论文部分内容阅读
以平衡司法权和职业协会自治权为基点,法院虽对惩戒规则的解释拥有最后决定权,但是,若职业协会对惩戒规则的解释只是限制了协会章程所赋予协会成员的成员权,且该解释在形式上具有逻辑自洽性和前后解释的一致性,法院应当尊重协会之解释,不可以自己的解释代替协会的解释。对惩戒事实的认定,法院应采“实质性证据”的审查标准,给予职业协会对惩戒事实认定的最大尊重。对不确定法律概念的适用,职业协会惩戒机构有判断余地之存在,法院应当尊重职业协会由判断余地所形成的自主空间。最后,以自治权和裁量权的双重限制为考察标准,法院对职业协会惩戒中的裁量行为仅作有限审查而非全面审查,以尊重职业协会惩戒中的裁量行为为原则,以不尊重为例外。
In order to balance the autonomy of judicial and professional associations, the court has the final say on the interpretation of disciplinary rules. However, if the professional association’s interpretation of the disciplinary rules only restricts the membership granted to the members of the association by the articles of association, In the form of logical self-consistency and consistent interpretation before and after, the court should respect the interpretation of the association, not to explain their own interpretation instead of the association. The determination of the facts of the case, the court should adopt “substantive evidence ” review criteria, to give the professional association of the disciplinary facts recognized the greatest respect. For the application of the concept of law of uncertainty, there is room for judgment in the disciplinary bodies of professional associations. The court shall respect the autonomous space formed by the judgment of the professional associations. Finally, taking the dual limits of autonomy and discretion as the criterion, the court only limited the discretion in the disciplinary action of the professional associations rather than conducting a comprehensive review. The principle of respecting the discretionary acts in the disciplinary efforts of professional associations is the principle, with the exception of disrespect .