摘要
最高人民法院2009年发布的《关于裁判文书引用法律法规等规范性法律文件的规定》将民法法源划分为裁判依据和裁判理由,能作为裁决案件的依据、理由,前提是满足法律规定的要件。在司法实践中,司法机关创建"指导性案例"制度,最高人民法院要求各级法院"应当参照"其发布的指导性案例处理类似案件,此举有擅自立法,分享立法权之嫌。以二手房买卖违约指导性案例为切入点,从应然、实然角度指出指导性案例不能达到裁判理由的标准,也不能满足法律规范的一般性和抽象性要求,是不可取的。
In 2009, Supreme People's Court issued The Rules on Adjudication, dividing the source of civil law into the basis of adjudication and the reasons for adjudication, which can be used as the basis and reasons for adjudicating cases on the premise that the requirements of legal provisions are met. In judicial practice, a “guiding case” system created by Supreme People’s Court requires people’s courts at all levels to “deal with similar cases by referring to the guiding cases” issued by itself, which may be suspected as creating legislation without authorization and sharing the legislative power. Starting from the guiding cases of the second-hand housing sales, the paper points out that the guiding cases cannot meet the standard of the judgment reasons and the general and abstract requirements of legal norms from the perspective of should-be and practice-be.
作者
孟晓丽
MENG Xiaoli(School of Information Engineering, Fuyang Normal University, Fuyang 236000, China;Law school, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China)
出处
《广东石油化工学院学报》
2019年第2期5-7,共3页
Journal of Guangdong University of Petrochemical Technology
基金
安徽省哲学社会科学规划项目(AHSKQ2017D64)
安徽省高等学校人文社会科学研究项目(SK2018A0729)
阜阳师范学院信息工程学院人文社科一般项目(2018FXGSK02)
关键词
指导性案例
法律规范
正当性
guiding cases
legal norm
justifiable nature
