优势证据在行政诉讼中的构成及适用——以廖宗荣案为分析对象
发布时间：2018-11-06 10:46
【摘要】：《最高人民法院公报》2007年第1期刊载的"廖宗荣诉重庆市公安局交通管理局第二支队道路交通管理行政处罚决定案"运用的"优势证据"标准引起了学界的广泛关注。本文尝试以这一案例为分析样本,通过对判决主文的剖析,希冀从中提炼出"优势证据"的若干构成要件;并通过对相关案例的对比,以期发现优势证据在行政诉讼语境中的适用前提。分析显示,公报案例中的"优势证据"暗含了三个构成要件,分别为身份要件、真实要件、关系要件;而数个案例的对比分析揭示,公报案例中的"优势证据"只适用于一对一证据的情境。
[Abstract]:The "superiority evidence" standard used in the case of Liao Zongrong v. the second Branch of Chongqing Public Security Bureau of Traffic Administration, published in the first issue of the Supreme people's Court in 2007, has aroused widespread concern in academic circles. This article attempts to take this case as the analysis sample, through the analysis to the judgment main text, hoped to extract from the "superiority evidence" several constituent elements; And through the comparison of relevant cases, we hope to find the applicable premise of superiority evidence in the context of administrative litigation. The analysis shows that the "evidence of superiority" in the case of bulletin contains three elements, namely, identity, truth and relationship. The comparative analysis of several cases reveals that the "evidence of superiority" in the bulletin case is only applicable to the situation of one-to-one evidence.
【作者单位】： 浙江大学光华法学院;
【分类号】：D925.3
[Abstract]:The "superiority evidence" standard used in the case of Liao Zongrong v. the second Branch of Chongqing Public Security Bureau of Traffic Administration, published in the first issue of the Supreme people's Court in 2007, has aroused widespread concern in academic circles. This article attempts to take this case as the analysis sample, through the analysis to the judgment main text, hoped to extract from the "superiority evidence" several constituent elements; And through the comparison of relevant cases, we hope to find the applicable premise of superiority evidence in the context of administrative litigation. The analysis shows that the "evidence of superiority" in the case of bulletin contains three elements, namely, identity, truth and relationship. The comparative analysis of several cases reveals that the "evidence of superiority" in the bulletin case is only applicable to the situation of one-to-one evidence.
【作者单位】： 浙江大学光华法学院;
【分类号】：D925.3
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前8条
1 梁凤云,武楠;关于行政诉讼证据证明标准的几个问题[J];法律适用(国家法官学院学报);2002年08期
2 解志勇;崔晓婧;;行政诉讼证明标准研究[J];证据科学;2008年04期
3 王贵松;;一对一证据的审查与认定——廖宗荣诉重庆市交警二支队行政处罚决定案评析[J];华东政法大学学报;2012年03期
4 孔繁华;略论行政诉讼中的证明标准[J];广西社会科学;2004年06期
5 周欣;;从廖宗荣案论法院对行政行为的审查——从证据提供、审查范围以及证明标准角度看[J];黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报;2008年02期
6 徐继敏;;行政处罚证明标准初探[J];四川师范大学学报(社会科学版);2007年06期
7 王琦s，
本文编号：2314050
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/susongfa/2314050.html
