has put forward a series of problems to be solved urgently, but the relevant theory and system construction is relatively slow. The "Two-high Judicial Interpretation" has insufficient validity level, the "one and two articles" provision is too general, and lacks sufficient procedural operation norms.Based on 10,154 judgment documents from 2017 to 2023, this paper analyzes the operation of this litigation system and summarizes the difficulties in its practical application. The author divides the practical dilemmas of the system into the dilemmas of prosecution conditions, the dilemmas of court proceedings and the dilemmas of judgment and execution. The specific problems include the confusion of the level and jurisdiction, the ambiguity of the scope of accepting cases, and the confusion of the way of taking responsibility. The author believes that the direct causes of these problems are unclear applicable norms, the absence of legislation leads to the lack of specific procedures for operation, and the confusion of normative conflicts further aggravates the confusion of judicial application. This paper analyzes the deep causes of the above-mentioned problems from the level of legal theory and related policies. The author believes that after the contraction of procuratorial power, in order to fill the vacancy of authority and cope with the pressure of internal assessment, the procuratorial system intends to expand the attribute of legal supervision, and the accompanying civil public interest litigation can take the "east wind of The Times", and it can take the "free ride" of criminal litigation, which is favored by procuratorial organs. In addition, the lawsuit is the product of the reform pilot, lack of sufficient theoretical research, the nature of the system, the concept of "public interest" and the value of the system will inevitably affect the choice and understanding of norms..The author puts forward some suggestions from three aspects: prosecution condition, trial procedure, judgment and execution. It is suggested to reasonably define the scope of accepting cases, unify the level of jurisdiction, apply the rules of civil evidence, improve the mediation system, clarify the way of liability defendants, and apply the foundation model to coordinate the management of compensation. In addition, the author also thinks that in the incidental civil public interest litigation, we should actively improve the pre-litigation preservation measures to stop illegal acts in time and protect the public interest.
