环境民事公益诉讼是目前比较火热的研究热点，其保护的是我们赖以生存的生态环境利益。在学术界，学者们对环境民事公益诉讼的研究主要集中在环境公益诉讼制度程序创新、环境司法专门化、《民法典》相关绿色条款以及生态环境损害赔偿诉讼对比分析四个领域，很少涉及撤诉制度的研究。在立法上，法律只对该制度进行了原则性规定，具体实施细则还未明确。在司法实务中，由于生态环境公共利益涉及到不特定多数人所享有的利益，检察机关、社会组织和人民法院在环境民事公益诉讼中对申请撤诉均持审慎的态度。在当前“完善公益诉讼制度”的大背景之下，本文通过对近五年所有的环境民事公益诉讼撤诉案件进行实证分析，探析当前环境民事公益诉讼撤诉的实际情况，并提出相应的完善措施。

本文主要分为四个部分：

引言部分简要介绍了本文选题的背景以及选题的意义，响应党的二十大完善公益诉讼制度的号召，为完善环境民事公益诉讼撤诉制度提出相应的建议。同时针对环境民事公益诉讼撤诉制度的国内外研究现状，进行了相应的总结分析。

第一章首先是通过引入环境民事公益诉讼的概念、撤诉的概念、环境民事公益诉讼撤诉的法律规定，提炼出环境民事公益诉讼撤诉的概念，即原告（或者检察机关）在人民法院受理案件之后，宣告判决之前，向人民法院申请撤回起诉的行为，其诉讼请求全部实现的，人民法院应当准许其撤诉申请。其次介绍了环境民事公益诉讼撤诉制度的历史沿革，厘清了该制度的发展历程。最后，以威科先行·法律信息库、中国裁判文书网为案例来源，通过输入关键词“环境民事公益诉讼”、“撤诉”，筛选收集出最近五年所有的环境民事公益诉讼撤诉案件共42起。其中7起检察机关申请撤诉 ，34起社会组织申请撤诉，1起行政机关申请撤诉。

第二章首先是通过对这42起案件进行梳理，环境民事公益诉讼撤诉司法实务特征呈现出：第一，撤诉主体与起诉主体占比差异大；第二，撤诉理由多种多样；第三，法院裁判文书格式和内容不统一；第四，诉费收取混乱；第五，诉讼请求全部实现的证明标准不统一。其次，在此基础之上，探析环境民事公益诉讼撤诉实际运行过程中存在的问题及其成因。其一，社会组织能够自由选择被告并且其申请撤诉不受法律限制，再加之法院错误适用普通民事诉讼撤诉的自由裁量标准，导致原告存在滥用撤诉权的可能。其二，法律理解偏差以及法院对社会组织和检察机关的私益性诉讼请求差别对待，导致“诉讼请求全部实现”的认定标准不明确。其三，由于对赔礼道歉民事责任承担方式认识不够，导致赔礼道歉诉讼请求不是案件的争议焦点，从而造成了赔礼道歉诉讼请求在撤诉过程中消失了。

第三章主要是提出了完善环境民事公益诉讼撤诉的措施。首先，通过厘清法律条文之间的关系指出法院在环境民事公益诉讼撤诉中需要明确拒绝原告撤诉的具体情形，并通过扩大起诉主体范围和建立申请撤诉公告制度来限制原告或者检察机关的撤诉权。其次，对环境民事公益诉讼中六种民事责任进行类型化分析，明确各自得以实现的法律审查标准，同时，还明确“诉讼请求全部得以实现”的法律标准不包含私益性诉讼请求。最后，通过论证赔礼道歉的功能与意义，指出赔礼道歉在环境民事公益诉讼中的重要价值，并通过详细论述赔礼道歉诉讼请求的具体适用完善了赔礼道歉制度。

