本文選題：德國憲法法院　切入點：協(xié)商制度　出處：《環(huán)球法律評論》2017年03期

【摘要】：德國聯(lián)邦憲法法院于2013年3月19日就協(xié)商制度合憲性作出判決,肯定了協(xié)商制度的合憲性,同時,對《德國刑事訴訟法》中的協(xié)商制度條款作出大量解釋。這一判決在若干方面推動了德國協(xié)商制度的新發(fā)展,例如,明確法官發(fā)現(xiàn)實質(zhì)真實義務(wù)的憲法淵源、強化了法官的職權(quán)調(diào)查制度、進一步限定協(xié)商制度的適用范圍以及擴充法院承擔(dān)透明和記錄義務(wù)的內(nèi)容。德國聯(lián)邦憲法法院對協(xié)商制度也作出了若干方面的限制,理由在于該制度違反職權(quán)主義原則、違反透明和記錄義務(wù),協(xié)商量刑實踐亦有違法律規(guī)定等。在我國建構(gòu)認罪認罰從寬制度時,可在法官職權(quán)調(diào)查原則、記錄和透明義務(wù)、防范量刑"剪刀差"以及上訴機制等方面借鑒德國協(xié)商制度的經(jīng)驗。
[Abstract]:The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, in its judgement of 19 March 2013 on the constitutionality of the consultative system, affirmed the constitutionality of the consultative system and, at the same time, The provisions of the consultation system in the German Code of Criminal procedure have been extensively interpreted. This decision has contributed to the new development of the German consultation system in several ways, for example, by clarifying the constitutional origin of the substantive and genuine obligation found by the judge, Strengthening the system of ex officio investigations of judges, further limiting the scope of application of the consultative system and expanding the content of the Court's transparency and recording obligations. The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany has also imposed a number of restrictions on the consultative system, The reason lies in the fact that the system violates the principle of authority, violates the obligations of transparency and record, and also violates the legal provisions in the practice of negotiation and sentencing. When establishing a lenient system of confession, admission and punishment in our country, the principle of investigation of judges' powers, the obligation of recording and the obligation of transparency can be obtained. To guard against sentencing "scissors" and appeal mechanism to learn from the experience of German consultation system.
【作者單位】： 南開大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：中央高�；究蒲袠I(yè)務(wù)費資助項目“認罪認罰從寬制度試點實證研究”(63172062)的研究成果 南開大學(xué)亞洲研究中心資助
【分類號】：D951.6;DD914

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 張世全;法國民事訴訟的職權(quán)主義模式辨析[J];河北法學(xué);1999年02期

2 張衛(wèi)平;絕對職權(quán)主義的理性認知──原蘇聯(lián)民事訴訟基本模式評析[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1996年04期

3 施鵬鵬;;不日而亡?——以法國預(yù)審法官的權(quán)力變遷為主線[J];中國刑事法雜志;2012年07期

4 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前1條

1 中國人民大學(xué)刑事錯案研究中心 肖慎明;日本的“精密司法”與錯案預(yù)防[N];人民法院報;2013年

，

本文編號：1689059