澳大利亚司法审查原告资格探析-法搜-中国法律信息搜索网

【作者简介】
朱应平，华东政法大学副教授。
【注释】Parens patriae意指国家的父亲。它是指国王的地位，经由总检察长，对那些不能照顾自己的人予以保护者，例如对孤儿和心智不健全的人予以保护。
Ex parte Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch D 458 at 465 per James LJ.
Tooheys v. Minister for Business (1981) 36 ALR 64 at 79.
Tooheys v. Minister for Business (1981) 36 ALR 64 at 79.
Tooheys v. Minister for Business (1981) 36 ALR 64 at 79.
Western Australia v. Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93 at 312.
Canberra Labor Club v. Hodgman (1982) 47 ALR 781.
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1994) 125 ALR 337.
Cameron v. HREOC (1993) 119 ALR 279.
Cameron v. HREOC (1993) 119 ALR 279.
Mark v. ABT (1991) 108ALR 209.
关于这些种类的大多数，有些决定已经向其他方向发展了。如Ogle v. Strickland (1987) 71 ALR 41.
Mark v. ABT (1991) 108ALR 209.
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1995) 128 ALR 238. Onus v. Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 425; 149 CLR 27
Onus v. Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 36 ALR 425 at ALR 462 per Brennan J.
North Coast Environmental Council Inc v. Minister for Resources (No. 2)(1994) 55 FCR 492; 127 ALR 61下列
可参见Tasmanian Conservation Trust Inc v. Minister for Resources and Guns (1994) 55 FCR 516; 127 ALR 580.
Sinclair v. Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473 at 481; 5 ALR 513
Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc v. Secretary, Department of Human Services and Health (1994) 56 FCR 50; 128 ALR 238
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Minister for Resources (1989) 19 ALD 70
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Minister for Resources (1989) 19ALD 70 at ALD 74.
Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 ; 28 ALR257
Chelfco Ninety-Four Pty Ltd v. Road Traffic Authority VR 1.
Shire of Beechworth v. Attorney-General (Vic ) 1 VR 325.
Bilbao v. Farquhar 1 NSWLR 377
Dickinson v. Perrignon 1 NSWLR 72.
Onus v. Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 at 42-43.
R v. Ward; Ex parte Brambles Holdings (1983) 34 SASR 269 at 275-276.
Brown v. Commissioner of AFP (1988) 83 ALR 477.
Edgar v. Meade (1916) 23 CLR 29 (某工会成员有资格挑战对此作出的无效的开除)。
Manuka Business Association v. ACT Executive (1998) 146 FLR 464.尽管营业性利益常常产生资格，但有疑问的一个领域是，一位贸易上的竞争者是否有资格，虽然这一整段在其他因素下得到考虑，法院全体在Alphapharm v. SmithKline Beecham (1994) 121 ALR 373案中对此加以讨论，以致于法院不能对此提供一个清晰的结论。其中两个因素相互冲突。一方面，竞争是一件好事，正如White法官在Consolidated Press Holdings v. South Australian Totalizer Agency Board (1984) 37 SASR 67案中所说的那样。另一方面，竞争意味着公平的竞争，所以通过回避法律义务进行“欺骗”的某当事人不应该豁免来自某个竞争者的挑战。
Green v. Daniels (1977) 13 ALR 1.
Onus v. Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 at 73 per Brennan J.
联邦《行政上诉裁判所法》第27条第2款似乎迎合了这些利益，其给某个组织或协会授予起诉资格，不管其是否属于法人，而且规定，如果“某决定与包括在该组织或协会的目的的对象之中的某个事项有关”，那么它就享有利益，而且该利益受到该决定的影响，因此享有起诉资格。
MacDonald v. Hamence (1984) 1FCR 45; 53 ALR 136 (懈怠在一份某城市的旅游指南中列举某个汽车游客旅馆的行为将引起对声望和名誉的损失)。名誉的损失常常引起收入的减少。例如，在MacDonald v. Hamence案中，懈怠列举出汽车游客旅馆导致未来收益的减少，连同营业价值的结果性减少。但是在Re McHattan and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) 1 ALD 67; 18 ALR 154案中，营业性声誉（value of the business）不是一种充分的利益。
Kioa v. Minister for Immigration (1984) 53 ALR 658（一个未成年人女孩有资格挑战针对其父母所作的驱逐命令）；Gillick v. West Norfolk Area Health Authority AC 112 (16岁以下的五个女儿的母亲挑战关于十六岁以下女性进行避孕的建议的政府条款)。
Ex parte Cornford ; Re Minister for Education SR (NSW) 220 at 224.