囿于学识能力、时间精力，本文仅以实务中的案例为切入点进行环境民事公益诉讼撤诉研究，所得的措施与方法是否科学合理，能否适用于其他民事公益诉讼当中，仍需进一步探析。

Environmental civil public interest civil suit is a hot research hotspot at present, which protects the ecological environment interests that we rely on for survival. In the academic circle, scholars' research on environmental civil public interest litigation mainly focuses on four areas: the innovation of such a system, the judicial specialization, the relevant green provisions of the Civil Code and contrasting it and lawsuit of the compensation for damage to the environment, and rarely involves the study of the withdrawal system. In terms of legislation, the law only provides for the system in principle. The details are not yet clear. In judicial practice, because the public interest of ecological environment involves the interests enjoyed by an unspecified majority, procuratorial organs, social organizations and people's courts are cautious in applying for withdrawal of environmental civil public interest litigation. Under the background of "improving the public interest litigation system", this paper makes an empirical research of all civil withdrawal cases on EPIL in the past five years, analyzes the current state of such a system, and proposing corresponding improvement measures.

This article has four parts:

The introduction part briefly introduces the background and significance of this topic, conforms to the call of the 20th Party Congress to improve the public interest litigation system, and puts forward corresponding suggestions for improving the withdrawal system of environmental civil public interest litigation. At the same time, according to the domestic and foreign research status of environmental civil public interest litigation withdrawal system, the corresponding summary and analysis.

Chapter One first has the concept of EPIL, withdrawal of lawsuits, and the relevant legal provisions to sort out the concept of environmental civil public interest litigation withdrawal. This refers to the act of the plaintiff (or procuratorial organ) applying to the people's court for withdrawal of the prosecution after the people’s court has accepted the case but before the judgment is pronounced. The people's court shall grant its application for withdrawal. Secondly, it introduces the history of such withdrawal system and clarifies the historical context of the system. Finally, By entering keywords "environmental civil public interest litigation" and "withdrawal a suit", a total of 42 related cases in the last five years are screened and collected. Among them, 7 procuratorial organs applied for withdrawal, 34 social organizations applied for withdrawal, and 1 administrative organ applied for withdrawal.

In Chapter 2, through sorting out these 42 cases, the characteristics of the judicial practice are as follows: first, the proportion of withdrawal subjects and prosecution subjects is very different; Second, the reasons for withdrawal are varied; Third, the form and content of court judgment documents are not uniform; Fourth, the collection of litigation fees is chaotic; Fifth, the standard of proof for the realization of all claims is not uniform. Secondly, on this basis, the paper examines the practical problems and causes of this withdrawal. First, social organizations can freely choose the defendant and his application for withdrawal is not restricted by law. In addition, the court wrongly applies the discretion standard for withdrawal of ordinary civil litigation, which leads to the possibility of plaintiff abusing the right to withdraw. Second, the deviation of legal understanding and the differential treatment of private interest litigation claims by the court to social organizations and procuratorial organs lead to the unclear standard for the determination of "full realization of litigation claims". Thirdly, due to the lack of understanding of the civil liability bearing method of apology, the claim of apology is not the focus of the dispute of the case, which leads to the disappearance of the claim of apology in the process of withdrawal.

The third chapter mainly proposes suggestions to improve this withdrawal of the lawsuit. First of all, by clarifying the relationship between legal provisions, it is pointed out that the court should clearly reject the specific circumstances of the plaintiff's withdrawal in such situation, and limit the plaintiff's or the prosecution's withdrawal right by expanding the scope of the main body of the prosecution and establishing the announcement system of application for withdrawal. Secondly, the six types of civil liability in this system are analyzed to clarify the legal review standards that can be realized respectively. At the same time, it is also clear that the legal standard of "all litigation claims can be realized" does not include private interest litigation claims. Finally, by demonstrating the function and significance of the apology, it points out the important value of the apology in this system, and improves the apology system by elaborating the specific application of the apology litigation request.

Limited by knowledge, ability, time and energy, this paper only takes practical cases as the starting point to study this withdrawal. Whether the measures and methods obtained are scientific and reasonable, and whether they can be applied to other similar fields still needs further analysis.