环境公益诉讼中技术调查官制度构建研究
Study on the Construction of the Technical Investigation Officer System in Environmental Public Interest Litigation
摘要: 环境公益诉讼中所涉及的技术问题颇为复杂,在进行技术事实认定时,法官面临着法官辅助人缺位的困境。因此,有必要在环境公益诉讼领域构建技术调查官制度。为解决专业技术案件中事实认定的准确性问题,技术调查官制度率先在知识产权领域引入,效果良好,可为环境公益诉讼中技术调查官制度的构建提供实践经验和理论支撑。环境公益诉讼中技术调查官制度的构建应当从技术调查官的职责、制度的启动及运行入手,具体而言,其启动应以法院依职权启动为主、调查官主动申请介入为辅,其运行应当涵盖保全、勘验、调查取证、庭前准备、开庭审理、案件评议等诉讼环节,同时建立相应的回避制度与监督机制,以期技术调查官协助法官进行公平公正的技术事实认定。
Abstract:
The technical issues involved in environmental public interest litigation are quite complex, and judges are faced with the dilemma of the absence of a judge’s assistant when making technical factual determinations. Therefore, it is necessary to build a technical investigator system in the field of environmental public interest litigation. In order to solve the problem of the accuracy of fact-finding in professional and technical cases, the technical investigation officer system was first introduced in the field of intellectual property rights, and the effect is good, which can provide practical experience and theoretical support for the construction of the technical investigation officer system in environmental public interest litigation. The construction of the technical investigation officer system in environmental public welfare litigation should start from the responsibility of the technical investigation officer, the system of initiation and operation. Specifically, its initiation should be initiated by the court ex officio, supplemented by the investigating officer’s initiative to apply for intervention, and its operation should cover the litigation links such as preservation, investigation, evidence collection, pre-trial preparation, court trial, case deliberation, and other litigation stages, etc. At the same time, a system of disqualification and a monitoring mechanism have been established, with a view to the technical investigator assisting the judge in making fair and impartial technical findings of fact.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
江必新. 中国环境公益诉讼的实践发展及制度完善[J]. 法律适用, 2019(1): 5-12.
|
|
[2]
|
盎格洛·昂舍塔. 科学证据与法律的平等保护[M]. 王进喜, 等, 译. 北京: 中国法制出版社, 2016: 76-78.
|
|
[3]
|
最高人民法院民事审判第一庭. 最高人民法院新民事诉讼证据规定理解与适用[M]. 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2020: 54-57.
|
|
[4]
|
杨秀清. 我国知识产权诉讼中技术调查官制度的完善[J]. 法商研究, 2020, 37(6): 166-180.
|
|
[5]
|
张嘉军. 环境民事公益诉讼阶段性、多元化证明标准建构研究——基于私益诉讼与公益诉讼比较的视角[J]. 河北法学, 2023, 41(11): 24-58.
|
|
[6]
|
彼得·哥特瓦尔德, 曹志勋. 鉴定人及其鉴定意见在德国民事诉讼法中的地位[J]. 证据科学, 2020, 28(2): 218-226.
|
|
[7]
|
李学军, 朱梦妮. 专家辅助人制度研析[J]. 法学家, 2015(1): 147-163.
|
|
[8]
|
林广海. 广州故事: 知识产权法院多棱镜[J]. 法律适用, 2015(10): 18-23.
|
|
[9]
|
郑志柱, 林奕濠. 论技术调查官在知识产权诉讼中的角色定位[J]. 知识产权, 2018(8): 8-14.
|
|
[10]
|
陈磊. 技术调查官制度之实务运作及精进措施——当事人诉讼程序保障之维度[J]. 新疆大学学报(哲学·人文社会科学版), 2017, 45(1): 45-54.
|
|
[11]
|
李菊丹. 中日技术调查官制度比较研究[J]. 知识产权, 2017(8): 96-105.
|