本文選題：派生訴訟 + enforcement��； 參考：《China Legal Science》2016年03期

【摘要】：中國2005年公司法頒布實(shí)施至今已有十年,從私人執(zhí)行的視角觀察公司法可發(fā)現(xiàn),認(rèn)為中國法官難以裁判技術(shù)性較強(qiáng)的商事案件的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)值得商榷,中國公司法私人執(zhí)行糾紛數(shù)量的逐年增加也在很大程度上體現(xiàn)出公司法在實(shí)踐中的活力,派生訴訟案件的日益上升不僅表明即便存在諸多缺陷的公司法制度也具有廣泛的需求,更凸顯了中國股東積極運(yùn)用法定訴權(quán)保障自身權(quán)益的意識與行為自覺。而在公司法制度存有漏洞與公司法規(guī)則廣泛運(yùn)用之間,容易出現(xiàn)法官濫用裁量權(quán)的現(xiàn)實(shí)性與可能性的,為此應(yīng)當(dāng)通過對法律的嚴(yán)格解釋、公司法原則的確立等限制法官對司法裁量權(quán)的可能濫用,以期讓公司法得到更好的適用。
[Abstract]:It has been ten years since the promulgation and implementation of Chinese Company Law in 2005. From the perspective of private enforcement, it can be found that the traditional view that Chinese judges are difficult to adjudicate more technical commercial cases is open to question. The increasing number of private enforcement disputes in China's company law also reflects the vitality of company law in practice to a great extent. The increasing number of derivative litigation cases not only indicates that there is a wide demand for the company law system even if there are many defects in the company law system. It also highlights the awareness and behavior consciousness of Chinese shareholders to actively use the legal right of action to protect their rights and interests. However, between the loopholes in the company law system and the extensive application of the company law rules, it is easy to appear the reality and possibility of judges abusing their discretion. Therefore, the strict interpretation of the law should be adopted. The establishment of company law principles limits the possible abuse of judicial discretion by judges in order to make the company law more applicable.
【作者單位】： Southwest
【基金】：funded by China Postdoctoral Science Fund Supported Project and Chongqing Social Science Planning Project
【分類號】：D922.291.91

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 楊建軍;;“司法能動”在中國的展開[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2010年01期

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 林少偉;;中國公司法的私人執(zhí)行:股東訴訟與司法裁量權(quán)（英文）[J];China Legal Science;2016年03期

2 陳麗玲;;正名“能動司法”——兼談“能動檢察”之本體價值[J];廣西師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2016年02期

3 馮磊;;論司法政策[J];司法;2015年00期

4 袁s，

本文編號：1804150