完善民事裁判文书公开性的探讨

公开性是民事裁判文书所具有的一个重要特性。完善民事裁判文书的公开性是深化民事裁判文书改革的有机构成。新一轮司法改革的推进,对完善民事裁判文书的公开性提出了新的要求。一、民事裁判文书公开的意义及当前存在的问题民事裁判文书公开,要求人民法院制作裁判文书时不仅要反映审判程序的公开,还要求法院或法官对案件实体     

关于加强裁判文书说理的几点思考

党的十八届三中全会提出"增强法律文书说理性,推动公开法院生效裁判文书"。十八届四中全会进一步强调,"加强法律文书释法说理,建立生效法律文书统一上网和公开查询制度",把裁判文书说理提到了新的高度。裁判文书是司法的"最终产品",说理部分是裁判文书的灵魂。加强裁判文书说理,是对裁判文书制作的基本要求,也是实现诉讼目的、彰显司法公正、提升司法公信的必然要求。全省法院要切实增强裁判文书说理意识,不断提高说理能力,努力     

裁判文书公开与当事人隐私权保护

从判决书公开的案例发展进程来看,法院的立场似乎从确定逐渐开始后退,或许此种后退正表明了司法对待法律问题的更加慎重、对隐私利益与权利保护的更加注重。人民法院行使司法审判权的过程、结果是否应当向全社会公开,应当根据裁判文书本身的性质来决定。一般而言,基于司法审判权的本质要求与现代网络社会的技术背景,裁判文书应当上网公开。对于当事人的姓名等信息,不应也无需基于隐私权保护而予以删去,只需对当事人以外的相关主体的信息基于利益衡量而加以适当保护即可。     

北京法院司法公开工作全面提速

正开通北京法院审判信息网提供诉讼服务,公开裁判文书接受监督,上线官方微博与网友互动交流。年终岁末,北京法院司法公开工作全面提速,努力打造司法公开和诉讼服务平台,实现"阳光司法",让人民群众在每一个司法案件中都感受到公平正义。2013年12月31日,北京市高级法院院长慕平按下启动按钮,北京法院审判信息网正式上线。自2014年1月1日起,北京市三级法院将统一上网公开裁判文书,并通过北京法院审判信息网,实现部分审判流程、执行信息公开,同时试运行网上立案、电子送达服务。诉讼群众可通过登录网址www.bjcourt.gov.cn进行查询操作。据介绍,北京法院审判信息网实现了法院要闻、法院公告、裁判文书、审判流程、执行信息、法官信息、参阅案例、开庭信息等八项公开和案件查询、诉讼指南、法院指引、网上立案、法规查询、文书样式、指导文件、诉讼工具、数说审判、视说诉讼等十项服务。北京法院还同步开通手机等移动终端诉讼信息服务,社会公众可在北京法院审判信息网上通过扫描北京法院诉讼信息服务APP二维码实现此功能。     

裁判文书公开制度目的再探——兼评《民事诉讼法》第156条

2012年修正后的我国《民事诉讼法》第156条对人民法院生效裁判文书的公开作出了明确的规定。然而,在实践中对生效裁判文书的公开范围、案件当事人隐私和国家秘密的保护等问题存在争议,影响了该条的适用。造成上述问题的原因在于目前采取利益法学的立场来设定和理解裁判文书公开制度的目的,因此有必要对裁判文书公开制度的目的进行探讨,在此基础上对《民事诉讼法》第156条进行再次理解和评价。     

裁判文书上网与当事人隐私权保护的冲突与衡平

一、现状:裁判文书上网与当事人隐私权保护关系之困惑2009年,最高人民法院发布《人民法院第三个五年改革纲要》,提出"加强和完善审判与执行公开制度,研究建立裁判文书网上发布制度和执行案件信息的网上查询制度"。此后,各地高、中院陆续建立裁判文书上网制度,该制度现已成为全国大部分地区三级法院的日常制度之     