R v. Greater London Council; Ex parte Blackburn 1WLR 550 (反对不强制执行猥亵性言论的法律)； R v. Butt; Ex parte Brooke (1922) 38 TLR 537 (对一位禁酒官在涉及就许可证书的事项享有资格)；Ogle v. Strickland (1986) 71 ALR 41 (反对渎神的电影)。
在Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 530-531案中，Gibbs法官提出，仅仅感情性的利益包括“对矫正某种错误的满意”没有得到承认。美国Allen v. Wright 52 Law Week 5110 (1984)案认为，在某个机构遵守法定要求中的感情利益不足以享有起诉资格。在R v. Butt E x parte Brooke (1922) 38 TLR 537案中，在某个许可事项中，起诉资格被授予一位禁酒团体官员。在Tooheys v. Minister for Business (1981) 36 ALR 64 at 79案中，Ellicott法官拒绝下列看法：“受害人”允许“公众的任何成员能申请一项审查令”。在Re Control Investments (1980) 2 ALD 74 at 79案中，戴维斯（Davies）法官说，与联邦《行政上诉裁判所法》下的资格相关，“受影响的利益”这个短语“意指，某人享有的非一般公众成员具有的利益，也不是作为一个仅就持有下列信念的人：某种特定类型的行为应该被阻止或某部特定的法律得到遵守”。
在Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 530-531案中，吉本斯（Gibbs）法官提出，仅仅学术利益（intellectual interests）不能获得资格的承认。
Association of Data Processing Service Organisation v. Camp 397 U.S. 150 at 152-153(1970).
Onus v. Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 (原住民的遗物)。
Association of Data Processing Service Organisation v. Camp 397 U.S. 150 at 152-153 (1970).
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1994) 125 ALR 337; Cameron v. HREOC (1993) 119 ALR 279.
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 547,在该案中，Mason法官主张，一种社会的利益也许可以赋予一项指令（injunction）的资格。
Onus v. Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 (原住民的遗物)。
Ogle v. Strickland (1987) 71 ALR 41（牧师想试图挑战一项审查局的决定，即允许被申诉为渎神的一部电影进口和登记的决定）。
Manuka Business Association v. ACT Executive (1998) 146 FLR 464.在Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493案中，该基金会是一个涉及环境的法人机构，被拒绝给予起诉资格，就中部昆士兰地区建议开设风景地和旅游地的发展相关提起诉讼。在Sinclair v. Mining Warden at Maryborough (1975) 132 CLR 473案中，则给予某个涉及其利益的当事人对沙滩矿井许可的环境效果予以挑战的资格，但这个人在矿井监察官面前一个早期的听证中是一个反对者。在Central Queensland Speleological Society v. Central Queensland Cement 2 Qd R 512案中，石灰石洞穴是为幽灵蝙蝠过冬的地点，而且被用作挖洞。也请参见Australian Conservation Foundation v. Minister for Resources (1989) 19 ALD 70.
Attorney General (ex rel McKinlay) v. Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR 1 at 76; R v. Greater London Council; Ex parte Blackburn 1 WLR 550( 在该案中，仅仅是某个公民、纳税人或家庭成员就有资格申请对猥亵法的实施提出挑战；Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493at 547 (在该案中，Mason 法官主张，一种政治性的利益或许可以享有指令的资格)。
在Tonkin v. Brand WAR 2案中，一位投票人被赋予资格对选区界限进行挑战。但是在Attorney General (ex rel McKinlay ) v. Commonwealth (1975) 135 CLR1案中，法院对此有所分歧。在Cormack v. Cope (1974) 131 CLR 432案件中，法院对此不热心。
在某些调取令（mandamus）案中，纳税人取得了资格：R v. Paddington Valuation Officer; Ex parte Peachey Property Corporation 1QB 380 at 400; R v. Cotham 1 QB 802.
Onus v. Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 at 73 per Brennan J; Kioa v. West (1985) 62 ALR 321 at 372-373.一个例子是SS Constructions v. Ventura Motors VR 229 at 246.在该案中，一位邻居有一项法定权利接收申请许可改变土地使用的适当的通知，然而如果该当事人仅仅是一位邻居，那么要识别出其资格更加困难。
Onus v.Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 at 44.
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 547.
Fordham v. Evans (1987) 72 ALR 529.因此，在Fowell v. Ioannou (1982) 45 ALR 491案中，一位官员对某组织中需要临时帮助的某人提出建议，并不给予其资格，因为所有公众成员都处于同样的地位，申请人并不比别人有其特殊的利益。
Onus v.Alcoa (1981) 149 CLR 27 at 71.
Alphapharm v. Smithkline Beecham (1994) 49 FCR 250 at 264-265.
Schokker v. Commissioner, AFP (1998) 154 ALR 183 at 187.
Allan v. Development Allowance Authority (1998) 152 ALR 439 at 441.
Lord v. Comissioners of the AFP (1998) 154 ALR 631 at 645.
Ogle v. Strickland (1987) 13 FCR 306; 71 ALR 41 at 44 per Lockhart J.
