[email protected]

科学发展研究

Scientific Development Research

您当前位置:首页 > 精选文章

Scientific Development Research . 2022; 2: (3) ; 10.12208/j.sdr.20220101 .

Judicial transformation of judge's disciplinary procedure
法官惩戒程序的司法化路径

作者: 张慧云 *

浙江工商大学法学院 浙江杭州

*通讯作者: 张慧云,单位:浙江工商大学法学院 浙江杭州;

收录截图(CNKI-Scholar)

引用本文: 张慧云 法官惩戒程序的司法化路径[J]. 科学发展研究, 2022; 2: (3) : 156-160.
Published: 2022/8/15 11:22:37

摘要

科学的惩戒运行机制是全面落实司法责任制、实现司法公正的重要前提。我国的法官责任追究由来已久,虽然新修订的《法官法》对“去行政化”做出一定的举措,但是现阶段的法官惩戒制度不健全,在制度运行过程中暴露了许多问题:“同体惩戒”模式下启动法官追责难,惩戒程序单一,法官责任认定过程行政化倾向严重。因此,对法官的追责程序应当寻求司法化的转型,追责程序启动可依职权也可以依申请,从立案受理、调查再到审理全过程采用司法化的诉讼程序进行,强化法官在诉讼中的对抗性,保障其享有的程序性权利,维护当事法官的合法权益。

关键词: 司法责任;惩戒程序;司法化

Abstract

A scientific disciplinary operation mechanism is an important prerequisite for the full implementation of the judicial responsibility system and the realization of judicial justice. The accountability of judges in China has a long history. Although the newly revised judge law has made certain measures for "de administration", the judge punishment system at this stage is not perfect and lacks a perfect punishment system. Many problems have been exposed in the process of system operation. Under the "same punishment" mode, the judge's blame recovery is started, the punishment procedure is single, and the administrative tendency of the judge's responsibility determination process is serious. Therefore, the judicial transformation of the judge's accountability procedure should be sought. The initiation of the accountability procedure can be carried out according to the authority or application, and the judicial litigation procedure can be adopted in the whole process from case filing and acceptance, investigation to trial, so as to strengthen the antagonism of judges in the litigation, protect their procedural rights and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the judges concerned.

Key words: Judicial responsibility; Disciplinary procedures; Judicialization

参考文献 References

[1]熊秋红.中国语境下的法官责任制,人民法治,2016(06).

[2]王小光,李琴.我国法官惩戒制度二元模式的思考与完善,法律适用,2016(12).

[3]陈福林,于地.法官惩戒制度运行机制及惩戒事由研究,法律适用,2021(12).

[4]葛琳.检察官惩戒委员会的职能定位及其实现——兼论国家监察体制改革背景下司法责任追究的独立性,法学评论,2018(02):96.

[5]严仁群.美国宪法下的法官弹劾与司法惩戒,法学杂志,2004(06):77.

[6]韩苏林.美英德法四国司法制度概况,人民法院出版社,2008:473.

[7]怀效锋.司法惩戒与保障,法律出版社,2006:42.

[8]王葆莳.德国法官惩戒制度研究,时代法学,2017(03).

[9]怀效锋.司法惩戒与保障,法律出版社,2006:269-302.

[10]方立新.西方五国司法通论,人民法院出版社,2000:355.

[11]崔晓鹏.从“同体惩戒”到“异体惩戒”——法官惩戒委员会运行模式之构建,山东审判,2016(03):19.

[12]李秋高.罢免制度与弹劾制度比较研究—兼论全国人大罢免制度的完善,法学杂志,2007:(04).

[13]张建伟.检察官惩戒委员会应当如何建构,人民检察,2017(05):18.

[14]徐显明,齐延平.论司法腐败的制度性防治,法学,1988(08).

[15]崔晓鹏.从“同体惩戒”到“异体惩戒”——法官惩戒委员会运行模式之构建,山东审判,2016(03):20.

[16]李太平.法官惩戒制度之研究,山东大学2018年硕士学位论文,2018.

[17]于秀艳.论我国法官惩戒程序及其改革,法律适用,2003(09).

[18]王金建.论我国法官追责程序的司法化转型,应用法学评论,2021(01).

[19]陈瑞华.程序正义理论,中国法制出版社,2020:184.

[20]蒋惠岭.论法官惩戒程序之司法性,法律适用,2003(09).

[21]朱奕.对我国法官惩戒制度存在的问题分析,政法论坛,2007(08).

[22]詹建红.我国法官惩戒制度的困境与出路,法学评论,2016(02).