司法公开的问题及进路探析

<正>一、问题的缘起最高人民法院不断强调各种形式的司法公开,从裁判文书公开推广到各类庭审的公开,而且强化了公开力度,提出了明确要求,即除了涉及国家秘密、商业秘密、个人隐私、未成年人犯罪以及当事人确有正当理由要求不公开的以外,各级法院应当将公开宣判的裁判文书进行上网。最高人民法院为此还出台了《关于司法公开的六项规定》(2009年)及《司法公开示范法院标准》(2010年),以考核、考评各高级法院的形式推进司法公开。但是,目前有关裁判文书公开的政策仍然比较保守,     

如何提高裁判文书质量

<正>裁判文书是展示人民法院司法公正的"窗口",是体现法官办案质量和司法能力的"名片"。裁判文书全面上网公开,不仅是法律理论界和司法实务界的共识,而且得到最高人民法院从技术、制度和实践等方面的全力推进。如何提高裁判文书质量?这样一个法院老问题,比以往更为突出和迫切地摆在全国法院和法官面前。一、提高裁判文书意识对裁判文书质量现状,需要有清醒的认识。总体而言,近年来法院不断加强审判管理,特别是最高人民法院不断加强     

试论刑事裁判文书的量刑说理制度

确立刑事裁判文书量刑说理制度,通过记录量刑过程,展示程序公正,可以让法官自由裁量权受合法性原则的约束;通过论证量刑理由,彰显裁判理性,可以让法官自由裁量权受合理性原则的约束;通过公之于众,展示透明理念,可以让法官自由裁量权受公众的有效监督,进而增强公众对量刑结果的信仰与服从。构建我国的刑事裁判文书量刑说理制度,首先应在制度设计上引入量刑答辩程序,以支撑裁判文书详尽展示量刑的全过程,其次应对现行刑事裁判文书的写作格局进行调整,以便充分论证量刑理由,最后应以立法的形式加大裁判文书的公开力度和公开范围,以将裁判文书量刑说理的价值落到实处。     

裁判文书改革与司法公正

一、我国裁判文书现状之积弊近年来 ,随着审判方式改革的深入 ,裁判文书的改革已摆上各法院的议事日程 ,但由于各地法官素质参差不齐 ,加之制作习惯的影响 ,现行的裁判文书仍有不少弊端。法官只注重事实的调查与认定 ,却忽视对证据的分析和裁判的说理 ,这种模式弊端重重。（一）暗箱操作之嫌疑裁判文书作为诉讼过程的记录 ,应当真实、动态地反映诉讼全过程 ,表明法官审判权的运用和诉讼各方的权利是否得到充分的保障。公开审判原则要求除了法律规定不应公开的外 ,诉讼过程和实体处理应在裁判书中有所反映。现行裁判文书对导致法律后果的主要…     

The rule of law online: Treating data like the sale of goods: Lessons for the internet from OECD and CISG and sacking Google as the regulator

The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) in the case of Google Spain SL v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) ² [“the Google decision”] to require Google to enforce a right to be forgotten has caused a furore and sets a dangerous precedent in internet regulation. ³ It is setting up the search engine as a form of Internet Government and fracturing the balance between privacy and freedom of information in the connected world. In a world where we have become attuned to full exposure by routinely signing over access to information, privacy is no longer the issue – the real concern is control. This paper seeks to address the issues of whether we have a right to privacy anymore, who should be making decisions about what is available and where and how a global convention on access to information might be achieved.     

Patient confidentiality statutes in Medicare & Medicaid fraud investigations

The Medicare and Medicaid programs have been burdened with health care providers' fraudulent and abusive practices since their implementation in 1965. To help states discover and prevent Medicare and Medicaid fraud, Congress has enacted statutes permitting access to patients' medical records in investigations of fraud. The majority of states have enacted physician-patient and psychotherapist-patient privilege statutes to protect confidential information from disclosure. Thus, the state's need for patient information conflicts with the patient's right of privacy. This Note discusses several court decisions that have wrestled with the tension between these two policies. The courts, after balancing the state interest in eliminating fraud against the patient's privacy interest, have often allowed disclosure of patient medical records. Although some courts have attempted to limit the extent of the information disclosed, few have set forth explicit standards to protect patient records from unwarranted disclosure of confidential information. This Note suggests guidelines for courts, legislatures and health care providers to uniformly limit the extent of this disclosure.     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