如在《司法审查法》下的“受害人”，法院解释这个公式，意指申请人必须有一种特殊的利益。
See, eg, Kioa v. West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 621; Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association v. Minister for Industrial Affairs (1995) 183 CLR 552.
Tooheys Ltd v. Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (1981) 4 ALD 277 at 290
Ogle v. Strickland (1987) 13 FCR 306; 71 ALR 41
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1994) 125 ALR 337．
Barlow v. Collins 397 US. 159 at 167-169 at 341.
Queensland Newsagents Federation v. TPC (1993) 118 ALR 527.
Ibid.
Allan v. Development Allowance Authority (1998) 152 ALR 439 at 442.
Ibid at 447.
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1994) 125 ALR 337．
Allan v. Development Allowance Authority (1998) 152 ALR 439 at 442.
Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v. Secretary, Department of Transport (1986) 71 ALR 73.
Fordham v. Evans (1987) 72 ALR 529.
Broadbridge v. Stammers (1987) 76 ALR 339 at 341.
Fordham v. Evans (1987) 72 ALR 529.
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1994) 125 ALR 337．
Australian Institute of Marine and Power Engineers v. Secretary, Department of Transport (1986) 71 ALR 73.
例如在Ross v. Costigan (1982) 41 ALR 319案中，被召集到某个皇家委员会作证人，由证人对可能的刑事犯罪作证，它带来刑事程序及其之后的犯罪的可能性。
Broadbridge v. Stammers (1987) 76 ALR 339 at 341.
Ibid.
Re McHattan and Collector of Customs ( New South Wales ) (1977) 1 ALD 67.
Re McHattan and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) 18 ALR 154 at 157.
Allan v. Development Allowance Authority (1998) 152 ALR 439 at 441.
Schokker v. Commissioner, AFP (1998) 154 ALR 183 at 187.
Australian Foremen Stevedores v. Crone (1989) 98 ALR 276.
Re McHattan and Collector of Customs (NSW) (1977) 18 ALR 154 at 157.
Australian Foreman Stevedores Association v. Crone (1989) 20 FCR 377 at 380-381.
Right to Life Association v. Department of Human Services (1994) 125 ALR 337.
Botany Bay City Council v. Minister for Transport (1996) 66 FCR 537 at 553.
Bateman’s Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v. Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund (1998) 194 CLR 247 at 264 ; Boyce v. Paddington Borough Council 1Ch 109 114.
Right to Life Association v. Secretary , Department of Human Services (1995) 37 ALD 357 at 370; 128 ALR 238 at 252．
Botany Bay City Council v. Minister for Transport (1996) 66 FCR 537 at 553.
Lujan v. Defender of Wildlife 504 US 555 at 560-561(1992) per Scalia J; Truth About Motorways v. Macquarie Infrastructure (2000) 200 CLR 591 at 634 per Gummow J, at 656 per Kirby J.
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu v. ASC (1995) 128 ALR 318.
Transurban City Link v. Allan (1990) 95 FCR 553 at 566 .
Lujan v. Defender of Wildlife 504 US. 555 at 560-561(1992) per Scalia J;Truth About Motorways v. Macquarie Infrastructure (2000) 200 CLR 591 at 634 per Gummow J, at 656 per Kirby J.
Australian Conservation Foundation v. Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 at 511 per Aickin J.
Lujan v. Defender of Wildlife 504 US 555 at 560-561(1992) per Scalia J; Truth About Motorways v. Macquarie Infrastructure (2000) 200 CLR 591 at 634 per Gummow J, at 656 per Kirby J.
Truth About Motorways v. Macquarie Infrastructure (2000) 200 CLR 591 at 612 per Gaudron J.
Transurban City Link v. Allan (1990) 95 FCR 553 at 565 ; 168 ALR 687 at 698.
United States Parole Commission v. Geraghty 445 US 388 at 397 (1980).
Transurban City Link v. Allan (1990) 95 FCR 553 at 564 ; 168 ALR 687 at 697-698.
Maritime Union of Australia v. Anderson (2000) 100 FCR 58 at 78.
Maritime Union v. Anderson (2000) 100 FCR 58 at 77-75-.
Transurban City Link v. Allan (1990) 95 FCR 553 at 564-565 ; 168 ALR 687 at 697-698.
Right to Life Association v. Secretary , Department of Human Services (1995) 37 ALD 357 at 370; 128 ALR 238 at 252．
Ibid．
Ibid.
Allan v. Development Allowance Authority (1999) 93 FCR 264 at 567-569 par ; Transurban City Link v. Allan (1990) 95 FCR 553 at .
Roe v. Wade 410 US 113 (1973).
Maritime Union of Australia v. Anderson (2000) 100 FCR 58 at 80-81.
Ibid.