论证券民事责任制度的完善--评《最高人民法院关于审理证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事赔偿案件的若干规定》

<最高人民法院关于审理证券市场因虚假陈述引发的民事赔偿案件的若干规定>中有些规定不合理.应将虚假陈述民事责任人范围扩及专业中介中服务机构的直接责任人、证券监管机构及其直接责任人.行政处罚决定和人民法院的刑事裁判不应作为人民法院受理有关民事赔偿案件的前置条件.利空的虚假陈述也会导致投资者的损失.在证券发行市场虚假陈述的赔偿范围应扩及相关费用.     

论《合同法》中的违约责任制度

违约责任是当事人不履行或不适当履行合同所产生的法律责任 ,具有相对性、约定性 ,是一种财产责任。违约行为的形态 ,从合同履行情况的角度分类 ,可分为不履行合同义务和不完全履行合同义务 ;从违约行为发生的时间上分类 ,可分为届期违约和预期违约。我国《合同法》对违约责任的归责原则采取无过错责任原则为主 ,过错责任原则和过错推定责任原则为辅的原则。     

保证方式、保证期间、诉讼时效与保证责任——对担保法施行前所发生保证行为的法律分析

保证责任与保证方式、保证期间和诉讼时效直接相关。保证方式不同,保证人承担保证责任的顺序和强度不同。保证期间届满,保证责任免除,保证债务诉讼时效问题也就不存在;保证期间终结,保证债务生效从而不再受保证期间约束,而受保证债务诉讼时效约束。主债务诉讼时效与保证债务诉讼时效之间的关系应当是:前者届满,后者也届满;前者中断,后者未必中断;后者中断,前者必定中断。保证债务诉讼时效届满,保证债务沦为自然之债,债权人丧失请求人民法院强制保证人承担保证责任的胜诉权。对担保法施行前所发生保证行为的保证责任认定,应当遵循上述法理、适用相关法律和司法解释之规定,而不能以有关通知为依据。     

一人公司法人人格否认问题研究

一人公司是我国新修订的公司法规定的新制度,自其诞生以来,便存在正反两方面的社会效应。其反面效应主要表现为一人股东对公司法人人格的滥用。一旦发生此种情形,就应否定一人公司的法人人格,将股东与公司视为一个整体,由股东与公司承担连带责任,这实际上是对有限责任的一种反向限制。     

司法鉴定人错误鉴定的民事责任及其豁免

鉴定人因出具错误鉴定结论导致诉讼当事人的损害应当承担专家民事责任。这不仅是出于鉴定人的特殊诉讼地位,同样也由他的专家属性所决定。其承担的的是一种特殊的侵权责任,且该赔偿责任的主体为鉴定机构更为妥当。在法律责任豁免上,由于鉴定人与普通证人性质迥异,不宜赋予其普通证人才享有的广泛豁免权,但是依然可以在一定条件和范围内免责。     

解读修正的犯罪构成

修正的犯罪构成和基本的犯罪构成是一对相对应的概念,并且前者早已得到国内刑法理论的普遍认可。文章在分析修正的犯罪构成的概念的基础上,探讨了修正的犯罪构成理论所存在的若干问题,提出未完成形态和共犯形态的犯罪均有其完整独立的犯罪构成,并认为修正的犯罪构成的概念不可取,应予以弃之。     

论国际法上共同开发的概念及特征

共同开发是国际法承认的概念 ,但学术界却对此有不同的定义。作者认为应从法律和功能性两种角度对共同开发进行狭义定义 ,即它是指主权国家基于协议 ,就跨越彼此间边界线或位于争议区的共同矿藏 ,以某种合作形式进行勘探或开发的活动。共同开发具有任择性、国家主体性、客体共享性、功能性和临时性 5大法律特征     

论侵权责任法规定行政侵权责任的必要性

行政侵权与一般民事侵权是两种不同的侵权,行政侵权责任是在公法领域中发生的私法责任。法院在审判实践中处理行政侵权案件时,应当优先适用国家赔偿法的有关规定;国家赔偿法无规定时则适用一般法,也就是适用侵权责任法的规定。民事法律规范在行政赔偿问题上的继续适用有内在的合理性;侵权责任法草案对行政侵权责任做出原则性的规定,符合我国的立法传统。因此,将来的侵权责任法规定行政侵权责任是必要的,也是可行的。     

Revisiting country of origin principle: Challenges related to regulating e-commerce in the European Union

The article analyses the country of origin principle of information society services in the light of harmonisation and unification efforts undertaken by the European lawgiver. Although the country of origin principle remains the key element of the construction of freedom to provide information society services, the principle itself suffers a number of both explicit and implicit restrictions which render its practical application a serious challenge. The difficulty is posed by the fact that the Electronic Commerce Directive fails to expressly specify both the scope of harmonisation as regards the principle, and the level of harmonisation of the directive itself. Furthermore, it is understood differently by private international lawyers. In the eDate Advertising case the ECJ ruled that the principle is not a conflict-of-laws rule, neither does it require implementation to the national legal systems in this shape. This is not to mean, however, that the debate over the function of the country of origin principle in private international law is over. Last but not least, there are many different types of country of origin principles applicable to various types of services provided via the Internet. This multitude of country of origin principles is perhaps the greatest weakness the regulatory approach adopted by the European lawmaker.     

Rethinking the notion of hosting in the aftermath of Delfi: Shifting from liability to responsibility?

Liability of Internet intermediaries for a third-party content is a complex topic, especially with regards to the storage of illegal or harmful postings offered by portals. The E-Commerce Directive offered a liberal framework for handling such cases, provided that a hosting service provider has not played an active role in content management. Being passive turned out to be the key precondition for immunity under safe harbour provisions. Yet, after the Delfi ruling the legal landscape has changed radically. Although the judgment of the Strasbourg tribunal has been dismissed in some jurisdictions as an error or one-off case, the truth is that it took into account acquis communautaire and imposed liability on the news portal, which followed the guidelines of Google France and eBay rulings. Given the lack of predictability of the current legal framework, the aim of this contribution is to offer a deep-dive into the notion of hosting from a technical perspective in order to better understand why Articles 14–15 of the E-Commerce Directive may require a re-examination. It is also submitted that portals and other online service providers relying on a broad construction of safe harbours should be entitled to Good Samaritan protection akin to section 230 of the American Communications Decency Act in order not to hold them liable for being active in fighting hate speech and other forms of illegal and harmful conduct.