网络案件中美国法院的长臂管辖权

在分析研究了美国法院将传统长臂管辖权理论运用于网络案件的有关实践后 ,作者指出 :尽管网络案件有其特殊之处 ,对传统的管辖权提出了一定的挑战 ,但不应夸大其对传统管辖权的冲击 ,传统的管辖权规则仍可适用于网络案件 ;就网络案件管辖权模式而言 ,强调物理联系因素的欧洲模式难堪重任 ,而强调被告是否与法院地间形成了某种程度的联系 ,根据企业所使用的语言、货币、法律选择、拒绝交易声明以及实施特定交易等 ,考察被告的活动是否针对法院地 ,是否与法院地形成了某种“有意利用”关系的美国模式更符合管辖权模式的未来发展趋势。     

民事裁判文书上网公开的边界问题探究——基于司法知情权与个人隐私权的冲突与平衡的考量

裁判文书公开是司法公开的核心,裁判文书上网公开又是目前裁判文书公开的重要形式。虽然裁判文书上网公开的普遍性和便捷性能满足公众对于司法知情权的需求,但不可避免在一定程度上会对相关人员的隐私权造成侵害。互联网的广泛应用为裁判文书公开提供了良好的载体,但也使得知情权与隐私权的碰撞更为激烈。通过比例原则和可分割性原则,对于涉及个人隐私的不同情况进行区别对待,并赋予当事人充分的程序保障权,以此对裁判文书上网公开中的知情权与隐私权的冲突予以平衡。     

Data Protection: An Opening Door?

Swedish public law has incorporated a general rule of public access to documents, and to information in the wider sense, since the Freedom of the Press Act of 1766. On the Community level, the relationship between Regulation (EC) 45/2001 on data protection and Regulation (EC) 1049/2001 on public access to documents exemplifies the tension between the public's interest in scrutinising the administration carried on in its name, and the integrity of the individual. However, a similar tension exists between Sweden's Personal Data Act of 1998, implementing Directive 95/46, and the Freedom of the Press Act. A misuse model of data protection law, by seeking to concentrate on serious rather than technical infringements of privacy, might serve to ease the tension. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and are not attributable to any Community institution. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

ASSESSING AND MANAGING ALLEGATIONS OF CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE

This article examines the procedures involved in the assessment and management of allegations of child sexual abuse in courts exercising custody and access jurisdictions. The author discusses the various options available to the court when confronted with such allegations, noting that, in the contex: of access disputes, the issue for the court is not whether a parent has sexually abused a child but whether, in all the circumstances of the case, access should take place or custody should change. In all matters involving access between parents and children, the overriding principle is the paramountcy of the welfare of the child. It is also argued that supervised access, although an increasingly popular alternative for the court when faced with allegations of abuse, is problematic and may not be in the best interests of the child. The author suggests that the emphasis must be on children's rights find parental responsibilities.     

其他规范性文件在司法审查中的地位及效力探析

对行政机关依据其他规范性文件作出的具体行政行为适用法律法规是否正确进行司法审查时 ,应当注意以下几点 :承认其作为法源的地位 ,像对待规章那样来对待其他规范性文件 ;与上位法不抵触是人民法院承认其效力的前提 ;在以其内容是负担性抑或授益性为基本标准认定其效力的同时 ,以公共利益作为补充标准 ;规定“国家标准”之类的其他规范性文件一般具有较高效力 ;法院不宜直接对之进行审查并作出评价。     

Googled justice: an examination of the citation of Internet sources in judicial opinions in Uganda

Search engines like Google have made it incredibly easy to access vast amounts of information with little effort. Many lawyers now prefer to go online for their legal research. Lawyers are citing online sources to establish legal and factual positions in their submission briefs to court and, in turn, judges are citing them in their opinions. Judges are also conducting online research to better understand the complexities of disputes before them. This paper examines the challenges arising from the citation of online sources in judicial opinions in Uganda. It argues that while there are significant benefits to relying on Internet sources, there are also challenges like inaccuracy of online information, excessive reliance on non-legal sources and inaccessibility of some online sources. It concludes with recommendations for best practices that can be adopted by the Ugandan courts in dealing with these limitations when citing online authorities.     

Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in U.S. District Courts

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information.