道路交通事故认定可诉性研究

发布时间：2018-11-25 17:03

【摘要】：道路交通事故认定书包括道路交通事故的基本事实、成因和当事人的责任等内容,并须送达当事人。基于道路交通事故认定的结果包含对当事人的责任划分,这必然对当事人承担民事、行政乃至刑事责任与否及承担责任大小产生直接影响。而在现有法律制度框架下,并不支持道路交通事故认定可以被提起行政诉讼,且当事人仅有一种救济途径,即只能向上级公安机关申请复核。这种制度设计显然削弱了对公安机关行使权力的监督,在一定程度上并不符合“权责统一”的行政原则,从而将道路交通事故认定书的真实性、客观性和准确性交给交警个人的现场勘查能力和职业道德,这便给权力寻租留出空间,容易滋生腐败,很难保障公民的合法权益,保障人权,显然并不符合现代社会的法治要求。本文围绕两则案例进行分析,归纳出核心问题,即从行政行为的角度,道路交通事故认定的性质是什么?道路交通事故认定能否进入行政诉讼范围?行政诉讼对道路交通事故认定地审查如何进行?针对这些核心问题,结合案例进行分析论证。通过分析道路交通事故认定与证据的法律特征、鉴定意见的法律特征、行政行为的法律特征的关系,道路交通事故认定显然是一种行政行为,且应视为一种行政确认行为。修订后的《行政诉讼法》扩大了行政诉讼受案范围,并且立法目的已然从秩序维护向权益保障转变,更加注重合法利益的全面保护和“权责统一”的权力监督与制约,这不仅为道路交通事故认定可诉提供了制度可能,也为在新的社会治理模式下提出了新的要求,即法院应当对不服道路交通事故认定提起行政诉讼的案件进行合法性审查。
[Abstract]:The cognizance of road traffic accident includes the basic facts of road traffic accident, the cause of formation and the responsibility of the party concerned, and it must be served to the party concerned. Based on the result of road traffic accident identification including the division of the responsibility of the parties, it will have a direct impact on the parties to bear civil, administrative and even criminal responsibility or not and the size of the responsibility. But under the existing legal system frame, does not support the road traffic accident confirmation may be brought the administrative lawsuit, and the party only has one kind of relief way, namely can only apply to the superior public security organ to review. The design of this system obviously weakens the supervision over the exercise of power by the public security organs, and to a certain extent does not conform to the administrative principle of "unification of power and responsibility," thus making the confirmation document of road traffic accidents authentic. Objectivity and accuracy are handed over to the traffic police for their personal on-the-spot investigation ability and professional ethics. This leaves room for power rent-seeking, which can easily breed corruption, and it is very difficult to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and protect human rights. Obviously, it does not accord with the rule of law in modern society. Based on the analysis of two cases, this paper concludes the core problems, that is, from the perspective of administrative behavior, what is the nature of road traffic accident identification? Can Road Traffic Accidents be identified into the scope of Administrative Litigation? How does the administrative lawsuit examine the road traffic accident cognizance? In view of these core problems, combined with the case analysis and demonstration. By analyzing the legal characteristics of the identification of road traffic accidents and evidence, the legal characteristics of appraisal opinions and the legal characteristics of administrative acts, the identification of road traffic accidents is obviously an administrative act and should be regarded as an administrative confirmation act. The revised Administrative Litigation Law has expanded the scope of accepting cases in administrative litigation, and the legislative purpose has changed from the maintenance of order to the protection of rights and interests, paying more attention to the overall protection of legitimate interests and the power supervision and restriction of "unity of power and responsibility". This not only provides the system possibility for the road traffic accident cognizance to sue, but also puts forward the new request under the new social governance mode, namely the court should carry on the legality examination to the case that does not accept the road traffic accident confirmation to initiate the administrative lawsuit.
【学位授予单位】：沈阳师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.3

【相似文献】