“电梯吸烟劝阻案”程序正当性研究
|
摘要
引发热议的"电梯吸烟劝阻案"涉及多个程序正当性问题值得商榷。基于诉讼标的理论之"实体请求权说"能够有效界定法院审理对象,一审法院法律适用错误违背处分原则,二审法院在上诉请求范围内进行审理,但由于被上诉人未上诉,二审法院面临纠错职能与尊重当事人处分权难以两全的困境;二审法院援引《民诉法解释》第323条第2款所规定的"公共利益"作出判决,存在向一般条款逃避之嫌,公共利益本身的包容性和流动性使得对其难以界定。禁止不利益变更原则作为大陆法系国家用于指导二审法院审判的裁判规范,于我国尚无适用空间,借此非难二审判决实无必要。
It is debatable that the "dissuasion case of smoking in elevator", triggering the hot discussion, involved multiple procedural legitimacy issues. The entity claim right, based on the theory of litigation, can effectively define the object tried by the court. The first instance court applies the wrong law, violating the principle of disposition, then the second instance court hears the appeal within the scope of the appeal request. However, as the appellee has not appealled, the second instance court faces the dilemma of correcting the error and respecting the disposition of the party. The second instance court invokes the public interest stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 323 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law to give its judgement, and there is a suspicion of escaping from the general provisions. The inclusiveness and mobility of the public interest itself make it difficult to define.The principle of prohibiting alteration with prejudiceis used as adjudication norm for civil law countries to guide the trial of the second instance court, which has no applicable space in China. So it is not necessary to criticize the second instance court's judgement.
It is debatable that the "dissuasion case of smoking in elevator", triggering the hot discussion, involved multiple procedural legitimacy issues. The entity claim right, based on the theory of litigation, can effectively define the object tried by the court. The first instance court applies the wrong law, violating the principle of disposition, then the second instance court hears the appeal within the scope of the appeal request. However, as the appellee has not appealled, the second instance court faces the dilemma of correcting the error and respecting the disposition of the party. The second instance court invokes the public interest stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 323 of the Interpretation of the Civil Procedure Law to give its judgement, and there is a suspicion of escaping from the general provisions. The inclusiveness and mobility of the public interest itself make it difficult to define.The principle of prohibiting alteration with prejudiceis used as adjudication norm for civil law countries to guide the trial of the second instance court, which has no applicable space in China. So it is not necessary to criticize the second instance court's judgement.
引文
[1]张卫平.论诉讼标的及识别标准[J].法学研究,1997(4):60-63.
[2]张丽君.公平责任原则在司法实践中的适用——以“劝阻吸烟案”为例[J].内蒙古电大学刊,2018(6):12-14.
[3]罗斯科·庞德.法理学:第3卷[M].廖德宇,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:205-206.
[4]孙延龄.论社会公共利益概念的法律界定[J].民主与法制,2005(3):29.
[5]李春成.公共利益的概念建构评析——行政论理学的视角[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2003(1):51-53.
[6]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].新北:兴农综合印刷有限公司,2014:83-85.
[7]唐丰鹤.司法裁决的后果衡量[J].浙江社会科学,2015(3):44-45.
[8]梁上上.公共利益与利益衡量[J].政法论坛,2016(6):11-14.
[9]郝振江.论民事上诉中的禁止不利益变更原则[J].宁夏大学学报(社会科学版),2010,32(2):83-85.
[10]孙邦清.论民事上诉中的禁止不利益变更原则[J].法学杂志,2000(1):36-37.
[11]冯仁强.评“民事上诉禁止不利益变更原则”[J].法学,2001(8):51-53.
[12]郑世保,李朝龙.论附带上诉[J].当代法学,2003(11):154-155.
[2]张丽君.公平责任原则在司法实践中的适用——以“劝阻吸烟案”为例[J].内蒙古电大学刊,2018(6):12-14.
[3]罗斯科·庞德.法理学:第3卷[M].廖德宇,译.北京:法律出版社,2007:205-206.
[4]孙延龄.论社会公共利益概念的法律界定[J].民主与法制,2005(3):29.
[5]李春成.公共利益的概念建构评析——行政论理学的视角[J].复旦学报(社会科学版),2003(1):51-53.
[6]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].新北:兴农综合印刷有限公司,2014:83-85.
[7]唐丰鹤.司法裁决的后果衡量[J].浙江社会科学,2015(3):44-45.
[8]梁上上.公共利益与利益衡量[J].政法论坛,2016(6):11-14.
[9]郝振江.论民事上诉中的禁止不利益变更原则[J].宁夏大学学报(社会科学版),2010,32(2):83-85.
[10]孙邦清.论民事上诉中的禁止不利益变更原则[J].法学杂志,2000(1):36-37.
[11]冯仁强.评“民事上诉禁止不利益变更原则”[J].法学,2001(8):51-53.
[12]郑世保,李朝龙.论附带上诉[J].当代法学,2003(11):154-155.