| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 法律學系一般生組 === 103 === Despite adhesion procedure’s long existence in Taiwanese legal system, less has been applied or discussed in terms of such procedure in academic field or in court practice. It is widely accepted that the adhesion procedure was enacted in pursuit of economic benefit for litigation and avoidance of contradiction between civil and criminal judgement for the same fact. Additionally, it is expected that issues in dispute, whether civil or criminal, may be resolved within one single procedure; accordingly, the authorities’ power to punish can be exercised, and the victims’ damages can be compensated expeditiously. The adhesion procedure is enacted out of good intent, yet given the fact that it has not been amended for almost 50 years, and with the existence of loopholes in such system, controversies arise inevitably from application of the adhesion procedure. In the meantime, due to the foregoing controversies applying the adhesion procedure, ambiguity in litigation proceedings occurs to the parties-which is in violation of the principle of legal certainty.
This essay first introduces the current laws regarding adhesion procedure. Apart from introducing adhesion procedure’s history of amendment in Taiwanese Code of Criminal Procedure, it is better to put the German, French, and Chinese legal system with regard to adhesion procedures into discussion, and to focus on the German laws as a comparison to Taiwanese laws. Then, the discussion moves on to the purpose and legal structure of Taiwanese adhesion procedure stipulations; and further discussion shall be placed on the legal standing of parties, legal basis, and scope of the claims involved in the adhesion procedure. Such discussion is supplemented with court judgements as the target for analysis, hoping to summarize the legal principles courts adhere to, or unwritten rules or standards adopted by courts when applying adhesion procedure. This essay challenges the foregoing rules or standards adopted by courts when determining the legality of adhesion procedures requested by victims, and attempts to propose solutions to dilemmas encountered by courts. On top of that, emphasis has been placed on the system that the criminal court may transfer the case requesting for adhesion procedure to civil court (“Transferring System”), which is constantly adopted by criminal courts; this essay also attempts to scrutinize the pros and cons of Transferring System, pointing out the deficiency of stipulation in, and the incompatibility with the purpose of adhesion procure with the results of analysis on the cases ruled by courts. Accordingly, advices and guidance for amendment of adhesion procedure are presented in this essay as well. Lastly, advices on applying mutatis mutandis of the laws, determination of the facts and evidences, and the scope of compensation in relation to the civil laws are proposed as the end of this essay.
|
|---|
